Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:42, 1 December 2008

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Edits

I studied the edits which you blocked Rebecca for, and I believe that she is working to actually help the article as she has a history with these types of articles, and improves them very well. So I unblocked her.

I did let her know however that she is not entitled to three reverts a day just because she didn't break it. I'll also let you know that templating regular users is not very nice; she's been here nearly five years now and you can talk to her specifically about issues. I don't wish to be rude about it, but if you're going to plop a template to shush up a dispute instead of engaging with unique thoughts, perhaps you shouldn't be dealing with it. All disputes are specialized and need our utmost attention to solve. Mike H. Fierce! 21:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't template her. I don't agree with your unblock and since you unblocked her, she has reverted both articles again. Edit warring over content isn't allowed, even if it's content the unblocking admin agrees with. You've made a mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You did template her (unless you went out of the way to add that little "stop!" hand that's usually in templates), and I went to look at her edits just now and she went to the talk page, exactly what I told her to do to continue dispute resolution. Also, don't say I "agree with" certain things; you're not in my mind and you don't know my stances on issues. I unblocked because it looked like a really bad block, and considering you're throwing out statements that don't seem to have logical conclusions...I'm thinking you made the mistake, not me. Mike H. Fierce! 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not template her. I typed out the warning on the fly and added a {{stop}} image. In your unblock notice, you said her edits were "helping rather than bring the article into disrepute." That sounds to me like you agree with her edits. As it happens, I think her edits are ok, but she was edit warring over them and edit warring isn't allowed. Note, she was blocked three weeks ago for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole "3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement" is both true and important for people engaged in edit-warring to recognize. On the other hand, it was a pretty simple back and forth slow edit war. Another warning, or an attempt to engage Rebecca on her talkpage, may have been better than blocking a fellow admin and former arbitrator. Avruch 22:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that admins and former arbitrators were exempt from WP:Edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

They're not, but having been around a long time and held various positions of trust on Misplaced Pages means that the issue isn't ignorance of policy. She should have responded to your warning, and she should have tried other tactics besides edit warring, no question. But one warning and a block is less even than vandals get - given her history, if anything she should get more consideration instead of less. I'm just saying that there are other ways to stop an edit war, like discussion, and people who have been around a long time and held policy enforcement roles are very likely to respond to that sort of thing much more effectively than they will to blocks. Avruch 22:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, she shouldn't have been edit warring, given her experience. There are much more stable ways to sway article content, moreover when it's helpful: I'm startled she didn't use them. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen was completely justified in her block. And just FYI for those who aren't aware of it... WP:DTTR isn't policy. I think that regulars need to be template from time to time. I'm so damned sick and tired of the "You can't do this to me! I've been here for X years!" mentality. I have very little doubt that the unblocking editor would NEVER have even considered an unblock in this case had the blockee been an IP address or an infrequent editor. Rebecca shouldn't be held to less of a standard because of her time and position here, she should be held to a helluva lot stronger standard. At least someone who just started editing yesterday has the excuse of ignorance. Trusilver 22:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Excuse me, uninvolved user here. I kind of agree with Gwen here. If Rebecca has been here long enough to know the rules, it translates as a deeper understanding of why they are there in the first place. Someone who sidesteps them makes them worse than some jackass who adds 'Toney is teh gay' to articles. It doesn't matter whether someone is adding Hloy Writ to an article; unless they are reverting clearly disruptive or vandalising material, they are constrained to three reverts per 24-hour period. Admins get precisely zero extra rhythm because they are admins. They have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. If they find the stress all too much for them, they can always voluntarily de-sysop. They choose to pursue the mop, they aren't knighted with it. - Arcayne () 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the block was horrible, or violated any policy, etc. etc. I didn't say that admins and arbitrators should be immune to blocks. All I said, and all I mean to say, is that if I were an admin and in Gwen's position trying to stop an edit war on those articles I would have handled it differently. Maybe you guys have a totally different view of the world, but if someone involved in an edit war has been here 5 years and worked on ArbCom that would give me pause prior to issuing a block. I would think to myself, is there something I don't know? Is there a history here? And then I would ask, and I probably wouldn't link to the edit warring policy or use a stop sign. People who have been here a long time often get upset at being treated like they're just ignorant - so while DTTR isn't a policy, its good advice when trying to rein in someone who is as familiar with policy as you are, and it is the same principle when it comes to writing a warning. Gwen's point of view obviously varies, and she's free to disagree. Just thought I'd chime in with mine, since I happened to see the block/unblock. Nothing much more to say for me. Avruch 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

