Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:15, 9 December 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part X

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Misplaced Pages when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

for letting File:Flag of Singapore.svg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No need. It's already protected, just not locally. -FASTILY 01:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats because it was left unprotected for 35 minutes before I found someone to protect it. ΔT 01:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. -FASTILY 02:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else but me feel like going for sushi all of a sudden? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Trout makes lousy sushi. ΔT 13:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a nice backyard grill-out but it's effing cold here - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Beta (or delta), your bot seems to be flawed; File:Royal Avenue Belfast2.jpg was unprotected on the Main Page for more than an hour. Also, why doesn't your script alert humans before the image hits the Main Page? Let's try to be proactive instead of reactive. Shubinator (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would have pointed that out then, I cannot for the life of me figure out why the bot did not detect that. If your on IRC its easy to check, I run a IRC bot that alerts people. ΔT 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that MPUploadBot did detect that it should be protected, and the log says it was. Yet for some unknown reason, it appears the upload failed. I'll have to look into this. (X! · talk)  · @560  ·  12:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Does cascading protection not effect files?— Dædαlus 07:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not if thr file is on commons. ΔT 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, it does affect files, but only on Enwiki. It's cascade protected, but someone can edit it on Commons to the same effect. (X! · talk)  · @197  ·  03:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing a talk page

Please assist Can someone go to Talk:Florida_State_Board_of_Administration and add {{WikiProject Florida}}? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - KrakatoaKatie 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Round two

Please see Talk:Michigan_Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration and add {{WikiProject Michigan}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Open proxy

Apparently 208.87.234.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a WebSense proxy (WHOIS resolves to SurfControl). Just saying. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that someone who reads this wouldn't eventually fix this problem, but WP:OP is the better place to report these, in the future. --Jayron32 04:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reported to OP . - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposing article ban on Ronda2001

Apologies if this is in the wrong please, but Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement appears to be for requesting enforcement of existing sanctions not proposing discretionary sanctions.

Ronda2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive on Lebanese Civil War, which is under a 1RR restriction under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. He was blocked for violating the 1RR restriction to try and keep his preferred version, which most people agree is a one-sided point-of-view nightmare. The block was then extended for evading it using an IP sockpuppet. With his first edit back from his block he reverted to his preferred version, and was warned about discretionary sanctions. Despite this, with his second edit back from his block he has reverted to his preferred version. Obviously slow motion edit warring is not helpful either, so another approach is needed.

A block would probably not work, other than indefinite one, since we will be back in the same situation once the block expires. It is too early for an indefinite block in my opinion though. A topic ban would amount to an indefinite block also, or we would be in the same position once the topic ban expires. Therefore I am proposing that Ronda2001 is banned from editing the article, for an amount of time yet to be decided. He would still be welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page, according to his posts he does have access to apparently excellent sources. I think this would be the best way for Ronda2001 to learn how things work round here.

Someone please move this to the appropriate venue if this is wrong, or frame this proposed sanction in a more conventional manner. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignored the talk page.(Talk:Lebanese Civil War#Original research and POV edits) Has also had admins attempting to help him out. Failed to respond as needed so a block is appropriate. ANI should be sufficient venue with such an open and shut case. Editors could have tried harder maybe to get him in the fold but it doesn't look like he really even cares from the lack of response. Might as well indef unless the editor argues that it is more than a problematic single purpose account.Cptnono (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to delete duplicate images in Misplaced Pages

Hi, would someone please delete the following images. These images already have duplicates in Commons.

These were uploaded in both places by User:Konkani Manis, and have received OTRS tickets on Commons.

