| Revision as of 02:29, 3 March 2015 view sourceLynnWysong (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,732 edits →Off wiki tomorrow← Previous edit |
Revision as of 07:23, 3 March 2015 view source Dreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits we're done herNext edit → |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
|
==New comments below this section== |
|
==New comments below this section== |
|
Thanks! ] <small>]</small> |
|
Thanks! ] <small>]</small> |
|
|
|
|
== Off wiki tomorrow == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dreadstar, I am going to be off wiki due to elective surgery on Thursday and probably Friday; possibly into the weekend if I can't see (explanation at my talk page). Please keep an eye on the Wild Horses and Burros Act page that you protected (keep it protected) and please don't let that other editor claim we have reached some "consensus" that doesn't exist; she can make 100 edits a day to an article and totally destroy it before anyone can even assess what she's done. If we have any consensus by this evening, we will ping you for any approved changes, but please don't unprotect the article! ]<sup>]</sup> 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:The article is protected until March 16th, and I wouldn't unprotect it without seeing consensus on the talk page. Good luck with your surgery, hope all goes well. ] <small>]</small> 09:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you, my surgery went well (though I have double vision for a while until my brain admits I have two good eyes now). Can you also watchlist ]? The debate could spill over there. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, could you please go over to ] and see what is going on over there? The attitude is appallingly dictatorial and starting to border on harrassment. Lynn Wysong 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::By Wysong, who has three other editors there besides me reverting many of her edits and trying to explain things to her (And by the way, "Lynn Wisong" is User:SheriWysong, editing without a proper signature). ]<sup>]</sup> 00:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Uh...yeah. I went into the Wiki profile page, and made a nickname of "Lynn Wysong". So, that's how it's signed when I put the four tildes. Not trying to be deceitful, as implicated, but for some reason, my signature isn't correct-which I addressed in the talk page. As far as the rest, please just read through the talk page. Some dissension, but give and take. Basically, healthy rational discussion.Lynn Wysong 00:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::You didn't even properly sign this comment. And no, I'm not reading through walls of text to figure out what's going on there, what I see is that you apparently followed MontanaBW to Mustang, that's not a good thing. ] <small>]</small> 00:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::As I keep saying, I put the four tildes. No, I didn't follow her. How could I do that?Lynn Wysong 01:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::By looking through their edit history, that's how. And whatever signature you're using, it does not fit WP standards, as is obvious by sinebot following you around. ] <small>]</small> 01:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No, I went over there to get an idea of what other pages were saying. And, I don't know why my signature doesn't work. I'm putting the four tilde now Lynn Wysong 01:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::::Whatever was working, now it's not - you've changed something in preferences with your signature. The more I look into your edits, the more I see disruption; and your editing patterns seem to be familiar to me. What other accounts have you edited under? ] <small>]</small> 01:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::This is the only account I have ever edited under. All I've done is a few biographies of some obscure people for which there was no controversy. This is my first foray into controversial subjects, and what a nightmare!Lynn Wysong 01:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::::::Okay, so I went back into my preferences and unchecked a box. Now let's try it...] (]) 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Stop playing games. ] <small>]</small> 01:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::How am I playing games? I'm just trying to fix the problem of my signature not working right. What I did seem to work.] (]) 01:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::I've reviewed your edits in their entirety, you are definitely playing games and are an obvious sock. Either change your editing Paradigm or be blocked. ] <small>]</small> 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::okay, so have me investigated for being a sock. I have one account, that I set up a couple of years ago, didn't do much with it, did some biographies recently, and now I'm finding out why Misplaced Pages has such a horrible reputation.] (]) 01:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Is there some way to get back the donations I've made? I certainly didn't make them knowing this kind of thing went on.] (]) 02:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== User violating your 1RR restriction == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I've just been reverted twice by a user whom you ]. I don't know why they're insisting on keeping an incorrect version just because they don't like what they strangely think is "overpiping". As I explained in my edit summary, I piped to display the correct title of a magazine without its disambiguator, and I italicized it. Chunk5Darth to an undeniably incorrect version, with an incorrect title and no italics. All of the warnings and blocks they've received don't seem to have had an impact. ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 03:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'll look into it, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Not saying you are, but in the meantime, be cautious not to appear to be taking advantage of another user's restrictions. ] and ] are very clear about reverting. ] <small>]</small> 03:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for looking into it. I would never take advantage of such a situation. Quite the opposite: I only reverted once, even though their reverts were, as I said above, undeniably incorrect. (Yes, I know everybody says that, but in this simple case, it really is true.) ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 03:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I know, I just felt it needed saying - even if completely unnecessary...no worries. ] <small>]</small> 03:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Waving the BLP banner == |
|
|
