Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:13, 10 April 2008

User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam.

I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.

I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Misplaced Pages is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.

Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

Mark Trombino

Hi Guy! Thanks for chiming in on the Mark Trombino page. But you say it's poorly sourced, but there is an audio clip of the interview on the source: it's a primary source. On top of that, Triple J is the biggest independent radio station in Australia (and one of the biggest in the world). I can't understand how this source could be any more reliable.Mikenosilly (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• We should not be drawing controversial material biographies form primary sources. Reliable non-trivial independent secondary sources are necessary to establish context. And the subject complained. So as far as I'm concerned, that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what is wrong with primary sources, surely it's basic comprehension that they are a more reliable source of fact. Of course a primary source in the form of a voice recording proves only that the words were said, not that they are true. But in this context, their truth is irrelevant, according to Wiki policy, as they are accurately sourced and attributed.

Regardless of that, Triple J is NOT a trivial source! And they are independent! As well as being a 24 hour radio station, they publish a magazine, produce television programs and news on their website, including interviews with many, many artists (triplej.net.au). Triple J is surely one of the most reliable and respected Australian sources of music news and information, and has been for more than 30 years. Please look into the source, it is not trivial or biased, as you suggest.

It bemuses me that an interesting, relevant, well sourced (primary and secondary), and clearly attributed piece of information cannot be listed in the page. This is beurocracy gone mad, and it blatantly goes against the Wiki policy relating to biased statements. Please look into the source, it should not be dismissed.

Can you please tell me why you are not applying this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements Mikenosilly (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is an important policy, and per that policy we do not include disputed material based on primary sources, because it relies on our judgment of the significance of the source and its content. We rely instead on reliabel independent secondary sources, whihc tell us how the world at large views the subject. Anything else is a recipe for POV-pushing and nightmares, as it would eb open to anybody to pick up every bit of crap about someone and include it direct from the primary source. It's fine to use primary sources for uncontroversial matters of fact, but not as the major source for something controversial. No evidence has been provided that this is the general view of what it's like to work with Trombino. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. But I still don't understand how this fits with the "Neutral POV" policy which says that a biased statement can be included if it is correct and can be verified. To quote it: "The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true." Surely an artist who has worked with Trombino is a "subject-matter" expert, and the way the quote was presented in the article showed it was an opinion and did not claim it was true.

Also, the quote is a general view of what it's like to work with most producers. Very few producers, especially with big budgets and big acts, will track more than one instrument at a time.Mikenosilly (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you'd need a reliable independent secondary source to show that this applies particularly to Trombino and is not either a single dispute between him and one artist or, conversely, generic and applicable to most people in this role. No such sources have been presented. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But why?! As long as the quote is attributed and accurate, then it doesn't even matter if it's true or not. It says so blatantly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements

How do we get another opinion on this?Mikenosilly (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• You got one. What you seem to be suggesting is that you keep asking until you get the answer you want. Don't. Instead, finde reliable independent secondary sources that support the significance of your desired content in context. Otherwise you violate WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hibernian

I believe that Hibernian is edit warring for some reason unknown at least to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Hibernian User:Hibernian - Could you take a look at the reverts he has done on Technocracy Technate material? The articles such as Energy Accounting and the article Technocracy? He has also reverted a bunch of others to point toward a movement. In the energy accounting article he writes about things not related in any literature I have seen about outdoor museums. Hibernian wrote the article originally I believe. It contains information as said that has no reflection in the stated ideas of Technocracy Incorporated. I notice also that he has restored the recently deleted NET material to Technocracy movement including the links to their website. skip sievert (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have done all of the above and have explained my reasoning many times over the last year. You think I'm edit warring for ""some reason unknown"? I think Skip you know full well the reasons by now since we've been arguing about them for nearly a year. Now if JzG, or guy, or whatever, will come to the talk page I'd be happy to flesh out the arguments, for him. --Hibernian (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution, third on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you yourself JzG put up NET as an article to be deleted as was done and removed links to them... how is it that all the information has just been put back in another article including all of the links that do not work and even the wiki link to the article that no longer exists ? Is that a dispute or just one editor doing as they please (Hibernian) ? What I am wondering is this... could you either page protect after I revert these articles or could you block Hibernian for a while and suggest that one editor does not make a consensus ... or something else besides suggesting Dispute resolution. Why ? I do not think that Hibernian will compromise or be deterred from his present course if past history is any indication. skip sievert (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution, third on the left down the hall. Or maybe I'll just block the pair of you for bringing an external battle to Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider it an external battle. I am only interested in getting objective and factual material in the articles. My role was to bring this to your attention. It appears to me that this group has just put up a sock puppet account for reverting purpose only. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ice-t99&action=edit Editing User talk:Ice-t99 - This has been done in the past also. Please do not block me. Please examine the edit by the new account user above in this article Technocracy

