Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 23 November 2007

I am also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, and (although I speak no German) de.Misplaced Pages. Messages intended for me on any of those projects may be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. GRBerry diff

Email advice: When able to be active on Misplaced Pages, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Misplaced Pages". If at all possible, I will respond on Misplaced Pages, because I believe that transparency is important, and each user I email lessens my privacy. GRBerry

List of English Americans

As you are an admin, I wonder if you could look up the reasons for the deletion of List of English Americans and whether they were valid or worthy of challenge (I don't know how to do this). I believe this deletion was the 'trigger deletion' that then prompted the deletion actions against the rest of the 'List of foo American' articles that are now being reversed. Thanks Hmains 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You should learn how to look this up :). What I do is click on the link you provided. Because the page doesn't exist, that takes me to an edit page for the former list, which shows the deletion log directly above the edit box. Most deleting admins put the reason for deletion into the log, often as a link. In this case, they did. So click on the link and you get taken directly to the AFD that resulted in deletion.

If the article had been recreated in some form, you'd use the history tab, which has a small link at the top "show logs for this page". Alternatively, you could use the "Logs" link in the toolbox (left panel). Once on the log page, select Deletion log in the drop down box, and put the article title in the Title box, and press Go. Another route to the log page is to select "my contributions" at the top, then select "logs" on the contribution page. Once there, you'll need to do the same steps as if you went directly from the toolbox and also clearing your username. GRBerry 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I tried that, but I guess not. Hmains 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cascade protection

Hi, is there any reason why you've cascade protected User:GRBerry/monobook.css and User:GRBerry/monobook.js? Since they are user stylesheet and javascript pages, they can only be edited by you and other administrators anyway, so this protection doesn't do anything. Thanks – Gurch 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One, I didn't know they were automatically protected. Two, how can I trust that the automatic protection will stay in force? (This is a wiki.) Redundancy in design is a good thing, especially redundancy in security. Now if only there was a way to eliminate the ability of other administrators to edit them, I could be more comfortable. GRBerry 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The automatic protection will stay in force for the same reason everyone's password won't suddenly be reset to 'cheese'; it's part of MediaWiki's code and, unlike a wiki, only a handful of people can change that. What makes you so concerned that other administrators might edit them? You realize that anything they could add to your own personal stylesheet/javascript pages they could simply add to the site-wide stylesheet and javascript pages, and affect everyone? If you're that paranoid, I suggest you disable javascript, or perhaps avoid using the Internet altogether. Thanks – Gurch 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Talia Madison

You closed the Talia Madison AfD and now the article is at DRV. Please feel free to comment at the DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The DRV was closed before I saw this comment, and I never realized I was the closer of the AFD that led to the G4 deletions. Oh well, the AFD spoke for itself perfectly well, and in my opinion still does. GRBerry 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#AfD_concerns

Hi, sorry I got the issues sidetracked here. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Bearian 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't sidetrack that; the user who created both the other sections did by popping up with the same question there. Your question was legitimate, which is why I also answered it separately (after an edit conflict with you). GRBerry 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice this exchange before. Bearian aplogized. And you told him it was unnecessary. I am not sure whether you are referring to me as the sidetracking user, or the other fellow with the different interpretation of {{blp}}. If you think it was me do you think I owe anyone an apology for this question? I realized, after the fact, that I had left some potential triggers in my query of October 16th. I regret that. My apologies. If you thought I wasn't sufficiently careful on the 24th, you can have my apology for that too.

You have been very helpful to me in the past. I particularly appreciate the several times you gave me a heads-up that someone had nominated an article I started for deletion, but had not chosen to honor the recommended courtesy of giving me a heads-up myself. If there is ever anything I can do for you, don't hesitate to let me know.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No, in my mind the side tracker is the user (whose name I don't recall) who had previously posted a missive in two other places and added it to this thread. I have no qualms about your behavior (though, as you know, I think many of these articles would be better off merged.) GRBerry 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting my mind at ease. Geo Swan 16:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

recevied and read. Thanks. GRBerry 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

discrepancies

Greetings!

