Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:25, 30 September 2012

Welcome to my Talk page.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Help request

User:Avanu, never had direct communiation w/ you. I see from reading Still* talk, that you understand and believe in BLP policy, and express your ideas sharply and clearly. That is what I need. I need help on the BLP issue, because my understanding is uncertain, and I'm looking to learn, and am confused. Can you help me get an understanding?

I came across what I thought was an obvious BLP violation, a Youtube video accusing a BLP subject of misdeed, I removed the material, opened a Talk section on it, but without any discussion the material was restored and I was criticized for removing the material. (My first learning lesson: did I do wrong? or right?) Then the article was subsequently added to. (Which I still don't think justifies keeping the accusatory Youtube video in the BLP, but now the issue has been changed, and before dealing with it, I'd like to first confirm or correct my understanding as above. Also, I am having difficulty getting any discussion going on my BLP concerns, after opening an item on at BLPN, and having some exchanged postings with an admin user who added the additional material changing the issues somewhat. He appeared to be open to discuss, but I can't get it going and don't know what the problem is even though I've started my discussion concerns and reminded him too.)

This is all very confusing to me and I'm looking for help as right now I'm very confused about how to handle a BLP concern since I seem to "not exist".

The article is Dawn Marie Psaltis. The admin referred to is User talk:Nightscream.

Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a look and removed that entire section. It is based on poor sourcing and tit-for-tat primary sources. This is honestly terrible Misplaced Pages writing. The quote from Nightscream of "Relying on YouTube videos created by people who are not themselves considered RS's or notable is not appropriate, and I have indeed removed such videos when cited as sources. But when the creator of the video is themselves a notable person, that makes it appropriate, IMO." This is an awful statement, especially coming from an Administrator. To quote WP:PRIMARY: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" You don't get to decide its 'ok' because James Earl Jones said it. If it is not published in a reliable, non-primary source, it RARELY gets used. For example, how do we *know* that retired wrestler Kamala has his facts in order? Maybe he is being misled by someone else. Maybe he is unaware that he received a donation. There are lots of possibilities, and to avoid us deciding who is trustworthy as a primary source and who isn't, we choose to rely on secondary sources. The same is true of Dawn Marie and her charity. How do we know she is being honest with us? She has a conflict of interest and would want to promote her own interests. Again, we rely on WP:Reliable Sources, not just shoddy newswork or primary sources where we cannot be sure of the facts. Complicating this is the fact that it is a biographical article, and unquestionably falls under WP:BLP. I cannot in good conscience, add a poorly sourced allegation of criminal fraud to an article, no matter how notable the person making the allegation is. It is irresponsible, and potentially opens Misplaced Pages to lawsuits. We don't want to waste money fighting lawsuits at Misplaced Pages because we end up libelling someone. Good sources are paramount here. Also, one final point. Nightscream may be an admin, but he is involved in the content here, and as such, is prohibited from acting under the color of administrative power with regard to this article. So, you should simply treat him as you would any other editor -- respectfully, but not wary of him hitting you with administrative sanctions. But you should still follow policy no matter who you're dealing with. -- Avanu (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Avanu, thank you very much. (Much more than I "bargained" for. Education and intervention!) This is an opportunity for me to learn some things about BLP policy and sourcing policy, and WP itself, as a number of little things, some of the surrounding details, still puzzle me and I think you could help me (quick answers are fine) if you have time, or time-permitting ...

Q1: I did not "buy" User:Nightscream's argument, that because Kamala was himself notable, that therefore an accusatory Youtube video made by Kamala can be included in the BLP as a ref. (That argument didn't make sense to me, since it would allow untold number of such refs to be added, which due to absurdity shows something is very wrong with that argument for keeping.) But rather than my argument, yours for discluding was that the Kamala vid is a primary source. (I think I didn't think of that because my understanding of primary source in the context of the BLP on Psaltis would be something and only something direct from her, about her. But I see now is that "primary" is not relative to the article subject, but relative to the ref itself. So Kamala is referencing himself as an authority as to what his message is in the vid, and so it is a primary source. )

