Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:28, 21 June 2010

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #46

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Sorry to anyone waiting for a response or assistance from me over the last couple of weeks. I am currently very busy with Wikimedia Australia work and am not available for the immediate future. You are still welcome to leave messages here and I will attend to them on my return, but if you require administrative assistance, you would likely get a faster response by finding an available administrator via the List of Admins or by requesting assistance on the Administrators Noticeboards or one of the dedicated noticeboards listed at the top of that page. Sarah 04:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nom for Valley Entertainment Monthly

Sarah, not sure it means much, but the timing of the AfD of this article is oddly suspicious since it was my first attempt at adding an article to Misplaced Pages and was hard fought to keep, in fact was userfied for a time until I could get all the sources in front of me, which I eventually did and it has 16 legitimate references, including major national publication reviews, but Minor4th has decided that after all that, it should be nominated again. After all the fuss in the first place and the article eventually being kept, why is he again nomming it for AfD? It pretty clear it is a punitive measure in some way related to the Donald G. Martin debacle. I assume he is within his rights but as far as a 'mean spirited' gesture, it doesn't get much worst than that kind of passive aggressive garbage. And it is, unfortunately, why good editors have a tough time staying around and trying to help improve Wiki. It shouldn't be... Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

WQA for Nineteen Nightmares

I have referred Nineteen Nightmares for personal attacks and incivility at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. Since you have been involved in this matter, I believe that it is appropriate for you to be made aware of this matter. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Banning

Sarah, as you might have noticed above, there is an attempt to get me banned. My only concern with this is very closely related to a comment you made to me about the Martin article, that you were concerned if I was gone, it would simply revert to a puff piece. It looks like they are attempting to bring it back and the ban they propose for me is a draconian three months! That should give them plenty of time, but seriously and though I've been prickly here and there, my complaints have been genuine and largely ignored. I think that would get anyone pretty upset. Still, I'm trying to hold it together here. Please be aware that they are also throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there in regards to accusations, but most of it (here we go again) is stuff that all happened before the day ban that GregJackP trumped up with an supe who didn't realize everything that was going on at the time. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Ninteen Nightmares

Also, a ban doesn't mean all that much to me except that interested parties are going to try and get the Donald G. Martin article back up there in all its Madison Avenue glory. I can still read Wiki and that is my true love. I've enjoyed editing but see it is not so much "come to work and edit," as "see if this group of people who are already established will let you edit." You may not see it that way, being a supe and all, but as a relatively new user, its been difficult, to say the least. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Wow, okay, that seems rather premature but I haven't been closely following developments over the last few days. I thought you were doing much better since the block but it looks like you might have slipped since they AFD'd the newspaper article. I think you might need to acknowledge on ANI that you recognise that and agree to go under a civility parole. Which would mean that you agree to comply with the civility policy and if you violate it, you'll be blocked in incrementally increasing blocks. I would also advise you to not get sucked into arguing with them on AFD - it's really not going to be to your benefit as it makes uninvolved people unwilling to bother with it if they have to trawl through long arguments. You can't be banned on the basis of a so-called "consensus" of people so deeply involved in disputes with you. There must be a consensus of uninvolved and uninvested people. Sarah 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. I've decided to take a Wikibreak from editing for a while anyway. It is pretty hard to come here with good intent and have a group of editors conduct themselves this way. Honestly, most of what I am being accused of is patently untrue or is the stuff that I was banned for already. There is absolutely no question they are going gorilla here to get rid of the fly in the oinment, so to speak. Many, many exaggerations and untruths have been told, I suppose in the name of making me look like Frankenstein, but in reality I am only here to improve Wiki however I can.

I'll give you a couple of examples of untruths that are being told about me. Modernist claimed that I "deleted other people's articles" and now "feel sorry for" myself that "my" article will be deleted. First, its not my article. I just put the basic info there. My disagreement has almost entirely been about the publication's notability, which would not have been an issue if I hadn't been opposed to the Martin piece. The only article I ever nommed for deletion (and didn't even do it right) was the second Martin piece and that has been explained as a misunderstanding and mistake. In reality, what I did was decide that after my piece was userfied, I'd join the AfD discussions precisely because of the way I was treated. Yes, I voted delete on some when they were patent garbage, but what Modernist is not telling you is that I voted a number of times 'keep' and incidentally, spent a good deal of time cleaning up this article and arguing strenuously that it not be deleted, and it wasn't: Drum Workshop.

