Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) at 18:11, 2 June 2018 (→Consensus and the status quo ante: While linking to previous RfCs is always appreciated (too many RfC authors skip this step) it isn't really a substitute for linking to the current RfC that you are talking about.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

←

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Thank you for being one of Misplaced Pages's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Conflict of interest and BLP attack

I believe you may have a Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest with regards to the Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages‎ article, due to one of the studies being heavily focused on your activities re: Brian Martin, and would advise you to use caution. Your edit summary for the removal of his section here includes a WP:BLP-violating disparaging remark. I strongly advice you to self-revert, suppress the edit summary, follow WP:COIADVICE, and avoid making direct edits within that area. I know you may not appreciate this, but I am coming to you personally first, as its better for all involved than the alternatives. -- Netoholic @ 17:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to seriously argue 'antivax crank' is a BLP violation, would you prefer 'scientific fraud'? Crank is at the bottom of the list of ways to describe someone who falsified research in order to demonstrate a crank theory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic, I refer you to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to debate the science behind it with me. I'm simply addressing your COI and BLP language choices. I realize you feel strongly about this, but that's exactly why its a COI and why I'm appealing to you to get yourself out of it. Has it crossed your mind that editing when there is a clear COI might actually be used against Misplaced Pages to lend credibility to accusations of bias? -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Has it crossed your mind that asserting "COI" just because someone launches off-wiki attacks against those who keep Misplaced Pages neutral, would be rather a bad idea? The most astonishing thing here, though, is that you actually chose to include that obvious motivated reasoning as if it were in some way a valid criticism of Misplaced Pages. I mean, really? Guy (Help!) 17:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Misplaced Pages. This can go away. Let us handle this. There are certainly refutations out there for these claims of bias, and we'll incorporate them. But you really impede that process by participating in this COI area by removing them. For Misplaced Pages's sake, please let's make this go away. Trust in the process. -- Netoholic @ 17:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You started the article, you decided what content to include and what to exclude. You made the edit, you selected these fringe sources criticising our "bias" towards the mainstream, so yes, it is 100% on you. And with that we are done. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:Netoholic, please explain why you do not have a COI on this article. (real question) Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - Well, for starters, I have never been mentioned by name in any of the studies which critique Misplaced Pages's bias. I have no COI, I don't personally benefit or suffer from any of the content in the article, and I am not affiliated with anyone or any group mentioned (other than of course being a volunteer, unpaid editor on Misplaced Pages - but in that respect my COI is no different than any other person on the planet who wants to edit). -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And neither is mine. The fact that some antivaxer chose to take a pop at me and bleat about his article being less flattering than some of his less fringe peers is not really my problem, but including that shit is a truly terrible idea and you should not have done it in the first pace and absolutely not have restored it. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Netoholic thanks for answering, but that is an invalid analysis; COI is a broader concept than "financial" or "being mentioned by name". As someone who has invested many hours in WP, you absolutely have a "stake" in Misplaced Pages. There is no WP editor, and especially no long term WP editor, who will not bring dirty hands to a navel-gazing and contentious article like that. I strongly urge you to change your approach to the page and other editors at it, and consider yourself completely conflicted. (I am, as well.) Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - You might as well propose deletion of everything in Category:Misplaced Pages then. We all may have bias when editing those, but WP:COI refers to avoiding editing when something is directly about you, as this Martin study is about JzG. He should be avoiding it, not only because it violates policy, but because it validates Martin. -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What I am objecting to, is your coming here wagging a COI finger in someone else's face, with a big old plank in your eye. Especially as you are the one who added the content about Martin to that page. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure this has come up at a noticeboard before though, an editor involved in an off wiki dispute would have a COI with regards to an article subject, but an editor who has been merely criticised off wiki by an article subject does not have a COI on that alone. The simple reason being it would then be trivial for an article s–ubject to remove anyone who edits their biography in a manner they do not like by publishing an attack piece naming them. And it would make editing in the fringe area in a neutral manner impossible. I suspect its in the BLP or COI archives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not involved in an off-wiki dispute. I edited an article, and the subject chose to attack me off-wiki. That's the full extent of the "dispute". It's about as significant as the time Michael Winner had a go at me in his restaurant column because I politely pointed out to his PA in an OTRS exchange that typing all-caps is the email equivalent of shouting. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt think you were, apologies if I was unclear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, it's a fair point given the recent Philip Cross nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but you're now at 4 reverts today on the article (counting the connected edits as one). -- Netoholic @ 11:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Only if you count removal of entirely unconnected material as part of a series of reverts, which we don't. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Took a look at the available evidence, concluded that Guy (not to be confused with Guy Macon) has zero COI. I also would refer Netoholic to the response given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to play with this, but it does seem that Guy has a conflict of interest in regard to a paper specifically criticizing his edits. As it mentions me as well, although briefly, I figure I do too, so I'm generally staying out of this. But we shouldn't accept that a person being criticized in a paper should be deciding whether or not that paper can be used as a source in WP articles. This is a different issue to whether or not Guy has a COI in regard to Brian Martin in general - it is just this one paper where I think Netoholic had a point. But is anyone really going to try and enforce this? I suspect not, so it is moot. - Bilby (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Your past defence of antivaxers means that I am very likely to think the exact opposite of anything you say, so posting to my talk page is only likely to be counterproductive. Nobody other than an axe grinder would seek to include that "paper" anyway, it is so obviously a self-serving whine fest. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not defend antivaxers - I defend Misplaced Pages against BLP violations. It is very easy to ensure that articles about people we agree with are compliant with BLP. It is very hard to do the same for those whom we are ideologically opposed to, but it is no less important.

