Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:57, 24 November 2015

Archives
Archive 1 (December 2012 – May 2013)
Archive 2 (June 2013 – August 2013)
Archive 3 (September 2013 – December 2013)
Archive 4 (January 2014 – April 2014)
Archive 5 (May 2014 – July 2014)
Archive 6 (August 2014 – April 2015)
Archive 7 (May 2015 – )

You are involved

Given that you are involved in the debate at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/RfC_for_BARC_-_a_community_desysopping_process I don't think it is appropriate that you are the one to reverse the closure. Please consider reverting yourself.

If you wish to dispute it then the talk page or WP:AN is a better venue. The closure discussion on the talk page basically resulted in the person intending to close it to decide not to. Chillum 19:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good point. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I almost reverting you myself but then I thought, "oh crap I am involved too!". While I think the closure was timely and a reasonable interpretation of an issue with only 59% support and serious concerns I respect that you may think otherwise. If you do wish to challenge this closure I will be sure to consider the arguments made with an open mind. Chillum 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I too think it is likely no consensus, but I felt the the close was a bit rushed given where it ended up. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Well the first opinion was given on July 24th, today is August 24th. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer." An alternate duration was an option but the timing of the closure was certainly within expectations.

Given that in the last 11 days there have been 3 new supports, 1 support changed to oppose and 5 other new opposes I suspect that more time would have resulted in only greater opposition.

These admin reform debates are always extensive. While I took a position contrary to yours I appreciated your input. Have a nice day. Chillum 20:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to note here, I did see that discussion, but all it seems to resolve is one person volunteering to do it alone then withdrawing, a few others volunteering to help as a panel, then the merits of that being discussed, and generally no real consensus on what action should be taken to close it. As for being rushed, participation has dwindled away, and all the new !votes in the past few days being opposes, I thought the conclusion was obvious enough to push ahead and close it. Mdann52 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Donner Party

I saw that you edited on the Donner Party and was wondering if you knew any more information about it or websites that could help me! Thank you! MissyMaeRissaShaye (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, this article is one of our best articles on Misplaced Pages. The sources in the article are excellent and if you have a Google account, you can read History of the Donner Party: A Tragedy of the Sierra Nevada for free online. Good luck! --I am One of Many (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Packerfansam

Better to continue the discussion here, I think.

The ANI, in which we both participated, was closed out in June or so with no action, based on her assurances that she understood the nature of the problems she'd occasioned, and a promise to try to stop. You'll recall that she had been removing references from articles to non-Christian religions and thought, sexual orientation, and sex generally, among other things; and while I was the one to raise this initially at ANI, it is certainly fair to say that I was not the only one to be troubled by these edits.

As the matter wrapped up, I was skeptical that she appreciated the problem (she described it along the lines of "offending one or two users") or that she'd actually quit the problematic editing, but after being characterized as "overzealous" on the point, I withdrew.

She has slowed, but certainly not quit, her POV editing. A partial list of such edits since then includes:

July 9

At Christianity, without explanation, she recast the “Criticism and apologetics” section as “Arguments and apologetics”, and removed sourced critical commentary by Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and current Jewish and Muslim theologians, as well as a (sourced) observation by an atheist that some Bible stories may be based on myth.

July 30

At Trois-Rivières, removed without explanation the identification of a (Canadian) Liberal Party politician as “liberal”, as well as a reference to another person’s being the first Jew elected to public office in the British Empire

August 15

She erased, without comment, mention of Hugh Hefner’s attendance at the Art Institute of Chicago.

August 18

She removed proper and wikilinked mention of a notable alum who is best known (and described as) an LGBT activist.

October 15

At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming it was “contradicted” by info elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text and, indeed, nicely illustrated the point (in the source itself), which is that Turner has waffled on the issue over the years.

Here too I am not the only editor to remain concerned - see this Talk page entry from September.

I agree that the "party school" edit to the University of Wisconsin is, in the larger picture, kind of a silly thing; but between her registered account and the IP she sometimes edits from, she has made the same edit at least eight times now - see May 11, May 12, May 14, May 14, May 15, June 13 and October 3 in addition to today's. And to be clear, she's not removing the "party school" material but just the (perfectly good) citation to Playboy. Indeed in her October 3 entry, she updated the "party school" rankings to 2015 and went out and found a different source to insert in Playboy's stead.

So I take your point, that maybe this particular edit is a trivial thing to template her on; but she has continued her practice (albeit slowed) of idiosyncratic, unexplained or deceptively described removal of content for reasons that can only be explained as in furtherance of a personal point of view. I don't think that such editing should pass without at least occasional comment, and that's what I did. JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some edits have been problematic, but I'm not convinced that any bias is intended. It looks to me that since late summer, 99% of her edits are just fine. On her user page, she does state that she has a medical issue, which may affect her editing. I think the kind and right thing to do is that when an edit appears especially problematic, just leave a note perhaps something like this "Hi Packerfansam, I reverted your edit ... because .... If you think I made a mistake or didn't understand, please let me know ..." --I am One of Many (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is another: August 12 - at List of people from Chicago, she deleted Anton LaVey – founder of the Church of Satan, and notable by any measure - from the list; and removed the description of another individual as “Orthodox Jewish". Her edit summary stated simply that “certain content seemed inappropriate”. She as much as admits the edit is just because she doesn't like it.

I agree that 99% of her edits are fine. But the ones that are bad are - pretty bad. And you know, while I agree (broadly) that sympathy and a gentler touch is often the better way to go, this editor has been given plenty of chances to think about her editing, and what kinds of edits are sound, and what aren't; and yet she persists. I don't see really any kind of meaningful effort or concern on her part at all.

Let me suggest this. It appears that we agree that at least some of her edits are troublesome. I am perfectly willing to allow that my approach may be doomed to fail; but I remain unhappy with the prospect simply giving her (yet) another pass. In writing my original note to you, I wanted to be sure I had accurately recollected your participation at the ANI, so I re-read it, and saw that you said, "If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them." Since issues do remain with her edits, and something really does need to be done, would you be willing to approach her in a way that, in your judgment, might be more productive? I'd agree right now to stay out of any discussion you may have with her. Let me know. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies

Thank you for your continued support and I apologize for any undue stress it may cause you. I have my opinions and and there are reasons I have them, and I'm willing to take heat for it, but I do feel bad if my actions result in problems for others. Packerfansam (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Most people have strong opinions about some of the topics they work on. In some cases where I hold strong opinions, I start a section on the talk page of an article and try to start a discussion. In a few cases, I have made a change, stated the reason, and concluded that "if you think I'm wrong, please revert.". If you feel like sharing some of your opinions and reasons for them, perhaps we could figure out some strategies for reducing the heat? It's just a suggestion. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, my memory isn't as sharp as it once was and sometimes I forget to check things. I'll have to try to keep this in mind, thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)