I was grateful that you spoke up and voiced your opinion that {{blp}} did not require references be provably true, only authoritative and verifiable.

I asked User:Bearian, a new administrator, and I hope you don't mind me asking you, for advice on how to settle to everyone's satisfaction, the {{blp}} does not require references to be provably true?

Thanks! Geo Swan 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. FWIW, I am not really an expert at deletion review.

The first deletion review I requested was extremely clear cut case of failure to honour a hangon and everyone agreed that the article was going to hold merit. So I was confused as to why I then had to endure a second {{afd}}.

The second one confused me too, because I thought the discussion was supposed to be about whether the procedure was followed, but most of the participants wanted to discuss the article's merits. Geo Swan 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

T-Rock DRV

Sources have been provided. Thanks for leaving your opinion. link. T Rex | talk 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people Hmains 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Villebillies

db-band links directly to WP:MUSIC. If the article does not meet WP:MUSIC, then, no matter that they have one album released on a major label, it's still a speedy delete criterion, because it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It may link there, but WP:CSD#A7 is the policy that governs {{db-band}}. WP:MUSIC in the template is just an informative link for editors trying to rescue articles. Many, many articles can survive WP:CSD#A7 without meeting WP:MUSIC. 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

not directory

Do you think you cqn rewrite it according to the comment you left of List of Ashkenazi Jews? it would facilitate more rational AfDs. DGG (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PR - mentorship where

i appreciate your attempts to keep things preventative, rather than merely punitive. however, i don't quite follow your reasoning that about this issue . this issue has been repeating itself for at least 3 months and already both his mentors (discounting the sock) and a good number of more editors noted the user to stop. i believe PR is more than aware of what he is doing but he keeps trying, just as he kept calling me a war criminal after an ANI about that issue was already open. so, personally, i've lost my patience and i'm more than interested in preventative action. post-ANI link (clarifies current issue). Jaakobou 07:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You and he have a dispute. The two of you need to solve it. You can find a way to work amicably together (best), you can find a way to ignore each other (acceptable), or you can both end up in advanced forms of dispute resolution. I think if you go the third path, both of you will end up under sanctions. My advice is to either find a way for each of you to ignore the other, or to find a way to work together. I'd recommend you both practice Misplaced Pages:Writing for the enemy. GRBerry 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"You and he have a dispute." - honestly, you've left me speechless. Jaakobou 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sokolče

Hi, why did You revert back incorrect redirect Sokolče-Sokolce? It is usually and due to logic that we have redirects like Zilina-Žilina, Kosice-Košice, Roznava-Rožňava, but make it in opposite way ? We have in Slovakia town Zvolen, so I can make redirects: Žvolen-Zvolen, Zvoleň-Zvolen, Zvolén-Zvolen, Žvoleň-Zvolen, etc... ? Please, delete that, that was created as mistake by non-Slovak user, it is not just incorrect, but also confusing, because in Slovakia existed real village Sokolče (now inundated) and we noticed it in article of Stan Mikita, who was born there. Nice day and thank You for understanding --kelovy 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear.

I won't bother you with my understanding of what a mentor should be like! PR 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete review req

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marion Smith. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Setanta 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete review req

This is my first time on Misplaced Pages and I'm trying to gather the differences of what is needed and what is not. The article in question is for Academic Management Systems. I'm trying to write an encyclopedic worthy article, much like CBS corporation and Pepsi, but am unable to do so due to the deletion. How can I appeal this decision until I'm finished editing the article? I am still learning how to add things like a table and other things and when i was just typing article and tried to save originally, it never saved and deleted all of my work which is why I am saving more piece-meal to make sure my work doesn't get lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awarskig (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be first to check WP:CORP, if you haven't done so already. Then, put the "spammy" text in your sandbox (here: User:Awarskig/sandbox), and work it from here until you feel it's encyclopedic. Policies you might want to check WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Last but not least, check how to write a good article. Good luck.--victor falk 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Louisdale, Nova Scotia

By deleting it, I'm unable to see what was happening. Can you explain in details what happened? Andrew 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, but I didn't fully sort the details; indeed; some of the explanation below I am sorting out in more detail now than I did earlier. I'm not sure what the conflict is about or who the real participants are; it appears to be a non-Misplaced Pages conflict spilling over onto us. That may be an ethnic conflict element from the looks of it, which surprises me for Nova Scotia. (But honeymooning there certainly doesn't make me an expert on the province's history).