In regard to this COI, I know you won't agree with me. But if anyone else was going through Misplaced Pages removing links to a published and peer-reviewed article critical of themselves, we'd have no problem arguing that they have a COI - even if the article was poor - and that they should not be making the decision about that article. When you go through deleting references to an article critical of yourself, you are also have a COI. The article might be bullshit, and it might not be something we should use, but that decision should have been made by someone independent. - Bilby (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have previously removed links to off-wiki personal attacks on named Wikipedians, regardless of whether I agree with them, over many years. I had a long-running argument with one user over this. We should not be importing off-wiki kvetching about Misplaced Pages articles unless there is substantial independent coverage of the matter, especially when the person kvetching is mainly upset about the fact that their fringe views are called out as fringe. Martin is an antivaxer. He is a former member of AVN, he supports Wakefield, he supported Wilyman, he supports the refuted OPV-AIDS hypothesis. All our articles on antivaxers are unpopular with the subjects, and that says only good things about Misplaced Pages.

And yes, you defend antivaxers. You've done it several times. I am persuaded that you do this out of good motives, but you do. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you removing links to articles critical of other Wikipedians. The problem is removing links to an article critical about yourself. If this was some insane rant published on a blog post or crap like Natural News, then I wouldn't care in the slightest. But it wasn't - it was a published peer-reviewed paper critical of your actions in regard to a BLP. I'm not even going to argue that the article should be kept. It is simply that Netoholic was correct - you, as one of the main subjects of the article, have a COI in regard to that article, and shouldn't be the one deciding to remove it.

But I'll leave it. I didn't want to bring it up an AN/I, and I know that pushing this here won't help either. All we'll create is useless drama. I wish you could see why you have a COI in regard to this article, but I understand that it isn't going to happen. So be it. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If I thought there was any merit at all in the inclusion, I would not have removed it. Several instances appeared to have been added in violation of WP:POINT and it clearly fails WP:RS pretty much anywhere. And actually my original removal from that article was on the basis of WP:UNDUE - until I read the source I had forgotten it mentioned me, I had filed it under "ignore" along with Dullman's bleating on HuffPo. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to say "I told you so," but... OK, yes. Yes I do. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Per WP:BRD, you made a BOLD removal of this source, were reverted, and you should instead of edit warring simply bring your issues to the talk page and gain consensus for its removal. The source violates no guidelines which are grounds for immediate removal. I direct you to self-revert, restoring the article to its stable state, and discuss this in good-faith. -- Netoholic @ 08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I took it to the talk page already. You inserted it into the article yourself (the BOLD), I reverted, you know it's contentious, you know why, and the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion. BRD starts with insertion of material, not removal. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Social Science Computer Review at Misplaced Pages:Press coverage 2017

Hello!

About this . I added that, and a bunch of others I recently found after reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Nice_writeup_on_editing_to_Circadian_rhythm_and_Circadian_clock_in_journal. Based on your ES you don't think any of them should be there.

My thinking is that this is scholarly/academic press and it fits well. It is not, like you noted, "news coverage", like 99,9% of the usual stuff on these pages (there's a thing or two from Nature if you look hard), but from what I could glean from WP they're decent publications in their field, I didn't see "predatory" or something like that.

I'm fairly certain me adding these inspired Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JzG_should_be_topic-banned_from_any_mention_of_Brian_Martin. Sorry about that, unintended consequence. "Plenty of evidence for a butt-hurt academic." may very well be correct (slight COI-problem, for one thing), but we don't disqualify news coverage on these pages for being wrong/misunderstanding/lying either, and we shouldn't.