• A quick google for "skip sievert" + technocracy indicates otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I asked for advice in WP:AN/I about your use of BLP watch.

In reply someone suggested I review WP:CANVASS. At first glance it looks like your use of BLP Watch, may not comply with the recommendations of that guideline.

Always keep the message neutral, and leave a note on the discussion itself that you sent out friendly notices. Editors who like to be informed about Misplaced Pages discussions can add the "Friendly notice" userbox to their user page.

I have something I want to say to you.

In the Ajam {{afd}} the nominator made repeated baseless suggestions that my motives and honesty should be questioned.

I want to state clearly and unambiguously that I have done my best to comply with all the wikipedia's policies and guidelines at all times.

If someone convinced you differently, if someone convinced you I was a disruptive influence, I urge you to consider the possibility that you were misled.

I won't claim I may not have made the very occasional lapse, but I think, in general, I have done a very good job.

I feel like you are treating me like someone who has already exhausted his WP:AGF. Geo Swan (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• You are talking here about a mechanism that is used by a number of people who are highly active in monitoring for long-term WP:BLP violations, to watch debates that are related to BLPs and risk (from past experience) degenerating into the same kinds of issues that beset the articles. It is as neutral as you can get: name and vanue. I disagree with you about individual Gitmo detainees, and that is just one of those things. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry. I strongly disagree with you. We are all volunteers. Normally ordinary wikipedian can expect any other wikipedian to read the main space contributions, or their talk page comments. But you chose to put on your administrator hat, and take on the responsibility to fairly read all sides, and make a fair and accountable ruling.

• It is totally unreasonable for you to expect me to comply with a "BLP climate" if you can't articulate how that "BLP climate" differs from my understanding of the actual wording of the policies in question.

• Your comment above, and the one you made immediately before you made your own nomination are pretty clear that you do not recognize an obligation to be accountable for your rulings. That is very unfortunate.

• Take off your administrator hat, and you get to tell me you don't have time to make a first attempt to explain yourself. But, if you act as an administrator I feel sure you have an obligation to make your rulings accountably.

• I am not going to be long-winded here. But I think you have seriously violated several policies, and I have found this very disturbing. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't make rulings, no admin does. We do stuff, including doing our best to interpret consensus, but while we can do some things non-admins can't, there is, by long-standing agreement, no hierarchy. The current BLP climate is that people known for only one thing will now normally be covered in an article on the event, not the person. This has been the case for some time. I don't think you are evil or abusing Misplaced Pages or anything, I just think you're documenting the Guantanamo situation in the wrong way; these articles are functionally identical to Amnesty International campaign pages, a list of the Bad Things that The Man has done to X. The Bad Things are notable, the victim is almost always not. The most compelling argument for not having separate articles is the amount of redundancy; the US government has been equally abusive in each case. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy, why you think that the captives are notable for one event is what I really can not understand. They engaged in various events in the near east, and various later things happened to them. they did not all have the same experiences, or the same treatment. The US Govt was probably in some cases more outrageously unfair than in others. Some of them probably did do the things they are accused of; some of them didn't; and what they are accused of is different in each case. Not even the treatment at GB has been identical for all of them. The treatment during the hearings has not been equal either. You are reducing the matter to an oversimplification--and the effect of this sort of oversimplification is to permit people to more easily hide from acknowledging the unpleasant parts of reality--a view best exemplified in some other BLP cases as "just another murder" DGG (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, the pages read like Amnesty International campaign pages documenting the litany of abuses perpetrated by the US government. While I'd happily join the letter-writing campaign on Amnesty's behalf, since I think these are indeed egregious abuses, they are not significantly different from captive to captive. There are no biographical sources out there for pretty much any of them. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

