Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:58, 5 March 2012

Archives

2010 2011 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Disclaimer Any opinions expressed on Misplaced Pages, sister projects or in tweets and blog posts are mine and do not represent the opinion of Wikimedia UK or any other organization that I am affiliated with. – Fæ

Just quit already

You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This comment fits a coordinated pattern I have seen of personal homophobic harassment directed against me over the last month on Twitter, Misplaced Pages Review, email, Wikimedia Commons and Misplaced Pages. I would like those that keep an eye on my user page to take note and reflect on whether the harassment policies we have for the Wikimedia projects are able to act effectively or efficiently when anonymous accounts, low contribution sock puppet accounts and manipulative traveling circuses are used to attack members of our community. Not all such attacks are as obvious as this one. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just my 2 cents, I would have just WP:RBI and this thread wouldn't have existed to manifest that further. --Dave 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Too many people would not believe that this kind of talk exists if they did not see it. People who are not LGBT supporters do not have this happen to them. This has happened to me also on Misplaced Pages and it is scary that people would use their short time on this earth to harass other people. Hiding it in an attempt to keep it from manifesting further is what people have done for most of history, and that has proven to be an incomplete solution. I do not know what the whole solution is, but raising awareness of this reality is part of it. If it were an isolated random incident I would say to delete it, but it is not productive to ask the victims of a persistent, pervasive problem to do their best to prevent public disclosure of it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• True, but not applying WP:DENY (part of WP:RBI) is just playing right into their hands, no? Moral of the story, why play the victim card? In the 1969 film "Battle of Britain", an irritated ACM Sir Hugh Dowding said: "I'm not very interested in propaganda. If we're right, they'll give up. If we are wrong, they'll be in London in a week!" --Dave 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Where I live if anyone spoke those words publicly or graffiti'd them then then no one would say that Fæ was insulted or a victim of vandalism; they would say that he was threatened and the target of a hate crime. Of course things are different at the keyboard but this behavior is representative of deeper problems on Misplaced Pages and as Fæ says there ought to be conversation about other protections. A part of the LGBT rights movement as well as other rights movements for face, religion, and other traits facing discrimination dictates calling for wider recognition of the prejudice against people representing minorities. Fæ is not playing a victim card; he is acting in accord with the movement consensus that allies of minority groups should tell others details about targeted attacks so that more people can understand that this is not a problem that any attack recipient has, but rather a problem which the community has to address. If the community does not hear about it then there can be no community response.

The vandals which ought to be ignored are the ones who are likely to go away. Fæ's situation is extraordinary because among other things it includes attacks off Misplaced Pages. It may not be socially appropriate for him to say that for humility or for not wanting to disturb anyone with his problems, but I confirm that what he is experiencing is hostile for reasons unrelated to his Misplaced Pages behavior. Even if attacks cannot be stopped he should get community support beyond what Misplaced Pages policies say should be afforded to those visited by mere vandals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Grindr article re: stopracismandhomophobiaongrindr.tumblr.com

Hi there, yes I am indeed affiliated with the above tumblr. I am definitely interested in fair play though and am new to wikipedia (which means I reinstated the links you deleted before I noticed I had a message from you). I believe what I have written is factually correct - in the sense that I tried to take my emotions out and just report factual information. Regardless, I really would like your assistance in editing on wikipedia more "correctly". Here are the facts as I see them: 1. there is a strong push back by many in the Gay community against Grindr's anti-racism and-homophobia policies. 2. Grindr has been contacted about this issue many times. 3. Grindr has stated it does not think the offending language is offensive, despite numerous claims otherwise. So, please, how to procede. This debate has been occurring in the blogosphere and I have appeared on 2 radio stations about the issue. What I reported in the GRINDR article was truth, but obviously (at least it seems) someone didn't like it. Can you please elaborate more on how I can report these facts and not be considered pushing some false agenda? PS - I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO "SIGN" MY NAME HERE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamaflame (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Grindr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is very difficult for someone heavily involved in such an external dispute to contribute neutrally to an article in a way that is truely encyclopaedic (i.e. with a long term viewpoint and with neutral text that represents a fairly weighted summary of all relevant views). Just as it is a good idea for Grindr staff to avoid editing the article themselves, it is equally a good idea for anyone lobbying off-wiki for the organization to change policies to avoid injecting the same criticism into the article without some consensus for the changes. I suggest the following:

1. I revert the changes so far as they still depend on your tumblr site.
2. You take some time to write a neutral proposal for the criticism of Grindr on the article talk page and we allow at least 24 hours for comment. Grindr have policies that state they are against racism in profiles and this should be included.
3. You have referred to radio interviews and these and any other independent coverage would significantly enhance your argument. Please see WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) and reliable sources for guidance as to what might be a suitable source.