All I saw was that she'd already been blocked three weeks ago for edit warring, along with her back and forth edits. I didn't know she was an admin or a former arbitrator. Admins rarely edit war, I'm amazed I blocked a former arbitrator for it. This is clearly the only reason she was unblocked. I must say, maybe we've stumbled onto one of the reasons so many editors have so little faith in arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Brief comment here (having seen this while posting something else below). In general all users are equally expected to follow communal editing norms; none are exempt. As an admin I warned a former arbitrator over 3RR; I see no problem, if the editing is of concern, in any user or admin doing so (though I'm surprised it would be needed given such users should be very aware of editing standards). I haven't reviewed these blocks, so I can't comment on them, but yes - normal norms would apply. There are very few exceptions to 3RR, because the aim of 3RR is to draw a limit on revert warring where users need to move to other means of dispute resolution, or protection/blocking by uninvolved admins if there's disruption going on. The only exemptions are the usual ones - removal of obvious vandalism, BLP, etc are not subject to 3RR. Also handling may differ slightly, some cases may best be handled by a talk page note/warning at first, on the basis they would likely read and respond to it (with blocking if it repeats), where a problem user is more likely to be blocked initially. As an admin you have that kind of flexibility. Noting there was a similar block some weeks ago would usually be reasonable evidence, and you'd be right to take something like that into account. But in both cases the aim is the same, to ensure communal editing expectations (including "don't edit war/3RR") are met. As such, this note is just to confirm that as I understand it there are no "exempt users" to widely agreed basic communal norms. FT2  07:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR had nothing to do with this particular case. As you say, a return to communal norms of editing is always the goal - therefore the same tool, a blunt warning with a link to policy, may not always be appropriate in all contexts. The rules are the same for everyone, but admins have enforcement discretion for a reason - because working out the best solution to a problem is always more important than inflexibly applying the rules. But perhaps that is becoming a minority viewpoint. Avruch 15:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think when some editors talk about 3rr, they might mean WP:3rr, which clearly puts forth that editors can be blocked for edit warring before reaching the bright threshold of 3r/24hrs. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Historically, there was WP:3RR first. It set out a fixed limit - revert more than 3 times in 24 hours (+/- flexibility for gaming) on an article, auto-24 hour block. When users discuss 3rr that's inevitably what they mean. Later the page on edit warring was made policy. This put 3RR into a sort of subordinate role. The idea now was, you shouldn't edit war, and could be warned or blocked for that (which covered a wider range opf problem edits), and within that, if you specifically edit warred by breaching 3RR, that was still fairly auto-blockable (hard line, always blockable subject to admin decision). FT2  18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that has been my long understanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