anon IP sockpuppet back at Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

Hi. Back on Nov. 13, you protected the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program article, because of anon IP activity; the same editor is back, pulling the same basic stunt. All the anon IPs originate in the same place, and are pretty clearly the work of a single editor, who seems hell-bent on making this program come across as a controversy. To date, I still have never seen a third-party citation to indicate that there is a controversy here; as far as I can see, it's a non-notable Colorado sport fishing organization's private gripe, and I'm quite close to removing ALL references to "controversy" presently indicated in the text. I won't be able to make any such changes stick unless the page is given some measure of protection. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Semiprotected, as an obvious first step. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I left him yet another lengthy explanation, pointing out WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOCK - I sincerely doubt it will help, but... Dyanega (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition to BLP somewhere... or just WP:CLUE?

While working on the Ashida Kim article, I just thought of a pithy bit that might help in some of these BLP matters... perhaps we should work it into a policy/guideline/cluebat somewhere, or just file it in the memory banks. There's a good rule of thumb for BLPs - if you have to do a public records search to find something out about someone, it doesn't belong in their Misplaced Pages biography. FCYTravis (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think that we could have, for policies like BLP, an "application guidance" page that tells people how it translates into Clue-based application. But since the hard of Clue are always the problem, that may fix nothing. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Milton Pitts

I noticed that you recently revised the birth and death dates for Milton Pitts. Could you provide any documentation for this change? I based the original dates on the cited newspaper and magazine accounts listed in the reference section. Best, Terence7 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Relative of the subject emailed OTRS. I asked them to drop by with sources. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Technocracy

Hi JzG, sorry that you had to wander into the Technocracy mess. Someone is calling for you on Talk:Technocracy movement#Recent changes.-Wafulz (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PermissionOTRS-ID

Template:PermissionOTRS-ID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (blatantly stolen from the msg Kelly left on my talk) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy

Hi JzG. I re-edited this section in the physical therapy page. I have provided sources for this section. Please read my post on the discussion page regarding this. Looking forward to your input. Thanks JlharrisDPT (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• And the first para had a source which failed to support the text, the second was unsourced and the third pretty trivial. Oh, and your obsession with this makes me think tat you are promoting your own discipline and hence financial interests. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi JzG. I agree with your edits, but I tagged the material to try to give JlharrisDPT a chance to improve on his addition; otherwise, he'll just continue to add back citationless, COI stuff. For now, I'll just put the stuff you deleted on the article's talk page for JlharrisDPT's benefit. Thanks for your help, and please let me know if you have any ideas of how to assist this user better. --Eustress (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regina Rams

As it happens, the problematic content in the instant article was added 25 March and removed 6 April, before, in fact, you redirected. That the article is unsourced is, of course, a separate issue, and a redirection on the grounds of an article's being unsourced might, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, be reverted, with discussion to follow if appropriate. Because the version from which you redirected contained, unless I'm being especially inattentive, nothing that contravened BLP and suffered only from the defect of being unsourced (and certainly, even without sources, makes a very fine case for its meriting a standalone article, as against a redirect to University of Regina#Sports), I'd wonder whether you might be inclined to revert to that revision (or, if you happen to believe that a redirect remains appropriate for other reasons, to unprotect, in order that other editors differently inclined might themselves revert, with reprotection in order, of course, should vandalism of the "What he lacks in height..." variety persist, or even should we, in view of the OTRS query, deem protection against the insertion of problematic material to be now appropriate). I'll likely pursue DRV (even as this isn't a deletion, DRV is probably the place at which a discussion about it should be situated) if there is not some agreeable solution to be reached here, but I'm surely in no hurry, so you should feel free, of course, to let me know at your leisure.