Okay, here's the Q1 ... User:Nightscream added a ref to an article at cagesideseats.com, but I looked at the article and all it was, was a wrestler site member contributing voluntarily an "article" on the site about the existence of the Kamala video, and his personal postulations about it. Okay question ... although that seems tacky and worthless in and of itself, it does take Kamala out of the loop of getting attenion to his self-made video on Youtube, and now a "secondary source" has noted it exists. To me that still seems totally worthless, and I told User:Nightscream that a reference asserting that the video exists (which is all the ref really did) isn't necessary, since the video exists on Youtube, and doesn't need any ref attempting to further support that it exists. User:Nightscream never answered. So I'm left puzzled, what he thought the purpose was to add that ref. (Was it because it is a third party talking about the Kamala vid, and not Kamala himself? Ignoring for a minute the lack of value or allowability of the Kamala video?)

(In other words, was there any basis or purpose of the cagesideseats.com ref, consistent with BLP policy, even if it failed for other reasons, or lack of quality, etc.?)

Q2: User:Nightscream, after my revert of the Kamala Youtube video ref, and after another user's re-add of that ref, added an additional ref regarding Psaltis's *reply* to Kamala's accusatory video. And then after adding that ref, gave me argument that (and I'm paraphrasing) "it is a little hard to include the Psaltis response, without also including the Kamala video, so there's context for Psaltis's response". Well, that argument didn't make much sense to me, and even seemed disingenuous, since, the Kamala video had been added, and re-added, way prior to any ref regarding a response from Psaltis. (So, the response ref from Psaltis seemed to be added for the purpose and function of supporting retention of the Kamala accusatory video. Had there been interest to have the Psaltis response in the article firstly, then of course there would be need for context, specifically the Kamala accusation; however, that was not the order, the horse seems before the cart in User:Nightscream's argument. I thought his argument was peculiar, but then I realized he was proponent for keeping in the incendiary Youtube accusation against Psaltis, so, at that point I was feeling his argument was not only peculiar but also manipulative.)

You removed the Psaltis response ref, on the basis that it is also a primary not secondary source. Is this true, even though a website is reporting the fact of her response? (I know there is no analysis there; just an indication her response exists, I believe.)

Q3: So I can learn something here, let's assume the Psaltis response ref and the Kamala accusatory ref were *not* primary, but quality secondary sources. I was wondering, if such an accusation and response, belong in the BLP at any rate? (WP:DUE, etc.) User:Nightscream and another user obviously felt strongly they wanted the Kamala accusation in the article, but, the article is a BLP, I'm sure the BLP subject has had a rich life with many things happening in it, at what point is the judgement correct, that "this is significant enough that it belongs in the BLP"? (To me, the accusation seems like a tacky, undocumented, worthless event. No lawsuits have been filed, I think. The fact that Psaltis responded to the accusation, isn't a conclusive measure, in my view, that the incident has "gotta be in the BLP". No. (But I wouldn't know how to go about making that argument with said editors, had the refs been reliable. Just the fact there are reliable refs doesn't trump WP:UNDUE, right? Or appropriateness for a BLP, right?)

In summary for Q3: Is there policy that guides inclusion (if the refs were reliable) other than WP:UNDUE? (And if the only guidance is WP:UNDUE, then, is it just a consensus of involvoed editors, what they feel is significant enough for the person's BLP? Because it seems a good chance of being vague and subjective, yes?)

Q4: In Q3 I asked, even if the refs were reliable, how is it determined if it is really significant enough (WP:UNDUE) to include in the article. In Q4, I'm wondering, *when* does such inclusion of material, go into the *other person's* BLP? (Example: Donald Trump has accused Barack Obama of not presenting an authentic birth certificate in secondary source reports. Obama responded in a news conference which covered the release of his birth certificate. It should please User:Nightscream, that Donald Trump is a notable person with an accusation, and in this case the sources are secondary and reliable. However, *nowhere* in the Barack Obama BLP is even one word about the accusation, or even one word about Obama's response. (Instead, the accusation refs, and Obama's response refs, are contained in the Donald Trump BLP.) So, had User:Nightscream decided to discuss with me, he would have faced this consistency question. (I.e., if the accusatory material, and response, is to be included somewhere, why in the BLP article of the accused, Psaltis? Why not, as in the case of Trump versus Obama, in the accuser's BLP, in Kamalas BLP? What justifies allowing Kamala's accusation in the Psaltis article, when Trump's accusation has been completely excluded from the Obama article, and is instead located in the Trump article?)