lifting protection

I kindly request that you undo your protection of Murder of Amanda Milan, considering that you are very clearly not an unbiased person in this matter (you wrote the version being protected to, and you have a stated issue with me). Being unable to use your administrative buttons according to policy is hardly a good sign in an arbitration committee candidate. Rebecca (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca, you cannot sway me into doing what you want by throwing out threatening words about my candidacy for arbcom (and you're welcome to vote against me if you like). I didn't write the version I protected to but either way, have you ever read The Wrong Version? A heedful look at my few edits to the article will show I was trying to neutralize the text and settle down the feuding (please see this earlier thread, which is now in my talk archive). As an admin I'm wholly neutral but I don't mind saying, as an editor I would agree far more with the version you want than the currently protected version (I also think the Murder of X title is ghastly). The big worry here is that you got yourself into a slow-burn, back and forth edit war with someone who has what I would call a highly skewed and way-too-narrow outlook on the topic. You ignored my warning on your talk page, you had been blocked three weeks earlier for edit warring by another admin and hence, I blocked you for edit warring: Please make no mistake, the only reason you were unblocked is because you served on arbcom four years ago (when Misplaced Pages was smaller and much less targeted on sourcing) and you're an admin. Later, I was amazed to find out that an admin and former arbcom member with your experience would swoop down into edit warring, which is always harmful to the project and truth be told, makes your PoV on the topic look shrill and emotional. Again, as an editor I think your PoV is the more helpful but like it or not, you have hurt that PoV and the article through your behaviour. Moreover, edit summaries like this border on personal attack, which only stirs up editors who disagree with you even more. You should know all this stuff by now. I'm lifting the protection, if only out of a bare hope this will somehow help the article sooner rather than later. Instead of name-calling and edit warring, please try building a consensus for the wished-for text. More sources would likely help. As for bulls in the china shop, you might want to have a shufti in the looking glass. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, reverting someone and describing their edits as homophobic trolling in going too far. Rebecca, I'm sure you know better - I'm not sure what's going on that has led to two blocks in November and comments like that, but you need to take a step back from these articles if you can't edit them normally. Avruch 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not being able to act in regards to policy isn't a good habit of administrators, either; why go around enforcing things on others if you yourself don't even follow them?

Simply, fine, request that the protection be taken off, but don't go down those other alleyways when you yourself have just broken policy.— Dædαlus /_Improve 09:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Yay you went for it!:) Sticky Parkin 02:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ta! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerns over a block you placed

I'm reviewing the block of NWA.Rep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last week, and have some concerns that I thought best to bring to your talk page.

The incident relates to events of Nov 21 2008:

• NWA had added inappropriate content to a bio article , and had edit warred on this with another administrator two days previously (19th). The admin gave a "final warning" at 12:47 Nov 21 .
• NWA did not post the same edit again, and took the matter to ANI at 19:46. His view was roundly rejected by the community at that venue.
• Shortly after, at 20:25, you blocked him for a week for disruption . A short while later (20:35) you locked down his talk page, preventing him editing it .

There is no question that NWA.Rep had issues as an editor. The discussion immediately after on ANI covers disruption, possible community ban, and so on. But reading the case it seems he was potentially open to following communal norms given help or mentoring. he had not been blocked for a long time, and in this instance at least, he had switched to seeking dispute resolution when warned, drew imperfect conclusions from policy but appeared to be trying (poorly) to follow it, and so on. His last prior blocks were in June 2007 (another account had block logs but these were from 2006-07 or were tagged as impersonation usage by known vandals).

The concerns I have are about the decision to block, the terms and duration of that action, and a guideline used to explain the latter:

1. Active reason to block - You blocked him at 20:25 for disruption, citing five diffs . However four of those diffs were 2 days previously, and the fifth was posted at 09:56, 3 hours prior to the final warning at 12:47 which he had respected. Having been warned, he took the matter to ANI (19:46), and was rejected; he had not reposted the problem edits, nor seemed to have acted disruptively. Nonetheless at 20:25 you blocked him for disruption because of those edits. They all took place prior to a warning he had evidently heeded.
2. Duration of block - You blocked for a week, which is quite a period. But his last block on either account appears to have been almost 18 months earlier in 2007 . (Another account listed July and October 2008 blocks , but had been identified as "impersonation use" by grawp on Nov 15, and at that time this was not linked from NWA's block log.)
3. Locking of talk page - You stated that you would consider removal of the notice as edit warring. That was the sole action which led to his talk page being protected . Misplaced Pages:User page and communal norms suggest that any user may remove a notice once read, if they wish (it doesn't affect validity). Locking down a blocked user's page is not usual unless they are truly disruptive. There was no apparent disruptive editing to the talk page, and the only warning given was in an edit summary , not a visible post on his talk page itself.
4. Guideline recital - You explained your use of page protection at ANI on the grounds As late as last March, the policy had nothing at all to say about any kind of block/unblock notice . On checking, there is no substantive change between May 2007 , March 2008 (your cite) and November 21 2008 , in terms of the norms related to removal. Removal of warnings and comments is endorsed with the text "removal... is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" (this has been stated since May 2007). The current version of that guideline cautions against repeated restoration and adds some "important exceptions" only, but those aren't very applicable here. I don't see which part was added since March 2008 that affected the previous norms. Alternatively, it doesn't say much different now than in June 2007 for this.