Unrelatedly, and much less verbosely, I should, as someone who has, more than once, espoused (cordially, at least) the view that the net effect on the project of your participation (at least qua admin) is negative, and who has had occasion to disagree with you about many things, say that I found this to be very, very nicely and persuasively put. Cheers, Joe 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I redirected it because not only was it unsourced, it was being used to attack a living individual, and it lacked any assertion of independent notability. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, but only one paragraph was being used to attack a living individual, and it was removed before you redirected. University sports teams, at least those associated officially with national governing bodies, are, AFAIK, presumptively notable, and the article certainly asserted notability sufficient to overcome traditional editorial concerns that would lead to redirection or deletion. If you deem full protection (with some reasonable expiry date) to be necessary to prevent further insertions of BLP-violative material, I don't see that I'd object, but certainly the article, having had the BLP-problematic content removed (and, for that matter, having shown no history of being a repeated target for BLP vandalism) and having continued, even in the absence of sources, to make out a facial case for notability, should not be protected as a redirect. Am I correct to take it that you're not inclined to revert the redirection and that, if I continue to disagree, I should take the issue to DRV (for lack, I guess, of a better place to solicit the views of the community)? Thanks, Joe 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

user at it again

Dear Guy, User:Cult Free World is posting court-ruled libelous and defamatory information on this and this page. Two courts in India have ruled The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory. (http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/ilr-2004/Jan-Feb2004.pdf, page 4, #5)

I've tried explaining about OR and how court cases are primary sources and need secondary sources to interpret them, but he continues to pick and choose from testimony in the case instead of focusing on the ruling.

I've filed a notice here. This user quieted down a bit until the MFD was closed (and it was closed when the article was in a content-neutral state); then, he immediately reverted to his OR and libel version. Help would be appreciated. Renee (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Take it to the noticeboards. It should have been deleted, and if he's using it for defamation then it should be deleted now. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the United States

Guy, I do not know if you were the one who moved it to this title and why, but many of the article's established editors feel the move was done based on one user's BOLD action. I looked at the article's log and it only shows that you protected the article from moving. Are there some edits missing in between, because you said that you deleted it first to make room for a move? Anyway, would it be possible to move it back to the original title, because we are having a problem with the topic of this article with the title being as it is now. Please read the objections to this title and the original move that the editors have raised on the article's talk page. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know either, if I did it was simply reversion of an undiscussed move. I have no interest in the subject. Requested moves would be the place to go, if you think you have consensus. I bet you don't have consensus, just the usual two entrenched camps, but I'm not going there right now. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you semi protest this Social network aggregation

The guy is CSD it when I told him AfD and it is an anon IP. I asked for protection but taking time and he trolling my page. Igor Berger (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Should I be asking for a block? Definitly a sock User:Angrysusan here under User:128.36.147.198 referenced, "I did AfD as you recommended" before he created his user id. Sorry to bring you this trival thing..:) Igor Berger (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm blind, can't see where there was a CSD? It was prodded... Is the above a sock? Someone, an IP, may well have then created an account - hardly a sock. Look at the talk page for the article in question. Igor seems to be showing WP:OWN qualities - can't see why he removed the AfD numerous times? Minkythecat (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He did it as the anon IP.

DUDE! IT IS AN AFD, NOT A CSD. Angrysusan (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) - - you said above to naominate if for AFD, so I did. Now you're removing that tag. WHY?!?!? Angrysusan (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Igor Berger (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can see it was prodded -I thought, as a relative newbie, prod was for things not meeting criteria for speedy delete? Even so, why did you on numerous occasions remove the AfD tag on the page, Igor? Minkythecat (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I mixed up between prodded and CSD, but it cannot be speddy because of consensus established by two admins here Also I did not realize he changed it to AfD as I suggested. He must have tried to prode it speddy for 10 times, and the posts to my talk page 10 times. So I did not realize it he changed to AfD untill I saw your message. Thanks for the help. Igor Berger (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, as much as I'd like to WP:AGF, you removed the AfD tag numerous times - not just once. The edit summaries by Angrysusan clearly referred on several occasions to it being AfD. Assuming good faith, all I can guess is that you got wound up seeing something happening to the article - as I've said, it's bordering on WP:OWN - and instant reverting. Just step back, participate in the AfD and generally chill. Minkythecat (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been made on a matter in which you were involved. You may add yourself as a party and comment if desired at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Appeal_of_commuity_ban_of_Iantresman. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Spam members
• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping