Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:29, 15 January 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Merry Christmas

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Holiday wishes!

TParis, I wish you excellent holidays and a glorious 2013! I hope you'll have great meals, memorable family reunions and joyful times with those you love. :) Salvidrim!, signing off on my best year yet, thanks in no small part to y'all!

whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page.

TB

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Penyulap

The generic problem is that we are often very obscure about what we do in blocking. I asked Coren about the block, the summary just says "not here to build an encyclopedia", and I did not get pointed to the AN/I case, just some general "he's a bad 'un" verbiage. Even now this is vague - the AN/I someone pointed to this edit as a reason for blocking. It seems pretty innocuous to me.

In the closing Coren says "I'm going to be bold and simply save everyone the trouble of a long discussion and deny Penyulap yet another forum for his lulz." This is not what bold is for. Blocking- especially long term blocking, by an arbitrator no less, should be deliberative and fact based.

So really Jaguar and I are left wondering, exactly what Pen is blocked for. I have never asked for him to be unblocked, for precisely this reason. (Though I have had two bad talk page blocks removed.) It seems to me that without a clear statement of the reason for the block, the blockee is left with no recourse, including the "standard offer".

Rich Farmbrough, 06:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Rich, I'll see if I can find a better answer for you. I read the original ANI case, and it looks like the user was only around to stir up drama and cause disruption.--v/r - TP 15:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some preliminary investigation into the EngVar template on Talk:International Space Station and this seems to be one of those things where maybe Pen was right, but just needed to let it go (something many of us find hard). The rest I don't know, except that a checkuser remarked that Pen had given him very good suggestions about non-obvious socks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC).

Follow-up

Apologies for bothering you. Following up your close of the AN/I indicated in the linked post, the editor in question has again warned me that I may be blocked. See here. This is becoming disruptive, has gone on for some time, and continues despite the AN/I and despite your close. I've asked the editor to stay off my talkpage in the past, as he has been uncivil, but he has ignored my request. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Epeefleche - I hate to disappoint, but I don't think that ANI thread applies in this case. The ANI thread was about unsourced content. In this case, there was a source even if it was a primary source. I don't think I can help here unless I have missed something.--v/r - TP 02:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was (again) wholly unsourced content. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually both the previous ANI case and this case refer to unsourced but easily source-able content. The problem is that Epeefleche is not doing the three seconds of googling required to find the source, which is suggested by WP:V, WP:CHALLENGE and Misplaced Pages:Editing_policy. ˜danjel  02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Danjel - the ANI thread closed saying that the google search is not required. The WP:ONUS per WP:V is on the person wanting to keep content; not the challenger. Epeefleche, it was said that a google search isn't hard to do. As we stand now, a source has now been added, the process works, and you two should not be throwing warnings at each other.--v/r - TP 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The process as you describe does not work. Your closing comments effectively assigned me the responsibility of wikistalking Epeefleche and restoring easily sourced content, and I reject this. I only notice Epeefleche's edits when they occur within my watchlist, as occured this time. However, the scope of Epeefleche's actions exceed this.

For example, User:Graham87 recently restored (diff) content deleted by Epeefleche (diff) about Murdoch University's main campus, information that is very obviously easily found using the minimum of effort with google. WP:CHALLENGE states that where an editor "think the material is verifiable", then an attempt should be made to find a source.

I asked at Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section (the first target of Epeefleche's that I noticed, because it's on my watchlist) whether Epeefleche genuinely questioned the veracity of the content that he was deleting and he said "yes", so he believes that a school doesn't, in fact, provide for primary middle and secondary students? That Murdoch University doesn't have a main campus? In both cases, as with many other similar cases raised, the material deleted was not dubious or doubtful and easily found, therefore it's a disruptive breach of editing policy. ˜danjel  03:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. The community consensus was that Epeefleche's actions are acceptable to the community per WP:V. Under no grounds does that grant you any authority, obligation, or exception to stalk his edits. That you do not like the process is not at all anyone's concern. It works, as has been demonstrated. If you have anymore concerns about Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, you should address them at WT:V.--v/r - TP 13:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You said in your closing remarks that "the burden is on Danjel to find a source for the content." So you effectively said that it was my responsibility to do what Epeefleche does not, for all the articles where he does not spend 3 seconds googling for an easily sourceable piece of content. I should because "the burden is on ". I reject this, utterly, as it is patently ridiculous to assign such a responsibility to anyone and to give a user licence to ignore the parts of WP:V and WP:PRESERVE that he is too lazy to follow.

Personally, I'm only prepared to work in regards to my watchlist, but then, what about the other articles where Epeefleche has removed easily source-able content? The process has inarguably not worked there. For example, is it my responsibility to find a source for diff or are we meant to just write off that content? By the way, not that it's a category 1 premium RS, but: (go down to the fifth result - 10 seconds in google). What about the many others (just from the last 24 hours or so): , , , , , , . Where does my "burden" end, and Epeefleche's responsibility to fix easily fixable content and/or sourcing problems before deleting begin? ˜danjel  15:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF-ing, I think (hope) that you are (here and previously at ANI) just referring to those articles that I edit, but the pattern of behaviour on the part of Epeefleche which extends well beyond the articles that happen to be within my realm of interest (such as the half a dozen or so mentioned above) and that is what I'm calling disruptive. ˜danjel  15:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to stretch that comment far out of context to come to that result and you'll have a hard time convincing anyone on ANI that that is what I meant when it is clearly not. The process has worked because the content is now sourced where as it wasn't and was afoul of WP:V prior. Content must be verifiable, the policy is clear. Content that does not have a source can be challenged and removed. You failed to get consensus that Epeefleche's actions were wrong. At this point, you need to drop the stick and just worry about your watchlist. Other folks have other articles on their watchlist, they can source content that falls in their realm of concern.

There are 124k active users on Misplaced Pages. They are watching the content you are not. Your burden ends wherever you want it to end and theirs picks up. Case in point: Over a year ago, I removed sourced content because it was inappropriate for the article. Someone had it on their watch list and a year later restored that content. They had it on their watch list. Did it happen immediately? No. But it did happen eventually.

Now, as far as what you reject or not, the community just doesn't care. You've been informed on what the policy is, you were given a chance to explain your position to WP:ANI and your position was rejected. At this point, you're bordering WP:IDHT and I just don't think you want to do that. Your clearly here to build on the encyclopedia and ignoring the established consensus is just disruptive and isn't helpful to that goal. So why persist? This isn't a one-man project and you're not required to shoulder the burden of it all. But if you want content to be included, you are electing to carry that burden.--v/r - TP 15:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

So if this is the way that wikipedia is, that the consensus is that WP:PRESERVE and that relevant part of WP:CHALLENGE is irrelevant, then why are those points even there? If quickly deleting content is so much more important than fixing things, to the point where the latter is completely irrelevant then... But then, you said yourself in your ANI close that there were some concerns, that Epeefleche has pointedly refused to consider (as can be seen from the above). ˜danjel  15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at WP:PRESERVE shall we? What do we see there, ohh here: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research) and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." And WP:CHALLENGE, what do we find there? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." WP:V doesn't fly in the face of the policies you quote at all. In fact, they support Epeefleche's actions. Your interpretation of them was denied by WP:ANI. My point on ANI is that some folks felt it was a bit silly that Epeefleche hasn't done a Google search, but they balanced their concern by saying it's not required of him. Back to WP:PRESERVE, it says in there "Instead of deleting text, consider:...doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself." That's not a requirement, it's a suggestion.--v/r - TP 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Three points. First, there are a lot of idiot newbies on wikipedia that don't source content. That they don't source content doesn't mean that the contributions that they're making (i.e., as above in regards to Murdoch University's main campus) aren't useful. In many cases, their content is easily sourced and preserving it is better than deleting it (and, in fact, on approximately the same level of difficulty in terms of keystrokes). Second, WP:V under the CHALLENGE section also states "if ... you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it," but the content being removed is often easily verifiable, there is no "try". Show me how Epeefleche's actions are conforming to the latter part of that second paragraph. Third noting that I disagree because of the wording of V (under the CHALLENGE section) if finding an easily found source is just a "suggestion" that should be considered (by anyone not "silly"), then why bother having it said at all if it can be completely ignored in every single case, even for the most obvious and easily source-able content (i.e., Murdoch University or Al Jazeera Academy)? Despite people objecting to his actions, even if they're just saying that he's being silly (you know I think that he's doing something worse), you can not possibly argue that that any level of consideration is being made because of the examples above. ˜danjel  16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Look Danjel, I understand your plea. With the goal of building an encyclopedia, removing content is going in the wrong direction. I just think you fail to understand Epeefleche. Removing unsourced content increases the credibility of sourced content. The dispute boils down to: should Epeefleche make the effort to use Google? Policy and consensus says it's not required, but in an ideal situation, yeah, you would expect him to. Why are suggestions made but not enforced? Because best practices are often written down so they can be shared with others. I'm sorry policy is not stronger on this matter, but that's an issue to take to WT:V.--v/r - TP 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a few students and a couple of colleagues edit and create articles here, but, for various reasons, their efforts have resulted in AfDs or simple removal of text. One of my students, who is a gifted writer, and would be a valuable asset to wikipedia vociferously will not work here (or even at Simple Misplaced Pages, or anything with the letters w i k in the URL in any combination) because of exactly those experiences, and this is our loss. I've since seen the content that she tried to add (which others have fixed in various ways), and it was exactly like the situations above: easily salvage-able, and she could easily have been shown the way to do things. Epeefleche wasn't responsible for that, but in the 10 problematic blankings per day, same as with the ~160 school-related AfD's in a 3 week period over new year's 2012, and in the permissiveness that people extend to him, I see that problem personified, and I'm unwilling to let it go unchallenged. It is the reason why wikipedia will never gain status as anything more than a source for trivia competitions at pubs. Thanks for your time. ˜danjel  16:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the place to challenge that is at WT:V. On the other hand to your situation, how would anyone know of the factual accuracy of what your student had written if it were not sourced? Were it wrong, how does that improve Misplaced Pages's image? It is for exactly that reason we require sources.--v/r - TP 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)