Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This dispute is dragging on and getting worse, Randroide is openly contemptuous of anyone who suggests he is not entitled to do what he likes with disputed articles and seems determined to impose his will on the other editors involved. It is now time this dispute was forced into arbitration so that we are not obliged to endlessly battle with a user who seeks any opportunity to evade having to deal with those who not agree with his point of view. I believe someone urgently needs to tell him to desist from unilateral and controversial edits while the disputed status of the article is sorted out. I hope someone can act to stabilise this situation and to make it clear that all parties to the dispute must be respected. ] 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This dispute is dragging on and getting worse, Randroide is openly contemptuous of anyone who suggests he is not entitled to do what he likes with disputed articles and seems determined to impose his will on the other editors involved. It is now time this dispute was forced into arbitration so that we are not obliged to endlessly battle with a user who seeks any opportunity to evade having to deal with those who not agree with his point of view. I believe someone urgently needs to tell him to desist from unilateral and controversial edits while the disputed status of the article is sorted out. I hope someone can act to stabilise this situation and to make it clear that all parties to the dispute must be respected. ] 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
== #wikipedia-en-admins and WP:SNOW ==
I found the blitzkrieg DRV on Daniel Brandt curious enough to go to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel to find out if people there know what's going on. I found it even more curious that the editors who voted endorse on the DRV where largely the same editors who were present in the channel. It turns out that the link to the DRV was posted, but there was no soliciting for meat puppets. Anyway, after a mass of editors from that channel voted endorse, the DRV was quickly closed per WP:SNOW.
This brings up a problem with WP:SNOW and IRC. Many editors hang out in various IRC channels, and links to deletion and other discussion inevitably get posted. If those channels contain likeminded people, we get a big influx of votes for the same position at once, before the general readership even gets the chance to review the case. If such a discussion is closed early, we can't really tell what the final result would have been, so WP:SNOW should not apply.
The other thing is the #wikipedia-en-admins channel itself, or rather it's name. I was told that it's no longer an admin-only channel, but rather "an informal gathering of interested, trustworthy and influential people". Without going into the actual trustworthyness and influence, I question whether the channel should keep its current name, which implies that it's something it isn't. ] | ] 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
There is a recent tendency of some people of removing {{rejected}} from old proposals that they like, and replace it by {{essay}}. Apparently the latter sounds less negative or offensive to some. However, is this appropriate? If you make a proposal to the community, and the community doesn't like it, it's obviously rejected - so should you then step back and say, wait, it wasn't actually a proposal, it's just my opinion? On the one hand, who cares? On the other hand, it is essentially misleading. Comments please? >Radiant<13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is is isn't that straightforward. Sometimes someone writes an essay and then someone else proposes it as a guideline. Sometimes someone proposes a guideline, but others think it is better as an essay. On the whole it doesn't matter. Essays are a position held by a number, but not a consensus, of wikipedians. Guidelines are the position that reflects what we actually do - i.e. current consensus. Perhaps thus all rejected guidelines that still enjoy a reasonable level of support are essays. (Unless they are advocating a new process, in which case they are simply 'fails').--Doc13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, but I'd probably make an exception for pages that are not opinions but simple falsehood, or that are Really Bloody Stupid. Both are rather rare; the UBOR comes to mind if you remember that one. >Radiant<13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Yes, I agree that essays that are in the minority opinion, or a simple falsehood, or "Really Bloody Stupid", should be kept in userspace. InBC13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
To be an essay, I think something needs to express an idea that has some degree of support, however controversial it may be with others. Anything that's purely a small minority sport or a quixotic opinion should be userfied.--Doc13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd support userfying almost all of the essays. The recent issues with Why Misplaced Pages is Failing have shown that these essays are treated as if editors own them, not as group projects which can be edited by anyone. I'd support any move to have essay be permitted under user areas only.--Alabamaboy14:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense... except for the rare essays which DO have wide agreement / collaborative editing. Things that occupy a status somewhere below 'Guideline', but above 'Opinion of a handful of users'. --CBD15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I think essays are fine in project space, as long as a) the are not WP:OWNed b) open to having a 'other people disagree with this idea because...' section, if opponents want the other side recorded. It would be a shame to lose such things. If they are put in userspace, then they lose something of the corporate possibilities. Maybe we need a separate category for 1. collaborative written pieces that explore and issue and are open to recording all sides 2. useful monographs (whether in project space or userspace).--Doc16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that (a) is necessary. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. >Radiant<10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
My $0.02: if something is launched as a proposal (i.e. is designed to be used as a rule of some sort) and is rejected, then rejected is it. If something is a philosophical discourse never advanced as a proposal, it's an essay. If something is proposed and rejected, we need to have it tagged as rejected to stop people coming along every few months and saying "hey, that's an idea! I'll propose it..." Guy (Help!) 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you want a list of pages designed to be used as a rule of some sort, that were rejected, and had their tag changed to {{essay}} because the proponents found the {{rejected}} disparaging? There's at least half a dozen of those. >Radiant<10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposals that failed to reach consensus and are now marked as "essay" include the following:
How about a rejssay tag (we can work on the name) for rejected proposals which, through community consensus become essays. "This essay was initially proposed as a guideline/policy and was rejected by the comunity. It has now gained consensus amongst the community as an exposition of a contentious issue on Misplaced Pages". Or something like that. Steve blockTalk18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Do note that mixing Misplaced Pages:Straw polls in with the rest of those pages is a bit disingenuous (apple and oranges) in that it had been labeled as an essay for quite some time and then labeled as guideline for quite some time and then its guideline status was disputed whereupon it's status was changed to proposal and now it is back to essay. Labeling such an essay/guideline/proposal/essay as rejected would not be the right thing to do. (→Netscott)16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar, I believe this administrator is in one of these categories and hence sensitive to the matter of precisely where the age cut-off for them should be placed. Of course he should step away from further deletions in this matter and I'm sure he will take guidance accordingly. Newyorkbrad13:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup. No evil intent, just an excess of enthusiasm, butin a very sensitive area. Needs a quiet word from a trusted friend. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree fully. No need to rush in and browbeat him, just quietly point out that he's too close to the issue and that someone else might be a better choice to decide the matter. Essjay(Talk)15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As it seems that "quiet point" is probably going to come from this noticeboard - given NYB has had a chat/linked him here - I might as well throw my hat into the ring. 1ne, although you may feel that an injustice is being done to Misplaced Pages, wheel warring only creates problems, and those problems aren't worth it on this category. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait, guys. I had a change of heart, I'm not trying to violate POINT. What I think is that we should delete categories for everyone under 18. What's wrong with that? Also, JzG, don't 'report' people you're involved in disputes with. Cheers! 1ne22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that he's not the only one who redeleted that page. Several administrators have, while you restored it six separate times. Your actions are out of process, and definitely constitute wheel warring. What's wrong with his bringing attention to it here? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How are the other administrators' actions not out of process? Deleting something with the reason 'page contained: foo' isn't a reason. 1ne01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's an automatically generated edit summary. I'm sure that if you have any question about the reason an admin deleted a page and ask that admin the reason, he or she will gladly tell you. Newyorkbrad01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a UCFD, which means that it's not going to be found on the main CfD page. Do not pass go, whack the people who decided on that split. -Amarkovmoo!05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it was a very bad idea for 1ne to remove the DRV from showing up on the TOC when adding his input. Almost as if he didn't want other people to notice it. VegaDark06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What, do you think I'm in on some sort of conspiracy? If you see my edit to this page, you'll notice that this is a glitch in my browser that happens when I add a new section. I was wondering why the formatting was broken, myself. I think it was a bad idea that you didn't look into my contribs to pages related to this one. If I had known I was attaching '&s to things, I'd have been fixing them. Vega, is this a big conspiracy to you? 1ne08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but I didn't jump to conculsions. If I had I would have flat out said that you were trying to get people to not see the debate instead of saying "Almost as if" you were doing that. VegaDark09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a stupid debate. Let's get back on task. Anyways... so 1ne has been wheel warring over a category. Newyorkbrad says he may have emotional connection towards that category. That makes sense to me. The wheel warring has come to an end. That is good. The wheel warring towards the 1989 category is no more. That is good. Did 1ne delete the category to begin with to disrupt Misplaced Pages for the sake of a point or because he's genuinely concerned about the fact that some people in that category are under 18? That is irrelevant; if we keep spending all this time on it, then it will have been disruptive. The problem seems to have died down. Let's get back to work. I myself have more homework than I thought; I should get started. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Btw DXRAW, Jimmy never said that the page would be unprotected on the 21st. He said that the discussion could reopen then. Big difference. --Woohookitty07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should warn him in particular that he risks becoming even more nearly headless? Hey, wasn't he involved in some controversial AfD closures too lately? Hopefully no webcomics, were they? Fut.Perf.☼16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I do believe several of them were. *sigh* Webcomics. Oy. (So, when are we going to have an extensive discussion on how to judge the notability of webcomics that aren't covered by media outlets, don't have dead-tree versions, etc. but are fanatically followed by Internet fans, and avoid having this kind of thing showing up in every freakin' webcomic that comes around?) Tony Fox(arf!)16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What discussion is there to have? For a webcomic to have an article we need reliable independent sources and preferably someone at least vaguely dispassionate writing the thing, same as everything else. Webcomics aren't a special case. Ok, they're on the Internet, and we're on the Internet, and therefore it's easier to round up some fans to SPAm an AfD, but this is just a side-effect of our model - webcomics have no more reason to 'deserve' an entry in Misplaced Pages than they do in Britannica. It's just harder to organise a coach down to Britannica's head office, and have them tell the editors that Webcomic #15353 is number 5 on the Top 100 List Of Webcomics About Bicycling Furries Wearing Wooly Hats, than it is to post a link on a blog. --Sam Blanning19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely, and have opined on both sides of webcomic debates. The problem is that there's this seemingly growing revolt among webcomic creators and their readers that is vilifying Misplaced Pages because their articles are being deleted, and it seems to be a significantly sized group that's out there screaming about deletionism. The comic leading this section isn't the only one that's been taking potshots at us. My question, I guess, is whether we need to have specific guidelines for webcomics that we can point to, say "If you don't meet these, then let us know when you do," and make the comics mob put down the pitchforks and torches to actually try and meet the guidelines. Tony Fox(arf!)20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I say we bend the rules for webcomics. After all, they're writing nasty things about us! Seriously, I agree with Sam that the rules on notability are clearly stated.--Alabamaboy01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
*Eye roll*. These users are literally pushing the envelope as far as they can. "Oops, might get banned now!"? C'mon. Just block the guy. If anyone can tell me how the statement "users are full of cocks" is anything other than WP:TROLL, I'll do it, but this is someone just trying to game the system. User is just hoping to get people mad, and then have some admins come along and say, "I don't know if we should block him..." Part Deux15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody take a look at Atkins nutritional approach? I can't figure out what the heck is going on there. It's obviously a talk page, and after several bizarre moves from place to place, it's now sitting where the article should be. I'd fix it, but I can't find the article. Anybody have a clue? Kafziel17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Cleaned up. A user had been somehow upset over contents on the talkpage, had tried to remove some passages, had mistakenly moved the talkpage to her userspace, then moved it back but not to talk space but article space, and with the wrong capitalisation. Fut.Perf.☼18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
New admin? Wait till you've overseen some real good hard move-war somewhere. After that, nothing will be able to shake you. :-) --Fut.Perf.☼18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've closed this early for reasons explained at that page. Please review in case anyone thinks that continuing this for the full length will produce a different result or something else in the least bit productive. --Sam Blanning19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that few of the "endorse deletion" were based in reality, I'm not even sure how you can come to an "endorse," let alone think there's any consensus given the discussion there and at the DRV subpage's talk page. You needed to reverse yourself twenty minutes ago. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of principle, I strongly oppose closing any discussion that has been open only 11 hours. For a lot of people, this means it will be over before they even saw it. Trebor20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nor am I trying to, and I'm sorry you chose to interpret my remark as such. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that simply stating, as a fact, that everyone else's concerns are non-existant, is unhelpful and is not the way to win arguments. Mackensen(talk)20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually detailed it better at the talk page of the DRV. It was, of course, soundly ignored in favor of a disruptive close, so what else is there to say? --badlydrawnjefftalk20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As it met standards before it was deleted, what did you expect? After 11 hours, how could you expect anything new to crop up. I may relist it on the main DRV page if someone doesn't do the right thing. --badlydrawnjefftalk20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Pace badlydrawnjeff (to whom I directed some remarks on the talk page of the DRV as to which I would welcome feedback from others), the consensus against re-creating the article is overwhelming. Personally, I would prefer retention of the outright deletion over redirecting to List of Internet phenomena, in part because the "People" section in that article is itself a WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show that needs substantial attention and clean-up. But I suppose we should leave that for another day. Newyorkbrad20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you've posted this in a few places already. Thanks for the input, there still hasn't been a legitimate, logical, rational reason for deletion given. Not that 11 hours is enough time to find one. --badlydrawnjefftalk20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
