→Breakout: tag {{subst:Unsigned}} comment |
→Dangerous Panda RfC/U: new section |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
Please consider certifying [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves]] <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 16:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
Please consider certifying [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves]] <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 16:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Dangerous Panda RfC/U == |
|||
Msnicki, I appreciate your disclosure that you added to your statement. I don't think you need strike throughs. What would be best would be for you to contact those editors who endorsed your summary ''before'' the addition. Then, they can either endorse again (all they have to do is re-sign, which will automatically update the date/time), or remove their endorsements if they wish. Let me know if you would be kind enough to do that. I'll watch this page. Thanks.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:25, 20 October 2014
Barnstars and other nice things
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
for being so clear eyed, consistent, and even in tone while working on the whole Deluna page/umpteen socks investigation. Good work!Tao2911 (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For keeping peace and letting everybody use their opportunities. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Your one of the best debaters I have seen in some time. I have great respect for you my new friend. Moxy (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC) |
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
AN/I can be quite a hectic place at times, but incredibly you managed to stay together in one piece the whole time. You are a really prolific editor Msnicki, don't let drama change peoples views on you as an editor! Cheers --Acetotyce (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for finding additional notability evidence for ConnMan
Yacz (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Breakout
Enlighten me. How would a breakout article solve your problem? Wouldn't the people you're complaining about just follow you to the new article and continue the fight there? After all, if you're right it's the person they're protecting, not the article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- True. But they will no longer be able to complain WP:BLP because it won't be a WP:BLP. Nor will they be able to complain about balance because the whole article will be explicitly on this topic. Again, that's the beauty of the solution offered at WP:Recentism#Article imbalance, where they give the example of a previously respected man who became the subject of a sex scandal after his death. If it's not a WP:BLP, you can't insist on WP:BLP limits on what can be reported. Msnicki (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- True. But if they can't make spurious arguments about BLP, they'll just make spurious arguments about something else. WP policy and guidelines are plenty rich enough to keep you running in circles until you give up out of exhaustion. (I don't need to tell you that with your experience.) This is why I suggested RfC: it brings in other voices who aren't already invested in a position. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, don't assume I've rejected your idea. I'm still thinking. I'm a very deliberative person. :) I do think you had a good idea but I'm not sure that getting an RFC saying, yes, we can have a breakout does anything to answer your point about the likelihood they'll simply continue to raise new objections. I think I'll have to deal with those either way. I'm just trying to eliminate the BLP objections. At best -- and this assumes there's no more canvassing and I get the outcome from an RFC that I want -- I get told, okay, you can have a breakout page. But what if I can already have the breakout, even without the RFC, and nobody can stop me? At this point, I'm just asking the question. Msnicki (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I was suggesting an RfC that would avoid the breakout by getting some mention into the existing article. I could easily be wrong—that happens a lot—but I don't see a policy problem with attempting a breakout, since it would be subject to the same evaluation as any new article. I just don't think it would solve anything, as I said. I also think a whole article on this would be undue weight. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- What would be the undue weight? I ask that as a serious question because if there's genuinely an issue lurking, I'd like to identify it. If it's an article about the scandal, it will be about nothing else, so of course all the weight will be on the scandal, so I don't think they can raise an WP:UNDUE complaint. It looks to me the like the only way they could try to make it go away would be an AfD. But I've been through a LOT of AfDs. This is familiar territory where the only question that matters is notability. Per WP:GNG, the hurdle is multiple reliable independent secondary sources. That's absolutely no problem, not even if someone cares to demand the exact phrase. I don't see how they could possibly get a delete or even a merge outcome at AfD. If it's decided at AfD, the page will stay. The RfC would be genuinely more unpredictable given the history of canvassing and other behaviors. But the point is, I know I could face AfD. But what's the payoff to voluntarily subjecting myself to an RfC? Why would I agree to abide by an RfC outcome that might get stacked if it's my right to create the very same page without an RfC? Msnicki (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Now you're in territory that's unfamiliar to me, and maybe I was out of line to say anything in the first place. All I can say at this point is that, in your position, I'd be happy with three or four sentences on this in the main article. That would be enough to give the reader the gist of the thing, and he could go to the sources for as much additional information as he wanted. And I think an RfC would be the best way to get there. Also, I think I have more faith in the process than you. It may be naive, but if I ever lose that I think it will be time for a 5-year wikibreak. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Are we still going on and on about John Walsh? There already are three or four - or more - sentences in the article about the plagiarism issue and Msnicki has a serius WP:STICK problem here - there is no "censorship," there is only an apparent need to bounce the rubble of the ruins of this person's career. If we are not discussing Walsh, then never mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Certification request
Please consider certifying Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves NE Ent 16:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Dangerous Panda RfC/U
Msnicki, I appreciate your disclosure that you added to your statement. I don't think you need strike throughs. What would be best would be for you to contact those editors who endorsed your summary before the addition. Then, they can either endorse again (all they have to do is re-sign, which will automatically update the date/time), or remove their endorsements if they wish. Let me know if you would be kind enough to do that. I'll watch this page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)