User talk:Herostratus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda[edit]

Signatures[edit]

Expired with no signatures whatsoever. Obviously this is not something that people want to do; based on the comments (which I haven't capped yet), I'd say the main objection is structural, that is, the feeling is that continuing down this path would be contrary to, and probably harmful to, the structure of how things are and should be done here. I think that's the only thing that can certainly be taken from this. There are other things that could be taken from this, but arguably also not, and I'll have more to say on that presently. But as to User:DangerousPanda individually, let it be noted that given a reasonably well advertised chance to do so, zero editors signed on to a recall petition for him. Regardless of other issues that were in play, I think that this redounds pretty considerably to Panda's credit and that it would unkind and untrue to deny this, and hopefully he'll be heartened and encouraged by this. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We the undersigned request that a reconfirmation Request for Adminship (also called a "recall RfA") be initiated for User:DangerousPanda. By signing, editors assert that they have at least 500 edits and one month of tenure.


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Explanation and discussion[edit]

This is a petition for a "reconfirmation RfA", also called a "recall RfA", to be initiated for User:DangerousPanda. (Normally this would be posted at User talk:DangerousPanda but all in all I think that posting here is better.)

In a nutshull: a reconfirmation RfA is a process very similar to a normal RfA, except that the subject currently already has admin rights; if the person passes the reconfirmation RfA, nothing changes; if the person fails the reconfirmation RfA, the admin tools are removed. They're rare but not unheard of.

There are some complications here, the only important one being that the subject (User:DangerousPanda) is not a member of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and is not cooperative, and it is a new thing for the Wikipedia to run an RfA without the subject's cooperation. This is an important thing, but not necessarily a deal-killer (it might be; we'll see). But it will require a series of possibly difficult steps, which don't worry about that now; I know what the steps are and am prepared to execute them, one at a time, in good time and in the proper order and format; I think it will be very much less confusing if editors let one person who's thought this through (that'd be me) handle that part, please. I'm perfectly willing to describe this in detail if requested.

Right now all that is being asked for is signatures on the recall petition to move on to the next step and that is all we looking for here. The signatories need to be in editors in good standing with over 500 edits and over one month of tenure, as specified in the default recall petition standards. Six signatories are needed to move forward and of course failing that there won't be a next step. The period specified to gather six signatures is one week from the timestamp on this post.

This is not a "Support" and "Oppose" type survey; it's a petition and that's a different thing, and as with all petitions there's not really an option to register opposition to the proposition beyond not signing. Signing does not indicate that you necessarily think that the subject should be de-adminned, only that you think an RfA on the matter is called for.