1. The old copyright violation is from this geocities website or some other clone thereof. It was originally added in September 2006 by User:Johncena325.
2. Sometime in the next 12 months, the copyright of that section was questioned by a comment at the top of it, but nothing was really done.
3. On 5 September 2007, User:Uglybaraco222 described the history as bogus and added a lot of material that was either based on, or copied from . This was reverted as vandalism by a recent changes patroller.
4. On 7 September 2007, User:Billpeters888 was next along; he didn't make any immediately obvious substantive changes to the article.
5. The article stated essentially unchanged to 31 October 2007, but the alert about copyright issue vanished, as did all vestiges of sourcing. At this point the history section covered settlement to 1856.
6. On this date, User:142.167.242.246 came and roughly doubled the length of the history section going up to 1962 (clearly a copyvio from somewhere, I'm not sure where) added a WP:BLP violation regarding "Father Gary MacPherson", and encouragements to go to this .
7. A RC patroller flagged for speedy deletion. I confirmed that the community is a real place, and declined and flagged the article on 31 October. We had subsequent edits by User:142.167.227.227. When I had more time for review (wee hours this morning), I came back and eliminated the BLP violation and reference to the dispute site. At some point in here got claimed as a source.
8. Then, near 11 AM Atlantic time today, User:Grandiqueferry revised the "History" section title to be "Revisionist History" and referenced the same site that Uglybaraco222 had used. An RC patroller reverted as vandalism, then User:Toddst1 spotted the copyright violation.
9. I deleted the old copyright violation, completely eliminating the history section.
10. Grandiqueferry readded some of the copyright violating material, and Toddst1 listed at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2007 November 2/Articles.
11. I happened to make the next addition to the copyright problem page, confirmed that it was a repeated copyright violation, and deleted the problem edits again. I then protected and requested help.

That is the mess, as best I can sort it out. It looks like an outside conflict spilling over onto us, combined with violations of copyright, violations of WP:NOR, and possible sockpuppetry. Why this is occurring over a small community in Nova Scotia is beyond me. GRBerry

Wow, insane. Andrew 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Belt Alliance fighter

I have read the guidlines and from my understanding and also from my viewing of the other starship pages my page is perfectly in line... tell me specifically what I missed and I'll do what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caltair (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

CSBot copycat

Allright, that was amusing. I guess this means CSBot's activity is now considered so "normal" that even vandals recognize its significance.  :-) — Coren  02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Vedanta Society of Western Washington

Dear GRBeryy, just curious about deletion of this page. It is stated: 08:15, 3 November 2007 GRBerry (Talk | contribs) deleted "Vedanta Society of Western Washington" ‎ (WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation of

Now, that page did perhaps violate copyright content, at http://www.vedanta-seattle.org/, but certainly none of the material was from the "band history" page you cited. Trust this was an error, and that you meant to put the other site. Sw.my 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet, that was a mistake. Log corrected. GRBerry 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sw.my 06:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gail Kimbell misunderstanding

Hello, there may have been an error when you deleted the page, Gail Kimbell? The page was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. The information on the page was taken from the U.S. Forest's Service's Web Site: About the Chief. This information is public domain. As stated in the policy for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G12) there must be "no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license" for a page's speedy deletion. The problem is, this information was taken from a government website which under the Misplaced Pages:Public domain policy is public domain. It is also stated under the U.S. Forestry Service's Privacy Policy that the information presented on the website is considered public information and "may be distributed or copied unless otherwise indicated". Bottom line, it is not copyrighted material and should not have been deleted. If I have overlooked something, since I am still new at Misplaced Pages, please leave a comment. Thank you, --Cladestine 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That was dumb of me. You are correct that U.S. government works are in the public domain. Restored. Tagged for wikification; as it does need some rewriting to match the usual Misplaced Pages style. GRBerry 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll try to work on its' wikifaction. --Cladestine 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured that they would be copyright violations