Summary for Q4: Is it "matter of choice" where to include accusatory/potentially incendiary material? Or is the example of birth certificate accusation (Trump versus Obama) that way for a reason, according to guideline, policy, or good BLP writing? Or what?

Q5: I never felt in danger of any sanction by admin User:Nightscream, but, since he was admin, I did assume that he would know BLP policy very well (because I have seen the knowledge expectations in RfAs regarding candidates screened for the mop). User:Nightscream passed RfA, so I assumed if he made any mistake regarding something important as BLP policy, it would be a nuance of interpretation, small error. But this does not seem to be the case. (Rather, he seems to have made several glaring errors.) How can this be explained? (I'm puzzled. The vetting at RfA is more thorough than that.) It crossed my mind that since User:Nightscream was an advocate for including the accusatory Kamala Youtube video, and provided a ref of Psaltis's response after-the-fact, then gave argument for inclusion of the Kamala video based on the necessity of provding a context in the presence of the Psaltis response ref, well, as mentioned that argument seems backward.

A consideration which would explain all of this, is if User:Nightscream had a POV on the matter. But, I did not think that, or believe that, since, ... he is admin. (Even though "involved", I would think the fact he knows he is admin, that to push incendiary material in a BLP in violation of policy for servicing his own personal POV on the subject, would be taboo. So I never thought or concluded this was the explanation. But! That leaves me without explanation, for how an admin, can make so many serious errors in this case. I did not look at the history of his RfA. )

Summary of Q5: How could User:Nightscream screw up so badly?!

Q6: When I removed the Kamala accusatory video Youtube ref, I left an edit summary explaning why. Q: Is my understanding correct, that because of the violation of BLP policy, I wasn't required to leave the edit summary? (I know it is good practice to always leave an edit summary. But technically, would I have been also well within policy, if I simply reverted without summary?)

Q7: Immediately after I removed the Kamala accusatory video Youtube ref, I opened a Talk section and gave further explanation there. A user came in and, without any discussion at the article Talk, re-added the material. (Reverted my removal.) Then the user started criticising me at the article Talk section.

Am I correct in noting, that the user was in violation of policy in several ways? ... 1) For re-adding the material in violation of BLP? 2) For edit-warring, by reverting without discussion at article Talk? (The material had previously been removed, without edit summary, by an IP user. The user that reverted me, re-added the material, and claimed the action by the IP user was vandalism. So when I removed the Youtube video ref, it was the second time that matieral had been removed ; I was the second editor to remove it, not the first. So when the editor re-added the ref after my removal, without discussion, it was the second time he did so, and he ignored my edit summary which was an invitation to article Talk.)

Summary: Wasn't he responsible for "edit-warring"?

(And if so, User:Nightscream, an admin, never cautioned him, or mentioned it. I would like to understand.)

Q8: After I removed the Youtube video ref, and opened a Talk section, and was reverted by the user who re-added the material without discussion, the user then came to the article Talk section and started making ad hominem and personal attacks. Was this contrary to policy too? (And again, User:Nightscream, an admin who arrived subsequently, apparently didn't find it appropriate, to caution the user, even though I mentioned to User:Nightscream several times that I wasn't too pleased to be on receiving end of such hostility.)

Summary: What's going on with User:Nightscream, and admin, to not notice, to not advise the user?