I do not believe you are pushing a false agenda, however you are pushing an agenda and so please be prepared to step back slightly and give time to present your case and ensure that it can be credibly verified, assessed in terms of suitable weight and not an issue for conflict of interest. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your response, it is appreciated and there wasn't any part of it I didn't agree with. I will take up your suggestions.Iamaflame (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi... did my time and learned a lesson or two... perhaps.

Hello. I did my time and perhaps learned something new. I understand that many people would agree in the way you presented eternal life (Christianity) and my previous approach could have lacked style and consensus. Alan347 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Please take care, you might wish to spend some time helping with non-religious topics of interest and give yourself a good track record before returning to areas where you feel so passionately that it might be hard to judge what others might see as a neutral point of view. --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thannks

Hello Fæ. Just wanted to leave a note of thanks for protecting George Harrison's article. I also wanted to let you know that I have posted requests at a couple wikiproject pages to try and get more input into the situation. Thanks again and have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 16:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Vjiced

This editor's edits need reviewing. Little things like the use of the M tag for major edits, big things such as finding a 'minor' edit with a huge chunk of copyvio. I've made a slight start but am busy a lot of today in real life. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also edits such at this one - not well sourced, but my main complaint is that it not only doesn't seem worthwhile adding to the article, the way it was added is clearly pov, not just adding a description of Bilderberg that is pov but the section itself. I have seen a lot of addtions to biographies that they attended Bilderberg written in a pov manner. Ever so often I do a search and clear them up. Glad you caught the scribd thing, we should never link to them because of copyvio issues, let alone the fact that we don't know if the copy matches the original. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bilderberg Group and the List of Bilderberg participants is a very long term problem due to endless speculation on gossip sites about who might go to these meetings and various classic (non-notable) conspiracy theories as a result. I spent some time poking at this stuff a year ago and it seems relatively stable now. Unfortunately some folks get excited after doing a Google search and start re-adding the same dubious websites and unverifiable claims. I'll take a bit of time to re-review contributions by User:Vjiced (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and see if they need more advice. They do seem to be running into problems but I don't think this was intentional, just misguided. --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done — some pointers given on their talk page. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The editor is still adding copyvio despite my warning, and take a look at which is an obvious BLP violation and pov edit. I am considering an indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the copyvio turned out to have a creative-commons licence, and I'm not sure what we do about copy and paste in that instance. I should know, but don't. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the diff example. If stuff is taken from the Bilderberg website of a creative nature, then it is all rights reserved. Is there some other source here I should compare with? I can certainly see POV problems (not of a ghastly type) but it would be any copyvio that would lead to a quick block considering they have had a last warning already. --Fæ (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And now blocked for 48 hours for copyvio - I asked Moonriddengirl what she thought and she blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bahrani people

Hello Fae,

you have half-protected the article Bahrani people due to the edit warring there. I am not sure whether this is the right measure, as one of the warriors is a signed-in user, User:Ashrf1979. Since I have tried to start a discussion on the talk page and put OR templates on the disputed sections, Ashrf has even removed the OR tags instead of joining the discussion, even though I have addressed him/her personally on the user talk page. I have never ever seen Ashrf posting on any discussion page and the user seems to show indications of article ownership. Could you provide a remedy to this problem? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just commented on the article talk page. If the problem cannot be resolved through informal discussion, then mediation might be in order. I'm a bit busy to spend time on this myself, but the ways of seeking independent help are described at Dispute resolution but simple remedies such as raising a specific RFC might help make a consensus completely unambiguous for all interested parties.

Anyway, please do consider thinking through a proposal of this sort on the talk page (it would probably be smart to stick to the high ground and avoid editing the article while running such a proposal). If needed I will fully protect for a week while everyone discusses it, but it would be a lot better for everyone to calm down and let the consensus process work itself out without taking such embarrassing measures. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Landmark Trust Lundy Island Philatelic Archive

Fae, I am close to finishing the remaining BL Philatelic Department stubs. Do you want to release the above article, even if it is only as a stub, then I can let them know that we are ready to go to stage two, so to speak, and do the hard bit of actually filling them in? (They have managed to recruit an additional collaborator who is retired and can give it some time). Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Good work. I forgot that I had this sitting in my drafts for so long. Now moved to Landmark Trust Lundy Island Philatelic Archive. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my file - why?