Of course editors are free to register any opinion in any format here, but: there will be plenty of time for discussions and Oppose/Support on the issue of the legitimacy of this petition at the the next step. It's not possible to have a dispositive discussion (that is, one having a material effect) re legitimacy at this step so I'd recommend saving it for later, unless you don't want to. Except that editors are are course welcome, in this section, to dissuade other editors from signing or attempt to persuade them to withdraw their signatures, either for reasons of illegitimacy of the petition, virtue of the subject, or any other reason. Herostratus (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - DP may have been bit cranky lately, but generally he's an excellent admin that I trust, even though we have disagreed in the past, and he has taken me to task when my behavior was out of line. I don't always agree with him, but he's honest, and straightforward, and doesn't hide from his views. It's my opinion that Herostratus is being completely disingenuous with this bogus "petition", since he's obviously aware that DP is not an admin who has said that he's open to recall. Given that, the only legitimate waty to desysop DP is to go to ArbCom and make a case there. I look forwarding to seeing how Herostratus will explain to ArbCom that DP should have the bit taken away -- and if you can't make the case to them, then you've got no case to make. BMK (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The point that DP doesn't warrant a recall is entirely legitimate and an excellent reason to oppose. Your procedural point is also an excellent reason to oppose if your point is "the only legitimate way to desysop DP is to go to ArbCom and make a case there and that works fine". Does it? Dunno, but you do hear complaints.
I'm trying not to be disingenuous and I know that DP is not an admin who has said that he's open to recall, I'm proposing that we do a new thing here. The actual removal of the bit, were it to come to that, is indeed tricky and might or might not be achievable. IMO there's only one way to find out. I do indeed have arguments to explain to ArbCom that DP should have the bit taken away (if it comes to that), and other arguments to make to other parties, which might or might not be accepted but let's focus on one step at a time here. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well, though for different reasons. I believe DangerousPanda may well be one of our worst admins (an opinion quite a few people have about me probably, don't bother pointing out the irony), but I don't think a forced recall petition is something we want to create ad hoc. Either propose a general mechanism for one at VPP or somewhere similar, and if accepted use it for anyone you want to; or take this to ArbCom. I don't know whether this is ripe for ArbCom, I haven't investigated DP's admin actions in any detail (my opinion is based on some personal interactions, and a few too many unhappy incidents and discussions I noted at AN and ANI), but this is not the way to handle this. Fram (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The procedural point "I don't think a forced recall petition is something we want to create ad hoc" is an excellent reason to oppose. However, please recognize that if we don't create it "ad hoc" we create it "never". Taking something like this to VPP would have exactly the same effect as my writing it on a napkin; we're set up on consensus, which means "everyone agrees" or at any rate a large supermajority, and that near impossible to achieve on contentious questions. If you're happy with the current system and how it works, that's fine and end of story. If you're not, you might want to think about a better way to implement this reform. I haven't seen anyone else succeed and don't expect to. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as utterly devoid of function other than to have a bit of a bitching sesh about an editor on this site. If you have ambitions to have someone desysoped then ArbCom is the correct venue. If you don't have genuine, objective concerns with which to construct a request there then this thread shouldn't even exist. Basalisk inspect damageberate 07:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't do petitions here; this whole concept is entirely out-of-process. Herostratus doesn't get to redefine Wikipedia's policy to further his own personal witch hunt. If you want to request a desysop, there are accepted procedures for doing so - this is not one of them. Yunshui  08:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's out of process. I'm trying to create a new process, or at any rate show a way forward to create a new process if people want to. Everything was out of process on day 1. It's a wiki. We are allowed to add new processes if the community wants to. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Yunshui Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment he's honest, and straightforward Light-headed with a sick feeling. (Don't make me puke, BMK.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think these are excellent reasons not to sign and/or to not support the notion of the petition altogether, if you believe either of them:
  1. The subject (User:DangerousPanda) is fine, or at any rate OK, and doesn't warrant a recall.
  2. Recalling admins in this way (if they've not signed on to be open to recall) is, all things considered, a bad thing. (And this being so, the merits of the particular case are moot.)
IMO, this is a pretty poor reason to not sign and/or to not support the notion of the petition altogether:
  1. The subject (User:DangerousPanda) does warrant a recall, AND recalling admins in this way (if they've not signed on to be open to recall) is, all things considered, a good thing BUT some particular thing about the way it is being done is not to my liking -- we've never done this, it's not approved, it's not allowed, it should be handed over to another Reform Committee to produce another report, or so forth AND SO we should do nothing forever.
C'mon people. It's a wiki. We can do this if we want to and think it's a good thing. Or try. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pathetic (edit conflict) I would have expected better from someone who went through a debatable recall process themself (I supported you then, and admired your stance). This, out of process, on your own user page, and canvassed at AN, is nothing more than opportunistic showmanship and dramamongering. I'm disappointed. You knew this was poor, by pre-emptively asking "not to be blocked" and "to have this reinstated if deleted". If your recall experience soured you, I'm sorry, we've lots of us been soured. I'm sorry you haven't seemed to be the same since. We should handle this stuff better. But this is bad form. Campaign or argue for changed processes, sure, in the right place. This isn't it. You asked for responses. That's mine. Begoontalk 16:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
What was debatable about my experience? It worked fine. All it did was put me in the mind that it ought to be more generally used. Not a lot probably, but occasionally. The idea that it's up to the individual admin to decide whether or not they'd be subject to recall seems kind of silly. Why would this be? Doesn't make any sense to me. Kind of like electing officials on the basis of "Well, some of them will have to run re-election later on, and some have the position for life, and it's up to them which it will be". If refusal to be subject to recall was a deal-killer for any significant number of voters at RfA that'd be different, but it's such an obscure process that it's not (besides which I've seen one admin just lie about that and maybe others do, and once they're in it's not a big enough deal that you can do anything about it).