Just because they seemed so similar in style to the other pages that were definitely copyvios.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't helpful, because we need more evidence. To delete as a copyright violation we need to know of what. From Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems#Instructions for special cases "Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that an article contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you aren't sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the article's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the article version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)" GRBerry 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

Image:Lest We Forget.png --nat 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards

Hi,

Could you weigh in on the move debate on Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)? Thanks.Brian0324 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bluemaven/Zana Dark

Hey, thanks for catching that typo! GlassCobra 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Morrison

Hello, I am curious if you would like to weigh in on whether this page should be moved back to simply Robert Morrison as a WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic? See Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). Thanks for your input.Brian0324 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gertrude Baniszewski

I was just curious about why you reverted the addition of a death date with reference & the correction of the year of trial, which was supported in the reference? Thanks. Wildhartlivie 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a screw up. For some reason, that I don't now recollect, I'd thought the editor was making bad edits. I know that I didn't notice the reference. GRBerry 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just glad to find someone who will say that!! Wildhartlivie 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Internationalised Curriculum

Please unprotect so that I may add this again as I believe it has been deleted for all the wrong reasons. Despite my efforts to look for references the article kept being delete...very frustrating...so here are a reem of references and there are many more to show this IS a term that needs inclusion as it IS a widely discussed anissue in the academic world. Misplaced Pages is a place many will look for this type of information. It should not be relegated to Googlepedia. Please favourably consider my request ao that we can proceed positively. Thank you 124.120.36.147 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1. Queens University Belfast: http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/CentreforEducationalDevelopment/InternationalisingtheCurriculum/ "....lobal context should therefore be a central aim of an internationalised curriculum."

2. http://pdfdownload.randomlypoked.com/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flsn.curtin.edu.au%2Flearn_online%2Fdocs%2FInternationalise.pdf&images=yes "WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT AN INTERNATIONALISED CURRICULUM?"

3. http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php "http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php" "Current teaching practices/your experience in delivering an internationalised curriculum "

4; Oxford Brooks University: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/online/international_curriculum/index.html "The internationalised curriculum

* Book now: 2 April - 2 May 2008

This course is designed to introduce you to the wide-ranging concept of an internationalised curriculum and to work through a practical application to a programme with which you work."

5. Griffith University: http://www.griffith.edu.au/landt/goodpractice/pdf/Item%209_Internationalisation%20of%20the%20curriculum%2004_0858.pdf "The Group is responsible for providing the resources for the training of staff in awareness of and commitment to the need for an internationalised curriculum and for process in updating and changing curriculum as required."

6. Univesity of South Australia: http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/staff/practice/internationalisation/documents/InternationalisationCurriculumPerth.pdf "In 1995 a typology of internationalised curriculum was published (IDP Education Australia 1995)." Also refer IDP Education Australia 1995 publications.

This page was protected by User:RHaworth due to repeated recreation of spam at multiple article titles. I am not willing to assume on blind faith that the next creation would not also be spam needing deletion. Nor can an IP editor create a page. An established Wikipedian can write a draft in their userspace and present it for review at deletion review. Such a draft will have to adhere to policy and guidelines. GRBerry 14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

ironfurnaces.com

Greetings. I would just like to introduce you to my site, ironfurnaces.com, that is dedicated to cataloging all of the historic iron furnaces around the world (no matter how little content is available). I do not take information from places to put it on my site, instead I would rather have people come and put information on there themselves. I invite you to become an editor on the site and load some photos and a brief history if you would like. This site is completely free to view or edit and contains no advertisement or pop-ups of any kind. (And uses the Wikimedia software.)Rhammond 10:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Wolfowitz

