Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Picaroon (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 4 November 2007 (→Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• To leave me a message, click here. To email me, click here.
• Respond where the discussion started, please.
• /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5, /Archive 6.

Bolaji Akinyemi on DYK

On 31 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bolaji Akinyemi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann

Hate to bother you about this, but what are we going to do about Dbachmann?3RR report, page history.. He seems to not know how to use the talk page but insists on making extremely drastic pov changes that obviously lack consensus since people are reverting him, yet he keeps reverting. He did the same thing while edit warring against Jeeny. This was reported as well, but ignored, simply so he can do it again, while others who did much less were blocked . Why do you honestly suppose that is? Also notable is his personal attacks of other site users, calling them "trolls" and threatening sanction against whoever doesn't agree with his tantrums. In any event, something needs to be done because of course these policies should apply to everyone, but if one person is exempt, I don't see how anything will ultimately work and actually it only makes an already volatile situation more volatile.Taharqa 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over WP:CON

Picaroon, as someone who is frequently involved in arbitration cases I was wondering if you could help with the application of WP:CON. The recent arbitration case I was involved with hasn't resolved the dispute and now some users are trying to claim consensus was reached on disputed material even when that was clearly not the case - otherwise why would there have been dispute resolution at all?

I'm not asking you to make a decision on the content dispute, just whether consensus can be reached through a majority of users expressing an opinion one way or another. For reference this was done through a RfC - a number of users left a comment each and then that was it. The dispute is on Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. Your thoughts are welcome, thanks. John Smith's 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A previous discussion on the external link issue is mentioned; can you provide me with a link to that? Also, PalaceGuard says "It has been acknowledged by Chang herself." Was this a serious acknowledgment by Chang, or just passing reference to the fact that detractors exist? Picaroon (t) 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Passing reference, as far as I can recall.

You can find the discussion, such as it was, here. John Smith's 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert parole violation by Giovanni

Hi. Giovanni reverted the Mao: The Unknown Story article here recently (more recently than a week ago). Then he made a partial revert here a little while ago. I have asked him to revert back, but I need to go to bed now so I thought I should let you know. If he does not revert by the time you receive this/in a reasonable period of time, please report or block him - I'm not quite sure how to "alert" the relevant people in regards to an arbitration vio. John Smith's 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Picaroon, while I think John is correct that Giovanni reverted twice in one week I would encourage you to not take action by blocking Giovanni. Actually both Giovanni and John have rv'd twice (see and for John's violation, at least as I read it) but I think it was unintentional in both cases and not at all disruptive. I think we're very close to solving some of the long term problems with that article. I made some fairly large changes to the response section in the article (which I have been discussing with both John and Gio for quite some time) and both Gio and John then made some relatively cosmetic changes which was fine. In the process they both partially reverted each other and/or me but it was certainly not edit warring but rather working toward a compromise. So while they may have violated the letter of the ArbCom sanction I personally don't think either violated the spirit of it. I understand that a block or blocks might be required, but as I think we are very close to making that section of the article stable it would not be very helpful at this point. A caution to both to be more careful about making edits that are in fact reversions is probably warranted. Just my two cents.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That second diff is big, what content was changed in the same way as in the first diff? But I agree about letter v spirit, even if JS broke the limitation here too, I don't intend to block either. Nearly always a warning will suffice for the first violation of a committee restriction. Picaroon (t) 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some material that Giovanni had added back in (which had been removed when I made a big change initially) was removed again by John and small but significant wording changes were made to the paragraph on reviews in the China Journal (for example changing "expert scholars" to "various academics" which is not a minor change by any means). There were some other changes as well but I'm not sure how significant they were. Anyhow I don't want John blocked at all but am just pointing out that both editors did two reverts. I asked Giovanni to self-revert as you did but do appreciate your inclination to let this go with a warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, BigT, if my changes were a revert then any edit to existing material would count as a revert. That isn't logical and would see most editors on a day-to-day basis guilty of reverting without realising it. As Picaroon said Giovanni's last revert was a big one. I would appreciate it if he reverts himself - the fact I came to an individual admin and asked him to encourage this rather than try to report him where he'd get blocked automatically is an example of this. John Smith's 07:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This definitely should be clarified so hopefully Picaroon can do this, but given that reverting "means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content..." I do think both of your edits count as reversions. For example in the second edit (your first edit is clearly a revert of course) you removed a passage that Giovanni added back in. Similarly Giovanni left some of your changes in but reverted others. They were both relatively small reversions, but I do think you both technically violated your 1RR limits. Had you made very small cosmetic changes, or added in wholly new material, or of course if you were simply reverting vandalism these would not be considered "reverts" as I read it--when you partially or fully undo the recent actions of another editor it is reverting.

Obviously since I don't think either of you should be blocked for it I'm only continuing this thread to get some clarity on the issue. Since both you and Giovanni are under fairly harsh revert restrictions it's obviously good to know exactly what constitutes a revert so maybe Picaroon can chime in on that. Incidentally it seems like Gio went offline immediately after making his last edit so presumably he hasn't had the chance to self-revert (I'm guessing who would be amenable to that and like you John probably did not think he was in violation). I'm going offline now but when I get back on maybe we can come to a conclusion on this. I think some things in Gio's last change should probably be changed back to your last version but I think it's okay if it just sits as is for now, or if Gio gets back online and wants to self-revert that's fine by me too.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd gladly self revert but it may be impractical now since there have been other edits since my last edit. Thanks for the warning. I think John Smith needs an equal warning since he did the same thing, before I did, and he seems to be under the impression that doing partial reverts, if he combines them with making other changes, doesn't count as a revert. Of course he is wrong about that as that also counts.Giovanni33 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not impractical - you can revert to the earlier version after I made my edit. I'm sure Picaroon wouldn't mind that for the moment as a sign of good faith from you. Also you reverted more than just the once when you restored the content on Dr Gao and Kaz Ross here - please don't imply I am somehow the cause of this. The warning is not optional. Either you should revert back or you may get blocked - you can't say "thanks for the warning now let's pretend I never broke my revert parole". John Smith's 20:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If I revert back at this point, I'm undoing several other edits from other editors in the process. Hence it not practicable. Lets just focus on the content on the talk page and come to some measure of consensus on the issues. I'm willing to compromise as I've stated there already. Also, by your logic you'd have to self revert your changes after I did, since you violated the terms by 2 reversions within a week.Giovanni33 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, John, please let's move on here. Giovanni is right that reverting himself is not practical at all at this point which is not his fault--Endroit and myself have made several recent edits such that Gio cannot simply "undo" his last edit. You applied this argument to yourself here in explaining why you could not revert yourself so I'm surprised your changing you're argument here. Obviously we still need some clarity on the reversion issue as you do not seem to think that you were in violation. But aside from that, let's get the rest of this figured out on the talk page and drop the talk of possible blocking--it's counterproductive.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Giovanni has long maintained any action that undoes that of another edit is a revert - he tried to get me blocked before the arb-com case on that principle. So by his own logic he should know have regarded what he was doing as violation of his revert parole. The fact he did this twice in the space of a few hours means he can't claim he acted "accidentily". On the other hand I honestly didn't realise I was making a revert. I saw your (BigT) edit and started making some changes in my word processor. I then went back to the page and inserted them without realising Giovanni had made widescale changes that meant my edit could be counted as a revert. When Giovanni reverted again after my edit, I didn't push things again - I contacted Picaroon to ask for his help, rather than go to the general admins' board. The fact Giovanni tried to imply I was the cause of the problem by alleging I "reverted" first, when I demonstrated that was not correct, was neither helpful nor honest. I've noticed that Giovanni frequently plays the "tu quoque" card to try to deflect attention from his actions when he is reported for something - he's still doing that despite the arb-com case and being rebuked for it by various admins prior to that. That isn't good faith. John Smith's 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully believe you that you did not intend to revert twice, and if you understand that you in fact did (even accidentally) I don't think we have an issue anymore. Picaroon warned Gio and does not seem inclined to go any further so I think we should just drop the issue unless Picaroon has anything to add. You'll both have to be more careful in the future.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure what to say about this. If someone has edited over the revert, and can not be undone, it seems impractical to insist Giovanni revert it. But on the other hand, I don't want waiting until the revert can't be undone without throwing someone else off to become a standard excuse for letting the edit stand in all such cases. Let's make an exception to the insistence on reverting this time, as it was the first occasion, but in the future I will insist on a no-compromises attitude towards self-reversion of anything except copyright violations and vandalism. Any further questions? Oh, and in the future, please see WP:AE. Picaroon (t) 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Feel free to archive it; it looks pretty clear at this point. Everyking 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hausa Misplaced Pages