"Campaign or argue for changed processes"... Enh. That is not an effective way to get things done here, I don't think. Essentially you need a supermajority. There have been reform committees and so forth and they've always foundered on that. Supermajorities are essentially impossible for major reforms like this, I think, for various reasons. Better to run something up the flagpole and see who salutes, maybe.
I dunno. You do see occasional complaints about ArbCom -- takes too few cases, adjudicates them poorly, is too complicated and time-consuming to pursue, is external to the community is not transparent, and so forth. But judging by the vibe here so far, maybe that's way overblown and people generally think that ArbCom works great and is all we need. If that's true, that's fine, and that's a good thing.
BTW I could do without the personal comments with the apparent intent of making me feel bad. We're trying to run a organization here. It's just business, and I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm presenting an opportunity to make a change if people want to take it. If not, that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment C'mon Herostratus, you know full well you tried to guilt me into a reconfirmation RFA yesterday, which I rightfully reverted as unhelpful. You're now trying to create a petition to guilt me into a reconfirmation RFA, which you've been told is inappropriate. At the worst, you're trying to CREATE a community desysop process on-the-fly, which is also inapproriate. You said earlier you have "no opinion" on my desysop, but you've now both stated otherwise, and proven otherwise. I've kept my nose fairly clean since my last admin break. Yeah, I've come up with some challenges where I'm as inflexible as some of the editors I have tried to help. However, you're taking a situation - one that has now been considered resolved much to my satisfaction - and are going to try and leverage it to a desysop. Really? Not sure what kind of "game" this is, but I'd ask you to NOT play it using me as the ball the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I asked you, before this, if you wanted to volunteer for a reconfirmation RfA. Should I have not done that? Didn't try to guilt you I don't think, and I'm not trying to guilt you now, why would I? It's all out of your hands from this point, I guess, except for your ability to persuade.
You're exactly right that I'm "trying to CREATE a community desysop process on-the-fly". I don't think it's inappropriate. Maybe it is.
I don't know your work that well, and nothing personal. But yeah I do think that if we're going to reconfirm anyone you'd be good candidate, for various reasons. It's not a game, it's business, specifically the business of publishing an encyclopedia. I am sorry if you feel like a "ball", that can't feel good and I can understand how you'd feel that way, but I can't help that, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no community admin-recall process on Wikipedia, so even a strong consensus here would have no effect - an admin subjected to such a thing can simply ignore it, and crats would have no power to do anything about it. Campaigning or arguing for changed processes is "not an effective way to get things done here"? Well, that's all we've got. Should there be a community recall process? I think so, yes. But the only way to get one is to propose it and get a consensus in support - that "supermajority" previously mentioned. See Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept for the last attempt to make some progress, initiated by WormTT. (Note this is a general comment on process, not on admin DangerousPanda) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Crats have no power to do anything about it, true. Stewards are off the table too I assume. However, consider a scenario where a person failed a reconfirmation RfA. Under the circumstances, it'd be nuts for the person in question not to voluntarily resign. There is such a thing as shame and just not wanting to be jeered at for the rest of your life. So that's one point. Failing that, there's certainly a strong case to be made that the presence of such a creature (editor with failed RfA but admin powers) is inherently disruptive to the organization, and the community can deal with disruptive entities however it likes (obviously that means banning rather than just de-sysoping, which would be too bad but I guess that's what you get if you fail an RfA and won't resign.) But before that, what I'd do is file a case with ArbCom more or less to this effect:
ArbCom, please adjudicate this matter. It won't take long. We assert that the following three statements are true: first, that Admin X was properly subjected to a reconfirmation RfA, by the signatures of six editors properly entitled to so sign. Second, that Admins X's RfA did not succeed. Third, that Admin X has refused to resign his administrator status. [With diffs; it will require the ArbCom just minutes to determine that these statements are true.]
Given the above statements, we ask that you make a decision on the following proposition: that it within the scope of ArbCom's duties to remove Admin X's administrator rights. (And, if you decide in the affirmative, to do so.)
We sincerely hope that you will at least accept this case, to clarify your stand on the matter. We also sincerely hope that your decision on the proposition will be in the affirmative, as otherwise we will have the very unsatisfactory situation of an administrator who has been formally rejected by the community continuing to hold administrator powers. In our opinion this would be most unhealthy situation.
This'd need to formatted as a proper Request for Arbitration. Who would be "parties" to the request I don't know. It could be just the RfA initiator, the RfA closer, and the un-reconfirmed admin, or maybe add everyone who commented in the RfA to be on the safe side. "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" would point the declined (or ignored) request to the un-reconfirmed admin to resign voluntarily I guess.
Would ArbCom go for this? Don't know. Probably. ArbCom doesn't do hypotheticals I don't think so only way to find out is to put them on the spot. They're erudite and committed editors so maybe they'd do the the right thing. If not, it'd be misfeasance IMO and there's not a lot you can do if people in power are willing to misfeas. Least we tried our best.
Erg, I'm frustrated. You're one of the people who avow that community recall is a good idea, but you still won't support it. You say "Campaigning or arguing for changed processes is not an effective way to get things done here [but] that's all we've got". Well then let's get something else. If something doesn't work, try something else. Right? Would you rather fail? What's the attraction in just giving up? Herostratus (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
But it won't get as far as failing a reconfirmation RFA, because the admin simply doesn't have to run! The "Admin X was properly subjected to a reconfirmation RfA, by the signatures of six editors properly entitled to so sign" bit would be bogus, because there is no "properly subjected to a reconfirmation RfA" - such a thing simply does not exist. Such a process could be created, but it would have to be done by community consensus.