How about the legitimate, logical, rational reason that many of us find the idea of basing an article on this subject to be horrific, despicable, and non-encyclopedic as well? And how about the fact that there are several hundred other deletion debates going on, on many of which I would like to see a strong case put for keep, instead of devoting continuing energy into continuing advocacy for an article that clearly is not coming back? Newyorkbrad20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point. "Horrific" and "despicable," both terms I agree with, are irrelevant to the discussion. Non-encyclopedic? Well, I disagree, but we have ways to discern that, which this article met. If we're going to abandon our policies and guidelines here, why bother with any other disucssions if they don't matter? --badlydrawnjefftalk21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You want "legitimate, logical and rational"? How's "Any article about this guy would amount to: He is a sex offender from someplace. He got a short sentence. He has become an internet meme because a number of people think he looks funny." Come on, man. I know you're on the extreme end of the inclusion spectrum, but that's all you could write about him, and even that would probably not meet BLP because it would be slanted towards negative coverage. Having said that, however, I probably would have let it run at least 24 hours before closing; I, though, am not an admin, and I respect Sam Blanning's judgment in this case. Tony Fox(arf!)21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure - the result was no in doubt. Sure, a minority believe it was the wrong result - but even they must admit that letting it run was not going to produce a different conclusion.--Doc20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there would have been any harm in letting it run one full day, but on the other hand I don't dispute the close either. Consensus was extremely clear, and among established editors it was truly overwhelming. "Brian Peppers Day" has come and gone without any great cataclysm, and we all survived. Time to get back to building an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Fully endorse closure - I wasn't around for this the first time, but from everything I have read, it was an embarassment for Misplaced Pages and there's no reason to make the same mistake twice. --BigDT20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This was simply never going to be recreated, for many reasons. Jeff: please get off the soapbox. Others: there are many people abroad who are getting off on us tying our knickers in a knot over this non-notable alleged sex-offender "meme"-driven freak show. If ever WP:DENY applied somewhere, this was it. 〈REDVEЯS〉20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, darling, you've been stood on the same soapbox since late last year. Adding another one simply wouldn't help... although it'd make you taller, obviously :o) 〈REDVEЯS〉20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want, but do take the time to pause and reflect on the fundamental fact: the sum total of verifiable information here is (a) Peppers looks funny, (b) Peppers was convicted of a technical offence at the lower end of the severity scale of sexual offences, (c) a number of people chose to make fun of his appearance, resulting in his mugshot being pulled from e-SORN. Nothing else is actually verifiable. Not the disability, not the fact that he lives in a nursing home, not the cause of his apparent deformity, not the details of the offence, nothing about the victim or the context, no contemporaneous news coverage, Factiva, Lexis-Nexis and Google News all come up blank. We know next to nothing about Brian Peppers, the living human being. The only things we do know are either trivial or derogatory. I paid money for searches to see if there was additional verifiable data - there isn't. This is not the Star Wars Kid, who thought he was being cool and wasn't, this is someone who ahs absolutely no control over the situation, and furthermore whose "notability" rests solely and entirely on the fact that he looks weird. Only that. It's a random picture of some guy, taken out of context and used as an object of ridicule by people with absolutely no shame. And we deleted it, and we decided to keep it deleted. It's a trade: we get raspberries from the people who like to laugh at Peppers' appearance, in return for our self-respect and the clueful application of our policy on living individuals. I can't find it in me to call this anything but a good deal. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I knew you were only half serious anyway. --badlydrawnjeff
nothing pm lexis-nexis? that rather contradicts a claim amde here:
Endorse closure, per above. All useful arguments related to this issue are already well-known. It was pretty apparent to me that nothing good would have come from keeping this open longer. Friday(talk)20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would endorse the close as well. Article was clearly not going to be recreated. I say this, by the way, as someone who doesn't think either recreating it or salting it would be a bad thing. The issue is just too trivial, and ends up being a time sink. IronDuke21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Putting it out of its misery was the right thing to do, as consensus was clearly to delete. Thus ends, "Brian Peppers Day." ObiterDicta22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I also endorse the close. I already explained how trivial any sources found on this guy would be, and almost all of the deletions were valid. Something deleted so many times clearly has zero chance of being notable, whether as a person or as a meme, and you're not going to find anything that proves otherwise per WP:BIO. One source of questionable value is not enough, and I would recommend reviewing the whole situation before accusing the closing admin of being abusive. --Coredesat22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
My review of the whole situation is how I came to the conclusion. Your continued assertions regarding supposed triviality simply are not true. --badlydrawnjefftalk22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, regardless, all that can be established is that he is a sex offender, and the DRV was heavily trolled anyway. I don't really see how the "keep deleted"s were "not based in reality" - there were major WP:BLP concerns here. This is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, and even if you take any such arguments out of the equation, there still would have been consensus to endorse. --Coredesat22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't seeing a lot of heavy trolling, honestly, and there, again, were not a lot of BLP issues - certainly not so many that couldn't be dealt with via editing. I guess it depends on whether you think a consensus can be based on incorrect reasoning - Misplaced Pages:Consensus certainly doesn't. --badlydrawnjefftalk23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Normally I'd be among the first in line to cry for "hey, let's just follow our own rules so that our critics won't get any undue ammo", but heck, it's abundantly clear that there's no way out of this dead end right now. Basically, a) the Opposition hasn't been able to figure out why this person is really notable aside of some fuzzy ideas on... perhaps... I don't know... having some email forward notability somewhere? Uh... forwarded a bit from person to person... somewhere... and b) how to conduct this matter with all the solemnity required. We don't need a "just-because" revival of the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse closure. WP:SNOW covers the action. The degree to which this particular subject is a troll magnet might make an interesting sociological study, but we're an encyclopedia and not a social experiment. Durova23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Problem in exchanging a redirect page and the page it points to
Hi, I tried to exchange the Page Lamellophone (then a redirect page to lamellaphone with the page Lamellaphone /then the main article).
I tried to do this by a ring move. The idea was to move "Lamellophone" to "Lamellophone1", then "Lamellaphone" to "Lamellophone" and finally "Lamellophoe1" to "Lamellaphone" (+ change some texts).
Trying to move the redirect page "Lamellophone" to "Lamellophone11" did not work, the system complained that a page of that name already existed (I belive it did not).
I then did the change instead by moving the content of the articles including the talk page content. However, the Talk page of "Lamellophone" now has the title "Talk:Lamellophone1", so it looks like the attempted move lead to an inconsistency in the data structure.
It looks like there is a bug in the moove functionality. If possible, could somebody repair the problem (rename the talk page)?
Thenk you Nannus20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I added image links to facilitate undeleting them (you can see redlinks vs bluelinks) and restored the first three, but they seem to still be orphaned. Are they actually in use somewhere? --BigDT21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
They still have the orphan template, but all of the ones I've looked at appear to be in use. I've been restoring and then removing the template. And I'm working from the bottom up. -- Merope21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please review the closing of the discussion surrounding the application of the trademark section of the manual of style to the article titles that include TNA iMPACT!? It appears the closing admin ignored comparative argument strengths, simple majority, and the manual of style itself in deciding a consensus was not met and therefore move was not warranted. Thanks. ju66l3r21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If reviewing this requested move discussion is not done here, then can someone suggest the next step? I know that there is deletion review, but I don't see a requested move review. Thanks. ju66l3r23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps something should be put in the Categorization FAQ about this. I have been making sure all British MPs are correctly categorised, and checking them against contemporary alphabetical lists, and it is very difficult if the 'Mac's and the 'Mc's are in different places. All lists I have seen treat them as the same. (Also the Irish variant popular in the 19th century, of just "M'"). I confess to myself having changed several over to fit in. Sam Blacketer22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as the culprit in question, I was changing those surnames for categorization purposes only because of the note left on Martin McGuinness' edit page from an otherwise unidentified source (a sorter?) who stated that "McG" should be categorized as "Macg"; you can see it yourself.
I extended it to surnames starting with "O'" because I have noticed default sorting as "Oneill", not "O'Neill", for example. It is not anti-Celtic harrassment, I assure you.
As far as the distinction between Mc (Irish) and Mac (Scottish), that is far too deep and profound for me to delve into, I am not an expert anyway, but it has nothing to do with this matter.
Please contact me if you wish. Veronica Mars fanatic02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Guy is correct that there's a custom of sorting "Mc" and "Mac" together. It is much less common in the U.S. now than it used to be, but is still practised in the U.K. I think there's nothing wrong with doing so here since we also honor British spellings. -Will Beback · † · 09:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've left a notice at User talk:Pastorwayne, due to multiple situations, requests and comments, both in the past and present.
It would seem obvious he's well-meaning, but he's also apparently forcing his POV.
And even though he's been warned several times, he's continuing his disruptive creations.
To make it clear this is a history of many categories, over a period of months.
However, I hesitate to block. for a couple reasons:
1.) "How much is too much" could be considered subjective. (The cry of: "That's what WP:CfD is for...", rings in my ears.)
2.) I think this could set a precedent that could be abused, related to the above. ("You created x number of categories which went up for CfD, so now you're blocked.") - Though I honestly can't imagine an admin doing such a thing, I've been surprised in the past : )
3.) If blocking is appropriate, then we should probably discuss a community ban, since it's been an ongoing issue. (At least from methodist, or even christian-related categories.)
4.) I want to give some time after the warning.
Interested in others' thoughts.
PS - I don't think I would oppose a short block by another disinterested party.
First off, that is a very good post you made on Pastorwayne's talk page.
To the issue at hand, I think you made a fair and valid warning. A block would only be appropriate if continued disruption occurs after the message, so that the user is prevented from misbehaving more while the discussion of appropriate action is undertaken. I don't see a block at the moment for preventative reasons- no dialogue+disruption= a day or two. Teke04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, rather than address my concerns, he created another category. He could have explained his reasoning behind the primate categories, but instead, seems to have ignored the warning and created another one. I think that he qualifies for a block based on at least the two following criteria on Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing: "Is tendentious" and "Rejects community input". I think that this also brings us to step 5 at Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors.
Also good block. Will give the user time to respond and re-think. Probably could have done with even shorter, or an unblock if they're willing to discuss. If no discussion and the same repeated problem editing repeats, then escalate the blocks. I've seen escalating blocks be very effective. Start with the minimum to mitigate the behavior and then increase as they continually repeat without improving. - Taxman17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it would seem rather obvious that this is User:Pastorwayne. If necessary I suppose that we could submit a checkuser request.
Taxman suggested escalating blocks. This is where I plead lack of experience. My understanding is that IP blocks are a bit more complex. Also, at this point, he seems to have stopped, so he may just be waiting out the 24 hour block. This probably justifies a notice, and perhaps an extension of the block? While I've read the various pages, I think I would rather err on the side of caution and ask someone more experienced in IP blocks, for suggestions. - jc3707:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Violation of Verifiability, and NOR on "Ethnic Japanese" and "Japanese Diaspora" pages
I'm quite tired of editors refusing to abide by verifiability and NOR on ethnic Japanese and Japanese diaspora (Nikkei people). Currently they have NO reliable sources, while I have many. They keep referring to consensus and discussion; however discussion does not make an article space edit verifiable, and qualifies for original research. You may visit the respective talk page for my evidence (Talk:Japanese_diaspora) or I can recompile key ones here. These editors are relying on gut reaction rather than core tenants of wikipedia. Even the resolution of a move was made by an admin without proper verification. I was willing to compromise with that, but the issue will keep on going. It's ridiculous that I have to spend hours citing my case, but my opposition is getting away with arguments without verification. Currently User:Arthur Rubin is calling me a vandal for edits upon Ethnic Japanese, despite my edit having verifiability. I'm not quite at the point of arbitration, and would like some opinions by administrators. falsedef02:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For examples of reliable sources that use ethnic Japanese to mean those in Japan (nonexclusive): Enc. Britannica, NCBI, Nature, UChicago professor, Time. For example, Britannica states, The population of Japan is very homogeneous, consisting almost entirely of ethnic Japanese..
If you have a reliable source that is not ambiguous, then please provide one. At the moment you are violating 2 core policies. ONE unambiguous reliable source (that does not use Misplaced Pages for its information), then we have a discussion; until then, you have no right to revert my edits. falsedef02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If you would like the proper usage of Japanese emigrants and descendants (aka Nikkei, Nikkeijin), then here are some: . Currently, one of the largest ongoing efforts is with the Japanese American National Museum. You can view their project's site project's site and respective definition derived from "findings of the International Nikkei Research Project, a three-year collaborative project that involved more than 100 scholars from 10 countries and 14 participating institutions." Now, please provide your sources, then we can "discuss" and reach a compromise, otherwise you have no right right to revert my edits. falsedef02:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
All right folks, that's just about enough bickering. Take it to requests for comment if resolution on the talk page doesn't work. This is not the place for content dispute. Thank you, Teke04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
RFC does not seem to resolve core policy conflicts. Reaching consensus is pointless if there's no verifiability. Again, I keep getting referred by editors and even admins about discussion and consensus resolution, with disregard to core policy. The RFC states: "All editors are welcome to provide comment to assist in reaching agreements or to provide their opinions by responding to requests for comment on an article discussion page. Remember that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia; all articles and policies must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. This is not a vote.". Why must I keep jumping through hoops of unverified claims over and over again? falsedef06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Then it seems arbitration is your route, if mediation cannot be agreed upon. This isn't for a singular administrator to resolve independently unless they want to mediate. Teke06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I should've requested for it awhile ago; however, I'll refrain for now. I was under the apparently incorrect assumption that admins had the ability and right to enforce[REDACTED] core policy, or at least be forced to follow it. falsedef07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an administrative right that every Wikipedian has. While an administrator has the ability to block in a dispute, the regulation of such a dispute is not any more authoritative than any other talk page discussion. The reason for the conflict resolution point is that this is not the place to get the assistance you need. I can jump up and down until my head turns blue trying to sort this out as an uninvolved third party but I don't think any headway will be made. Ergo, mediation or arbitration. That really is the best advice you can get in regards to settling the issue. Teke01:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Request deletion of image
The image, "Image:H60566.jpg" exists under identical file names in both Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons. Request that the Misplaced Pages image be deleted so that the Commons image will be used instead to the linked articles. Thank you. Cla6803:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah; the user who uploaded it is a single-purpose account who has uploaded a few porn images that were deleted for no source/improper licensing, so my opinion was that GFDL-self couldn't be easily confirmed. Ral315»06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Alternative way to create accounts due to CAPTCHA
Because of the recent addition of CAPTCHA images to the account creation page, I'm proposing an alternative process for those who are unable to read the images (screen readers, et al.): Misplaced Pages:Request an account. Admins would be able to create accounts for anonymous users. Feel free to edit these pages; I'm hoping to add a link to it from MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount once the process is well-defined. Ral315»06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, that's it. This kid has made it clear, I think, that he is only here for one reason. Blatant use of a sockpuppet to insert his name in articles after he was warned to desist, using two userpages for self-promotion, etc. ad nauseam. 1 month for him, indef for his sock Tony16 (talk·contribs), and if anyone wants to change it to indef, please do. yandman12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Tom70 (talk·contribs) seems suspicious. Account created three minutes after block of Asher2032. Editing pattern and edit summaries seems to suggest it's Asher. Is RFCU appropriate because of the indef block now? Gzkn04:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Fuzzy Zoeller needs full protection after article today about lawsuit. Already it's been vandalized. I also thin someone with oversight needs to delete the latest edit. --Tbeatty14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I realize that. This is an ongoing incident that recently had front office action and oversight deletions. It needs attention. --Tbeatty14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted back further, it looks like you missed the vandalized "Fussy" stuff. I've fully protected for the moment whilst we sort this out.--Isotope2314:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Be sure to have a look for vandalism when protecting pages, since once protected it can't easily be removed by editors. The protected version had some nonsense about a prosthetic penis, which I've removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to request a schoolblock for our proxy server IP address so that we don't have anymore instances of students anonymously vandalizing pages. After ask about this on the help desk page I was told that an admin would have to put this in place. Is there an admin that can help me with this ? Pennmanor21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
To start with, you'll need to log out and post again here, so we can see what IP you are coming from. Otherwise your IP is hidden to us. Then someone will look at the history and make a determination. Thatcher13121:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is a post with me being logged out so that you can see the IP. I just static mapped my proxy to this address so you may not see any history of abuse from it but you will find previous abuse from the 166.66.202.70-120 range
166.66.202.6014:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a lot of anonymous vandalism; there's some, but it's pretty typical and not so outrageous that we would preemptively block the entire school. The only range I can verify is 166.66.0.0/16, which is all 65000 addresses belonging to the school, including everything from faculty and administrations to the dorms. Blocking the entire range doesn't seem warranted at this time, although I appreciate your concern. Thatcher13115:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We are a school district and we utilize the university as our ISP so we only have 128 address. What we would like to avoid is the university being contacted everytime a student vandalizes a page. We would only like to have anonymous edits blocked from 1 IP address, 166.66.202.60 , not the entire range.