{{archive top|Further comments on this subject his discussion belong ]. ] <small>]</small> 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I don't think it's appropriate to talk about blocking people for proposing or discussing potential edits on the ''Talk page''. Proposing edits on the talk page, no matter how outrageous, is not a blocking offense (as long as the wording is not impolite, and it doesn't contain any libelous material). However, given the edit warring going on earlier to include libelous material into the article, I do support BLP discretionary sanctions for the ]. ] (]) 08:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I disagree, without blp-compliant sources, it is clearly ] to be adding a photo to the article that purportedly shows whether or not she is of a certain race. This in an attempt to sway readers not only about her race, but whether or not she has been truthful. To me, this violates ], thus the hatting and warnings. ] <small>]</small> 13:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Certainly, putting in controversial material into a BLP should be warned, and edit warring should be blocked. But you can't block people for discussing potential edits on the talk page. That would have a negative, chilling effect, and would also be, IMO, against policy. ] (]) 13:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::BLP applies to talk pages too. ] <small>]</small> 07:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Replying here to avoid canvassing, but I strongly agree with ] . BLP policy has become a weapon to silence discussion. See the recent number of BLP sanctions many simply for posting talk page links in line with written ] I and other editors have made a number of attempts to resolve the apparent gulf between written policy and recent interpretation and each time the discussion is either ignored, redirected or closed without resolution: . The last link is the most recent and the most egregious. Motivated I believe by this liberal interpretation of policy, a link on a talk page was repeatedly redacted simply because ''other'' articles on the linked site may violate BLP policy. It's worrying and I'm wondering what the best next step would be. If you have advice or input, feel free to post on my talk page or in any of the active linked discussions. ] ] 21:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The idea that the editors haven't done anything to deserve it, is just simply false, they have all violated policies and guidelines. BLP does indeed apply to talk pages, and ''every'' page in Misplaced Pages, you don't link to unacceptable material and you certainly don't repeat it on-Wiki; if anything ] needs to be strengthened in that regard. As for the last link, it was not a reliable source to begin with, so I don't see the purpose of the linkage; further, I would say that linking to pages on an attack site that contain BLP violations should not be allowed, even if the landing page seems benign. ] <small>]</small> 15:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I never said all editors sanctioned under GG DS didn't deserve to be -- I said some were sanctioned for actions deemed objectionable despite complying with BLPTALK policy as written. You suggest ''"linking to pages on a ... site that contains BLP violations '''should''' not be allowed."'', at least tacitly acknowledging the distinction between ''should be'' and ''is.'' If you feel BLPTALK policy should be strengthened there are appropriate ways to do it -- ignoring established policy and enforcing your strengthened ideal as if it ''were'' established policy is not one of them. And you're well aware procedure to blacklists sites wholesale exists and has not been followed in this case, yet it's being enforced as if it had been; another end run around consensus. |
|
|
::::::Regarding the redacted link, there are clear guidelines as to when an editor may edit others' comments -- deeming parts of them unnecessary does not fall within those guidelines. I suspect it would be foolish to take your suggestion to heart and edit your and others' comments similarly; yet another instance of extraordinary interpretation of policy. Until ''community established'' rules and procedures are followed consistently, criticism and controversy in the space will persist and the encyclopedia will be worse for it. I believe I've made my points clearly enough that there's no need to disturb your talk page further. Thank you. ] ] 19:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There was no violation removing that link, period - as you should have realized by now. If you're thinking of conflating removal of ordinary talk page comments with removing BLP violating comments, then you need to rethink your involvement in editing BLP related articles. Let me state my position implicitly, linking to pages on a site that contains BLP violations '''is''' not allowed, and should remain disallowed. And let me rephrase this, '''none''' of the editors sanctioned under the GG sanctions were undeserving of said sanctions, and I do not agree with your assertion that "''many simply for posting talk page links in line with written policy''". This is simply false. ] <small>]</small> 19:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I wish there were more Admins who took their roles and WP policy as seriously as you do, Dreadstar. In the context of this thread, I doubt that there's a bright line policy solution such as the one you just stated. What about newspapers and broadcast media which publish both news, vetted according to high journalistic standards, and opinion pieces which may not be acceptable references under WP BLP policy. For example, The Washington Post, Fox News, Forbes, Huffington Post and other widely read media? "BLP violation" is a Misplaced Pages test/standard which relates, in part, to the context of WP article content. It's sometimes --but not always -- an objective or observable characteristic of the source of origin. This is a difficult issue. ]] 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::: The standards of journalism for the editorial pages of top-quality sources like '''The Washington Post''' and '''The New Yorker''' are also high. Editorials are, of course, statements of opinion, and the opinions expressed are explicitly intended to be understood to be opinions. The facts adduced to support those opinions, however, carry the full faith and credit of the publication. (Whether Fox News has any credit is open to some doubt, and of course in Huffington Post there are many mansions.) Very much to the point here, if you are defamed on the editorial page of '''The Washington Post''', your recourse is clear, and if that publication lies about you, it tarnishes its name. That recourse is, ultimately, one foundation of its reliability. Neither is true of (for example) Gamergate.me, the wiki about which these discussions arose. ] (]) 21:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: I don't know anything about Gamergate or the meaning of the name, but the BLP standard which Dreadstar stated above as WP policy is tougher than what you suggest, and BLP is a tougher standard than the legal test of defamation or libel. ]] 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::BLP covers all this already. Further discussion belongs on ]. ] <small>]</small> 23:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Message on my talk == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dreadstar, sorry I didn't respond be crazy busy this week. It looks like it should be listed as an alternate account, but given the owner isn't blocked it's probably just worth leaving them a message about it the statement on the page and linking it to the main account and vice versa. Or am I missing something? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hey, no worries, I figured it out myself, it's not a real page, but some kind of mirror page from Commons I think. ] <small>]</small> 15:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Chunk5Darth == |
|
|
|
|
|
What diffs did you decide to block Chunk5Darth for indefinitely? I'm seeing talks of 1RR and breaking that, but don't know the full context. But if that is the full context, then I don't believe it is acceptable to be blocking them indefinitely for breaking 1RR. ] (]) 15:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I blocked based on the 1RR restriction I placed after a long history of edit warring by this particular user. If you don't agree with the block, take it to ]. I find your 'intervention' in this inappropriate. ] <small>]</small> 06:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