You should clean the CSD there, I recently filled it with main page templates which were mass-copied from the English Misplaced Pages. -- Prince Kassad 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will do that now. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 22:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted all but two things you tagged. Regarding ha:موشوفتسيه, could you expand on this reasoning please? Is the text unsalvageable, or could someone who understands Ajami find some use in it? Picaroon (t) 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In that article, all the vowel marks are misplaced, some don't even combine. I don't know if the Hausa orthography needs these vowel marks (if not, you can just remove the vowel marks to get readable text), but if yes, then this text cannot be understood by speakers of Hausa. -- Prince Kassad 09:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for tagging them. Picaroon (t) 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Page moves of yours

Will you please stop undoing my moves? You don't own the articles in Misplaced Pages. First of all, "Kano" doesn't really commonly refer to the city in Nigeria. It isn't the common usage of that word. And just because you enjoy Nigeria articles doesn't mean making them the primary page for that title. And the people who criticized me are wrong. Only 2 of them were right and were civil. But you, you just don't become civil enough with your responses like this, which is bad and it means you don't deserve to be a admin if you continue being uncivil. --Louis Alberto Guel 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this more clear...

Leave page Kano as a disambiguation page.

And you're still being rude. You're an admin, not a "angry person".

And the city Kano isn't well known as the MK character. So I suggest you please stop reverting my moves. --Louis Alberto Guel 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why were people talking about me

I got a message from someone named tiptoey or something like that on my talk page. It said that some people are talking about me. I have assumed it's about jeeny. Could you maybe see what it's about for me. Seth71 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Jeeny is fine, she has just chosen not to respond to emails for the time being. Picaroon (t) 20:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking about me! ;p I hate all this attention. BTW, thanks Picaroon. :) (I have no ill feelings towards you) ~Jeeny 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Jeeny. Picaroon (t) 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nigeria (Main) and Dimeji Bankole

Thanks for handling these vandals (i.e. on the Nigerian main page), and also for creating a page for the new speaker.

Sure thing, Callie. By the way, you've uploaded some scans of photographs from the Abuja Cultural Center. Do you live in Abuja? Would you be able to shoot and upload a photo of the outside of the Nigerian Presidential Complex, and a less-blurry one of Aso Rock? Picaroon (t) 23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan 06:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just use WT:RFAR. Picaroon (t) 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks. Antelan 17:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Wikzilla

Hi. I was interested in your comment there. Sorry if you feel I was being policy-wonkish, but I started this with the intention of "going by the book". My hope would be that if we get wider input to this case we can spread the load of dealing with this abusive user away from User:Akradecki. I am relatively inexperienced in this area, so please feel free to make any suggestions as to how we can best deal with the matter. Best wishes, --John 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm clerking the Stefanomencarelli arbitration case, and have been reverting and blocking Wikzilla's socks and IPs every once in a while. Problem is, his IPs vary widely. Picaroon (t) 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)