Can you review these and let me know if in hindsight you feel that the user was handled well? My focus is not so much "blame", but more 1/ if there were issues then I'd like to make sure others aren't similarly affected in future, and 2/ while NWA may have had issues, I'd like not to see a user blocked or "blackened" if they had not really merited it in their actions.

FT2  07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi FT2, NWA put the same word-for-word text, noted for her large, natural breasts, into at least 5 BLPs, sometimes sourced to a tabloid/gossip site, sometimes not, giving no hint at ANI or anywhere else that he would stop making these kinds of pointy, disruptive and unencyclopedic edits in the long term. I saw meaningful harm looming before the project (mostly as needlessly wasted volunteer time for clean-ups) and a a dodgy block log (I know he would disagree with my calling it that) along with a growing consensus at ANI for a block and I didn't know NWA was a candidate for arbcom at the time. I only blocked for a week because the last block in his log had been so long ago.

Nonetheless, three hours after blocking him, I offered to unblock NWA. He chose neither to contest the block nor to take me up on my offer to unblock.

I must say, had I known he was a candidate for arbcom, I would not have blocked, however, in not blocking, I would have quietly thought to myself that not going ahead with a block was wrong, that I was needfully playing Misplaced Pages politics and skirting a kerfluffle. Should we ask the developers to put a notice on the block dialogs of arbcom candidates, members and former members that it might be untowards to block them for anything at all other than straight vandalism without, say, an RfC or a few days' discussion on a board?

Do you think you'd be reviewing this block if NWA were not a candidate for arbcom? If you think not, then I don't think there's much more to say, since I know you and I agree all editors on Misplaced Pages are under the same sway of policy (if anything, arbcom candidates, members and former members are under much keener sway) and it would be unfair to the community to handle NWA's block otherwise. Truth be told, I can't see any likelyhood at all that you would be reviewing this block if NWA had not been a candidate for arbcom. While I think you're mistaken (wholly so) in very, very good faith and that you don't mean to be unfair (rather, I think you're trying to be thoroughly fair, thoughtful and widely helpful to the project), I believe the outcome is that this review is very unfair to the community and very unfair to me.

As for my having disabled his talk page, I was still trying to write a thorough block notice, with diffs and fit reasoning in addition to the block template, when he began deleting it, which looked to me like a blocked user edit warring over a block notice before it was even done being written. I was leaving to go out for dinner and so I clearly posted at ANI that any admin could re-enable his talk page if need be, hence I don't think worries about this are worth the fuss, never mind he then posted a string of personal attacks on his talk page. In almost 5 years of editing this website I'd never seen a removed block notice that wasn't quickly restored during the block and hence, I indeed thought it was policy or at least an acknowledged, uncontroversial practice. I was much startled to learn it wasn't written down somewhere and my comments in the aftermath, about the history of the policy page, can be taken as nothing more than my trying to grok the missing branch between what I'd always seen in practice and what was written in policy all these years. I still learn something new and helpful almost every time I edit this website in the volunteer time I have to give. Anyway, if I've missed something we can talk about this more if you like. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's more like, I noticed him because of Alex from L.A., and as you say because of his cadidacy (I posted questions, went back to read them, found he'd retired, went to see why). But the "how it got noticed" is secondary.

My concerns were when I read it, I went (as automatic) to check the backing diffs not just the posts - and found they didn't support a block (he'd stopped after warning). I noticed his talk page was disabled and was familiar enough with norms on notice removal to think "that's very odd". I looked for the rationale, found it referenced March's WP:UP and checked that for myself and found nothing unusual seemed to have gone on there for 18 months. That's when I figured "huh. let's ask." None of these fitted with what I'm used to -- blocks being necessary, shorter blocks if no recent history of issues, notice removal allowed, and so on. Hence... questions. FT2  19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw a meaningful likelihood of further disruption, given his answers after the warning. The disabled talk page, I've told you about, I might also say, I'd never had someone rm a block notice while I was still writing it. By the way, he's now put a suicide metaphor (at least I take and hope it to be metaphor) on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If a similar situation comes up in future, in most cases wait until the further problem conduct has actually happened (or is threatened), not "might be going to happen". Wait till someone posts a further attack, or ignores the warning, don't "jump the gun". Generally, a week for the first block in 18 months for something like this, is probably a bit long. 24 - 48 hours maybe. Enough to give a hint, then watch what happens. They learn, or they repeat, basically. As regards talk page lock-down, generally I'd reckon don't unless they are a "reincarnated" abuser who is unlikely at all to use the page productively, or is actively abusing it (repeat attacks, abuse of unblock requests, threats, etc.

