Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taelus (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 8 June 2010 (→Third opinion please?: Convert to subsection for archiving reasons). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

One Two Three Four

Sending an e-mail?If you e-mail me and want a response quickly, post a note on this talk page telling me to check for e-mails.

Where to replyI get easily confused trying to follow conversations which spread like in this diagram. Please keep the conversation on one page if possible, and use talkback templates, or simply link me to the page you want me to see and reply at. Otherwise conversations get fragmented all over the place and I lose track!

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 31 May 2010

• Photography: Making money with free photos

• News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

WoW, wow.

I think it was well worth trying, and I had some hope. But the amount of juvenile hammering the article takes is just almost unbelievable. Thanks for giving it a shot. :) - Sinneed 01:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a disappointing result, but it was worth a try. It's sad that a few immature vandals have to ruin it for everyone else, but at the end of the day at least we will be able to provide our readers with a quality article by keeping it protected. Thanks for your work on the article! --Taelus (Talk) 08:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Steel

Sir; I noticed you took down semi-protection from the WoW page and it almost immediately got slammed. Nice try anyway. :)

Anyway, I'm writing you to ask you to please return the Doctor Steel page to semi-protection status. Back in October it was continually vandalized by an anonymous contributor, who wished to "out" Dr. Steel as a certain Southern Californian artist. However, for personal security reasons (and from what I understand because of some apparent ongoing legal considerations which such "outing" would compromise - whether it was true or not) I was asked by Dr. Steel as well as his best friend and operator of his fan site, Kato (and apparently one of them also wrote WP directly), to ask for protection against such malicious editing, in accordance with WP:BLP. Back in October, Happy-melon semi-protected the page as well as enacted Oversight sanctions (see the history page, 17 October 2009: "persistent addition of Oversighted personal information by annonymous editors"), but I see on his user page that he's away from WP for another couple of weeks, so knowing you were an active admin, I thought I'd ask you for help as the anonymous vandal has returned and the vandalism is persistent, with apparent intent to "out" and do harm.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

An oversighter will need to handle this to verify whats going on, as a normal admin I cannot see the activity which was oversighted to check. I'll contact one shortly. Thanks, --Taelus (Talk) 08:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's not sir, it would be ma'am I think but that just sounds silly! "Taelus" or "Tae" works fine. :) --Taelus (Talk) 08:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Denialism

See Talk:Denialism#April_2010 -- PBS (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 08:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

Before I revered the page in each case I left a message on the talk page. With an attempt to try to resolve the disagreement by discussion.

• 23:15, 5 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Denialism ‎
• 23:17, 5 June 2010 (diff | hist) Denialism ‎ (reverted to last version by PBS. Changes have been there for some time. No explanation is give as to why all the changes and the addition to the article should have been reverted out. See talk page)
• 00:04, 7 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Denialism ‎ (→April 2010)
• 00:05, 7 June 2010 (diff | hist) Denialism ‎ (revert see talk page)
• 09:12, 7 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Denialism
• 09:20, 7 June 2010 (diff | hist) Denialism ‎ (rv to last version by PBS. No explanation of what edits are objected to by PBS on the talk page. I can not know which edits you object to unless an explanation is given.)
• (del/undel) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Denialism ‎ (→April 2010)

I deliberately made small incremental edits so that another editor could at any stage of the process revet to that point. Verbal to date has not voiced one reason for is total reversion, and has yet to begin to explain edit by edit what it is that he objects to. So I am curious why you think you need to tell me to read WP:EW instead of user:Verbal.

As a rule I do not watch other peoples talk pages so it is probably best if you wish to reply on my talk page. I have also left a common on your last comment on the article's talk page -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Already replied to it before you left this message. Additionally, the edit warring warning applies to all involved, and all can see it as its on the talk page. Finally, whilst you were indeed discussing, you should conclude discussions before continuing to edit. Hence why I said its Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Discuss, Revert revert revert. --Taelus (Talk) 10:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But it was not bold revet discuss revet revert. As I pointed out above it was ask for discussion each time before reverting. Verbal at no time started to discuss the situation.

And by the way do you realise you've been played? Verbal knew that if he made a revet I would not hurry to revet again so:

• 10:17, 7 June 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,370 bytes) (Undid revision 366526586 by Philip Baird

Two minutes later after Verbal reverted the page he puts in a request for a block:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection Revision as of 10:19, 7 June 2010 In which he puts in a biased request. "Temporary full protection dispute, large changes and removals being made which editor refuses to justify on talk page. Protection might force useful discussion."

At 10:33, 7 June 2010 you protected the page less than a quarter of an hour after the request had been placed (which Verbal not being an idiot will have worked into his strategy -- I do not consider that bad faith but admire Verbal's ability to play the system). the comment you left looks as if you had not looked into the edit history in great detail (after all you had less than a quarter of an hour in total to do so), but had taken Verbal's word for it. It ought to leave a bad taste in your mouth. -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I protected it because I saw this. (Bold additions my annotations)

1. (cur | prev) 11:17, June 7, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,370 bytes) (Undid revision 366526586 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) Please justify all additions and removals per BRD) (undo) Forth revert by one party. I intervened to prevent further edit warring.
2. (cur | prev) 10:20, June 7, 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs | block) (17,076 bytes) (rv to last version by PBS. No explanation of what edits are objected to by PBS on the talk page. I can not know which edits you object to unless an explanation is given.) (undo) Three rounds of reverts
3. (cur | prev) 07:21, June 7, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,370 bytes) (→See also: trim some) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 07:20, June 7, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,437 bytes) (Undid revision 366457784 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) rvt large unjustified edits) (undo)
5. (cur | prev) 01:05, June 7, 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs | block) (17,076 bytes) (revert see talk page) (undo) Two rounds of reverts
6. (cur | prev) 10:41, June 6, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,437 bytes) (Undid revision 366272298 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) Please justify the changes on the current talk page & discuss) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 00:17, June 6, 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs | block) (17,076 bytes) (reverted to last version by PBS. Changes have been there for some time. No explanation is give as to why all the changes and the addition to the article should have been reverted out. See talk page) (undo) One round of reverts
8. (cur | prev) 16:45, June 5, 2010 Verbal (talk | contribs | block) (20,437 bytes) (Reverted to revision 360774190 by TimVickers; rvt large changes please discuss per WP:BRD. (TW)) (undo)

Discussion on the talk page will resolve this. I'm not sure I see what exactly is obstructing having a quick discussion. So far, all the discussion seems to be about who is doing what, rather than discussion about the content itself. You are linking to the archive claiming it shows previous discussion, but actually all I see is you proposing a change, and no others replying. That's fine, bold changes are welcome, but the content needs to be discussed now that someone has challenged it. I don't think I had to take Verbal's word to see that there is indeed a content dispute here, and I believe another administrator would also have protected it in this way. I will quickly ask another admin or two to take a look though, just in case I am missing something here. More opinions can only be of benefit anyway. --Taelus (Talk) 10:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You said on the article talk page "I could quite have easily protected the page in another wrong version." No you would not have done so given the timing of Verbal's revert and his/he request for page protection. Finding out that you were played must be annoying. I know I would find it so.

Asking other administrators is not the way to solve a problem like this, far better to join in the discussion and state your opinions on the changes to the content as an editor, than on procedural issues. I would also suggest that you read the archives of this page as they will help to explain why the page is as it is at the moment. In my opinion it has improved a lot over the last six months. -- PBS (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure exactly what you want from me here. You criticised me on the talk page, claiming that I could be an involved editor biased towards verbal, and thus not a suitable admin to perform protection. Now you seem to be asking me to become an involved editor... I am not involved at all, and have no past meetings with either you or verbal that I remember, thus I simply protected to prevent further edit warring. I'm not endorsing anyones views here. --Taelus (Talk) 11:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you were on anyone's side what I said was ""If you simply edit war the content back in after the protection expires," Suggests that you you endorsing the current version of the page, in which case you are not a disinterested administrator." That is not the same as saying that you are on anyone's side. It means that your choice of words implies that you are not a disinterested administrator. As you will of course have protected the wrong version (everyone always does) to state that that version can not be reverted, automatically means that you are favouring one version over another and it follows that the protected version becomes your endorsed version which is not what I believe you mean to say or imply. I really think you need to reconsider the remark, because if that were true, and the norm, it would always be in the interests of each party to a dispute try to make sure that their preferred version is the latest version as much as possible so that once protected it can not be reverted. This would increase edit wars not decrease them. And it would also encourage people to game the system as Verbal did.

I do not see why you can not become involved in the editing of the page and in the discussion. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'm a few hours late, but I'm a totally uninvolved administrator and I agree with the protection. You shouldn't see it as a punishment, think of it as an (enforced) opportunity to resolve your differences on the talk page. Once said differences are resolved, the page can easily be unprotected so the best thing you can do is to discuss the matter with the other editors involved and try to resolve it. You could always ask at WP:3O to solicit comments from uninvolved editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion please?

Could you take a quick look at User_talk:Taelus#Denialism if you have spare time? I would like a third opinion on whether my full protection of the page, and handling of the content dispute, was justified. Contacting you since I saw you active recently on RPP. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (Talk) 11:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the entire situation (More specifically the article itself, the article talk page and your own talk page, including their histories) and i would say that the temporal full protection was correctly placed. I see 7 reverts over the course of two days, and around that time the talk page looked like this. All i see is a tug-o-war where two parties disagree who should post their own rationale first; I see absolutely nothing about the actual issue. Even now the talk page is sadly devoid of any clear reasoning between parties; At the very least i still cannot figure Verbal's reason for objecting.

However, i do agree with PBS that Verbal's revert of the article and reporting it as an edit war two minutes later screams bad faith. If you know you are in an edit war you stick to the talk page and leave the article alone, and you definitely don't revert it right before reporting. However, both PBS and Verbal are highly experienced users, and BOTH should know that being the "Top page" in a dispute is not a goal or even sensible. In a few days there should be a consensus on whether things should be changed or not, or lacking that a WP:3O or WP:RFC (Or any other mediation options) should be run. In short the "top page" would only last a few days anyway, because the other party will still disagree after the protection ends. I would therefor urge both editors to get a real discussion starting rather then the "You tell me, No! You tell me first!" discussion style i see so far. Explain your own stance first and only then ask other editors to do so. Passiveness on both sides will lead to nothing. :)

Besides this i would point out that an uninvolved sysop is free to block a page on procedural grounds if they are there. If i see a content dispute on, for example, Semi-empirical mass formula i will protect the page. There is no need to involve myself in the discussion as i am neither interested nor knowledgeable about the subject. Hence, if the formula in that article was to be disputed i would have really no clue whatsoever who might be right - but an edit war is an edit war and should be actioned as such. Excirial 11:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Skype

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Genghis Khan, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. which I cannot correct --Rumping (talk)

Rolled myself back, but unsure it's fixed. I'll disable the Skype add-on... I had no idea it had automatically enabled itself on my browser anyway. Then I will ensure it fixed. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. --Taelus (Talk) 14:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed the add-on, and fixed the problem. Thanks alot for pointing it out! --Taelus (Talk) 14:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)