Q9: After I removed the Youtube video ref, and opened a Talk section, and was reverted by the user who re-added the material without discussion, and after the user then came to the article Talk and started making ad hominem and personal attacks, ... I think I responded to the user calmly. But I decided there was little chance of getting any agreement or consensus with him, regarding the BLP violation. (He insisted there was no violation, that the Youtube video ref should stay in the article because Kamala's accusation was reported in the news a lot, and because he also knew that Psaltis had also responded to the accusations . He then suggested to me to go find additional sources that would support the retention of the accusatory Youtube video ref in the article!) So, what I did, was open an item on WP:BLPN.

Summary: Was that the proper thing to do? (User:Nightscream had not made appearance at the article at that point. Only after I opened a thread at BLPN.) Or should I have done RfC? Or WP:WQA? Or ... what?? (Did I do the correct thing by opening a BLPN?)

Q10: When I opened the BLPN item, there was never any response from anyone other than User:Nightscream at the BLPN thread. (User:Nightscream did not discuss there, but asked to move discussion to the article Talk, where I was already on receiving end of ad hominem attacks and personal attacks. I mentioned several times to User:Nightscream, that I wanted to discuss the BLP issue, but preferred to do it at his User talk. He never replied in the negative to that request, and I'm sure my requests to discuss at his Talk were clear. I was never able to get any discussion from him on the BLP issue. (Perhaps he's been busy. I am not making any accusation here. But he's been active on WP, and, in spite of numerous requests from me to continue the discussion re the BLP issue, he never responded that he was busy, or noted my request to conduct discussion later, or assure me in any way the discussion could take place with him at any point. Instead, he left things hanging.)

The only recourse I can know what to do under the circumstance, is rely on BLPN. (Is that correct? I know I wrote you and you settled the matter, but for this Q, pretend that didn't happen.) And if I were to return to the BLPN thread to get help there, to protect the Psaltis article, *how* does one get a response at the BLPN? (Are there BLP specialists, or admins, observing that board? Why didn't any of them respond, or help me, or check out what was happening? If there are observers of the BLPN that are qualified re BLP policy interpretation, how do I get their attention to respond, if I ever have occasion to go there again? )

Q11: After I removed the Youtube video ref, and opened a Talk section, and was reverted by the user who re-added the material without discussion, I did not revert the user since I did not want to "edit-war". Yet, WP policy WP:BLPREMOVE tells me to revert the material immediately. So, ... what if I had done so? (My best crystal-ball guess, is that the user who reverted my removal the first time, would have done so again, and given me another scolding. And if I reverted his re-restoration again, I guess he would have reverted me a third time. And so on, constituting an edit-war, where one or both users could be blocked for edit-warring disruption. But, according to policy, my reverts would not be counted toward any 3RR bright rule. So by policy then, am I exempt from a block based on edit-warring? Yet, in other places on WP I've read, to not participate in edit-wars, "even if you believe you are correct". So now policy at WP:BLPREMOVE is telling me to remove the material at once, but the latter advice is telling me to not do that action even though it is believed right. Which wins? Which is the correct instruction to follow? In this confusion, if I had followed WP:BLPREMOVE advice to revert the material immediately, and it didn't count toward 3RR, if an admin had spotted an edit-war at that point and blocked me, would the block have been removed because it was in error, or would the blocking admin justify keeping the block because I violated WP guideline of participating in edit-war "even though you believed you were right"?)

This is all very confusing, and I'd like to understand, when you have time to give feedback. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Q12: When you arrived and reverted the section, no one re-reverted you. Hypothetical: what if they had? (What if the user who reverted me, or User:Nightscream, had subsequently reverted you? What would you have done? Would you have re-removed the section? Or some other action?)

I like to understand this, to better understand how processes get back on the tracks after a derailment. And what consequences result in the wake. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

...

If I can get answers from you (short answers are perfectly fine for me, to save your time), I'll learn and mature as WP editor. Thank you, I appreciate! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow that was a lot of text... here's some answers:

Q3: It is ultimately up to the editors.

Q4: I think it is in Trump's because he said it, and left out of Obama's because he didn't say it. I think it is ultimately the call of the editors.

So in the Psaltis BLP, it was Kamala who said it (made the accusation). So if suit is followed, the accusation should be in Kamala's BPL. There was distinct effort by two editors to include it in Psaltis's BLP. What would be rational basis or criteria to choose, beyond what editors "want". (Isn't it true though, that to include in Psaltis article, is more problematical for WP, and harder to defend, than putting in the accuser's BLP? To protect BLPs, shouldn't incendiary material always go into the accusers BLP, if there's a choice? BLP?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Q5: Everyone messes up sometimes.

I notice too, when User:Nightscream added this cite to the article, he added the following text to the article, which is word-for-word and only differs from the cited source by the addition of a comma:

a public accounting of all funds handed out, and that they were not able to raise funds for Jerry Lynn because of the negative press from the Williams incident, and that all memorabilia collected was saved to be used for the next wrestler they helped.

(Isn't that violation of some basic WP policy related to plagiarism? And if I'm right about that, then this Admin has also "messed up" on an additional fundamental WP policy?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Q6: Leaving an edit summary helps you defend your edits.

Q7: Yep, that editor was *technically* edit warring. But most of the time we cut people slack on the first couple of such things. If it becomes a back and forth more than once though... you have to tread more carefully.

Q8: Yeah, policy says no personal attacks WP:NPA. Nightscream was acting in editor mode, not admin mode. There's no duty of any editor to stand up for other editors, but it is the polite thing to do.

Q9: If you can't get any reasonable discussion at a Talk page, opening a neutrally worded invitation for more eyes on the discussion is a good thing. Like you did at BLPN. If you try and bias the debate, or take the debate to several other unconnected pages and try to "win" there, it is called forum shopping. But if you simply ask people to come to the debate in progress, its just fine.

Q10: I think BLPN is one of the less viewed places. You end up seeing more attention at Jimbo Wales Talk page, or the Administrator's Noticeboards, but you never know what you'll get at any of these. Sometimes people will just ask other editors that they have crossed paths with to come and look at the debate. As long as you are neutral in the way you ask for them to come look, you are good. If you try and win the argument at their page, and then bring them over, it is forum shopping.

That's surprising (that BLPN is one of lesser-viewed places). Isn't that a bit weird, since WP has its own interest at stake (no lawsuits), on BLP articles? (The policies on BLP seem to stress how very important to follow them is. But if the BLPN board are little-watched ... it seems to be an inconsistency of priority. Curious: what accounts for the lack of participation on the BLPN board? Curious: Aren't posters there, like I was poster, frustrated at lack of responsiveness from that board? Is anything in the works to fix patrolling at BLPN? And last: If I'd opened up a section at AN/I, wouldn't a likely response have been to go to BLPN instead? This is a bit confusing!)

Q11: With BLP and the edit warring exception, it is really just a matter of interpretation. The safest thing is to treat it just barely different, and use a lot of boldness in your attitude, but not so much in your actions. :) The safer thing for you as an editor is to not get sucked into an edit war, even if you think policy makes you right. There is an Edit Warring noticeboard, and the BLP noticeboard, if you think someone is causing problems.

That's really weird! (Because it seems, even in the clearest case of BLP violation under WP:BLPREMOVE, and even if the removing editor is top-notch in his understanding of BLP policy, an admin could still block him, even though WP:BLPREMOVE instructs a user to remove the offending material "immediately", for the very important protection of both BLP subject, and Misplaced Pages. (It seems the violator of the BLP policy, is set up to dominate -- by the time needed to go to a noticeboard, and generate a discussion, especially on the slow-moving BLPN. It seems Misplaced Pages, if it genuinely had interests of the BLP subject at stake, and Misplaced Pages itself, then somehow that favor should be built into the policy, otherwise, the good faith exercise of WP:BLPREMOVE, could end up getting an editor blocked, even though he was right, even though he knew what he was doing, because an admin didn't like the look of "edit-warring". Wouldn't it be better to build into the policy more benefit of the doubt for the removing editor, erroring on the side of protecting both BLP subject and Misplaced Pages? Or do each of the individual admins know that the conservative action should be given benefit of the doubt, other things being equal?) .