Some tips if this kind of thing comes up again :)

Last, would you be okay if I dropped NWA a note on his talk page or by email saying that I don't fully agree, but it's history and hopefully he'll learn from it? Or how would you reckon's best? FT2  19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok that you don't agree there was a likelihood he would carry on disrupting articles, given my reading of his posts after the warning. I hadn't said earlier, had his block log had something recent, I would have blocked indef, pending talking it out with him. Also please keep in mind, a consensus was building for a block at ANI and afterwards, the only worries were not over the block, but the disabled talk page, which, again, came about only because he removed the block notice while I was still writing it: I said at the time, any admin could re-enable the talk page at need (since I was going to be gone for awhile). He never contested the block and didn't take me up on my offer to unblock him, which I made 3 hours after the block, when I got back in. Either way, thanks for the input FT2, it has made me think about this more, which, whatever sway it may have for me, has been helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we're all in this project together, so it won't always be 100% agreement. Its not so much he would or wouldn't have, more that as a norm avoid blocking unless there's an active need. That someone's done it recently may mean nothing if they have apparently stopped. if they aren't doing anything but you're concerned they might, warn them ("I see you have done X, I am concerned you might continue, if you do you will probably be blocked") - if they resume, then its easy to use the tools. Anyhow, good to chat about it - thanks! FT2  19:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• The one week block for disruption was not unreasonable at all. User:Friday had suggested a community ban, and there was substantial community support for the block. These are judgment calls where reasonable administrators may differ on how to handle matters. I the discussion, I said, "Those reverting the user on his own talk page were wrong. Criticism, even if incorrect, is not necessarily a personal attack. See WP:WOLF. I recommend letting the user have their rant. Hopefully they will calm down and return later. " On two prior occasions I have gone to bat for NWA.rep, so you could say that I am sympathetically inclined towards them. (Once I investigated User:Ideogram who had been harassing them, and got Ideogram community banned, and in the second case I endorsed a lifting of ArbCom sanctions against NWA's former account.) The matter seems to have been resolved through discussion on the noticeboard. I am not sure it is productive to rehash things again. Jehochman 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Except there was no disruption going on and hadn't been for a while - at least since having been warned. Instead the user's response to warning was, they had taken it to dispute resolution (ANI in this case although clumsily). This action evidences that as at Nov 21, they had seen the warning and decided to seek help appropriately rather than just repost the offending edits. A user who has visibly ceased disruptive edits is not usually later blocked for them (unless they look likely to resume). FT2  20:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think "clumbsily" may be an understatement. Those posting attacks on ANI are in grave risk of exhausting whatever patience the community might otherwise have for them. Note that I was on the scene myself and thought about whether to block the user, and decided not to. Jehochman 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is sad that there are still bytes being wasted discussing this editor, who has been edit warring (and playing the victim) for more than two and a half years now. The block was perfectly justified, and the next block should be indefinite. Kusma (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up re Misplaced Pages:AN#Conflict Of Interest

The above section is devoted to you, and considering the accusations of impropriety and disregard of policy directed at yourself I am rather surprised that the ip neglected to advise you that your actions were being commented upon... I shall be raising just that point, but otherwise am content for you to respond (or not) as you choose - that is, I am not concerned to investigate further as I doubt there is any substance. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Don't think I'll even bother answering, it's linked with the thread above this one. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed some content from that thread and emailed oversight. The IP user has been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy by some other administrator. Jehochman 19:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Following the open proxy thing up (bear with me, I don't understand the techy bits of proxies), is it certain this is a proxy? I ask because it was the ip themselves that placed the template; and I expressed concern at the AN discussion that the ip was baiting a trap to be blocked as same, which may have been a ploy so they could say they were unable to respond. If it was a proxy, I still wonder why the ip should make it their business to advertise the fact. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The template was placed by me at the same time I blocked it. Trust me it's an open proxy. -- zzuuzz 23:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You connected to it and added the template, didn't you? ;-) Very clever. Jehochman 07:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Danny Choo

Hello Gwen.