Ban or not, I'm pretty much done with arguing with that group because they are not listening at all anyway, so its a waste of time for everyone involved. There is no dialogue, just "this isn't right...delete!" The site's own rules state you should help someone that doesn't know any better, not treat them like dirt and tag and delete everything in sight, six editors deep! Whether or not these people agree with me or not, I have many times tried to open a topic of discussion with them and my queries go almost entirely ignored or are answered in a way that is no answer to the question at all. The following people were originally involved in the Valley Entertainment Monthly article, all hostile to it at the time:

• Modernist
• Ty
• JNW
• Pdcook
• chzz

The following have been heavily in involved in the Martin debacle and were responsible for my ban proposal:

• GregJackP
• Giftiger Wunsch
• Minor4th

That basically leaves only one individual outside of the discussion, Salvio, who has cast a non-biased vote based on exaggerations of the editors endorsing the Martin piece.

JNW has claimed to be neutral but he was probably the worst offender as far as attacking the VEM piece while it was under construction, though he is making the claim to be impartial now because he came in after the nom and wasn't part of the Martin issue. Anyone can go and look at my edits and see that Modernist is not being entirely truthful here. It is disengenuous of him to make a claim of impartiality here. Same with Pdcook, but I think he's actually one of the good guys. You can see his statement is just his unemotional opinion, which I certainly respect.

I will still be around to read comments, I just feel like this back and forth junk is not productive at all and a waste of my time. I started to edit to make Misplaced Pages better, not argue everytime I correct a spelling error or try to tighten up an article's tone or presentation, which I have done a number of times, even occasionally just a small edit here and there for clarity. That is the whole of my intent and this group has continually antagonized me to the point I say something and then they run off to get me banned. Wow.

But when all is said an done, I'm glad there is at least one person here who sees what is happening: a group of editors with an agenda trying to get rid of one who opposes the article they seek to keep. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Just for the record regarding my hostility as stated above. Ty 00:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading the ANI discussion about me and I noticed that several people are now claiming I "threatened" to call a newspaper on Mr. Martin. Not true, but I did point out that since was concerned about his reputation, it wasn't a good idea to make such a stink because journalists will get a hold of it eventually if it goes on. This isn't rocket science: time + controversy = newspaper article. Never did I threaten to call a newspaper on Mr. Martin, and in fact when I saw that, I went to his talk page and told him so because I was concerned he would believe it. In any case, I will not be contacting any media personally, so again, they are seeing exactly what they want to see and not reality. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Yeah, I agree, I didn't read that was a threat but a warning about the reality of how the press love to create front page scandals out of that type of thing. There have been plenty of cases where people have done the wrong thing on Misplaced Pages and it's ended up being a scandal in the press. And I've actually thought several times myself that I hope Martin understand this, which is why I kept telling him that I hoped he understood that his actions here are publicly viewable. The problem really isn't the central message you are trying to share but the language you use. Misplaced Pages's behavioural policies are pretty clear about requiring people to be civil and if you continue being aggressive, abrasive and uncivil, it's just a matter of time before you do get banned. If you're right about people going after you, you're just playing into their hands and making it easier for them by snarking back at them. Don't give them any excuses and if you feel angry or you think someone's an idiot and you want to let loose on them, it can be best just to walk away from the computer for a while and come back when you've cooled off. I do that all the time! I've got to go offline now but I'm hoping that the involved people will back off now and allow uninvolved people to review and address the issues raised there. Sarah 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah for all your work. One last thing: I followed your advice and chopped off about half the data in the Valley Entertainment Monthly piece as you suggested. I also just realized that most of my refs were not refs at all but should have been listed as "notes." This has been corrected and only two references remain, albeit solid ones. Everything else is now a note. All but one external link has been removed as well. No one can say I didn't at least try. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Comments on Socks

I am addressing this here to make sure that you were aware of my response (I've already commented on the AN/I about it).

You stated here "I actually don't blame him for those sock/meat puppet views as I reached similar suspicions entirely on my own when I first read the AFD and became involved with the Martin dispute and I very nearly included a couple of the accounts he's now apparently expressed suspicions about in my SPI evidence. I don't think they're socks of Martin or they would have come up in the check of Martin's IP, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there are other socks being run here."

The only ones that 19N had suspicions on were myself, Minor4th, and Giftiger. As far as this goes, if you have evidence to support the innuendo that I am a sock, meat or puppetmaster, then file a report with WP:SPI. Otherwise, this appears to be borderline violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You are an admin, I'm a mere editor, you can do whatever you want with relative impunity, but it is not right for you to insinuate that any of the three of us are socks. Just because you disagree with some of my positions is not grounds to trash my reputation on Misplaced Pages. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Greg but it's rubbish to say that I suspect further socks because I disagree with some of your views. It's an outrageous violation of AGF. You haven't even bothered to ask me why I think that or what evidence I might have come across - you just instantly assume that it comes from bad faith motives - exactly as you did when I endorsed the DRV and exactly as you did on ANI when I opposed the ban. These accusations from you are tiresome and they're constantly assuming bad faith of me. Please stop it. Sarah 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm included in the innuendo about Martin socks, I would like to ask you why you think that or what evidence you might have come across. Thank you. Minor4th (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not going to oblige you at this point. Per WP:BEANS. Thank you for your understanding. Additionally, I'd like to ask all the Martin-related users to refrain from posting on my talk page for at least the next week. I am preparing a Misplaced Pages training program for curators at a museum in Melbourne and I don't have time for these constant interruptions. If you have a complaint to make about me, please feel free to open an WP:ANI report. If you wish to discuss or respond to comments regarding the Martin DRV, please do so at the DRV. If you wish to comment on the 19Nightmares ban request, kindly keep it to ANI. These split discussions, responding to comments posted to noticeboards on personal pages and whatnot and conversations being fragmented and spread all over the site as you guys do is something I've never encountered to this extent and it's not at all helpful. Any further comments posted to my page about either the DRV or the Ban request will be ignored. Thank you. Sarah 07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

I'm a bit nervous, as a new admin, and I just blocked a user for creating hoax articles after a final warning. Do you think that an indefinite block was good, or is that going too far? The user is Okfaizok (talk · contribs). —Soap— 17:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Soap. No, I don't think it's going too far to indef someone hoaxing, but let me take a look at this particular account and I'll be back shortly with an opinion. Cheers, Sarah 23:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Soap, I didn't realise you were talking about that guy. Absolutely, that block is completely acceptable and appropriate. I was a bit stupid giving him another chance and not just indefing him in the first place. Given he's come back since I deleted his other junk and created more, there's no doubt in my mind that is a very good and appropriate block. Congratulations on your RFA. If you have any future blocks or other actions you want a second opinion on, please feel free to post here. Cheers, Sarah 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was basing my action on what I'd seen other admins do in similar situations, but just wanted to be sure. —Soap— 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Going out on a limb...

Greetings Sarah - just a word of support in the face of opposition. Assuming good faith, I realise that your talk page is being stalked watched by beady little eyes and trust to my guardian angels here at Misplaced Pages to keep an eye out for any possible repercussions. Be that as it may, in my somewhat superficial and random tracking of the events leading up to the current issue involving Nineteen Nightmares, I find your attitude and correspondence with the parties involved to be in full keeping with what I've come to expect from admins, and for which I'd just like to say thank you, and a more global thank you for being out there to ensure that Misplaced Pages doesn't degenerate into the Wild West. It restores my sometimes flagging faith in Misplaced Pages AGF and ego trips. I'd also like to seize the oportunity to point out that you seem to be under the impression that I'm a member of the lobby to have this editor blocked. A quick review of the ANI and other, related pages (don't bother) will make it clear that such is not the case. While I have been openly critical of said editor's behaviour, I consider the almost orchestrated manoeuvre by more experienced editors fully unwarranted (see "flagging faith" above). This message will self-destruct the moment you have read it. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Technopat, I really appreciate your message very much. Don't worry, I know that you're not part of this group (I also know that PdCook isn't) and I didn't mean to imply or suggest you were; I was just pointing out that you were among the people Greg notified of the WQA (which became the ANI). "While I have been openly critical of said editor's behaviour, I consider the almost orchestrated manoeuvre by more experienced editors fully unwarranted" - I agree completely and that's *exactly* where I'm coming from. I have also been very critical of the user's behaviour, and I'm not trying to protect him from the consequences of his continuing to be so aggressively uncivil after numerous warnings from a number of people, including myself, but I just couldn't accept the way they were setting that up, trying to quickly push through such a very excessive penalty for a relatively new (8 weeks) and generally inexperienced user they've been heavily involved in arguments and disputes with for weeks. If the uninvolved community decides a penalty or sanction of some sort is appropriate, so be it, but let's just do it properly and fairly and ensure it is within the requirements of policy - that's all I'm asking and if I had to put myself in their firing-line and become the target of their anger, assumptions of bad faith, misleading and false accusations and whatnot in order to highlight what was going on there then I can live with that. The thing that really alarmed me was when I went straight to ANI yesterday after receiving Greg's notification of the ANI report and found that a very involved user, who was also the person proposing and shepherding the block and ban, was already declaring a "snowball" block/ban only 2 hours after it was proposed, with all but one of the comments being from people who were either involved in the disputes in some way or otherwise notified of the discussion by Greg. I just couldn't abide that and had to challenge them. I'm sorry they feel that I'm being nasty to them as that's not my desire or intention. But the crazy thing is I only became involved in this whole situation in the first place because they all kept coming here, leaving me messages and asking me to help with things. Yet once I disagree with their maneuvering and get in their way, I'm suddenly an evil and abusive admin! I'm not going to be here much this week as I'm very busy irl, but I'm sure the admin who closes the ANI will see it for what it is and ensure any penalties are fair and consistent with policy. Thank you again for your message, I really appreciate it a great deal. And if you encounter any problems, please do let me know. Sarah 04:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Sarah - thanks for reply. I wish my reason for posting here had been to thank you for helping me out with a doubt or some such mundane matter. Whereas I have nothing to lose by being politically incorrect at Misplaced Pages, the thing that cracks me up is that some folks have little boxes on their talk pages optimistically expressing their admin potential. I've recently been toying with the idea of patrolling RfA on a regular basis, when there's a lull in vandal edits. And don't worry 'bout me 'cos my Misplaced Pages guardian angels work 25/8, but I don't really expect any comeback. This message will self-destruct the moment you have read it. No reply required. Don't let 'em get to you! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh we used to joke about those userboxes and how they were a guarantee you'd never become an admin. RFA can be a very unpleasant place but reading and participating in other people's RFA can be very useful in helping prepare for it yourself and even if you decide not to have a try yourself, the more people reviewing RFAs the better. I'm just grateful that I went through mine years ago as I'd hate to go through it now. It was hard enough back then but these days people seem to have got really tough standards. If at any time you decide you want to have a go at RFA yourself and you'd like someone to have a look at your contribs and give you an honest opinion about how they think you'd go, let me know and I'd be happy to do a review for you. Cheers, Sarah 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Draftpunkboy

Hi Sarah,

Just noticed Nick-D reverted an edit made by Draftpunkboy94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Australian Labor Party article, I had a feeling that the editor was Draftpunk93 but though they must have requested a rename but looking the the editor's contributions which shocked me as an a new account. I took a look at Draftpunkboy93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and noted that they have been indefinitely blocked so I did a search on Wikistalk which shows it is the same editor. Not sure what should be done with the editor. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this is correct, Bidgee? I can't find any contribs or block log for either of those accounts. Are they indef'd here on WP? If someone has been indef'd and they've just come back with a new account, they need to be reblocked as block evading sock. Sarah 09:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found him through the article. Looking now... Sarah 09:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've blocked him. By the way, it's Daftpunkboy94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not Draftpunkboy94, you dag! :p Sarah 09:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! LOL, Still a little tired from the 48 hour flu/virus (must have got it from Melbourne). Cheers for looking into it. Bidgee (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)