It seems we've reached a consensus on the disputed point. It's probably ok to unprotected, but that's to your discretion. Thanks for stopping the edit war. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (Cartoonist)

Morning! You may remember speedy deleting the above article last month. It appears it was recreated under a different name on the very same day by a disgruntled supporter of the aricle. Please see my post on the subject here. It has already been independently renominated for deletion but the discussion was rather stunted due to only those who took part in the article's stealth recreation being present! :D Given it's a straight reproduction of this previously (twice and one review) deleted article I'd request this be deleted straight off the bat. At the very least it should be relisted in AfD. Many thanks. Hen Features 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a more experienced admin to review. I'm too tired right now, and it isn't critically urgent. GRBerry 05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair play. One thing I've learnt is that nothing is ever as pressing as the one who's pressing would like you to believe. I quote Bright Eyes. Thanks for taking the time to have a look at it, though. I did also flag this up with the admin who closed it.Hen Features 05:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Easyworld

(Asking you since you closed the DRV) - versions from July 2005 onward do not appear to be copyvio, and the deletion reason given was A7. —Random832 19:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, i misread. —Random832 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

David Livingstone

Hello,

I have noticed that David Livingstone gets vandalized on a regular basis. I nominated it for protection a long while back, but nothing happened as far as I know. Could you help? Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has a high percentage of its edits as IP vandalism. But not particularly high in absolute number per unit time. There have also been some recent IP improvements. All in all, this is one of the annoying side-effects of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I've added it to my watchlist; if we get significant upticks in the frequency I or El C will proably semi-protect.

The down-sides to semi-protection are that 1) it blocks improvements by good contributors, 2) it generally just drives the vandalism elsewhere to less watched articles, and 3) sometimes it causes the vandals to create accounts and learn how to be more subtle in their vandalism - and finding, proving, and blocking those accounts takes more work than reverting an IP. GRBerry (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking.Brian0324 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Oops! I'm sorry - I didn't know. I thought that tagging it as recreation of deleted material (I use Twinkle) was more appropriate since the page had just been speedily deleted. I'll keep this info in mind next time. Really sorry bout the mistake - didn't know, hence fault committed. I apologise. Thanks for taking the time out and letting me know that. aJCfreak yAk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

reply

i replied to you both on the ANI and also on my page .

i'll add that, i can understand how the topic ban suggestions seem to an outsider, however, 4 months, 5 mentors, many policy violations and no rules - in contrast with User:Isarig who's under topic ban and self forced 1RR - and no repeated offenses, makes me feel that the topic ban is in order at least until some ground rules are set. you not liking the suggestion, does not mean you have the right to censor it being raised. you can ask, not threat. Jaakobou 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am telling you that you are being disruptive in this aspect of your activity. Disruptive editors are subject to blocks, and I will block you if you continue to repeat this disruption after having been specifically warned. Read Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Disruption. If you've read the ANI thread, you know that I don't object to you talking with his mentors, but do think you should do it separately from PRs conversations with his mentors, and with the expectation that the mentors will also investigate your behavior. The disruption is popping up and asking for a topic ban every time his name appears on WP:AN or WP:ANI. I don't believe that you have truly attempted to work with this editor, nor have you made a sufficient attempt at resolving the dispute to allow you to certify a user conduct RfC. Until I see evidence that you are actually trying to work with PR and compromise, this warning stands. GRBerry 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1. i tried to work with him. you should try the WP:AGF thing in two directions, not just the 'defend the person who created Hated Google Test' direction.
2. going over the policy pages, i wonder which of these disruptions do you believe i have breached... perhaps "Campaign to drive away productive contributors"?
3. PR raised the AN thread on his own - clearly rejecting his mentor. there's absolutely nothing wrong with repeating my suggestion that rules be set for this mentorship then - i also suggest you give a look to the far more successful mentorship case of User:Isarig for inspiration.

-- Jaakobou 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we move towards RFC?

