Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive192

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Dispute at Manual of Style (icons)[edit]

Hi. I would like some uninvolved folks to look in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) if possible.

Oicumayberight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wishes to make certain changes to the guideline and initiated an RfC towards that goal on 16 March. As no apparent consensus had been reached after six weeks, I removed the two tags in the guideline (I was not involved in the discussion and it seemed to me to have run its course). Oicumayberight restored the tags with the edit summary "Tags should remain until disputes are resolved."

As it seems only to be this one editor who wishes to change the guideline, it seems unreasonable to restore the tags in this way. I also have concern that by adding a somewhat biased section title to a comment I made in talk, the editor has effectively refactored what I wrote. The discussion may be seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Removing tags before dispute is resolved. I am not invested one way or the other in the outcome, but it seems to approach WP:POINT that this one editor seems to be trying to hold the guideline hostage until they get their way. Maybe Oicumayberight will listen to other admins if they are able to speak to them.

Best of luck and thanks for reading. --John (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that is concerned at the Manual of Style being some sort of administrative/dispute deathtrap with the end result being its contents ignored by a large, perhaps overwhelming portion of our writers?--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I know what you mean,. That would be a shame as any professional quality publication has and uses a manual of style or a style guide. Maybe as this is partly a user conduct issue I should have gone straight to AN/I instead. --John (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to remove tags should show some patience. The last resolution on that page took almost 2 months between the time the tag was placed [1] and the time that the issue was finally resolved [2]. It's an exaggeration of the dispute to call it an attempt for one user to get his way. The guide was expanded with the WP:CREEP overreaching attempt to capitalize on prior success with a broader, more vague scope, in violation of WP:BURO. Four other users have noted similar problems with this guide on the talk page just this year, not counting those who've noted problems in the 5 other archives and countless article talk pages where the WP:MOS guide was treated as a WP:policy. Even if I was the only one, WP:Democracy is not the way to develop guides or policies. A resolution before dispute tags are removed is wikipedia's way, not just my way. And I'm not assuming that the resolution will be what I hope it will be. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, bit harsh, I think. I believe tension around the style guides is just part of the cost of doing business. They are a rock, an anchor for WP, and important for its transition to a professional outfit, despite intermittent complaints from a few editors who don't like centralised advice (they own their own language, etc). Possibly many WPians don't know that MOS exists, but if they work at the high end (FAC, etc), they soon find out. My own writing improved significantly when I started to consult MOS and sibling pages regularly. Tony (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it is harsh, but my own experience confirms Tznkai's opinion. Unless the folks there wake up to the fact that for the MoS to work they have to settle for advising, not enforcing, a standard style, it will drift towards irrelevance. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the philosophical differences we may have about the proper role of the Manual of Style, can we agree in terms of procedure that after over a month without consensus and no current discussion of the proposed changes and no support for them when there was a discussion, taking down the tags would be reasonable? --John (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
@Tony, perhaps I am being a bit harsh, but the value of a manual of style is directly proportional to its clarity, stability, and universal acceptance. I'm not seeing it yet.--Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually Tznkai is being tactful. There are relatively few places where MoS carries real weight and the difficulties in fixing it are so severe that it is easier to avoid the venues where it matters. DurovaCharge! 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
While this stance may represent a pragmatic one for particular users, I think that as long as we do have MoS pages they should adhere to the established norms of our DR process. This doesn't seem to be happening. --John (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's one solution that could reduce the scope of the problem. Wikipedia already accepts multiple citation styles and variant national spellings, mainly based upon whether an article is internally consistent. There's no inherent need to create a complete manual of style from the ground up. Except for the parts that are wiki-specific such as header instructions, we could mark most of the internal MoS historical and allow editors to use any mainstream style guide they want. Outside of FAC that's mostly what's happening anyway. DurovaCharge! 14:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Durova, that would be exactly what I'd like to do, but I was sucked into that crazy little world when some someone decided to edit war with me over some linking to some dates. (I left Wikipedia for a while because of that.) There are some people out there who see the MoS as an excuse to start fights with other editors instead of a means to resolve disputes. FWIW, I believe any efforts to enforce the MoS by means other than persuasion ought to be considered disruptive & accordingly shown the door. -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, one constructive step forward would be for someone to start compiling the parts of MoS that can't be duplicated via standard reference works. Perhaps by drafting in user space. Think you know MoS well enough to attempt it? You're certainly experienced enough on the wiki side. DurovaCharge! 06:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I probably could, but I don't have the time. (My weekend was filled with Real Life chores -- like most of my weekends.) But anyone with some common sense could extract it using a few of rules: (1) what can be verified to conform with the standard style guides; (2) those which educate editors on specific practices, like the sections concerning personal naming conventions; (3) those which were written to minimize conflicts, e.g. about American/British English, the AD/BC vs. CE/BCE preferences, etc. As for em/en dashes & the proper use of icons... I wouldn't object if those sections were editted thru a judicious application of WP:MfD; if there is no consensus, there is no standard for style, QED. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A dispute? At a Manual of Style page? Well, this is simply shocking. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting. Am I to take it that as a project we no longer have an effective manual of style and that the consensus among the admins who read this page is that it is ok for one user to hold a guideline page hostage by adding tags to it until he gets his way? --John (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
We don't have an effective MoS, because it isn't stable. I am more ready to dive into Arbitration Enforcement full time than I am willing to step proverbial foot into the mess of MoS disputes. I do not think I am alone. The stakes are way to low, and the disruption far to high. No, it isn't particularly ok for the behavior thats going on to go on, but I honestly don't care enough to get involved. What damage is being done by this instance of stubbornness? Other than the outright silliness in using a tag meant for article space in project space. Block him, negotiate with him, start a thread on ANI, do whatever it is you want to fix it, I have no objection. I think the bigger problem is that our manual of style seems to have far more disputes than it is worth - the very value of a manual of style comes from its stability. I am not by the way suggesting that we enforce a stable version of the MoS, but that the people who edit the MoS had best get their collective act together if they expect the rest of us to use that document. Or, some very enterprising administrators can go forth and resolve the dispute, however they can.
Good luck to whoever does that, and tell me how I can help, but until someone shows me how this matters in the Big Picture, I'm not available.--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this particular MOSICON is just that, an attempt to enforce what I see as a matter of subjective personal taste. My involvement is to improve it and make it more of a guide, not a poor substitution for policy. But I agree with most of the feedback here. The MOS isn't worth the disputes that surround it. The MOSICON is worse than most of the MOS because of advocates attempt to enforce what can never be objectively convincing with the recent expansion to include generic icons. And John isn't being very honest when he claims that he doesn't care either way or he would be disputing my points, not my methods of disputing. John is among the advocates to keep it as controversial as it is. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
With a respectful nod to Tznkai's opinion, the bitterness and triviality of the MoS disputes render the area a sinkhole. An ethnic or religious dispute on Wikipedia has real relevance because this is the world's most popular reference source. Consider the Greek nationalism ethnic disputes: the Greece article got over 400,000 page views in March.[3]; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) received exactly 1384 views during the same period.[4] One would think that a Wikipedian who has over 250 featured credits and studied writing in graduate school would be writing featured articles; I've written only two FAs. And a principal reason is because I'd rather work within a sensible featured process than get pelted with en-dashes and ellipses. I'll be uploading a restored photograph from D-Day shortly after finishing this post: not the beaches at Normandy but a synagogue in New York City that stayed open 24 hours that day for services and prayer. It's quite moving. On the whole, that's a more productive use of content volunteer time. If it were possible to trust the Chicago Manual of Style on minor points and get serious feedback about article structure and content at FAC, this site would have more featured articles. DurovaCharge! 00:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Since MOS pages seem to have special rules, can't someone go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons), pretend that it's a normal article and try to resolve the dispute? Garion96 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to make the entire MoS a 1RR zone. You revert war, you get blocked, end of story. Eventually people working on the MoS will learn to not treat the style guidelines as a battlefield or the blocks will accumulate until they become infef and we get rid of the people who aren't willing to change. A win-win situation. Perhaps a civility restriction as well, though that might only be necessary at MOSNUM. Mr.Z-man 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Splite table Toronto - Ontario[edit]

Resolved: Article renamed and linked from main page--Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Anyone have any idea what this is? Note to creator not replied to. Exxolon (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the last Ontario provincial election, all voters were asked if Ontario should switch from a first past the post system to a mixed member proportional system (Wikipedia page here). This probably has something to do with that. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I've added a intro, moved it to Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007 detailed results and linked it from the main article. Exxolon (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem, everything looks good. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:I already forgot[edit]

Discovered while investigating the nonsense redirect that currently exists for User talk:I already forgot. 24.186.165.121 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear, in this edit of IAF's talk page, TVRTN's edit summary is "blank my old talk page and redirect". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but it's a bad cross namespace redirect. 24.186.165.121 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job!!![edit]

well i just wanna say u guys r doing a grt job!!this site is as useful as it gets!!!

i wanted to put a compliment but i couldn't find a place to put it,so i thought i'd put it here hope i'm nt violating anyhting!!! :P

saying again u guys r doing a great job!thumbs up!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr hiran (talkcontribs) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to hear compliments. There's always lots of work to be done. Feel free to become a volunteer and join the crowd! :) hmwithτ 05:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png[edit]

Resolved

File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png - Can someone please undelete this image locally and mark that it should not be moved to Commons, as it contains an image that is only PD in the US? Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 DoneDrilnoth (T • C • L) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating a redirect link for Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi[edit]

Resolved: One now redirects to the other. hmwithτ 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please can you permit a redirect from Ghazanfar Mehdi to Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabibhassan (talkcontribs) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

cant you do it yourself?  rdunnPLIB  12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The page was actually moved to Ghazanfar Mehdi (per WP:MOS), and Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi redirects to it. hmwithτ 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I did that. I could have sworn I posted here mentioning that, but evidently I only thought about doing it (exams on the brain atm). Gave the article a quick tidy, but still some key fundamentals remain a little iffy. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction[edit]

Resolved

Can someone knowledgeable check the recent edits by Special:Contributions/71.102.129.140? Can't tell if constructive or not. Exxolon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they were just cleaning up an article. Keegantalk 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me too. --Salix (talk): 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kind request to revert move of an article, (Macedonia related by ARBCOM injunction)[edit]

Resolved: pages moved back by Tiptoety

In 20th April 2009 Mactruth moved the Macedonian culture (Slavic) article, to Macedonian culture (ethnic group) here [5]. Mactruth did not undo the move in due time after he was informed[6] of the ARBCOM's temporary injunction on moving Macedonia related articles[7]

He stated consistency as the reason but the new title is also syntactically wrong, since Slavic is an adjective that was about the culture while "ethnic group" can be applied only to peoples. The resulting phrase "ethnic group culture" is not English proper. Mactruth has pushed in the past the kind of pseudohistory mentioned in the article about pseudohistory. That is "the pseudo-Macedonian theory, claiming that the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia are descendants of Ancient Macedonians and speak the same language". Mactruth uses various anti-Greek terms in his user page and other absurd claims "Greek language was extinct in 1630" and straightforward hate language like "the Greeks were more barbarian then the barbarians."
In the light of the above, removing the word "Slavic" from the title about that culture, might not have been in good faith. I am only hoping this move will be reverted just like the temporary injunction states[8]. I cannot move it since I am an involved party. Thanks in advance Shadowmorph (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The requested move is at Wikipedia:RM#4_May_2009 Shadowmorph (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The move clearly falls within the scope of this injuction, but I also cannot undo it, because I am an involved party. Anybody listening?!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am discussing this with a few Arbitrators at the moment, but I think a better place for this would be at WP:AE. Tiptoety talk 19:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, why all this bureaucracy? Can't somebody just go and do it? I mean, it's not as if it was a big deal or anything, and the parties to the arbitration are actually even in agreement on it. Fut.Perf. 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I just needed a second to review the specifics. As such, I have reverted the move per the injunction. Tiptoety talk 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Fut.Perf. 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting neutral opinions regarding WP:WRONG and WP:PROTECT[edit]

Resolved

In response to a request for page protection at WP:RFPP, I protected WP:NOT. Of course, I protected the WP:WRONG version - and by wrong version, I mean the version that many editors, (including DreamGuy, Kww, Gavin.collins, and myself) think is wrong.

My question is, did I do the right thing? All opinions welcome! SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a policy page. If there's an edit war the default needs to be the longstanding version, not whatever somebody who comes along and who doesn't respect consensus decides to do. I think that should be the policy on article pages too, but it's epecially important on policy pages, otherwise you get edit warring and people getting away with distorted versions of policy while the page is locked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Its 2 sentences and its protected for 3 days; its not like the whole policy is in flux. The correct solution is to discuss and try to come to a quick resolution, not sit around and discuss whether the protection was good. But since we're already here, protecting then reverting to the version you think is better (except in cases of BLP or coppyvio issues), is much wronger than protecting the wrong version IMO. Mr.Z-man 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's what policy says too. It earned me a trout, though. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A trout undeserved, by my opinion. Of course, Wikipedia will likely collapse into a steaming pile of useless code during these three days where (gasp!) people will have to talk on the talkpage instead of simply writing over the top of each other. Endorse protect, don't CARE what version. Keeper | 76 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
A trout undeserved in my opinion as well, despite me having started the thread at ANI. I can understand that SheffieldSteel probably would have encountered more resistance had he reverted to what he viewed as the better version. In this case, the right thing has happened: it was protected in the wrong state, it was discussed, and people agreed that it was protected in the wrong state and changed it. The only thing I would have done differently were I SheffieldSteel is that I would have opened this discussion immediately and flagged the opening of the discussion in my edit summary.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Appologies to SheffieldSteel for my over-reacting. I suggest you review your membership of Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping; like check-in staff at airports who wear Clip-ons, you might like to reconsider how you decorate your user page for the same reason :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment here is redundant to my comments about this issue in the half dozen other parallel venues. :) I think there is a natural, unavoidable tension between WRONG and POLICY that can't and shouldn't be resolved through caveats and provisos. That space is rightly occupied by the judgment of the protecting admin. I can understand the frustration felt by people and the false sense of urgency that the incipient edit war instilled in us all, but you were within your rights to protect that page. Had you reverted it and protected you would have been castigated for violating PROTECT at the expense of supporting POLICY. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In defense of SheffieldSteel, I believe that by protecting the version he disagreed with, he did the right thing. The intent of page-protection is to end the bickering & edit-warring, not to gain an unfair advantage. And since the act did end both, & led to a consensus to endorse his favored version as the default version. How about instead of slapping SS with a trout, someone cook him one? Properly cooked in a skillet over an open flame with a fresh vegetable & a side dish, trout can make an enjoyable meal. -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Om nom nom nom. Thanks for the feedback everyone. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Test books and junk books[edit]

One of the options provided by Special:Book is to save a book to one's userspace. This feature appears to have been the subject of a lot of misuse: a quick look through Category:Wikipedia:Books shows that the vast majority of books being created are either tests or misunderstandings of the book system. (For instance, a lot of books include nothing but index pages like Main Page, Portal:Contents, and random project-space pages; contain only one article; or consist of attempts to write an article.) What I'm wondering is:

  • Can any of these be speedily deleted from userspace? Which ones, and under what criteria?
  • Can they be prodded? My understanding is that {{prod}} isn't allowed in userspace; however, as books are automatically created in userspace by default, is this an exception?
  • If not, is it acceptable to remove Category:Wikipedia:Books from these books or replace it with another category in order to keep the contents of the category useful? Right now, the category is only really useful for finding examples of how books aren't supposed to be used.

I've constructed a list of obviously useless books (ones which contain no links to articles) at User:Zetawoof/BadBooks. Any thoughts? Zetawoof(ζ) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD will not physically work anywhere outside of article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Pity. Would CSD G2 (test page) be applicable to these sorts of pages, then? Zetawoof(ζ) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Technically, G2 doesn't apply to user space and I'm not seeing any other obvious match. That isn't to say no admin would speedy these pages - I just don't personally know what criteria would qualify. (I'm not an admin, so I don't really know though.) WP:MfD is the main way to get things deleted from user space.
I don't, however, see any problem with removing the Category:Wikipedia:Books category from things that obviously aren't "books" in the WP sense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Prod works outside of article space it seems. It does give a big nasty warning, but it adds the page to prod categories. I don't know if it ever adds them to dated prod cats. Off to check. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yup, dated prod can be triggered as well (guess that should make sense given the template is the same). Protonk (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't actually place the page into the relevant date category though, which means it will never actually appear on the "expiring day" and thus will never actually be deleted. (Plus the closing admin would surely not delete the page anyway, since it isn't eligible for PROD.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It does place it in that category. Since I removed the prod on User:Protonk/Tsand you can't see but you can check for yourself by either reverting on my userpage or just substituting a prod outside of article space for a short while. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before. Read Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33#G13 Books. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... it doesn't look like that discussion ended particularly conclusively, though. By way of experimentation, I've tagged a couple dozen obvious test books with {{db-test}}. So long as they all go through, I'll continue the process and stick anything questionable through a mass MfD once all the obvious cases are handled. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm noticing that a ton of the test books are attempts to write books from scratch, rather than to create a collection of articles. Any ideas for a tweak to MediaWiki:coll-intro _text to clarify this, and maybe to add a link to Wikibooks for the prospective authors? Zetawoof(ζ) 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you reverted your db-test tagging of those books. G2 is quite clear about it not being applicable in userspace and I we don't need to set up those clearing the CSD queue up for failure. When I remarked above that the general criteria applied I should have been more specific. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
They've already been deleted, mostly by Icestorm815. While the CSD description says it doesn't apply to pages in userspace, the initial decision to make G2 not apply to userspace pages appears to have been to ensure that user sandboxes were left alone. Without exception, every test book I've tagged for deletion was clearly the result of a new user experimenting with the Special:Book wizard. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That's fair. When I get back from school I'll start a thread over at CSD on this. I am just incredibly wonkish when it comes to CSD decisions. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ping me on my talk page when you do. I'd like to be involved. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Amending or clarifying general criteria for books. SoWhy 06:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What should I have done here?[edit]

I'm putting my block here [9] up for review. And if correct, what template should I use? If you look at this edit history, [10] we have Wikistupidity (talk · contribs) editing (vandalising) and then Wikiconspiracy (talk · contribs) making the same edit. I'm not sure if I should have blocked the new account, blocked the old (I did give him/her a 3RR warning), or what. We also have Truth cola (talk · contribs) who may be the same editor. I'm off now, anyone can undo what I've done if I was wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Wikistupidity, and looking at the history of that article, I semi-protected it for two days. Blueboy96 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
GREAT! You blocked Wiki-Stupidity, that's fantastic - could we throw a little salt on that as well? ... oh... wait, you're talking about a User name ... sigh ... oh well, it was a dream come true for a second there. — Ched :  ?  05:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Transient top & sidebar weirdness?[edit]

First, I am one of those oddballs who doesn't use the default MonoBook Skin -- I use Classic because (IMHO) it looks better. Anyway, twice today I've opened a page to find entries missing from the menus along the left side & at the top. The first time it was when I glanced at LessHeard vanU's talk page, which led to wonder what kind of Wikimedia wizardry had he performed there; after poking around, I refreshed his page & the weirdness vanished. I figured some vandal modified some of the base templates that are combined to create the Wikipedia pages, someone else reverted it, & I moved on. Then, just a few minutes ago I encountered this again -- & immediately had a look at the Recent Changes page, but failed to identify exactly which templates were modified. And I suspect that no one would let a vandal repeat that trick twice in a few hours. Is someone modifying these templates to fix some unreported problem? If so, I suggest they test all proposed changes against all of the standard skins to minimize user frustrations. -- llywrch (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been seeing some weird things as well in a variety of places, like my talk page, and my watch list
(diff) (hist) . . m Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia‎; 15:27 . . (-1,244) . . Drilnoth (talk | contribs | block) (etc)

would get reduced to something like

() () () (||) () ) []

is that what you are seeing as well? This probably belongs at WP:VPT, most of the clever folk watch there. –xeno talk 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. When I saw it on LHvU's Talk page, & noticed that the "Edit this page" tags had vanished (along with everything else except "Printable version" at the top, & almost everything along the side except "Donate to Wikipedia" & "Random article" along the side), I thought "Boy, he really wants to hear less van everyone else." -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Like File:Missing history.png? I've been seeing that quite a bit lately. - auburnpilot's sock 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's the rub. –xeno talk 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If there ever was "wikimedia wizardry" on my talkpage, I assure you it would not be of my doing - I would be the Rincewind of any wikimedia wizard order. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I got it too a couple of hours ago. My guess would be that those nasty developers have introduced a server bug somewhere. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI I just filed a bug report about this. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've also been seeing missing entries in the side bar. For example, I just went to the Community portal and all I see in the side bar is the search box and the list of languages. If I hover my cursor over the areas where the other entries would normally be, I can click on them, but they aren't visible. I use Monobook. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, I've been getting this for a week or two. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Weirder & weirder. Let's all blame Microsoft. >:-D -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Usually a good scapegoat, but I'm using a Fox =) –xeno talk 12:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
As a programmer myself, I can tell you that this is 99% likely to be caused by some recent change to the Wikimedia site software. If you have additional information that you think might be helpful in pinning down the problem, you can add it to the bug report I pointed to above, but otherwise it's just a matter of waiting for the devs to figure it out and fix it. (I saw it on Firefox in Linux, so it doesn't seem to be client-related.) Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well as a guy who has made a living from computers over the last 15 years, I can tell you that it is 99% more fun to blame Microsoft. (When it comes to Linux, which is my platform of choice, I just want to find the person responsible & do mean things to her/him -- no fun there.) On a more serious note, so far everyone's identified this as appearing on Firefox. Anyone seeing this on another browser, say IE or Opera? -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:I COME IN hope[edit]

Hi, all. I've seen this guy pleading for leniency via different sockpuppets. I'm all for AGF, but I don't want to overturn a block without first checking in over here and getting some feedback. If he's sincere, I think he'd make a good editor given his enthusiasm. Wouldn't be the first reformed vandal we've ever had. Any suggestions as to how to proceed? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What I tried on simple before he got blocked for his actions on en: Unblock and mentor. I'm not around 24/7 though, so a second mentor will probably be needed. (By the way, the user is User:SchnitzelMannGreek, for those who didn't know.) Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a shot. I used to mentor problematic users back in my "Lucky 6.9" days. Diggin' your new username, btw. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I never knew that was you. What I did know then is that you'd be back :) Keegantalk 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I would like to point out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchnitzelMannGreek. I am not very confident this will work out, but I guess we can try. Tiptoety talk 04:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Seeing how many times he has contacted me in good faith and with a desire to be unblocked so he can contribute (via email as well, now that it's working again we've shot a couple emails back and forth) and his well-intended edits on simple wikipedia (even if his edits weren't perfect, he just has to learn a bit); I am actually quite confident this will work out for the best, especially given his enthusiasm while editing. We'll just have to see, though I have high hopes and have wanted this for a while. (Please do note I was the one subject to the brunt of the abuse.) Squire of the the Infernal Knight-Lord of Penguins 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing License[edit]

Resolved

Hi, please fix the license with the today "In the news" Mainpage image File:Mikhail Saakashvili, Davos cropped.jpg. The license is {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, see its original on Commons File:Mikhail Saakashvili, Davos.jpg. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

When it got brought over to wikipedia from commons they copy and pasted the licenses and our syntax is different then theirs. I tried to fix it with similar templates and licenses. Cheers, Icestorm815Talk 03:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thx :) --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Biophys continuing harrassment[edit]

Biophys was warned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account only in the last week after a set up on this very noticebard that accusations of people sharing accounts is harrassment. This is now continuing against User:Offliner at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Petri_Krohn. Making continual accusations against editors whom one is in conflict with over various articles is harrassment, and the filing of a sockpuppet report and the continuation of accusations of sharing of accounts and the like, is continuing this. Biophys has been warned many times, including at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Biophys, where he got off scot-free, because he promised not to do engage in such behaviour again. It is perfectly clear that he has continued such behaviour, even after getting off with nothing after his latest round of harrassment against myself. That he is now chosing to continue accusations against other users shows that this is egregious behaviour that has not stopped, and which for indications will never stop. Use of functions such as sockpuppet reports and AN, etc, does not give editors free reign to make accusations left, right and centre against editors with whom they are in content disputes with. He is well aware of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions and it is now time that for admin intervention here against this behaviour. --Russavia Dialogue 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What "warning" are you talking about? I received no official warnings with regard to anything you are talking about. Filing an SPI investigation is not a harassment.Biophys (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry Russavia, but the only harassment I am seeing here is of Biophys and by you. Your post contains a series of misleading statements. Biophys was not warned (there was no consensus, although I'll agree that several editors were advised to discuss one another - primarily you and Biophys). Asking for sockpuppet investigation of a banned user is hardly a harassment (otherwise half the admins here would be guilty of it). Citing proposed arbcom decision which did not pass is hardly helpful. Biophys behavior in the last AN thread was civil and conciliatory, your behavior, however, seemed and still seems indeed to fall under Digwuren sanction (which you cite yourself...) on battlefield creation (if this thread is not aim at harassing Biophys and creating a battleground, I don't know what is). I suggest that to stop this wikidrama, we put both (to be fair and not split hairs who is more guilty) Russavia and Biophys under a parole that will prevent them from discussing one another, with the exception of formal DR procedures. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree to be placed under such parole, together with Russavia. That would save some time to WP administrators. No one wants to hear the constant bickering here.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that a Request for comment might be in order? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Checkuser proved negative: [11]. In Russavia's case, despite the negative result Biophys continued to make baseless accusations and I'm afraid that this will also happen in my case. Note that in the report Biophys called me "basically an SPA"[12] and made other personal attacks as well. In October, 2008, Biophys had filed another report against me, which also proved negative: [13]. Biophys' continuous accusations have to stop. Admin action is needed to make sure that they will. Offliner (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that Biophys said: "might be a meatpuppet as well."[14] The only conclusion from this comment is, that the negative Checkuser result will not satisfy Biophys. It is probable that he will continue to make baseless accusations (just as he did in Russavia's case), unless the admins take action to put an end to this. Offliner (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for this discussion. If any of you continue to have problems with each other then you need to seek some sort of Dispute resolution, not continue to post notices here where nothing is likely to happen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
So giving an official warning to Biophys is completely beyond the capabilities of this board? Offliner (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stats on RevisionDeleted[edit]

The RevisionDeleted function came into use at the end of January, and has been used by oversighters since that time while it's being tested and refined.

RevDel allows deletion to both Oversight and admin levels (the latter works but is not yet fully enabled for communal usage). It allows deletion/undeletion of log entries, as well as selective deletion/undeletion of posts.

Some details, and initial stats, are at WT:SIGHT#Usage of RevisionDeleted.

FT2 (Talk | email) 07:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis and explanation of this new tool. It was helpful =) –xeno talk 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks by User:Majorly and User:Landon1980[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Closed discussion as this is not the place for it. Please take your dispute to your own talk pages or follow the directions at WP:DR. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Majorly was warned on his talk page and reverted one of his attacks [15] with a snarky edit summary [16]. But continues attacks [17] evn after.

Landon making similar attacks [18]. Doesn't seem wiling to let go [19] and [20].

Now they've started removing content from a userpage because of "plagarism" [21]. Probably violates 3RR adn edit warring. I think everyone has been quite patient with these two, but enough is enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon's comments definitely weren't personal attacks. As for Majorly, I believe the bastard comment could be a borderline personal attack, but this likely is not harassment. If it is, then Hammersoft has also been doing some harassing, especially to Xeno. As for the userpage, nobody has violated 3RR, and you were edit warring too, mislabeling Majorly and Landon's edits as vandalism. There was an edit dispute, but no vandalism. Timmeh! 23:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Majorly is a lot of things, but he's no vandal. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech is using Sceptre's userspace without crediting him, and is therefore plagiarising it. The bastards comment was merely in response to Hammersoft calling me (collectively) one. So if people are going to punished for "personal attacks" then he should be. Really though, there's nothing to see here apart from ChildofMidnight stirring up trouble again. The page has been fully protected, and I hope people get the message that you need to use userspace according to the GFDL, and not just steal it. Majorly talk 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Harassment also on May 3 and April 20 [22] if anyone wants to look at the User's talk page history. These editors need to move on and find a new hobby. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of finding new hobbies, look at your buddy DougsTech. Majorly talk 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no harassment. Warning COM. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agreed. That is not vandalism, that is merely a dispute over Dougstech transcluding Sceptres subpage onto his own. I do not entirely agree with Dougs' actions, and although it might have been nice to contact him first, Majorly is in the right in removing the "Plagarism" of Sceptres subpage. Until It Sleeps 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sceptre has already removed it twice. Majorly talk 23:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
And, as I was not given credit, it's technically a copyright violation and DougsTech can be blocked as such. Sceptre (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It may technically be, but so is any transclusion of any template. The creators of an infobox template are not credited in the proper place (the history tab) of an article. --NE2 23:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Templates are more or less code. It'd be hard to allege someone is plagiarising code. However, my RCP FAQ is text. It's my own writing. I don't want people using that without crediting me under the auspices of the GFDL. Sceptre (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
He did credit you. Despite your lack of courtesy he used a template with your name in it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That isn't crediting. Not at all. He's still a plagiarist. Sceptre (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ChildOfMidnight[edit]

Seems to be on a personal attack and disruption spree, based upon this thread consisting of no real evidence of harassment (see WP:HA#NOT) and the disruptive addition of a warning template to my talk page after I warned him. Administrator assistance of the usual kind maybe warranted. Sceptre (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a block for about 24 hours would be suitable. We can't let disruption like this go ignored. Majorly talk 00:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre out of control?[edit]

First he puts a level 4 vandalism warning on my page and now this? What's going on? Can't we discuss the issue of "plagarizing" and personal attacks without this level of nonsense? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You made a very serious attack. If you seriously think that these messages constitute an offense comparable to the shit Amorrow pulled, you seriously need to be locked up in a psych ward. When he starts having panic attacks, when he's suicidal, when he can't sleep at night because of the harassment he's receiving, then we'll listen to you. But until then, I have no sympathy for the likes of you. Sceptre (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

TROUT for all[edit]

*SPLAT*

All right, that's enough. Stop it, all three of you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No kidding, this is lame. RxS (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Backlog[edit]

- ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MedCab Backlog[edit]

The Mediation Cabal has an extreme backlog of new cases at the moment, and a shortage of mediators to help out. We could use some help. All that's required is some spare time, a calm mind and helpful attituide. Your help would be appreciated :) Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 05:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay! More copyright problems![edit]

I'd hate to bring bad news, but I've found another one.

Dger (talk · contribs) List of all articles created.

Looking at a few more articles, at least Greenish Blue, Polygonia progne and Oreas Comma were copied too. By his user page, he's a PhD. It's not like he wasn't warned. There are no excuses whatsoever. MER-C 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that this is a relative newcomer, which means this isn't going to be as extensive as some and that the contributor may either not understand the policy or not know how to verify permission. (I haven't closely evaluated the sources, but I did look at this one: [26]. Permission would have to come from the copyright owners of The Butterflies of Canada. I'll look through the contrib history, list what I see at WP:CP, and drop the standard "nothanks", which includes information on how to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Given Ochre sea star, I am somewhat less encouraged. :/ The opening is extensively copied from a PDF. The body duplicates this. There's also this. So far, I have found infringement in every article containing original text from this contributor. We will also need to verify images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Upshot of my viewing every contribution: 16 articles listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 May 6. I have only glanced at a few images, which are hosted on Commons (see [27]). Contributions on Wikipedia also include what looks like useful clean up of referencing. Can somebody who does more with images check those to see if they seem clear? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

←The contributor indicates at my talk page that all images are his own. He was evidently under the impression with some of these articles at least that they could be reproduced here because the website permits non-commercial reproduction. I've explained both that our licensing requires commercial reproduction as well and also noted the complicating factor that the website is displaying material with permission of the original copyright holders, and hence we would need verification that they may release the text. It doesn't, of course, explain the material that isn't from that website. But it's a plausible misunderstanding with regards to some of this text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The images fall into three distinct groups:
I'd say the first lot are OK, but I question the others. MER-C 08:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Talk:Hak Ja Han[edit]

There is a Request for Comment at Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#RfC:_Sentence_about_marriage_to_Sun_Myung_Moon that is almost a month old. Would be most appreciated if a previously uninvolved administrator could close it and come to some sort of conclusion/resolution about it. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Block 83.188.233.80[edit]

Please block this user, since he is writing slander about me. He is just doing this to provoke me into being blocked myself. I have been wiki stalked by this vandal since 2004, and I need a break. He is only writing irrelevant things about my religious background, at the talk page for an article which is not about me./83.172.124.101 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A wacky time at CfD[edit]

I'm on my phone so I can't edit too much, but someone may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30. William Buckley is sabotaging some discussions with calls of elitism. Also look at WT:CFD. His talk page also makes a good read. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama article question[edit]

But I was trying to have a discussion about the replacement of an invalid source used in the Barack Obama faq page and several people would close the discussion and absolutely refuse to explain themselves when I asked on their talk pages (and indeed deleted my attempts to engage them). Basically, the FAQ uses a document that says it is invalid if it is altered and the document is obviously altered since it has a huge black mark covering up a section of it.

I realize the basic history of the Barack Obama talk page is to essentially close down conversations, refuse discussion and then ban people when they try to reopen their discussions. Of course, I'm sure this will also be an exercise in futility as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This would not be the right place to claim that Obama's birth certificate has been doctored. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between a document and an image, okay? The image has been altered, and has a black box on it. That does not mean that the document has been altered. Secondly, stop accusing people of acting in bad faith, please. You've been warned before, and blocked, so you should know better. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Finally! Thanks for actually explaining your position and not throwing a straw man at me like Scjessey just did. I just think we should use a better document/image/whatever that hasn't been altered, but I couldn't seem to get to that because it'd get deleted. Anyway, I understand what you are saying and thanks again for explaining yourself. Edit conflict - I thanked you before you threatened me - oh well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Warnings aren't threats. While we're on the subject, please also desist from attacking other editors, like you did on User Talk:Soxwon (since deleted). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a question for you sheffieldsteel, since you are a fair guy are you giving these guys warnings for attacking me by making straw man arguments/attacks against me? No? Hmm...TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor problems[edit]

Goodlocust is a problem editor, probably headed for a long term block or Obama topic ban if you look at his history and renewed disruption over on the Obama articles. We've been through this several times already with the editor. I've refrained from leaving cautions because last time I did that (shortly before his 1-month block) his reaction was weird and hostile. I think the guy genuinely believes a lot of that fringe stuff about Obama, and singlemindedly wants the articles to reflect that - and is paranoid about some kind of liberal conspiracy cabal here. I just don't see any reasonable likelihood that he can constribute constructively on the topic, given past blocks and attempts to warn, counsel, and discuss. Wikidemon (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've improved the Bararck Obama article through consensus and discussion (when it is allowed) only to come back and find it gone. I've never tried to insert anything fringe into the article but I have tried to insert facts that you people find unsavory. For example, the Barack Obama article used to talk about how he hired a lawyer to knock Alice Palmer and the other democrats off the ballot when he ran for state senator - that was his first venture into politics, it was well-sourced, and is now somehow missing. This is only one example. Most Barack Obama articles seem to get rid of these little details over time. Hell, in our latest discussion I showed a good source about how Barack Obama was not considered a professor by a real professor Richard Epstein who worked at the same university - I mean, before you guys were using a primary source that came out in response to a mini-scandal in order to portray Barack and the university in a better light. Seriously, standards seem to go out the window on this article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh and wikidemon, if I'm so unconstructive, then why did you change the Barack Obama article after our little discussion? You don't like me, that I fully understand, but saying I'm unconstructive right after you implement one of my proposed edits is just ridiculous. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a discussion about my own editing. This edit warring to re-propose fringe birther theories on the talk page[28] and this harranguing of other editors there[29] are very similar to the behavior that incurred the 1-month block. He's pretty much shut down one ongoing discussion already. My concern is that the editor has not learned from the block, and if he continues as he has on the Obama talk page we're headed for some serious, unnecessary time-wasting disruption there. Any administrator who cares to follow up can review the article and talk page history, and Thegoodlocust's contribution history. Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, you people are again attacking me with a straw man, even after Steel apparently understood - I wasn't talking about Barack Obama's birth, I was talking about the use of an invalid document on the FAQ page. You keep on trying to ostracize me as a fringe theorist so you can get me banned, but nothing I've actually said supports your assertion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the editor is here on this notice board, and we have his attention. And he is saying that he does not want to cause disruption. I may be wrong, I hope I'm wrong... I don't want him banned, I would much rather everyone just get along. So if any admin. has a good prescription for keeping order, now would be a great time. Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting statement, considering you've taken actions in the past to get me banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, it's worth noting here that Thegoodlocust has been blocked several times for his Obama edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Mostly due, if memory serves, from me reopening/undeleting conservations that were hastily deleted - which is why I came here in the first place. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Mostly due to your insistence on dwelling on unproven conspiracy theories. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No, not really, unless of course you think Barack hiring a lawyer to knock fellow democrats off the ballot is a conspiracy theory and not historical fact. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not the appropriate forum[edit]

Administrators are not mediators, and have nothing to do with content dispute. Neither does the Arbitration committee.

Please take this to a Request for comment or a Request for mediation. There is nothing else to look at here. Keegantalk 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me - this was asked as a behavior / disruption matter, and answered as such. AN/I would be more appropriate than AN perhaps but it landed here. If administrators want to punt yet again just because it's an Obama article, that's fine but ignoring disruption when it starts won't make it go away. Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Wikidemon. When a user is being disruptive on the Talk page of an article which is on probation due to continued abuse, then it should come either to here or to ANI (ANI, preferably, but it was here now). This is not a content dispute, it's a discussion about a repeatedly-blocked user continuing to be disruptive on a page under probation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, discussion reopened. Keegantalk 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
TheGoodLocust has been topic banned for six months on Obama-related articles[30] so there might not be a whole lot more to say, unless anyone cares to opine on the wisdom of that. Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Page creation and redirection.[edit]

I tried to create the page called Wild Wing but was instructed that "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time." I would like to have the page "Wild Wing" created and be redirected to the page Wild Wing Restaurants page - [[31]] Please contact me if required. Thanks. Slopitch20 —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

That's weird... Doesn't appear to be create-protected...  Donexeno talk 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality enforcement: a proposal[edit]

I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea in theory, but I can see editors on both sides complaining that the "uninvolved editors" are unacceptably biased in the other direction. I also think that having yet another confidential mailing list (I assume this is going to be the case if discussions are to be "quiet"), is a recipe for even more unpleasant drama. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Impeachment of Functionaries[edit]

I'm not quite sure where to intimate this, so I'm flagging it here. If anyone can think where else it should go, feel free to add it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Libel and legal threats?[edit]

User:Pangur777 has been seemingly adding libelous content to Irish_Music_Rights_Organisation, and an IP has threatened to take legal action against him, specifically, User:86.47.213.226. [32], [33]. Until It Sleeps 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors have been notified of this thread. Until It Sleeps 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've indefinitely (not infinite) blocked the IP for the blatant legal threat. The IP is clearly long-term assigned to that organisation, as a quick look at the contribs shows, but I invite feedback and suggestions for a potential timeframe. I've also indef blocked User:Pangur777, as his contribs show that he's here purely to push an agenda, and has made potentially libellous comments despite warnings. – Toon(talk) 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've unblocked the fellow using the IP, for how else is he going to be able to get his situation resolved if he can't edit? I think it's best to engage the chap first to see if we can't make things right, as opposed to just blocking him and hoping he goes away. We need to make sure that organisations (and people, for that matter) aren't being libelled, and we can't get to the source of the problem if the fellow can't communicate with us oceeConas tá tú? 12:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well he can communicate, and as advised in the template, "If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-en@wikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue." He can also communicate through his talk page. "We will now commence legal proceedings to ensure that this does not happen again" is a crystal clear legal threat - please explain to me how I've "misinterpreted" WP:NLT. Further, it's not like I've blocked him and ignored the problem; the editor in question is blocked, but we can't allow editors to go around threatening to sue us whenever an issue comes up.– Toon(talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the OTRS team, I have to say that there always a lot of "tickets" (i.e. e-mails) to respond to, and the legal queue is only handled by a few individuals. It's quite possible that it might take a few days to get back to him if he were to email info-en (the e-mail would have to be processed into the legal queue too, I believe, which may take extra time, I'm not exactly sure how that works). Since this appears to be a situation that manifested itself on en.wiki (as opposed to Britannica filing an antitrust lawsuit against the WMF - just a silly example, btw, hehe), it just seems to be that it can be handled rather easily on en.wiki. If the fellow returns, we can ask him to identify himself as a member of the IMRO via e-mail, and once he checks out, we can either institute a topic-ban on the fellow adding the allegedly libellous content, protect the article to some degree, etc. Outright indefinitely blocking the fellow indefinitely for what appears to be nothing but a bit of aggravation is a little heavy-handed, especially when it appears that we can sort this out rather easily. Apologies if I've stepped on your administrative toes, so to speak, Toon; for me, if someone wants to revert anything I do, I'm completely fine with it if they just drop a little note explaining why. If you feel differently, I definitely understand, and again, apologies mate oceeConas tá tú? 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it was heavy-handed, but then I may be in the minority in wanting to ensue that legalities such as these are kept off the wiki - I just don't believe it is conducive to any kind of working environment. I'm not worried about him being unblocked, but discussing it with me first would have been appreciated. :) – Toon(talk) 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Toon. Policy is that we block and especially for clear legal threats. Ocee, you seem to be saying not that Toon misinterpreted NLT but that from a practical matter it would be better to speak to that person on-wiki rather than OTRS. That's not what the block log says. Regardless of Pangur's edits (they look more like spamming to me than anything), he's been blocked but could anyone be clearer than "We will now commence legal proceedings to ensure that this does not happen again"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nosy admins needed at nasal irrigation[edit]

Resolved

Both parties have agreed to an article ban. One has accepted mentorship. Proposal withdrawn. DurovaCharge! 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Two problems here: a probable COI astroturfing campaign on one side and an obscene IP address on the other.

Grockl (talk · contribs)[edit]

Grockl was the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, which concluded that Grockl is a POV pushing SPA and probable sockpuppeteer. POV pushing continues. In particular, Grockl continues making edits of a promotional nature to advance the idea that pulsating nasal irrigation is superior to other forms of nasal irrigation.[34][35][36][37] Associated IPs originated from the same metropolitan area where the pulsating irrigator inventor lives.

Grockl was uncivil to Hans Adler, the filer of the sock investigation.[38] Grockl also blanks negative information from user talk beginning with copyright violation notices,[39][40] then altering a post by another editor.[41] I took the advice of the deleted text in Hans Adler's post "e.g., by googling for Grockl and Sinupulse" and found several interesting things: at Oprah.com, recommending SinuPulse as the best product,[42] at CureZone forums praising SinuPulse[43] and also Digg.com where a single purpose user submitted two entries for SinuPulse[44] and apparently the username was recently changed from Grockl (second entry).[45]

Getting back to Grockl's Wikipedia talk page, shortly after altering Hans Adler's post Grockl blanks the notice about the sockpuppet investigtion,[46] blanks a level 2 personal attack warning,[47] blanks a civil caution from Hans Adler regarding the potential for astroturfing campaigns to backfire,[48] blanks a warning about conflict of interest,[49] blanks a vandalism warning,[50] blanks a speedy deletion notice,[51] and another (would an admin check the deleted content please?)[52] and blanks a request to create SPI reports at the SPI area rather than in article space.[53]

Previous noticeboard threads regarding the problem:

WikiProject Medicine was notified two months ago, but that hasn't stopped the problem:

Some kind of remedy is necessary regarding Grockl, who has shown zero receptiveness to constructive feedback over several months and continues to push POV at the nasal irrigation article as recently as today.[54][55]

Anti-pulsatile nasal irrigation IP editor[edit]

A more blatant problem is the anti-Grockl editor who also inhabits the topic. A quick review demonstrates this as thoroughly outside the bounds of site norms.

The IP editor's other posts are to nasal irrigation, its talk page, and related WP namespace pages to express the opposite POV of Grockl and to attack Grockl.

Proposed solution: a pox on both their houses[edit]

Normally I wouldn't propose a siteban on an editor who's been around for a year without a block or formal DR, but Grockl is as SPA as it gets. His only article contributions outside 75 posts to nasal irrigation are four posts to sinusitis and two posts to post-nasal drip.[61] Also proposing a siteban on the IP editor and an entry in the long term vandalism page with the moniker "Anti-pulsatile nasal irrigation IP editor". DurovaCharge! 16:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor is registering an account. Has been offered probation in conjunction with WP:ADOPT and a username change as an alternative. DurovaCharge! 19:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I agree, ban the whole lot of 'em. SPA for Grockl is obvious. As for the IPs, my interaction consists of reverting vandalism by 98.201.142.128 to Nasal irrigation and reverting vandalism/personal attack by the same IP to User talk:Grockl. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting a siteban for serial IP additions seems pretty pointless to me, since they are widely variant IPs from different regions of the US, and not even all from the same ISP; let's not waste our time in giving them any more attention than they deserve. It's just as likely that Grockl was on the receiving end of some sort of externally organized group spamming. Block the IPs as appropriate, but it's very unlikely they're the same editor. Grockl I'm more than happy to leave to the rest of the community. Risker (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the IPs posted to Grockl's user talk, demonstrate identical POV, and post almost nowhere except where Grockl is active. Personal attacks from these IPs are virtually indistinguishable. So despite the WHOIS results, this is either one person with the technical ability to mask location or a multiple editors with a single voice situation. That said, there's a reasonable chance that with Grockl banned the IP vandal wouldn't have any reason to return. DurovaCharge! 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I'm still trying to figure out how an IP address can be obscene. While someone posting from an IP address can use obscene language, the IP address itself (which is a number) isn't. Even 69.69.69.69 isn't obscene. -- llywrch (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Llywrch, was that posted in jest? Please comment upon the actual administrative problem here, and minor grammatical issues elsewhere. It took a good deal of work looking into this and I fielded several interruptions while writing the draft. Had been double checking under the good faith assumption that reader priorities would be accurate evidence. DurovaCharge!
Yes, it was meant as a joke -- in part. But if you can't smile & move on (or just move on) when someone tries to lighten the all too often deathly-seriousness attitude people adopt when posting to WP:AN, then maybe you ought to do a quick self-check about possible WikiBurnout. And for the record, I did look at the evidence as much as I could before posting that (nasal irrigation is not a topic I care to know very much about), & AFAIC both parties are asking for a block. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am the serial IP vandal. Look, I realize now that my methods aren't going to get me anywhere, but Grockl's persistence to push his biased point of view got the best of me so I did whatever I could to stop him. I'm going to stop and get a real username (not this one) because I can assure you that using published medical research all of his edits can be elided. Thanks and apologies for the profuseness of my vandalism, especially towards Administrators. AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and block this one ^ as an admitted sock. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Grokcl v. Grockl. I almost didn't catch the difference. Durova

Charge! 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, and I will behave from now on, but don't you think that's just a weebit futile given how easily I can switch between varying IP addresses? :) I'm trying to be constructive here and your actions will just make it more difficult for you to recognize my communications.AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad this is finally getting the necessary attention – thanks a lot, Durova. I can confirm that as far as I am aware initially the problem was only Grockl advertising, then it was Grockl advertising and the IP trying to out Grockl, and then it was Grockl advertising and the IP vandalising several pages with claims of a highly personal nature about Grockl. I found out Grockl's real-life identity, so I know now that though the IP was wrong about Grockl's identity, he does have a conflict of interest through real-life affiliations. (If still relevant, I will email Durova or another interested and trustworthy admin with the details.)

It seems absolutely clear that Grockl is neither interested in building an encyclopedia, nor is he able to cooperate with others who don't follow his commands. Therefore I would support a site ban.

I would also say that the IP deserves a site ban. For an established user that would be too drastic, but in this case that would amount only to a topic ban, since before the recent escalation the IP's actions were generally within the normal bounds of editor behaviour, well-intentioned and quite unremarkable. If this user creates an account and starts editing dental hygiene or exploding whales, nobody will ever make the connection. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The last paragraph pretty well proves my point. Site-banning the IPs is irrelevant; they could have different editors on them tomorrow, and there are those who would bureaucratically say "your IP is banned so you can't edit". And if the person(s) behind the IP edits just makes a new account and edits within policy in other areas, nobody will notice. So what is the point of site-banning an IP? Risker (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the ban would be for the person. It would mean that if we get Grockl socks in the future, the IP user can be banned per the duck test. But it's not as important as banning Grockl. I should add that without the IP Grockl's spam would have been unnoticed for a very long time. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Of all the ways to draw attention to the astroturfing, though, one of the worst is repeated and gratuitous bias toward an entire set of people who endure too much discrimination already. DurovaCharge! 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As I indicated on my talk page, I'm completely 100% prostrating myself here. I had no idea that one of the editors was LGBT until I visited their user page just now. I believe I've posted on their talk page before, and frankly I don't know how to apologize for that, but I will try. AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Will defer to Allstarecho regarding that. His call. DurovaCharge! 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See relevant discussion at User talk:Grokcl. Allstarecho is proposing probation with WP:ADOPT and a username change. Looks generous and reasonable. DurovaCharge! 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As one final note, I feel that at this point in order to avoid drawing myself into question again, I am l00% completely recusing myself as an editor of the Nasal Irrigation page; however, I will continue to make many, many more posts on the discussion page to further validate my point. I don't care if pulsatile irrigation remains a listed alternative on the nasal irrigation page; what I do care about is that these studies, if of dubious origin (which I am happy to prove), have some sort of qualifier on the Nasal Irrigation page. I will do this in hopes that some will be reading and watching the discussion to edit the article accordingly. If Grockl gets out of hand, I will come seek help from you all (though I'm happy to see him banned regardless). I'm hoping to become a team player here without any doubt as to my intentions. AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak support: The person behind the Grokcl copycat account should be given an extremely short leash. The account needs to be changed within the next 24 hours because it clearly violates WP:UNCONF. If the change is not done within 24 hours, it should be blocked. Should the account name be changed, the editor should be on a short leash during mentorship. The editor has already admitted to personal attacks, a clear violation of policy, so any further behavioral or editorial issues should be dealt with quickly. In short terms: one strike and this editor is out. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I am still waiting on the change of username to happen, but I believe I need an administrator to follow up. AbstractClimber (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Name change is complete and I've updated almost all signatures.AbstractClimber (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Solving the other half of this[edit]

Grockl (the real Grockl, as opposed to Grokcl) has not responded and remains under ban proposal. Please discuss. DurovaCharge! 21:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Background: "Nasal irrigation" means flushing slime out of the nose with relatively large amounts of salt water. This is known to be an efficient treatment for sinusitis, and it is known to be more effective than saline nasal spray. "Pulsating nasal irrigation" is the high-tech variant (see commons:File:Pulsatingnasalirrigator.jpg), for which Grockl holds several patents.

For the almost 2 years since he created the account, Grockl's activities have been restricted to adding a section "Pulsating nasal irrigation" to Nasal irrigation. In this section he claims that "[s]everal published medical reports indicate pulsatile lavage which utilizes greater leverage and can effectively penetrate biofilm is more effective at cleansing and removing bacteria than [...] neti pots and squeeze bottles", or variants of this. This is a misrepresentation of the sources, none of which has ever compared his method with the standard method in a clinical study. When I caught him, he made a big deal out of my not being a medical expert, even though his own professional background is quite obviously in marketing (as the quoted passage shows).

In almost 2 years Grockl has never touched anything in Nasal irrigation outside "his" section. Here is a complete list of his article contributions outside Nasal irrigation: [62] [63]. For more details see the timeline I compiled for WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockl/Archive. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Grockl is a single-purpose agenda account whose behavior suggests a conflict of interest. His reason for being on Wikipedia is to promote pulsatile irrigation. He has not behaved well on the only article he chooses to frequent. If consensus for a siteban is not found, I would propose an indefinite topic ban from all medical articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral until Grockl makes a statement regarding this matter as I believe he should be offered a chance to explain his position (WP:AGF and all). However, should Grockl make any edits to the Nasal irrigation article or talk page before he explains his position, I weak support a topic ban as a SPA. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have admitted my bias with pulsatile irrigation which I believe you call a SPA. Many editors that contribute have a single POV especially those that can offer expertise in a particular area. Wikipedia policy states that a balance should be placed on respectful dialogue with SPA's in order to benefit from their expertise while maintaining the need for neutrality. Pulsatile irrigation is a relevant and effective method of nasal irrigation that should be mentioned within the article on nasal irrigation. How it is cited is less important. The bigoted hate filled anti gay postings and now an apparent fake account is incredulous. I am simply trying to get an established method of irrigation included in an article on nasal irrigation nothing more or less. A more neutral statement or compromise is acceptable as I have mentioned many times before. But there is no room for bigoted hate speech on wikipedia. I still don’t understand the wikipedia community, editors, and actions. When I look at the nasal irrigation article there are many anecdotal statements and isolated references to support certain claims throughout the article. There are many inaccuracies in the article as well. Expertise in a given area should be encouraged not discouraged. This goes back to the point that editors with a single POV should be part of the editorial process. You can have oversight to maintain a degree of neutrality. There should be no place whatsoever for homophobic hate filed speech that now peppers my talk page and the article itself. The wikipedia community should remove these statements from the history as they are both pornographic and highly bigoted. My edits to my talk page were an effort to clean it up and remove sections that lead to much of this speech. I have even requested my talk page be deleted as I find the comments on the page to promote homophobic hate speech something much more insidious than a single POV. The IP poster may now show contrition for some of his actions but bigotry unfortunately is not so easily cured as a sinus infection. I would even suggest you vanquish the entire page if it gets rid of those ugly comments. Unfortunately some of them show up in the article history as well.

The poster is now very contrite but states he and his friends were just having a little fun. Homophobic anti gay references are not funny and should not be so easily excused. Whats next anti-semetic and racist rants excused as just kidding. I think this type of public hate speech is a more serious issue than a single POV and certainly more important than the nasal irrigation article. I see where the poster has agreed to mentoring but what is truly required for this poster is a change in his heart. --Grockl (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The question here isn't about another user's edits. That user has been dealt with. We're here in this section now to discuss your own editing. Please read WP:SPA. And then try and explain to us how it doesn't apply to you? Also read WP:OWN and WP:COI. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 10:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I guess my position, as the primary target of the attacks, is hate speech and homphobic rants should not be taken lightly on any public forum at least not one that attempts to hold itself up to such high editorial standards. I dont think enough has been done given the aggressive nature of the personal attacks and remarks made.

To your point, in reading the definition you provided and as I have stated previoulsy, since I do focus on a single purpose I would consider myself a SPA. Wikipedia states " A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia. The presence of such clearly defined SPAs has provoked a strong reaction among the Community. Some editors are concerned that contributions by SPAs have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards, thus conflicting with what Wikipedia is not. Other editors raise counter-concerns pointing to the need of the Community to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, thus being able to cite relevant reliably sourced publications. Identifying and interacting with SPAs requires both civility and tact" I dont see where Wikipedia prohibits a single purpose account or warrants a ban.

I recognize the need for a balance between prvoiding valuable editorial content from a well informed user and any bias. I agree postings should be open for review by the community for appropriate inclusion in an article and to ensure neutrality. I have admitted to a bias and have on many occasions requested and even offered up a compromise to settle the dispute in an effort to add meaningful content while preseving a degree of neutrality to my posts and balance any bias I project. I have stated I will no longer post directly on this article but rather make suggestions on the discussion page in an effort to adhere to a higher standard. I simply would appreciate others to refrain from personal attacks, harassment, or outing which I understand is prohibited by Wikipedia and takes precedence. --Grockl (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the nasal irrigation article I think Hans recent edits have been very helpful and have a measured balance and neutrality especially in the "methods" section. As stated, I will refrain from future posts on the subject of pulsatile irrigation but will instead make any suggestions on the discussion page for others to consider in an effort to avoid a similiar situation in the future.--Grockl (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your being a single purpose account is not the main accusation against you; it is merely an argument why we should not be as lenient in your case as e.g. in the case of an editor who has written ten featured articles or made other significant contributions to the project. Fact is that you are here for one single, extremely restricted purpose that is far from important for this project, and that you are making more trouble than you are worth. This discussion is about banning you for your POV pushing in the article itself – you have addressed this by promising not to edit it any more. Another reason is your uncooperative behaviour on the article talk page, e.g. [64] This was your reaction to being proved wrong, and it was quickly followed by a highly suspicious edit from the same city that agreed with you unconditionally. Combine this with an insistence to misrepresent sources, and perhaps you can understand why some people feel that you are not a net positive factor in this collaborative project.
Try not to overplay the victim card. The IP is getting a chance because it appears the IP may want to contribute to building this encyclopedia and may just need help to approach it the right way. Your situation is completely different, and you should have been banned before the IP became obscene (not "pornographic", unless I missed something). --Hans Adler (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not a victim and dont want to come off that way but we all have our pet peeves mine is bigotry. I simply find it disgusting and the worst part of human nature. Pornography while interpreted differently by many including our US supreme court, from time to time, but is generally considered sexually explicit material which was clearly posted. Anyway I am truly sorry for any inconvenience.--Grockl (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please address the subject at hand: you have repeatedly misrepresented sources and violated copyright, then over many months have rejected all efforts to bring your conduct within site policies and norms. If you have any intention to reform, please state so now. DurovaCharge! 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, yes - you have my full commitment and my word that I will comply and respect all wikipedia terms and conditions. I have stated I will no longer contribute to the article other than the discussion area and only in full cooperation with all the editors and only in a positive, constructive, and fully collaborative manner. I sincerely apologize for my actions which have contributed to the situation and deemed inappropriate.--Grockl (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, withdrawing siteban proposal. Best wishes. DurovaCharge! 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much --Grockl (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I am still a bit sceptical, but so far I have no reason to complain about the result. It's moot anyway, but I withdraw my !vote. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)