I can understand your frustration, but saying "You're one of the people who avow that community recall is a good idea, but you still won't support it" is grossly unfair - I would support an attempt at consensus to achieve a community recall process, but I can't support an approach like this that can not possibly work.

(And as for "You say "Campaigning or arguing for changed processes is not an effective way to get things done here [but] that's all we've got". Well then let's get something else." - just no! We absolutely don't have the power to, and should not want to, try to force our own way against community wishes.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's arguable that a person has to "run". There is such a thing as being drafted.
It is true that WP:RFA says "Nominations may only be added here... after the candidate has signed their acceptance of the nomination", but there are reasonable counterarguments that the intent here was to prevent recall. Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship says "When nominating someone, it is generally a good idea to ask them if they would like to be nominated" (a good idea, not a requirement); it also says "The RfA nomination process has evolved and continues to evolve". It could have instead said something like "The RfA nomination process is set, it cannot be changed" but it doesn't. That's just a guideline, but at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate you have "Verify with the person you are wanting to nominate. This might save the embarrassing situation of them declining" so the intention of rule is to save you embarrassment, which is not an issue here.
It looks like the the rule prohibiting drafts is designed to prevent pointless RfA's; reconfirmation RfA's are a different matter not envisioned when the rule was written, and they are not pointless if the subject doesn't accept, and so the rule doesn't apply to them. Maybe that's an argument that wouldn't be accepted, but it's a reasonable argument to make.

And WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY states "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy", so we're allowed to look at the intent of rules, which is a sensible thing to do I think, nor are we necessarily required to take the approach "Anything which isn't specifically allowed is prohibited".