Q12: If someone had reverted me, I would probably have boldly reverted them *ONE TIME*, but after that, I would have worked in ways to break down their arguments and make them come to my 'turf'. Part of the thing that helped me is that I know policy fairly well, I was very pushy and bold in my address to Nightscream. And, most importantly... I got lucky that they were willing to listen, and that RedPen came along as well. There's no magic to it. Sometimes people will all be jerks and you'll be drawn into the mess. You have to steer clear of that stuff and know when to drop it, when to complain to a noticeboard, and when to push back. But in any event, steer clear of getting sucked into a mess too far. -- Avanu (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's edit-warring on a BLP violation like this, I just had thought: maybe an admin, who might pose a sanction to stop the edit war, should impose a stiffer sanction, than normal edit war, due to higher importance (presumed) ascribed to BLPs and WP's (presumed) serious interest to keep them right. Anyway, thanks, it's been helpful to pick your brain what would you do etc., I apprediate your answers. (I can see you've lots of experience, so it's fastest way for me to learn protocol, to ask you. Thx again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Steven Zhang 23:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback Noleander

You didn't build that article.

Hi Avanu, I left a note at the article talk page. I was wondering why you would edit the article to change what reliable sources and the Whitehouse transcript report? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply to you there, I guess. -- Avanu (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up that if you revert again, you will probably be blocked for 3rr. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

For your time and patience. Jim1138 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	District of Columbia Republican primary, 2012			Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
	Nimruz Province			Women in Libya
	Antistatic agent			Mormon Miracle Pageant
	Alaska Republican caucuses, 2008		Merge
	Pashtany Bank			Ancient Iranian peoples
	Captain Cupcake			Birth control in the United States
	Saladin Province			Ivory Wave
	Edward DeMarco		Add sources
	Mohammed Zaman			Perfection (Latter Day Saints)
	Sikhism in Afghanistan			Taliban insurgency
	Delaware Republican primary, 2008			Al Wefaq National Islamic Society
	Qargha Reservoir		Wikify
	Islamic Dawah Organisation of Afghanistan			Patricia Sullivan (tea party)
	New York Republican primary, 2008			American Association of Poison Control Centers
	Gihan Ibrahim			W. John Walsh
	People's Council of Syria		Expand
	Pia de Solenni			United States presidential election in Kansas, 2008
	Vermont elections, 2008			New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009
	Sirajuddin Haqqani			United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method at religion, and specifically Christianity-related, articles

Hi, Avanu. You might want to weigh in here and/or here. 94.76.201.77 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My user page

The discussion has been had numerous times: my userpage is fine. dangerouspanda 23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Where? You reference that it has been "approved"; who are you referencing? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I just saw an instance where you were using your sig "dangerouspanda" and getting onto an editor and claiming Admin status as the reason. I don't see any reason being given as to why you have this alternate account with a misleading signature and your obfuscate your other username. The behavior I'm seeing reminds me of the stuff we deal with when we have a tenditious IP playing games. If you want to be an admin on EatsShootsAndLeaves, then ask for the bit to be moved over. Also, if you want to be an admin period, stop using a signature that is misleading people into thinking your username is "dangerouspanda". I've tried to come up with some rational reason that an admin would behave like this, and I'm not coming up with anything reasonable. I await your rationale. -- Avanu (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed admin status anywhere. Period. Also, our sig/username policy explicitly permits sigs like this...not meant to obfuscate anything, it's simply easier than changing the name dangerouspanda 09:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

dangerouspanda 11:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're too WP:INVOLVED to make that close an ANI. See my talkpage. dangerouspanda 10:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved. I told you my concern, and as an adult, I expect you to do what you wish with it. My involvement was done at that point. If you exhibit behavior that is out of line for an editor in the future, that might be a new concern, but I've closed the book on your previous actions. I would have thought that was made perfectly clear by my posts on the matter. -- Avanu (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, seriously - you cannot see how you're the cause of his current behavour? You continue to make him believe I have done something wrong - which I haven't. It was your mistaken comments on my talkpage weeks ago, and now your suggestion to him that I need to change it are continuing problems by setting incorrect expectations. How much more involved can you be? Hey, if you're able to get him to strikethough and retract his threat (which is a clear, unambiguous threat) and to get him to leave me the fuck alone, then I'll possibly regain some respect for you. Until then, you're enabling his harassment. dangerouspanda 10:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't close an ANI thread when you are involved in the discussions around it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The involvement is only perceived by him. I was done with this a long time ago. He and Jason are fighting and my goal in closing that AN/I was to help them work it out, not beat each other up. But so be it. -- Avanu (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NO Avanu, I am not fighting. I am the victim of harassment, and it needs to be stopped; period. dangerouspanda 11:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So, if I understand this correctly, you *both* feel like the other one has or is harrassing you. You *both* feel like the other one is doing something wrong. Can you both just shut up? Seriously. If it is related to this topic, I'm kind of done helping either of you. Figured you guys could see past the silliness a while ago, but it will probably take some threats before you both just shut up and stop whining. -- Avanu (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(Chuckles) Sorry you got caught up in this whirlwind Avanu, but I do thank you for your good will and motive to resolve things between us.   — Jason Sosa 11:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it that an admin gets harassed? lol. I think the concept is quite funny.   — Jason Sosa 11:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment: some admins do get harassed, and it's not very funny. Over the years there has been some pretty serious stalking sparked by wiki-conflicts. (Not to say that's the case here, though). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Understandable.   — Jason Sosa 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Puerto Rico Republican primary, 2012			List of military operations in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
	Ministry of Education (Afghanistan)			Ahmed Wali Karzai
	Gary Varvel			Dearborn, Michigan
	Kabul–Kandahar Highway		Merge
	American Council of Christian Churches			South African civil honours
	Anahita Ratebzad			History of religion in the United States
	Muhammad Gaddafi			Operation Herrick
	Brico Dépôt		Add sources
	The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles			History of Afghanistan
	Babylonian Map of the World			United States presidential nominating convention
	Small Mauritian Flying Fox			Non-Aligned Movement
	Sterling M. McMurrin		Wikify
	Sar-e Pol city			The Rise of Mormonism
	Armand Nicholi			Fudge Rounds
	Stephen E. Robinson			Baseline (budgeting)
	William C. Conway		Expand
	Don Carlos Smith			Public image of Mitt Romney
	Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)			Divine Council
	Estakhri			2004 in Afghanistan