So, I'd like to re-insert that journal, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a news article, it's a non-news article in a minor journal, written by a subject complaining about editors of his article. We shouldn't really include that (for any value of article subject) unless there's wider coverage. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not a news article/news-coverage, but it is scholarly/academic press. Plenty of the news-coverage on those pages only appear once. I may try to get more input on this somewhere, if I do I'll ping you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. Seriously, it lacks any rigour at all. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual dark web

In case you missed it, I think you'll appreciate how the AfD was closed. And I think I deserve props for getting it reopened and then promoting the shit out of it. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. A bold but very well argued close IMO. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BethANZ

Do you have any objections to an unblock of BethANZ on these conditions? Your initial block was sound based on the obvious WP:COI issues surrounding links to her website. On the other hand, I do believe she is a reasonable subject matter expert on a fairly narrow topic, having devoted much of her retirement to this research as a labor of love, per this BBC article. I'd support (or issue myself) a reblock if she began canvassing links, refs, or engaging in ownership issues. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie 15:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, On the basis that any repeat leads to a reinstatement of the block, I am fine with it, thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Confused

What's the reason for removing this reference to the Dictionary of Welsh Biography? Deb (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparent self-promotion added by the author, now editing as BethANZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previous account REHopkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has also edited anonymously. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. However, DWB is a recognised source that is used in a huge number of the articles on Welsh history topics. Many of the articles were originally written in the 1950s but some have been updated. I'm surprised that someone with no academic reputation has been allowed to contribute. I'll check out Welsh[REDACTED] as well - see if she's been at it there. Deb (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, Logaston Press, who published her book on Blanche Herbert, is a reputable publisher that I've come across before. I had been thinking it might be self-published, but no. Deb (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked that. It's a minor imprint though, and not a guarantee of quality in the same way that larger publishing houses are. Small presses often publish colourful but opinionated works, and don't have the resources to check for agenda driven writing. Not that big houses necessarily doa great job of that either. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

Hi Guy, I like what you say on your user page about sorting things out like grown ups. Could we have a discussion about my proposal at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Problem_of_definition? If I understand where you are coming from, you want to protect Misplaced Pages from people who are trying to legitimize fake medicine. But I am not one of them. I'm just trying to make this article credible. Please take another look at what I wrote, and tell me what concerns you have with it.--agr (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Cornerstone

Where can I find the AfD discussion for Cornerstone (statistics software)? I'm surprised it was deleted, as it is certainly a notable piece of software. The current article does sound a bit too much like advertising, but that's not a reason to delete. --Macrakis (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's at Draft:Cornerstone (statistics software) because it was written and keeps being pushed into mainspace by someone associated with the company. Feel free to turn it into an actual article. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification

Somehow, this got added to my Special:Notifications... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

On mine also. Almost all of what you did was certainly right, and it is amazing but not exactly surprising that it had lasted this long --2009 if not earlier-- but perhaps most of he history section should be restored. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The fans can have it back if they can find reliable independent sources. The sources cited were TMI websites and a book by the founder. However, this was a first pass, cleaning the crap, I have no problem with rebuilding with proper sourcing - the organisation is clearly notable, though obviously much less so than its fans believe. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Misplaced Pages in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Misplaced Pages (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Misplaced Pages between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Misplaced Pages policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Consensus and the status quo ante

Hi, I really don't get that. Would you be able to elaborate? From my point of view, what I'm seeing is two editors changing the consensus-backed policy wording just because they disagree with that consensus. Is there anything I'm missing there? – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Exempting drafts tagged as promising is ridiculous, we already know that spammers abuse draft space, this just gives them a way to indefinitely protect their spam. And there is clearly no consensus for its addition, per Talk. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so you disagree with the existing consensus. You're welcome to vote in the RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You pretend that it is a long-standing consensus version. In fact it was added on 10 May this year , and has been consistently disputed since. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this was added in May, but the addition reflects the consensus reached at the RfC from September last year (it was linked in the edit summary). And yes, it has been continuously disputed, but as far as I can see only since yesterday: and it's because of this disagreement that a new RfC was started. I really don't see how we can justify disregarding the existing consensus unless and until a new one is reached at that RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala, please link to RfCs when you talk about them. Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Request for comment: Promising drafts --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, is there any chance you might have missed the link to Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts? Apologies if you've already seen it. – Uanfala (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

While linking to previous RfCs is always appreciated (too many RfC authors skip this step) it isn't really a substitute for linking to the current RfC that you are talking about. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page