OK that makes more sense, however I am perplexed. The address you cite only has two vandal edits, both today. What are the 128 addresses in question? Thatcher13115:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Our NAT pool that requests would have come from is 166.66.202.70-120 . Before today when I locked the proxy into the .60 address requests could have been from any of those 50 addresses Pennmanor15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that from now on, all edits from your school will come from 166.66.202.60? Or do you want 70-120 blocked as well? And would you mind emailing me at thatcher131 at gmail dot com from an official address so I can confirm this is not a prank? Thatcher13116:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, since all the traffic is now routed through one IP and the school is trying to avoid being dinged by their upstream host, a soft block is a no-brainer. Thatcher13116:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected) is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This user is being highly disruptive in making changes to tennis articles against longstanding and well-established consensus, editing the comments of other users (including entries on this page ), and blanking his talk page (which includes several warnings) . It appears that this same user was making the exact same changes over the last few weeks using various IP accounts, e.g., , until the Roger Federer article was semi-protected to prevent those changes. We need administrator intervention. Thank you! Tennis expert17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have blovked Lman1987 for 24 hours for disruption. The editor was trying to mangle this post, remove evidence and generally unconstructive behavior. If anybody has issues with this block, feel free to unblock! Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Good block, no need to wait for a warning when it was exceedingly obvious the user was intending to be disruptive. If the rest of their editing is similar, I'd be for giving one chance to see if they've learned from the current block, then applying rapidly increasing blocks for repeating the behavior. Say a week next time and indefinite the next. - Taxman17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have implemented a 31-hour block of a school's IP address range due to persistent vandalism of our featured article Shadow of the Colossus. The IP address range is 167.128.60.0/24.
Interested admins are cordially invited to review this block, and revert it if they feel it is unwarranted.
Being at school, I don't have some of the tools I usually use, but I can only find one diff for that range at Shadow of the Colossus, and while that certainly is vandalism, that's also the IP's only edit -- am I missing them? Other articles/users/checkuser/info involved? Your recent contribs don't seem to show relevant reverts, either. =\ – Luna Santin (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am making an assumption, perhaps unwarranted, that the vandalism from the IP address in question was committed by User:Baconandeggs3, who had engaged in vandalism of this article immediately prior. This assumption is based on the similar juvenile nature of the vandalism, and the fact that User:Baconandeggs3 and the lone IP address actually accurately described their vandalism in the edit summary.
As for reverts, other people got there before I did. I do everything manually. Bots are faster.
Indeed, your assumption is unwarranted. Evidently, you're unfamiliar with automatic edit summaries. I created the description page (and linked it from the automatic edit summary messages themselves) specifically to address this type of misunderstanding. —David Levy19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And thus we see that my notification here was justified. I shall undo the block forthwith, assuming that someone else hasn't done it already.
Ahh, that's why. :p Well, if you didn't know about AES (which is relatively new, now that I think about it), that seems like it would have been a reasonable conclusion. Glad that's cleared up. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Excess SPA activity on AfD
Due to a notice in The Inquirer, the AfD for Terry Shannon is getting an excess of anon/SPA activity, as well as some vandalism. An admin should likely keep an eye on it, and in particular Discpad (talk·contribs) who has been removing comments from the page, as well as making personal attacks. As the nom, I'm trying to avoid having to repeatedly clean up that AfD myself. Thx,--Leflyman19:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to request semi-protection on the JetBlue Airways page. Since last week's incident, several anonymous editors have been making changes that are not needed, and some have been posting biased information. Specifically time index 13:39, 21 February 2007 to 15:43, 21 February 2007. A registered editor has also removed a redirect twice, user Rattleman. If the page could be semi protected, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Neo1628722:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
OK it took me like 2 hours to end up on this page and I don't know what I'm supposed to do.
I was looking up Hunan Beef and found this thing below and I don't even know what it means. I don't have a user name and I've never done anything wrong on this site, or any for that matter. I only read information.
It makes me sad that someone decided to block me for doing nothing?? Guess I'll just go back to Britannica
Blocked as a sockpuppet
You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user . As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Misplaced Pages. All your edits have been reverted.
If you believe this block to be unjustified, you can contest it by adding {{unblock|reason}} on this page, replacing reason with an explanation of why you think this is an unjust block. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.
Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello anonymous user, the block warning that you received was probably intended for another person. Your IP address might change every time you connect to the internet. If so, then you were unfortunate enough to see this warning that was meant for someone else. Many (most?) blocks are for a duration of one year or less, so you can likely edit Misplaced Pages. Your current IP address of 71.33.95.227 doesn't show any blocks. In any case, you are welcome to read Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry you've had this experience, and I hope it hasn't soured your impression of Misplaced Pages. --Kyoko02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the style of the headers on the pages, and the main greeting page needs to be updated to reflect it. Thanks --froth02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Both accounts have already been blocked indefinitely. So far it's been annoying but manageable. If more accounts are created to continue the spamming, then a checkuser run and rangeblock can be considered. Newyorkbrad03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
When following a red link to create the article Humberto Ak'ab'al I failed to search thuroughly enough on Misplaced Pages and failed to find that a stub already existed at Humberto Ak'abal. I'd have thought it would show up on a google search but it didn't. By the time I found it I'd already saved a better written and referenced stub but a history merge might be in order. Sorry for causing the trouble. Eluchil40409:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Request for help
This user ] is attempting to bring me into dispute and influence a ArbCom discussion ], ], ], along with somebody who is trying to defend ], ] as well as holding a WP:COI threat over me to somehow make me confess to his line of thinking. I really have no idea how to resolve this issue and would appriciate some admin input into the matter. Many Thanks Shot info11:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Shot_info is an editor with an apparent, severe, trojan horse-like WP:COI that has subtly but critically affected the edit environment of the extremely contentious articles at Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, NCAHF, and Barrett v. Rosenthal. He is a highly educated editor usually capable of going many edit rounds on very tighly focused issues that affect the image of the respective organizations and individuals. While I am not trying to make him a party to the RfArb, he does need to timely disclose his substantial COI both for the RfArb and for the health of the community and these articles. He repeatedly challengesme as bluffing about my purposes, putatively a "smokescreen", and about my having observations and correlations that connect him to these organiztions that are the subject of the articles. The truth is that I am giving him (too) many chances to simply end it without administratively initiated action with a full statement of his choosing rather than mine.
Unfortunately for Shot_info, he is in a difficult position between loyalty to organizations & family and my insistence that he now come clean about this COI, after participating in provocative edits earlier this week that affects an editor subject to a RfArb. His challenges to me as bluffing could not be more mistaken, I am loaded, my personality not a natural attacker. I often wait too long and have given him extra, progressive hints about my concerns over the last 5 weeks, primarily readable by him, and extra chances to avoid confrontation as I think his voluntary handling would be most efficient and least compromising to him and those whom he feels strong loyalty to. Even one of my usual edit opposites and an ally of shot_info seems to think that I am okay here.
I guess at this point I have little choice but to begin discussion with the adminstrator, User:Lethaniol, that volunteered last night as well as another administrator that I queried yesterday about some related matters, and to prepare for the extra time of an AN:COI whereas shot_info may be exposing himself less favorably to administrative attention and my lamentable writing.--I'clast13:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't place too much weight on my comment mentioned by I'clast. I am only saying that I'm in the dark on this one and that I may be quite surprised at any revealings. That's all. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it suggested by several people now that we have way too many essays, and that several of these should be removed, deleted or userfied. That probably does not include the dozen ex-proposals I mentioned earlier; it's more about the pointless rants or incomplete opinion pieces. However, WP:MFD tends to be of the opinion that essays are harmless and should be kept. Apparently opinions vary. So, perhaps we should get some volunteers to userfy parts of CAT:E to the principal author? Or is it not worth or trouble? >Radiant<12:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd oppose this in general. In Cat:E is some light hearted pieces and some useful stuff that commands some support and certainly illuminates. Perhaps what we should have is a move to userfy stuff which is solo-authored AND quixotic (= opinion that hardly anyone agrees with). Perhaps a first step is do split CAT:E into
Cat:General Essays a 'category for essays that are (or may become) multi-author works and either balance differing views or represent views that held by a majority or very substantial minority of the community' all these must be in project space.
Cat:User Essays = 'a category for most mono-authored pieces, or essays representing clearly small minority opinions' - this category should generally exist in userspace, although there can be honourable exceptions for pieces that are often used, clearly collaborative, amusing, or deemed to be of wider interest. --Doc12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I foresee that splitting into "general" and "user" essays will lead to more tag warring over people who disagree that their essay is a minority opinion. >Radiant<12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that essays that don't enjoy general support should be userfied, the move for an extra Category that Doc suggests would be a useful way for users with their own essays to advertise them. But generally any contributions shouldn't be deleted totally (just moved to user space) --Monotonehell12:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There are almost no essays that "enjoy general support", since the whole point of essays tends to be to given an opinion. Note that I wasn't suggesting "deleting totally" either. >Radiant<12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I predict that without some sort of a general consensus about this it is liable to cause a serious disruption. There should be a general consensus based upon some sort of criteria. One of the criteria could consist of a threshhold of a number of "What links here" link backs a given essay has with the thinking that the more links a given essay has the more liable it is to have community recognition/acceptance. (→Netscott)12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Another possible criteria would be how many other language Wikis have their own versions of a given essay? Obviously the more there are the more likely an essay has recognition. (→Netscott)13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly support a move to userfy most essays. There is room for a fair amount of stuff in project space that's neither a policy or a guideline but the essay tag is over used and abused by people who simpy want to advertise their (non-consensual) opinion. People are free to express themselves (and even collaborate if they wish) in userspace there's no need to clog up Misplaced Pages space with conflicting opinions. However, I do support keeping userfied essays in a category to facilitate finding them, which can help avoid redundancy. Why express myself in an essay if someone else has already written a better one that I can refer to? I don't like Doc's idea of a two tiered category since I fear it would encourage WP:OWNing of essays. Eluchil40412:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with userfying is that they make what could be corporate works the 'property' of one user. There's another problem, even essays that are contravertial or minority can still be useful. Take WP:SNOW - yes a lot of people hate it, but snowballing happens - new users want to know what the hell that's about. WP:SNOW explains it - and can flag up the problems and objections. If we userfied it, we'd lose that resource and certainly the cross-space redirect WP, since that can't go to userspace. I suspect that there may be many essays like that. Even recording the arguments for a highly unpopular position can be useful. Perhaps the solution is to require essays in project space to be roughly NPOV - i.e. record the arguments for AND against the position and indicate levels of support or objection - no WP:OWNing. If you want to write an op-ed, then that goes in userspace.--Doc13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict>I think it's a good move. I can't see an issue with the WP:OWNing of essays if you are already suggesting they be userfied. By userfying them you are indicating ownership. I support the split. I also think a few of our essays can be merged. Misplaced Pages:"In popular culture" articles could be merged to WP:TRIV, and couldn't all the Misplaced Pages:Don't... be merged into one?. God help me for suggesting it, but maybe we need a proposal method for Misplaced Pages namespace essays. Things like WP:BEANS are obviously immensely useful, in fact to my mind they'd be guidance, but we use a different definition of guidance on Misplaced Pages. I can't work out where our little area is of useful pages that do have a high level of support but which aren't guidelines should go, because essay imparts a polemical nature. Maybe a {{refpage}} tag for stuff like beans and independent sources and those listed above, stuff that gets referenced a lot and helps explain something on Misplaced Pages. "This page is widely used as a reference point across Misplaced Pages. If you have been directed here, it is because the points made on this page were thought relevant to a debate you are involved in or edits you have contributed. It is not a guideline or policy, but has wide community support as an outline of community opinion on the point in question." Something like that. I mean, WP:SNOW is certainly an expression of community opinion, I think we'd all agree with that even if there isn't wide agreement that it is a policy. Still, food for thought. Steve blockTalk13:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with a lot of opinion pieces being in WP: space is that (even though they have a tag on them) they can be confused as "official"[REDACTED] policy. Userfying essays that are pretty much owned anyway isn't a bad idea. --Monotonehell13:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't realy have a issue with "Userfying" as a general way to solve a problem (see The German Solution), but I don't see any problem here. What problem is trying to be solved here? Are all the "good" names taken up? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's an issue of quantity and quality. There's a LOT of essays, several probably should be merged, others that serve no real purpose should be userfied. It would be an exercise that at the very least would help us examine their content and make people think a bit. It may even lead to some revision of policy --Monotonehell13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I continue to hold the (minority?) opinion that the policy/guideline/essay system is rather useless.