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea

Hi, Avanu. You've been around long enough to know this is not acceptable. Please refrain from altering the talk page posts of other editors. Tiderolls 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please go lecture Tarc about not being incivil in his posts. If someone brings an honest attempt to AN to try and solve a problem, a response like "Oppose - I don't even really feel like making up a reason" is simply contentious and unhelpful. Until you actually enforce some standards at AN and AN/I, you'll keep having people there who act like the hind end of a donkey. There is certainly a lot of musculature and balance involved in keeping up a hind end, but it is the donkey's back that ends up doing most of the work. In any case, such posts aren't needed, and a strikethrough is a kind alternative to outright deletion for trash. -- Avanu (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you're coming here to lecture me about removing Beeblebrox's post about how "dumb" an idea I had, or how RfC's need to be formatted one way, and only one way, go ahead and drop the lecture off somewhere else. If you are sincerely interested in fixing problems and improving Misplaced Pages, then let me know what I can do to help you. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My first post wasn't a lecture; that you characterize it as such is disappointing. I think it's time that you offer some unambiguous statement that you understand that refactoring the talk page posts of other editors is both counterproductive and disruptive. Presently, I am of the opinion that you will continue to flout this convention to push a point. Please disabuse me of that opinion. Tiderolls 20:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My response was intending to show you that, as Tarc later admitted, his response was flippant. If you're going to ever have serious debates on recurring problems at AN or AN/I, you've got to do something about the attitude of the participants. I make no apology for trying to deter poor behavior. The idea that we simply accept bad behavior, that we don't chastise those who repeatedly do it, makes your statement about me seem a bit hollow. If you keep accepting bad actors, in the name of some rule or anti-censorship ideal, you'll keep getting threads that are filled with drama and off-track. I don't push much. But I do push some. And I think more people need to be pushing for the same thing. Plain simple decency. As Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith said, "I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness and a - a little lookin' out for the other fella, too." We're supposed to be that ideal. -- Avanu (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, this ain't the movies. We can, at some point, discuss the fallacies of bureaucracies but in the here an now we are discussing your behavior. You should not have refactored the posts, you did. You still have not made it plain that you will not continue this disruptive practice. Please do so. Tiderolls 20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Make it plain that people will behave, and I won't have anything to complain about. I never touch legitimate commentary. It is very disruptive to have comments that steer a thread off track. If you can't see that as being the bigger problem, I don't know how to help you. -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your warning is in error. Please remove it. -- Avanu (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly correct, that is why we have it in the first place, so that self appointed censors cannot just erase anything they don't like from a discussion. You can remove it if you like but I would advise against ignoring it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would advise that you start actually looking at solutions here. You're being entirely focused on how your comment was removed, rather than actually considering what I said. How did your comment at AN help? You call me a "self-appointed censor" as if I'm here to remove ideas. If you had something positive to say I wouldn't have touched your comment. There's a few people in Misplaced Pages who think they can just say whatever shitty stuff they like and our policies seem to want to protect you. However, my friend, the pillar of Civility says you should have a better and higher standard. How do you propose we reach that? I don't want to remove commentary. I want to promote positive engagement and the exchange of good ideas. -- Avanu (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's time to take a break. Yes, parts of Misplaced Pages seriously suck but getting in stupid pissing contests with other editors just shifts the focus from your legitimate concern to your actions. (I'm referring to you reverting Beeblebrox's talk page edit). Nobody Ent 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Kind of how it works here, isn't it Ent? Someone brings a concern, people come in and sidetrack it. I'd love to see us fix that. My committee idea was blown off like it was pointless, and now the new idea about coming up with a solid standard is being given the similar treatment. And yet, I still don't see any alternative ideas. I see a couple of commenters who really appear to be considering the problem, but then you have the crowd who just doesn't seem to have a care to give. Let's get out of Mos Eisley spaceport. It is far too wretched and scummy. Maybe we need more Ewoks as admins. -- Avanu (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Poking the bear

I ask that you don't poke the bear. By that, I mean that you shouldn't repost a message on someone's talk page when it's not welcome, no matter how valid the discussion may be.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I cannot believe you just did that . Any user can remove anything they want from their own talk page. Instead of asking for you to be blocked, which you could easily be for such idiotic behavior, I will ask you to review this page which I developed specifically for situations like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jasper, I generally leave my stubborness to one revert of something. By the way, did Beeblebrox just tell me to fuck off? If not, then I'll assume he can kindly follow his own advice at User:Beeblebrox/fuck off. When he has an idea for improving things instead of calling the ideas of others' "dumb", I'd be happy to do anything I can to help. Until then, the page link is just 1 sentence back. -- Avanu (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Even one revert is poking the bear.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't act like bears. Kind of the point isn't it? -- Avanu (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Who likes getting prodded? The drama yesterday makes the answer to that clear. --Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I don't like my idea being called "dumb", I don't like Tarc saying he dislikes an idea and says "do I even have to give a reason?" I don't like flippancy and foolishness. I don't like a lot of things. But I do like seeing things get better. And I take civility pretty seriously. I try very hard to be nice to those who act rudely, and I try to put up with those who act close minded.

One thing I really dislike is having to rehash the same stupid argument over and over. So I'm trying to fix it. If this were a real world situation, people telling others to fuck off and not helping would be gone. Administrators who behave unprofessionally would be given a chance to fix it or they would be gone. But we don't seem to work like that. Yesterday shouldn't have been "drama". There are ways to fix that. But it takes a willingness to do so. -- Avanu (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

seriously your selfrighteousness is sickening.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain that comment, Maunus? -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What I said in User_talk:Avanu/Archive_6#Comment couldn't be more true now... MBisanz 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)