Hair-splitting over the wording of rules like that is one way to discuss the issue, and there other ways, and supposing that there were enough signatures, the next step would be to create an RfA and run an MfD against it, and it is there that arguments could be made and countered, and it'd go one way or the other. Looks like it's not gonna get to that point, and fine.
Re: "'Well, it's arguable that a person has to "run". There is such a thing as being drafted." No. There isn't! If you really can't understand that, and can't see that an RFA transcluded without the consent of the candidate would be so far out of policy that it would have no chance of not being reverted, then I and all the others trying to explain the obvious to you are wasting our time here. Bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ludicrous: first, there's no process for recalling an admin who isn't open to recall. That's a perennial proposal that has so far yielded no fruit (unfortunately). Basically what Boing! said Zebedee said above. Second, even if there was a process or Panda was open to recall, I'd like to see a demonstrated pattern of misuse. You haven't presented any evidence for that. Hence, ludicrous. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, but looking for "a demonstrated pattern of misuse" is what ArbCom does. RfA is simply "do we want this person to be an admin, or not?". Presenting arguments on whether or not this is a good idea would be done at the RfA. The petition is just asking whether people want to go to that step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talkcontribs)
  • Downright Inappropriate Wanting to recall DP is fine. Wanting community recall for admins is fine. Trying to stage a non binding straw poll to change policy with no consensus and no prior discussion solely for the purpose of trying to recall DP is not fine, period. KonveyorBelt 03:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps we should have a Committee to re-elect the Panda. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Herostratus, ummm, usually there'd be some diffs explaining why this has come about? Can you point me in the direction of the problem? Sorry, up to my armpits in content work....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Panda? Well, there was an ANI discussion; it was closed up pretty quick and I think it's gone now -- it's in the archives I suppose. The proximate cause for that was Panda blocking the editor Flyer22 for some reason -- technicality I think, but apparently Panda has some kind of vendetta going on Flyer, not sure if that's true or why it would be since Flyer's a good and useful editor. I think you could look on Flyer's talk page for more on that. But I'm not an expert on Panda, but the overall vibe I got from that and from other discussions about Panda in the past is that some folks seemed to think that there's some question whether Panda's got the right personality and general approach for the job (which not everyone does), and so that seemed like something people might want to discuss. Obviously I was wrong about that, and that's fine, and so Panda should keep on as he's been with a clear conscience. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Admins can't use the tools if involved. A link would be handy. I'll try and take a look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Right - I have read Flyer22's talk page, both current and the 2012 segment. I can see discussion but can't see if there was an editorial dispute between Flyer22 and DP beforehand. A properly laid-out RfC with all the evidence would be the next step. Up until recently I'd have said arbcom is the port of call for review of tool use (WRT involved etc.) but I suspect it'd get rejected until an RfC was done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Well do as you wish, but all that has little to do with this. ArbCom cases are essentially trials, generally for particular instances of malfeasance. And RfC/U is usually essentially a discovery process persuant to that. RfA is entirely different -- it's just asking the community "Do you think this editor is best suited to helping the project as an admin or in another capacity"? and it's based on the totality of his career (or what we guess his career will be going forward) rather than particular incidents. Very different. (I want to stress that for my part I'm not accusing anyone of malfeasance and I'm not gonna state whether I think Panda is suited to be an admin not not, just that I though (wrongly, obviously) that others might think not.) AFAIK as I know there's no basis to bring Panda to some kind of trial. And since one of the things you could take away from this is that nobody thinks Panda shouldn't be an admin or even that the question should be raised at RfA, you might want to think pretty hard about that. But not my call, and not really much related to this discussion. Herostratus (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh OK, previous interaction was an earlier checkuser by User:Alison on Flyer22, where Alison determined that Flyer22 was running a sockpuppet; it turned out that Alison was wrong and to her credit she looked into it further and determined that she was wrong and said so (I think this involved phone calls and so forth; it turns out that Flyer22 shares a computer with her brother.) Somewhere in there while Flyer22 was working this out with Alison Panda came in there with a pretty strongly worded message to the general effect of "Shut up, lying bitch, you're finished here" (not sure of the exact wording but IIRC that was the general tone). Since Flyer22 is an long-established, very good, and extremely valuable editor (you try dealing with stuff like this for instance) and proved to be innocent that didn't seem especially helpful. It's certainly on my list of ten worse edits I've ever seen, but it's one edit and doesn't necessarily prove anything about Panda generally.
I actually can't find the diffs for this and I'm not sure that they can be found; Panda has had at least two other names (BWilkins and EatsShootsAndLeaves) and one or more name changes, and this was done under one of his earlier or other names and it's rather confusing and his earlier edits may have disappeared, not sure. I couldn't find them.
I'm not sure if you'd call that a "conflict" or just "life in the big city" or what, but it was a awhile back, so I wouldn't call it an involved-admin situation. It may be that Panda, who obviously doesn't like Flyer, is looking for excuses to drive her out of the Wikipedia, but it may not be, and either way it's not anything you can prove, so I wouldn't recommend pursuing that, or harassing Panda generally. You can if you want to.
Again, this is minor point. There's other stuff, like for instance Jimbo one time telling him he should resign (I forget the exact circumstances) and so forth. I was more looking to see if people were interested in assessing the totality of his admin career. They're not, so that's fine and good to know. Herostratus (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial edit-a-thons[edit]

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England
Wikimania 2012 portrait 102 by ragesoss, 2012-07-13.JPG

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows:

We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time.

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Please comment on Talk:US Airways[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:US Airways. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

This is a neutral notice to someone who has edited Desireé Cousteau that there is a Request for Comment there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Stan Kenton[edit]

Regarding the section on Leslie Kenton's accusations, I think that we should just delete this bit of tabloidesque trash once and for all. It certainly doesn't add anything relevant to the article, especially since Stan isn't here to defend himself. JaneOlds (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I dunno if it's tabloidish trash. Leslie Kenton is an accomplished person and prolific author. And the book is reasonably worthwhile overall, they say. Yeah it's a pretty serious allegation. Maybe it's true, maybe not -- no way to know. She's his daughter and that's her story and she's sticking to it, and that's a pretty notable thing I think, whether it's true or not. We can leave whether to believe it up to the reader. Stan's not here to defend himself, but he's also not here to be hurt or bothered by any of this. He's a historical figure now. If Boris Gudonov or John Fremont or any other historical figure had a sane and accomplished daughter who wrote a book that said he raped her, we'd probably mention that. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Desiree[edit]

I appreciate you posting to me, and the overall civil discourse on the issue at the subject's talk page. Thank you.

What I think is important to understand is what "contentious" means. There is nothing contentious whatsoever about the reported fact. There is no one reasonably contending that a reliable-source, journalistic publication reported a standard factual statement based on a public-information arrest report. Whether we place the name in the article is what is being discussed, but no one is reasonably contending that this is not the name that was reported or that she was not arrested at the locale reported while doing, very commonly, movie promotion. If there were disagreement on that, it would need a citation. But We're all in agreement that that is the name. We don't simply edit another person's post without discussing it and coming to an agreement. In this case, the fact of the name and locale/circumstances themselves are not contentious. Thank you for understanding. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That said, I see you've returned the cite. While I think this crosses a line for the reasons expressed above, I will not fight it. I know it's meant constructively. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the general point under contention is complicated. The point's well taken that a person's name is basic encyclopedic information. I guess it comes down to how you interpret WP:BLP. I don't know how Desiree Cousteau feels about all this. She might be dead, or using an entirely new name, or not care if her real name's widely publicized (which is what putting it in a Wikipedia article does). But I don't assume that. On top of that the incident described in the ref, which is peripheral to her name (it's a separate issue whether we'd want to describe the incident in the article) is unfriendly. She's really a very un-notable, unimportant person. Her real name is unimportant detail in an unimportant article. It's not worth taking the chance of causing a person distress over. That's where I'm coming from.
As to the other, yeah I understand. I know I'm Smoky the Bear on this subject and I try not be a scold about it. But: 1) WP:BLP does begin "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original) and that matters. I know people skip it a lot. I'm not a fanatic about it. It's just good hygiene. It's just a simple matter of adding the ref; if the subject's under discussion the refs are usually available. I don't consider adding a ref to a post to really be editing the post. It would be if it was done to make some kind of point, but it wasn't. It was just me being Smokey the Bear on this particular subject. The alternative would have been to delete the passage. Or I could have asked you to add the ref but that struck me as excessively procedural. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm sorry but I thought we left things on a civil footing. I even said, "I will not fight [your point]." And then you go and edit my talk-page comments like some self-appointed censor. You can't do that. If you truly believe another editor is in the wrong, you contact an admin. You don't go vigilante and take matters into your own hands to the point where you're changing other editors' comments. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

On a separate note, she is hardly non-notable. She was a huge star in her field, and in two of her industry's halls of fame. If you think she's non-notable, you should start a deletion request. I don't think it will go far. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not feeling uncollegial. If you are I'm sorry. All I know is someone -- not you, I don't think, but doesn't matter -- removed the ref once again. That's OK and I'm not inclined to fight over that, but without the ref you can't have the material, so I removed all instances. It's purely a technical matter. I'm not mad or upset. If we don't have the ref, the material has to be removed, period. It's not a matter of opinion but just settled procedure.
I know she's Wiki-notable per our rules, but I was talking about real life. She's not at all famous or important. On a notability line running from "Barack Obama" to "you and me, anonymous private citizens", she's hella closer to you and me, and so rates a lot of the same consideration you and I get: not to have every pecadillo from our youths trumpeted in the world's greatest encyclopedia, forever.
I think there are basically two reasons we don't usually encourage people to edit other people's talk page comments:
  1. As the main reason, it's not right, fair, or helpful to change material under a person's signature so that it looks like the person wrote something substantially different from what they did write. All else aside, this would make discussions hard to follow.
  2. As a secondary reason, courtesy.
However, we remove comments from talk pages all the time. I think that replacing some text with [REDACTED] makes it pretty clear that that wasn't in the original post. So relax. Herostratus (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikimedians summer events![edit]

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

New England Wikimedians summer events![edit]

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested:

Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August:

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Orphan template[edit]

You were active in talk page discussion and so perhaps can assist at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_14#Template:Orphan. Andrew (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walnettos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Paul. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)