Response to a request on User talk:Tony Sidaway

As a known believer in allowing non-admins a great deal of discretion in closing AFD discussions, can you review User talk:RMHED#Closure of Dorothy Walker Bush AfD and the next five sections and let me know if you think I should move this further towards an RfC. (The two prior sections are mechanics lessons, to which the user has responded favorably, not issues with the actual closes being done.) He appears to be promising to repeat behavior for which he has been criticized. GRBerry 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the AfD is:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Walker Bush
• This was closed 21:25, 20 November 2007 by User:RMHED, who doesn't appear to be an administrator.
• Somebody took that to RMHED's talk page, where RMHED said "You'll need an Admin to open it up again, sorry if you think my closure was premature, but I just thought it highly unlikely that this will result in anything but a keep or possibly a no consensus."
• The user who had complained (User:Strothra) then took it to deletion review, which you closed on the grounds that it was better to re-open the AfD .

Of significance in this case is that there appear to be several other recent complaints about this fellow's closes [, and that the close in question was an exceptionally early one (towards the end of the second day).

An experienced AfD closer would tend to let such discussions continue, though there are some legitimate cases for closing certain discussions early. RMHED's judgement here is probably correct, but I don't see any harm in letting it run and, in the circumstances, his response "You'll need an Admin to open it up again" was unhelpful--he could have reverted his own close or temporarily withdrawn it and asked an administrator to review it.

Looking at RMHED's responses to complaints about his recent non-admin closes, I think they show a certain intransigence that doesn't go well with AfD closing. He sometimes (perhaps often) performs early closes and some of these early closes are probably inappropriate, or at least controversial, but he always dismisses the complaints.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ocean Finance is an interesting one. It's blatantly encyclopedic (if you use UK cable TV it's impossible to escape the advertisements so it would be silly for Misplaced Pages to avoid coverage). RMHED's close was pragmatically correct (he had suggested a merge and redirect and he formally closed it according to that procedure). A straight numerical count of the discussion would probably have said "delete", but the reasons given for deletion were at best facetious. This is the kind of discussion I would have preferred to see run to full length and closed by an experienced closer. RMHED made the right decision but his involvement clouds the issue. As it happens I would say "keep" to that article because Ocean Finance has a sixteen years history independent of AIG, and it would be ridiculous to dismiss one of the UK's leading debt consolidation firms from Misplaced Pages. But I'm convinced that this would have become clear during the course of a full deletion discussion.

Since several editors have already approached RMHED about his behavior and don't seem to be satisfied with the current situation, of course a request for comment is a good idea. The purpose of such an RFC is to focus attention and resolve disputes over conduct. I think it would be a good idea, if only to pool the feedback RMHED is surely going to get in future into one focussed dollop instead of a load of drips and drops. --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed this user's record, please notify me when this RfC is opened. Mr Which 01:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• RfC might be too much at this point. RMHED has never really had feed back before on speedy close of AfDs. I added multiple posts in hopes of curbing the activity. Also, we're still discussing the matter on his talk page. Perhaps give it a few days before posting an RfC. -- Jreferee t/c 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  I looked at that discussion. He has responded flippantly to your advice, and has made it very clear he sees no problem with the attitude he is taking toward prematurely closing AfDs. Mr Which 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  Let it cool off a bit. Being hammered with that much feedback on a single issue can get peoples hackles up. After they calm down, they may either resume the old behavior or modify it based on the feedback. Too soon to tell. GRBerry 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks - second opinons?

Thanks for the response over at AN. Do you think you could possibly look at the two cases I was referring to (though I didn't name them over there), and see if those are good examples of where definite blocks would have been better than an immediate jump to an indefinite block? I'm going to just link to the block logs and not say any more. Hope you don't mind me asking for a second opinion from you like this. One case is simple, the other is rather messy. The first one is here, the other is here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The first was incorrect at any length. Three reverts over more than a month, on a BLP, removing negative material that was at best weakly sourced. It became clear to me that the editor didn't know what he was doing. Use of talk pages was appropriate at this point, issuing any block was not.