Tagging and categorization in general seem to be somewhat at random, and this is equally true in the project namespace.
This means that userfication would also be at random, and in the end, would likely be useless, destructive, or otherwise problematic :-P.
Much of the process bloat is due to people inadvertantly playing nomic in the project namespace ;-) something which I think is probably impossible to stamp out by now.
Maybe we should also look at it from the perspective of new users; There's a HUGE amount of (sometimes conflicting) policy, guidelines and essays. generally reviewing what we have now and trying to make sense of them would be a step to clarifying where consensus has got us. --Monotonehell13:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't overly disagree Kim, but I think lamenting the tagging and categorisation as being somewhat random is a poor reason to not unrandomise it. It may well be that the policy/guideline/essay system is rather useless, but so far it appears to be the best of the alternatives. I am not sure we can dump these off on meta either, I seem to remember them clearing out their space. Wasn't their a dispute over who should host WP:DICK, I seem to remember meta trying to foist that off on us? Steve blockTalk14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been working on simplifying guidelines from a different angle at the same time. ( See the ~historic Simplified Ruleset and the final outcome at: 5 pillars ). Since radiant and I have just about the same objective but competing stratagems, perhaps we should meet IRL and discuss! :-) --Kim Bruning15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong suggestion to let sleeping dogs lie. Essays are a way in which people articulate their opinions and let off steam. Wherever they are located, at best they provoke thinking, at worst when misused we can say "don't misuse them" and deal with it on an as-needed basis. The level of irritation and friction between users on WP is already needlessly high; starting discussions---which I am sure will at some point be quite passionate---about "we will now rename/move/userfy/reclassify your essay" will generate friction far in excess of the benefit it will bring". (Posted by an established user who does not have time to log in right now)
This arbitration case has closed and the decision is available at the link above. WLU (talk·contribs) and Mystar (talk·contribs) are prohibited from interacting with each other or commenting on each other, directly or indirectly, on any Misplaced Pages page, and may be blocked for up to one week for each violation. For the purpose of this remedy, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher13112:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has been subject to a prolonged dispute for several months. Recently this dispute got worse when one user, Randroide, made a series of contested changes to the main article and ignored all objections by other editors involved in the dispute. Despite this I have continued to make efforts to resolve the dispute following the procedures laid down in WP:DR. To date I have attempted to launch one RfC and two RfM’s. None of these initiatives have been able to get off the ground either because they were directly blocked, or because of other actions taken by Randroide. Last weekend we had a RfM ready to go with agreed bullet points and nobody apparently against. At the last minute Randroide halted that initiative claiming he now wanted an RFC. This morning, having agreed to the RFC, Randroide has coupled this with a massive undiscussed edit on the Aftermath article concerning the train bombings – in my view nothing more than an open provocation to the other users involved.
This dispute is dragging on and getting worse, Randroide is openly contemptuous of anyone who suggests he is not entitled to do what he likes with disputed articles and seems determined to impose his will on the other editors involved. It is now time this dispute was forced into arbitration so that we are not obliged to endlessly battle with a user who seeks any opportunity to evade having to deal with those who not agree with his point of view. I believe someone urgently needs to tell him to desist from unilateral and controversial edits while the disputed status of the article is sorted out. I hope someone can act to stabilise this situation and to make it clear that all parties to the dispute must be respected. Southofwatford15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
#wikipedia-en-admins and WP:SNOW
I found the blitzkrieg DRV on Daniel Brandt curious enough to go to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel to find out if people there know what's going on. I found it even more curious that the editors who voted endorse on the DRV where largely the same editors who were present in the channel. It turns out that the link to the DRV was posted, but there was no soliciting for meat puppets. Anyway, after a mass of editors from that channel voted endorse, the DRV was quickly closed per WP:SNOW.
This brings up a problem with WP:SNOW and IRC. Many editors hang out in various IRC channels, and links to deletion and other discussion inevitably get posted. If those channels contain likeminded people, we get a big influx of votes for the same position at once, before the general readership even gets the chance to review the case. If such a discussion is closed early, we can't really tell what the final result would have been, so WP:SNOW should not apply.
The other thing is the #wikipedia-en-admins channel itself, or rather it's name. I was told that it's no longer an admin-only channel, but rather "an informal gathering of interested, trustworthy and influential people". Without going into the actual trustworthyness and influence, I question whether the channel should keep its current name, which implies that it's something it isn't. Zocky | picture popups17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
