Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:00, 7 April 2015

Template:Archive box collapsible

"Misplaced Pages's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

New discussion

Start a new discussion thread

Only 993056826 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993056826 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article... --Guy Macon

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

IP request for help

I'm at a loss - if I email info-en-c@wikimedia.org with EoRdE6's so-called fair use, am I making a legal threat? Would you take a look at User_talk:EoRdE6#Train_derailment and suggest a course of action? His position seems to be that he does not have to properly identify the copyright holder or inform them, and that by my informing them of "fair use" of their material, I have made a legal threat. He has warned me that I may be blocked. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking into this now. I should have some sort of advice and/or resolution for you later today. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to impose and thank you for taking the trouble. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No trouble at all. I love helping people.

Here is how I advise handling this sort of issue:

• First, post a polite note on the user's talk page. There is no need to get into an extended debate if he disagrees; you just want to make sure he was notified.
• If that doesn't work, post a polite question on the article talk page. Again, no need for extended discussion if anyone disagrees; you just want the folks who edit the page to know that there might be a copyright issue.
• If that doesn't work, post a polite question to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems (for text) or Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_files (for images, sounds, etc.). Then disengage and move on to other things, knowing that you did your part.

BTW, the legal threat accusation was just blowing smoke. Ignore it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the Associated Press has no objection to use of their image File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg with The Columbian mis-listed as copyright owner, then the issue is moot. I feel step one has been done to the user's smoke blowing annoyance. EoRdE6 got notified. I would like to go directly to disengage and move on, but 2 is possible - I may post a polite question on the article talk page. As for 3, files that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_files according to that page, so since the argument is fair use, that's the wrong place to go. It was kind of you to respond. Thank you. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I took File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg to {{Non-free review}}, where an editor suggested a couple of public domain photos on commons. After I told EoRdE6 that I substituted one of them for the AP photo, he had his copyright upload deleted. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

82.132.234.182

The IP who is defending W is probably W logged out, a sockpuppet, but it isn't worth making an issue about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. W. never goes to that much trouble to defend himself. If you honestly think this is a SP case, why not take it to SPI? Jeh (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert, it is very very important when dealing with Wtshymanski‎ to be scrupulously fair and to only bring up issues where there is solid evidence. In this case http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/82.132.234.182 shows us that that IP address is a wireless broadband connection in the UK, and Wtshymanski‎ has self-identified as being in Canada. Plus, as Jeh rightfully pointed out above, Wtshymanski‎ has never behaved like that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Look here ] (the first case). I became far more convinced that this was Wtshymanski after the case was rejected. This was for a number of reasons.

1. The geolocation of the IP address was close enough to Wtshymanski's known location that it could have been him while away on business or a week's holiday. Not conclusive enough in itself, but ...
2. One of the IP addresses was compiling a list of Wtshymanski's enemies (an admin's description - not mine). Why?
3. The IP address was very keen to get my draft RFC/U against Wtshymanski deleted in spite of the IP addresses not being featured in it.
4. The IP address claimed in the SPI report to be, "sick'n tired of all the BS" that he was taking from another contributor to the SPI despite no interaction having taken place before the SPI was raised (though Wtshymanski had had plenty of interaction).
5. The IP address edits supporting Wtshymanski's edit stopped as soon as the SPI case was filed.

I know Guy was unconvinced, but that is his privilege just as it is my privilege to disagree.

I note the second report from an IP address editor didn't fly either but as the co-accused was an administrator with a long and mostly separate editing history, it was never likely to. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Where's the IP "defending" Wtshymanski? That's just someone out to troll me. It might be Hengistmate again (he has form, although it's not his usual ISP) or it might even (given some behavioural evidence) be a mighty-morphin edit warrior from Utah, who seems to pop up through various Telefonica IPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Distractions

"We all know that once we start discussing the above, it will take over the thread." Bugs is really, really good at that. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Responding just 
 encourages them! 
        \ 
         >') 
         ( \ 
          ^^` 
 --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

...and of course μηδείς/Medeis is now trolling me, hoping that I will respond. I am ignoring all such comments and I recommend that others do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have competely failed to ignore today. --Steve Summit (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult. Our brains evolved in small groups of hunter-gatherers where expressing disapproval worked. Here on the Internet, feeding the trolls only results in increased trolling.

                                         .--.
                           ______.-------|  |
     __                   (_____(        |  |\\\\|
 ..--  ``--.._               __/ `-------|  |---,
     __       ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
 ..--  ``--.._         |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
              ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
 The plug is pulled     `--.|_/          |  |  ||
 Ignored are the trolls    ____\ .-------|  |---`
 Feed them I will not     (_____(        |  |\\\\|
                                 `-------|  |
                                         `--`

(Total time needed to cut and paste the ASCII art above, 17 seconds). :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Secondarily, for actually resolving disputes at DRN. Also, for trying to resolve the long-standing tension at the Reference Desks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy

I mentioned you here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Robert_McClenon_and_Guy_Macon μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Justin Capră

Hi, I'm wondering if you could perhaps help me out with a situation going on at this article.

To give you a brief (and, admittedly, biased) summary: the article was started by a quasi-single purpose account, survived AfD, and once that happened, I cut it down to size. The problem is that the original author insists on a version that violates numerous policies, and is willing to slow-motion revert-war for that. He also has a rather original take on WP:V. And he likes to warn me, which is somewhat irksome.

As you can see, this is a somewhat difficult case, and I certainly don't want to continue reverting - that hasn't gotten us very far - but I also do want my version to be the basis for the article as we move forward, rather than the dreadful text the other editor keeps imposing. I'd much appreciate any intervention on your part. - Biruitorul 02:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A call to my minions talk page stalkers for help

Our article on Leading and lagging current could use some loving care. I am planning on working on it, but I am really, really lazy stuck on the final boss level on DoomRL a high priority project. Does anyone want to do my job for me wade in and improve it? There will be cake. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a regular stalker, but I happened here from Power factor. I agree that that article requires a bit of TLC, in the form of correction and clarrification. If no one beats me to it in the next couple of days, I might find some time to have a crack. There isn't a lot of it and it is (or should be) pretty basic stuff. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Any interest in taking a look here at a week-old Request Edit? I have to warn the article has a bit of a contentious history as you may have noticed, so I wouldn't blame you if you didn't want to work on an article with so much drama. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, a second case is also being opened shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No longer a party

Hi Guy Macon, you have been removed from the Collect and others arbitration case by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs, and you will no longer receive notifications about this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

response

Ha! I must say I knew 0 about all the parties beforehand but had a blast reading through that entire ANI. My favorite part was when a couple of people bought the "once a year" thing. I swear, reading that was like watching a movie, so I had to leave a comment like a fan asking a famous actor a question. DawnDusk (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Our mutual friend (!)

Guy, I was not originally happy with option 6 (Indef block) because attempts in the past to cover the behavioural patterns as a whole have been unsuccessful. The whole thing just becomes too complex for the admins to unravel. There is a saying, "Softly, softly, catchee monkey". It was for this reason that I decided to raise the ANI focussing on just one aspect of the bahavioural problem (and luckily, I have a track record of raising a similar ANI for another editor, who was blocked - though mainly for abusing everyone who supported sanctions). I figured that it just might stand a chance of going somewhere without all the other distractions (though, not too unsurprisingly, they kept creeping in). Things started to look very positive, not because of what other editors were doing but becaue of what WTS was doing. He was making the job easier as it went along. Not just because five supporting examples became ten but because of his utter contempt for what was going on.

First, he ignored that an ANI complaint had even been made (unusual in itself, previous ANIs have stopped the complained of trait - at least for a while) and he carried on routinely reverting IP edits. A study of his editing history shows clearly that this seems to be his primary raison d'être so it was a good angle to use. If anyone really wanted to push the point, I could easily have turned ten examples in twenty or forty or (however far back in time one wanted to go).

Second an admin placed a warning on his talk page to stop the reversions. WTS just ignored it and carried on reverting. Unfortunately, said admin got sucked into a discussion and no longer considered himself uninvolved and declined to implement his threatened block. Damned ethics - they'll be the death of society!

Third, WTS himself placed a statement in the ANI promising to, "be more careful" (but only after a threat of a block to force a response). Despite your belief and that of LiveRail who closed the ANI, WTS immediately ignored it and reverted yet more good faith edits.

With this last defiance (not my description), the ANI was reopened (ironically by an IP editor but with LiveRail's support) and LiveRail proposed Option 4 (edit restriction). This was the option that received the most support (with option 6 conveniently coming a good second). WTS seems to be laying low at the moment (not a new action). I am fairly confident that when he edits again, he will ignore the editing restriction. It will be at this point that I can declare that WTS himself has rejected option 4 and that I (or we) can pursue implementation of option 6 as WTS himself his made clear that he is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate on anything. It was the second most popular choice which WTS cannot reject (5 support 2 oppose - with my added !vote). Should, by some miracle, WTS abide by the edit restriction, then this will have been a worthwhile exercise anyway.

I was interested to note that an IP editor "strongly support"ed option 6, and his supporting comments underlined just perfectly what the ANI had been all about. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

D., you continue to complain about W's "reverting IPs' edits". There continues to be nothing wrong with reverting IPs' edits as long as the reversions are justified; IPs do not enjoy any more protection from being reverted than anyone else. The problem is the unjustified reverts.

I've seen a couple of editors earn indef blocks for WP:NOTHERE purely from failure to respond to community input, i.e., failure to respond meaningfully on their talk page. Take a look for example at these ANI cases. That was an extreme case (over a hundred complaints on the user's talk page, almost all of them with NO responses), but nevertheless it's a very easy thing to document and was taken as a clear case of WP:NOTHERE (to collaborate). Jeh (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I tend to take a middle ground, giving W more benefit of the doubt than you, DieSwartzPunkt and giving W less benefit of the doubt than you, Jeh. Nonetheless, I am 100% convinced that both of you (and I hope, myself as well), want what is best for the encyclopedia even if we have a good-faith disagreement about how strict the admins should be with W. Because this is a human-interaction issue and not an engineering issue (if we were disagreeing on, say, the melting point of Tungsten we could easily resolve that disagreement) and because we are likely to end up at ANI or arbcom commenting on W again over some new behavioral issue, I suggest the following strategy to avoid wasting each other's time with unproductive arguing:

• When any of us comment on W on a noticeboard, we should take the time to gather diffs supporting our positions, label opinion as opinion, and we all should take special care that what we write follows the evidence while trying our best to minimize our individual biases.

• We should speak more freely on talk page discussions like this one, while still treating each other with honor and respect. We really are on the same team, and so is W. This will somewhat insulate the admins from discussions that they really don't care about or want to hear.

• There is no point rehashing the last ANI. The decision was made, for better or worse.

DieSwartzPunkt, while the edit restriction says "Wtshymanski is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article", Jeh has a point about unjustified reverts. We shouldn't play "gotcha" and report justified reverts, even if they do violate the ban. We should wait until there is an unambiguously unjustified revert. Our goal isn't to "get" W, but rather to help him stop the specific behavior that harms Misplaced Pages.

Jeh, you do bring up an interesting question. Does failure to respond meaningfully hurt your chances an ANI or help them? Of course some editors are going to be blocked no matter what they say, and some complaints are clearly bogus, but in the marginal cases, does not responding or giving a minimal response help or hurt your chances? I was under the impression that not responding helped your chances, but I could be wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, the question about some justified reverts has already been raised by another user on the talk page of the admin who implemented the block. I have already stated there that one would have to be petty minded to flag up frivolous reverts as an edit restriction violation. Unfortunately, we all know that if WTS can establish a crack in the restriction he will soon turn it into a flood. That said, LiveRail did state that his proposal had to include all reverts of IP editors because, "A ban on reverting vandalism is warranted because the examples in the ANI reveal a tendency to revert good faith edits as vandalism when they are not.". He also (correctly) pointed out that even if WTS was restricted from reverting vandalism or other edits where reversion was justified, such a reversion would still occur, just by another editor.

The central plank of my complaint was the unjustified reverts and those are the only examples that I used to back up my complaint and would most likely be the only example type I would use for a violation of the reversion. I cannot, of course, speak for others, but I suspect an admin might not take much notice of a bunch of vandalism reverts. After all, reverting genuine vandalism does not count for the 3RR rule, so one could argue that it should not count towards a 0RR restriction. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed elsewhere. I asked the administrator (MSGJ) if the editing restriction required the explanatory note, "For the avoidance of doubt: this restriction includes reverting vandalism from IP addresses. This is because Wtshymanski has a proven track record of reverting good faith edits by labelling them as vandalism". He stated that it does not because the restriction is on "... reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address". He went to say, "I don't think they (sic) can be much doubt over what banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address means". This concurred with my intent when I worded the restriction, though there was a slight change. I deemed this necessary otherwise other editors would have to investigate reversions reported as vandalism to determine if they were vandalism or a disguised revert of an otherwise acceptable edit.

That should clarify the matter. –LiveRail < Talk > 14:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: You are correct in your assertion that IP editors do not enjoy more protection from being reverted than anyone else and WTS's restriction does not affect that as LiveRail has already pointed out (précised above). However, IP editors also have the same right to make good faith edits and make positive contributions without unjustified reversion. WTS has been willfully denying them that right by routinely reverting any edits that they make. His restriction will, hopefully, encourage the new editors that Misplaced Pages requires. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have said before, my biggest concern is that we all retain a good working relationship despite our differences concerning W. This may involve some of us choosing to to express an opinion when we are pretty sure that another one of us will disagree with, especially in situations like talking on Guy's talk page where the result doesn't really matter. I know that "agree to disagree" is a cliche, but I really think it applies here.

LiveRail makes a very good point. By making the restriction clear and easily testable, not only is it far easier for other editors to monitor W., but it makes it far easier for W. to comply without making reverts that end up being judgement calls. This should reduce the number of trips made to ANI.

Finally, I choose to remain optimistic that W. will start working collaboratively and that the day will come when if I have a problem with one of his edits I can deal with it just as I would if I had a problem with one of Jeh or DieSwartzPunkt's edits -- bringing it up on that user's talk page and having a calm, reasoned discussion about our differences. I do not choose to remain optimistic about this because I think that after ten years of the same behavior patterns there is a significant probability of a change of heart. I choose to remain optimistic about this because it is the right thing to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

When all is said and done, all we can do at this juncture is to just sit back and watch. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a relatively uninvolved editor that has had only some small mainly neutral interaction with Wtshymanski when I came across the noticeboard complaint. I had a good look back through WT's editing history to get some feel for many of the comments made in the noticeboard. What I found disturbed me greatly. Users were defending WT by saying that he makes positive contributions. While true, there are not very many of them. Certainly well under 2% of his edits (and at times well short of even 1%).

Because of the wide diversity of opinion at the noticeboard, I figured that a restriction that was too vaguely worded (i.e. restricting some but not other reversions) was never going to cut the mustard. Such a restriction would be open to widely differing opinions as to what crossed the line and what didn't. WT could cross the line slightly and then complain that it wasn't clear and that he should be given another chance and at least some contributors would probably agree (I gather from the edit history and some of the comments that this has all been seen this before). I decided that my proposed restriction had to be an unarguable bright line (if not to also to adequately cover disguised reverts). It would also appear that the closing administrator agreed. One person did question that the restriction technically prevented WT from removing posts to his talk page. I hope that we can all at least agree, that there is a clear implication that the revert restriction applies to article space and not to WT's user space.

But DSP is quite correct. This is now a spectator sport. At least for the time being. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Calico Early Man Site

Thanks, but I see some stuff seems to have been copied directly from . The paragraph that mentions the 'rock ring' doesn't make it explicit that these are geological, not cultural, dates and material. I never like 'more details can be found', that's what we have ELs for. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. I will take another crack at copyediting it later today if you or someone else doesn't beat me to it. 174.67.241.68's edits looked like a good-faith effort plus some promoting of a fringe view (turning "current consensus" into "former consensus", for example.) Should we just revert it to before 174.67.241.68's edits? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A Jurriaan sock

Hi,
Thanks for your kind offer to help with this problem. You might consider blocking 212.64.48.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has a long history of editing Jurriaan's walled garden of articles, and returned for this after Jurriaan was indefinitely blocked. bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jurriaan --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply to JC ?

I don't understand your comment at NPOVN. In this case the IP clearly considers Misplaced Pages to be a battleground, and JC reverted the IP. That doesn't indicate battleground editing by JC, but only a view of what to do with weird posts by IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no "truth" barnstar ...

		The Original Barnstar
		if there were, this would be it for a recent post you made. Collect (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Jurriaan

At some point, one needs to stop poking the bear with the stick. The user has been given ample explanation for what to do. If they choose not to do it, there's no impending need to respond to their further diatribes. Leaving their last comment unresponded to (forever even) harms no one. Leave them to blow in the wind. It's much more satisfying than giving them another response to respond to themselves. Just my thoughts. --Jayron32 05:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Point well taken, and advice very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sticking my nose in where it don't belong

Regarding your recent comment to Ret. Prof, the only thing I might add is to maybe advise him that, if he just waits out the three months and goes to NPOVN or similar again thereafter, the possibility of it being taken as others as problematic is really good, and might lead to an even longer ban next time. Alternately, although I actually don't know this myself yet, he might go over to wikisource if he wants to and maybe start transcribing public domain documents which might support his position, or for that matter, anything else that might be there or over at commons. I'm fairly sure that there are at least a few PD documents that might support them, and, although I haven't checked, there is to my eyes maybe a reasonable chance that the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible or some other reference source which might be available might help give us some indicators of which spinout articles or articles on sources, or whatever, might be available. I actually do more over there than here right now, and I would be willing to help to the degree that I know how to help. Diacritical marks, however, are not my thing, and, for that matter, neither are other alphabets. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Any comments by anyone are welcome here.

Without expressing any opinion or taking sides regarding the actual conflict, if Ret.Prof and I end up discussing the situation (his choice), I will of course advise him that when an admin sanctions you you need to figure out how to avoid further sanctions for the same behavior. I would have given the same advice to you had you been sanctioned in some way, again without taking sides as to whether or not the sanction was justified.

As for the actual question being discussed, I really can't think of any question that bores me more than this one. I see why some folks think that the date some ancient books were written is important and interesting, and of course I want Misplaced Pages to be accurate even in areas I care nothing about, but boy is this one a snoozer! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Opted-out of message delivery