The second is a user who was clearly editing disruptively in some occasions so far as I knew from my general awareness. Has been working in topics and XfDs where he has a COI, and either soliciting meatpuppets or using sockpuppets in XfD and related discussions. He also had previously used an sockpuppet in an AFD that was both 1) pretty obviously his sock (signature looked like main account and directed to main account) and 2) used to do a second AFD nomination for an article where his main account had done the first AFD nomination. (Which makes it easier to believe that the later accounts are sock rather than meat.) It surprises me that there were not more shorter length blocks earlier. I think email validation that the other accounts are in fact meat puppets should occur by an uninvolved admin (these should be people whose email addresses are visible outside Misplaced Pages, use those), and then further discussion can proceed with more information. GRBerry 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those opinions. I should have been clearer on the first example, where you are quite right to say that the block was not justifiable at all. The input in the second case is also extremely helpful, as I think both me and the others already involved were too close to what was going on to see the earlier stuff. Would you mind looking into it a bit more, or would a completely new admin be best? Would WP:AN be the right place to get an uninvolved admin to come along and check the meat puppets and look into things a bit more? Possibly there is a slight touch also of "Being hammered with that much feedback on a single issue can get peoples hackles up." - in this case the feedback being the AfDs. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on a bold reversion

In my opinion, CitiCat prematurely closed discussion on the AfD for Bruce Khlebnikov, and I boldly reverted the close almost immediately. As I respect your opinion, I wanted your take on if I should have applied WP:IAR in this case. I fully understand that the IAR policy is not meant to create anarchy, but to improve the project, and my question for you is: in your opinion, did my bold move in this case, accomplish what the spirit of IAR actually is? Thanks, Mr Which 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't totally ridiculous, but you should also have undid the close on the article & talk. It would be best to actively solicit some Russian speaking/reading editors to check for foreign language sources given the topic of the article - that would really show an effort to get to the right answer, not just the one you prefer. You also need to discuss with the individual whose close you undid. GRBerry 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I did discuss with CitiCat, post-revert though. I didn't even think of discussing it on the talkpage, though. In your opinion was this an appropriate application of IAR? Mr Which 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Louisdale, Nova Scotia: Round 2

I've had an indepth look at the article. Please look at Grandique Ferry as well in this incident. As far as I can tell, user:Grandiqueferry is very concerned with adding information about his community, and looking back and forth between here , and here , two government sources, the page in it's current revision is correct. Therefore I can only state that, while lacking Misplaced Pages style, Louisdale, Nova Scotia is not a bad article. But can the same be said for Grandique Ferry? Andrew 06:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to look at Grandique Ferry. I don't know if it's copyvio or not, but it reads poorly. Louisdale isn't much better, so I'm going to take a little bit of time and format them. Other than that, I'd say that user:Grandiqueferry is just trying to add information to Misplaced Pages, and I don't see anything that might indicate an outside dispute. Besides, most pages on rural Nova Scotia communities, not being high-priority and all, are written from first-hand sources, so it's hard to tell whether or not information on them is accurate anyway!

I'll keep looking at it, and if you're interested in any further issues, just drop me a line (on the 6)! Andrew 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Two sides of every dispute

Thank you for your comment. I will try to make an extended effort to explain my reasons on the relevant articles, but at the same time I feel that this will be a difficult approach when dealing with an editor like Bless Sins. If you try take a closer look at his contributions and his way of dealing with disputes, it seems to me that it is obvious that he try to get things his way by being extremely persistent, engaging in month long edit-wars against a large number of editors disagreeing with him. Sometimes he even give up for a few weeks or months, but then return to the article and revert to his version. I believe that his approach to editing Misplaced Pages needs to be confronted one way or another, and perhaps it would be better to start an RfC on the issue. -- Karl Meier (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unban?

FYI, I'm serious about this. Would you support an unban? He wrote a lot of good content - just ruffled a lot of feathers along the way. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators
• Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall