Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:47, 24 May 2018

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

AfD

1. I think it is irregular to close an AfD that has been open for 3 days as a G5 without indicating anywhere who the article creator was a sock of — usually there is a note for future reference of those who work at NPP or AfC and it is unhelpful when there is no such note)
2. In this case it is not even indicated as a G5 in the log, the only link is to the AfD discussion- this misrepresents to any editor who might want to recreate the article, such as myself, that this close reflects a community consensus about notability. Please be clear about this - if you are saying in the close that you are deleting this as a G5 then indicate that in the summary as well.
3. My understanding is that editors had worked on it since the nomination/creation and it was in substantially different from when it was created- were these edits made by the same editor or had multiple editors worked on the article? Is there anyway to view the history and confirm this? Seraphim System 23:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: First of all, my apologies for the long wait for an answer. For personal reasons I have not been able to edit recently. however, here at last are some answers to what you have said. I hope they are helpful to you.

• I have tended to work on the basis that if a page is deleted while a deletion discussion is in progress then a link to that discussion, and a mention on the discussion page about the speedy deletion reason, gives anyone who sees that the page has been deleted and wants to know why the opportunity to see both the speedy deletion reason and also whatever was said in the deletion discussion, which is likely to be more helpful than just the speedy deletion reason. However, you are right to point out that an editor who sees that a page has been deleted at XfD might not look at the discussion and see the speedy deletion reason. I shall re-delete the article mentioning both the AfD and the speedy deletion criterion, to make it clearer. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. (Obviously it is just as true that an editor who chooses not to look at the deletion discussion page will not be aware of why the page has been deleted under other circumstances, meaning that he or she will not know whether it will be suitable to re-create the article or not, but there is no harm in making the information easier to find in this case.)
• You are right to point out that I should have said what sockpuppet it was. I shall also add that to the deletion log.
• There was only one edit to the article by anyone other than its creator, and that edit merely added the AfD notice to the page.

One more small point perhaps worth mentioning is that it is usually better to mention what page you are referring to in this kind of situation. This time it was very easy to find it, as it was the last AfD that I had edited, but in the past I have sometimes had to spend considerable time searching through editing histories in order to find what page has been referred to. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the summary especially, so it doesn't create the impression of misconduct by recreating an article after an AfD I was involved in closed delete.Seraphim System 16:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Return of blocked User:Mou3awiya Rafi3i, yet again

Our old friend is back, this time as User:Jimmy Jam III, who barely let the paint dry on your announcement of reduced activity to do all the old edits again (of US presidents and anachronistic style and arms on the Byron family, plus some others). Since I saw you did an administrative action earlier today, I am raising the issue here first since you are already familiar with the scenario - if you have the time and inclination and you agree it is a sock, then if you flag the account I will take care of all the reverts. Otherwise, I will proceed to the more formal SPI process for a determination. Agricolae (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Agricolae you can do the reverts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

and done. Agricolae (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Newsies sockpuppet

Hello. Is this another sockpuppet for User:Roosterknees? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but an indef for 'vansalism only' puts an end to this one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Incivility again

JBW, a few months back I asked you about issues with editor civility ]. After the editor didn't get the message you implemented a block (which was then reversed). The editor and I have largely not crossed paths in the mean time but recently the uncivil have returned. Here is an accusation of whitewashing ], the exact accusation from last time. There is also this MfD an accusation of POV pushing against two unnamed editors (almost certainly myself given previous comments) ]. Do you have suggestions for dealing with this? Thanks. Springee (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: Unfortunately, the short answer is "no". I thought some of the comments in the discussion of my block were ridiculous, such as the claim that I had blocked the editor for one edit, whereas anyone who took the trouble to look at the relevant history would have seen that i blocked because of a history of numerous unacceptable edits. At least part of the problem is the perennial moronic view that someone who makes a lot of good edits should be allowed to get away with being uncivil and making numerous personal attacks, unlike new editors who should get blocked for far smaller numbers of uncivil comments. I have no idea why that view is so common, but it is, and it makes it virtually impossible to take any effective action against such editors. As far as I personally am concerned, for personal reasons I am restricted to a far lower rate of editing than I have done for many years past, so I am afraid I don't think I can get involved again. I am really sorry to be so negative and unhelpful about this, bu I'm afraid that is how it is, from my perspective. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Obvious spammer, not here to contribute.

Having trouble posting to the vandalism noticeboard so trying here instead. User Deworucijo is obviously WP:NOTHERE. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Another admin blocked the account, and I did away the copyright violations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)