Did you read my comment in talk page of Danny Choo before speedy deleting it? I restored the article after seeking advice from two admins: my Admin coach Revolving Bugbear, and the previously deleting admin, Stifle, who gave me permission to restore the article on his talk page archived here.

In summary, I was advised by Revolving Bugbear that "if your article is substantially different from the deleted version / addresses the reasons for deletion, you can simply recreate and it's not eligible for CSD-G4". Stifle acknowledged that he had overlooked significant changes and gave me his blessing to restore the page. Do you disagree with his assessment? DOSGuy (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I looked it over and didn't think anything meaningful had changed. However, since you're an experienced editor and had already talked about it with two other admins, I'm more than happy to waive the G4. Thanks for bringing me up to speed on this and let me know if you need any more help. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your speedy reply. When I can approach an admin with my concerns and see them so swiftly acted upon, that tells me that the system works! DOSGuy (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, happy to hear I fooled ya! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yevgueni

Hello, You've deleted the Yevgueni article I created - don't worry, I have read your guide for people whose articles have been deleted and I can understand why you did it. I'd like to ask you if you can deliver me the text that was already written so that I can try to make it harder, better, faster and stronger. Cheers, Jellevc (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've put it at User:Jellevc/sandbox. It needs some kind of believable assertion of significance and some sources would help a lot. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IP with a vengence,

Since the attack on your userpages here, I've added a small list to the discussion you noted in the above thread.— Dædαlus /_Improve 00:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)`

LIBEL

Dear Gwen, I would like to ask for your assistance on a matter I am almost sure you will find of interest. In :

The Writer's Handbook 2007 published by MACMILLAN ISBN 1-4050-4937-5 ISBN 978-1-4050-4937-5

on page 512, in a chapter on the subject of Libel, entitled "The Words Complained Of ..." is the following passage. ( Taken from the end of line 7 onwards. )

Some errors pass into mythology. A British police officer called Morton collected damages on no less than three occasions from: W. H. Allen, Secker & Warburg, and Weidenfeld & Nicolson, for the repetition of the canard that he was responsible for the shooting in cold blood of Abram Stern the head of the Stern Gang.

In the Misplaced Pages article "Lehi (group)" in the second paragraph of the section "Evolution and tactics of the organization" occurs the following sentence.

In 1942, Stern, after he was arrested, was killed by Inspector Geoffrey Morton of the CID.

It is clear to me that the sentence in the article needs to be altered considerably but I am not sure how. Its removal would leave a hole in the narrative but I do not know the true facts nor do I know a source to verify them.

I am considering wether to take action myself but in a matter of such gravity I would prefer to place the matter in the hands of some one with higher authority, preferably with legal experience.

Thank you for giving this matter your attention. Best wishes,

Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a legal worry at all, it's only about content. You might want to bring it up on the article talk page. However, I wouldn't take The Writer's Handbook as a wholly reliable source as to who killed Cock Robin, much less Mr Stern. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

re:sig

I'll chalk that up to too much rum in my mojito. Best of luck! Chris 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my candidacy for arbcom

Y'all, I'm withdrawing my candidacy for arbcom. In looking over the first flurries of input, along with heedfully reading user talk pages for hours (and even a few threads about my candidacy elsewhere on the Internet), I've been thoroughly swayed into thinking my earlier thoughts held the pith. I'm not sorry I got nudged into running though. I enjoyed answering the candidate questions and have gained many insights. Please understand, it will be far more helpful for me to carry on doing what I already do, without further ado. Taken altogether, I'm kinda happy about this :) Thanks! Each and every one of you have my best wishes. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)