Heya, I'm a newby to Wiki, and I have seen, that you've deleted my file cornerstone_somewhere_in_america.jpg, which I have uploaded recently. Just wanted to know, why, and on which way I'll upload it correctly? I'm the creator and artwork-owner of the image, just for the records...which licence should I use, and on which way I'll get my file into the article? Thx for your respond, mozzer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrissey1976 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this is confusing. There was a message on the file page about speedy deletion. The issue was the statement "Only non-commercial or educational use of this file is permitted" which is not possible for images uploaded to the English Misplaced Pages unless a fair use rationale applies. Please find below the original message which provides a full explanation. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you created this media file and want it to be kept on Misplaced Pages, remove this message and replace this with {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want it to be used on Misplaced Pages, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may replace this message with one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

Doctors Medical Center and Seton Medical Center

Good afternoon, I am trying to have these added to DYK and improve and expand them. I was wondering if I could get some feedback or peer review from you?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 2012 Kids' Choice Awards, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

2012 Kids' Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Ucla90024 (talk · contribs), could you please sign your edits, particularly if you are handing out user warning templates so easily. With regard to this warning you have reverted dubious material into the article with your changes diff. Could you supply an unambiguous source for "Buttkicker" as an award? You have added http://www.nick.com/kids-choice-awards/2012/nominees as a reference, but the page this takes me to, does not appear to support the information you are footnoting. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

regarding your block reduction

Hi Fae - I was surprised to see you reduce that block on User:PaoloNapolitano. I would, and do, consider you involved concerning anything to do with wikipedia review and would appreciate it if in future you left such related admin actions to others. PaoloNapolitano is also quacking loudly - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_3#Proposal_by_PaoloNapolitano is quite revealing, and it is only a matter of time before his previous restricted account is revealed.Youreallycan 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I have no prior involvement with PaoloNapolitano or their Misplaced Pages contributions related to this block. Perhaps you are confusing for one of the Misplaced Pages administrators that writes on Misplaced Pages Review? You will note that both PaoloNapolitano and the administrator that gave the original indefinite block against them are satisfied with my use of the administrator tools.

If you believe that someone is in breach of the Sock puppetry policy, please use Sockpuppet investigations and supply the relevant evidence. Considering your total number of edits to Misplaced Pages is similar to or may exceed mine, I feel certain that you are experienced with the process and fully understand why it is not acceptable to make sock puppetry allegations about other contributors here on my user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A disappointing reply. You are clearly involved in issues related in any way to the wikipedia review. Paolo is here attacking the review and its users, a position you clearly are involved in . I have let you know my concerns, the next time you take an admin action in this area I will report you. Youreallycan 17:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing other people making personal and sexual allegations about me off-wiki with me being involved with PaoloNapolitano. I suggest you refrain from making any further allegations against others on my user talk page or threats of possible action. I am not interested in getting drawn in your drama, particularly in consideration of your long history of apparent personal difficulty in taking an objective approach with gay related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what this discussion about your admin action has to do with gays? Youreallycan 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

De wha?? That went from normal to strange in less than a couple posts.VolunteerMarek 19:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see that you had reduced the block. I have asked for a review of your unblock on ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no involvement of Fae with an image copyright dispute or a sockpuppetry allegation. Just because WR mounts a smear campaign against an admin doesn't mean that he should be ineligible to weigh in on any case where an editor has made an anti-WR comment, even when those comments are not in any way involved with the block. P.S. I was surprised not to find anything in - was there an investigation? How was it decided that IP was PauloNapolitano anyway? Wnt (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A request to relinquish your tools

As far as I can tell you're not one of the admins open to recall. However, in some circumstances I think it is reasonable to invoke the "admins open to recall" procedure even in cases where a particular administrator has not identified themselves as such. This is what I'm doing here. I am asking you to step down as an administrator and run for reconfirmation. I think a good part of the community has lost faith in you as an administrator (though not necessarily a Misplaced Pages editor) and has become uncomfortable with you continuing in your role as an administrator. Of course your contributions to the project are still very much appreciated.

The reasons for this request are as follows:

• You were a subject of a recent RfC/U where several concerns over the way that your confirmation was made were highlighted. As far as I can tell you stayed away from this discussion, which, while commendable in terms of avoiding drama, also left these questions wide open.
• You made a ill-judged decision to unblock an obvious disruptive user simply because s/he was attacking users that you yourself had antagonistic relations with. Using the most charitable of terms this can be described as "cynical". Or in Misplaced Pages language WP:BATTLEGROUND.

In particular, the second aspect illustrates pretty clearly that you either lack the kind of judgement necessary to be an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages, or are not self aware enough to know when to consider yourself "involved" or not.

Of course I am not 100% impartial in this spat (I formed an opinion at some point, while reading through all the archives, and I am expressing it here) - though I've never been in any kind of dispute with you and I very much fall into the category of "uninvolved", as defined by Misplaced Pages (a definition which you yourself invoked recently). If my sense of community feelings is wrong then you will be reconfirmed. But I don't think that would be the case - it's pretty clear that were you to run for adminship right here and now you would not pass by a mile. And that means that this request has merit.

Do the Roman thing.

Thanks.VolunteerMarek 07:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment

Fae, I am sorry that you still seem to be undergoing harassment on enwp, and I am sickened by the fact that the Arbcom is totally spineless in doing anything about it. As someone who has undergone systematic and serial harassment myself in the past on this project, I am just letting you know that this is not on; one would have thought the community would have learned by now; but no, this community really does not give a shit. Ignore the trolls and keep doing what you are doing! Russavia 13:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)