Check the following link for the list of images uploaded on Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Special:Contributions/Konkani_Manis

These are their duplicates in Misplaced Pages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Vishwa_Konkani_Sammelan.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:WKCinaug.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Basti_Vaman_Shenoy.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Madhav_Manjunath_Shanbhag.JPG
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:TMA_PAI.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Wilfy_Rebimbus.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Shenoy_Goembab_portrait.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:NGChandavarkar.jpeg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Vaikunta_Baliga.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:T.A._Pai.jpg

Thanks. Joyson Noel 07:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just change the template to {{NowCommons}} as I did here for example. Someone will delete it eventually after checking that it's been moved properly.--Misarxist 12:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Drudge work completed. FYI, most of them appear to be unlicensed derivatives. The description says they're property of some Hall of Fame in Mangalore and there's no indication of permission. Someone probably ought to delete them here and mention it to admins on Commons. Nevermind, I see the OTRS notices. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Done I deleted the files. One NowCommons link was wrong so I fixed that and one file on en-wiki was larger than the one on Commons so I uploaded the larger version on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsherr (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Community ban for User:QuackGuru

Much as I hate to raise this kind of discussion, I think it's time we considered a community site ban for QuackGuru (talk · contribs · logs · block log). A ban would be based on the following reasons:

• QuackGuru has an aggressive, tendentious editing style that numerous editors have complained about, with complaints including (but not restricted to):
  • Page ownership issues
  • Multiple reverts, up to (and sometimes exceeding) 3rr limits
  • Making contentious edits without discussion
  • Frequent broad accusations of policy violation against other editors
• QuackGuru demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to communicate with other editors, with behaviors including (but not limited to):
  • Consistent blanking of his talk page without response to items posted there
  • An overwhelming towards towards edit-summary-only responses
  • A refusal to participate in or even acknowledge dispute resolution processes which might ameliorate his behavior
• QuackGuru demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to engage in consensus discussions, with behaviors including (but not limited to):
  • Frequent, consistent, and intractable wp:IDHT behavior, such as endless repetition of the same point in discussions
  • An overwhelming tendency towards simple declarative 'truth-statements' (sometimes posed as challenges in question form, à la Perry Mason)
  • A broad failure to acknowledge other points made in discussion, even when made by multiple editors
  • A seeming inability to compromise on any issue, no matter how trivial

QuackGuru has a reasonable sized block log (11 blocks, mostly for disruptive editing, since 2007). He has been the subject of three wikiquettes , , and one RFC/U , but did not acknowledge or participate at any of them. he has been the subject of 20 Administrative threads (discounting a handful of 3rr violation reports and without evaluating the merits of the threads): the current ANI thread, , , , , , , , , 2007 proposed community ban, , 2007 proposed article ban, , , proposed short topic ban, , , , proposed article probabtion, . He does slightly better at responding to these, having added at least one comment in three or four of the threads.

The general problem can easily be exemplified by his recent behavior concerning edits to wp:NPOV. From June through October there was a discussion between a number of editors (Users Blueboar, Ocassi, Tryptofish, Kotniski, RexxS and myself, for the main list) on wt:NPOV that culminated in some revisions to the wording of the policy. The revisions were largely cosmetic (clarifications, tightening of language, etc), but involved to items - the removal of a video explaining NPOV and a reworking of the problematic 'A Simple Formulation' section - which QuackGuru objected to. QuackGuru engaged in a number of reverts to try to preserve sections, but the real problem of concern here was the style of discussion he used on the talk page. For instance, QuackGuru's contributions to the thread discussing the video were as follows:

• You removed the video without any good reason. You never had consensus to delete it in the first place. What is the specific problem with the wording of the video. The video also helps blind people get interested in policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• You have confirmed there is currently no consensus to delete when you have not given a specific reason about what is specifically the problem with the video. Again, what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. Are you going to remain silent and not answer my question again. Your silence equals consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• The "main points" of the video works for me when you click on the video. I see you can't explain what is the problem with the wording of the video. It seems you just don't like having a video regardless of what it says. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Open question that has been ignored. Again, what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• I suggested a compromise using a stronger disclaimer or your suggestion to move the video towards the bottome of the page could also work. The problem is that editors claim the video is a problem when no editor has explained what is actually problem over the 'specific wording' with the writing of the video. If there is no real problem then nothing needs to be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• You have refused to explain what is the specific problem with the wording of the video. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• There was a previous discussion about using the video here. I noticed have not answered my question again about what is actually the specific problem with the wording of the video. Should I take that as consensus to include the video. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The responses he got to these various points made no difference whatsoever - he consistently returns to the same claim that 'no specific problem with the wording' has been offered. Likewise his comments in an earlier dispute about the use of a 'differing points of view' subheader ran as follows:

• This edit was not the way to go about things. A subsection title should be kept or renamed. WP:YESPOV is about "Different points of views". QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• I made this change to add a section heading. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• The section header was removed without explanation. So, I restored it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• The section heading was removed again without explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the "Different points of views" header again. I think it may have been accidentely removed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Numerous times the "Different points of views" header was removed. There never was any explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Editors are not explaining the reason for deleting the renamed section title. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• I have given other editors plenty of time to reply. The title "Different points of view" summarises the general framework of the section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the section title "Different points of view". QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the section title "Different points of view" but it was removed again without any reason. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• There seems to be consensus for renaming the section. I propose "Different points of view" again. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• I do see support for renaming the section and you have not suggested any other section name that would be better. You repeatedly removed it without discussion. What is your objection to it. Do you have a better name. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's the repetitive, badgering style that is as (if not more) disruptive than the reverts. It is impossible to have anything like a normal consensus discussion with him since he simply doesn't respond to the arguments or comments people make - he simply steamrolls ahead with his original thought.

Normally these kinds of problems would be handled on talk page discussions or in dispute resolution procedures, but QuackGuru has not participated in any of the dispute resolution efforts (Wikiquette and RFC/U) that have named him. He rarely even responds when his name gets called up at ANI. As far as his talk page goes, QuackGuru rarely posts to his own talk page and deletes almost all comments posted there on sight, often without a meaningful edit summary response. Many of the more recent deleted comments were requests from editors working on NPOV, asking him to explain some point he made, participate in a discussion, refrain from reverting material without discussion, or (most currently) that he has been mentioned at ANI.

Now I would normally grant QuackGuru a certain amount of leeway, but I've come around to suggesting a site ban on the following considerations:

• He has evidenced the same general kind of disruptive behavior since he began at the project 3 years ago.
• He refuses to acknowledge that he has any problematic behavior, despite being called into numerous administrative threads.
• He explicitly avoids every arena or mode of communication that might lead to him changing his behavior.

Misplaced Pages is ostensibly a consensus system: we cannot afford to indefinitely indulge an editor who simply does not (for whatever reason) engage the particular kinds of communication and interaction that a consensus system needs to function. I don't see any recourse other than a ban at this point, if only to preserve the sanity of the editors who un across him.

I've talked a bit to long, my apologies (though I'm sure others will have more to say on the matter). --Ludwigs2 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Incredibly disruptive editor; huge net negative to the project. access_denied (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This time, QuackGuru has gone too far with his latest antics. His unwilling to respond to good faith community concerns and his disruptive editing at Misplaced Pages cannot be tolerated at this point and he has exhausted our patience with the community. So, with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As ever, draconian solutions do not work. In the case at hand, the friction between two editors is quite insufficient to warrant such actions in any case. And in some cases the diffs provided reflect well on QG to be sure. As for broad statements, WP works better with diffs than with broad assertions about editors. Collect (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am someone who has been in quite a few conflicts with QG, found their manner exasperatingly difficult, their talkpage practices undesirable and the robustness of their tendency to edit-war dispiriting. However, major issues with this editor have only been raised on these boards in the past few days, and like any good faith contributor they deserve a chance to respond to concerns. IF that response is inadequate, then sanctions may be appropriate, but to jump straight from ANI to ban in the case of an editor who has contributed much to the project is unacceptable. Oppose as premature. Skomorokh 02:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• So your objection is primarily, if not purely, procedural? That is, in your opinion, QG has probably earned a community ban, but you oppose imposing it here and now, on the grounds that the usual 24-hour discussion here won't be enough time for QG to respond (although it was apparently enough for other long-time contributors, like Gavin.collins, who had a very similar length of tenure and very similar number of total edits)?
  Do you think that spending a month bickering about it at an RFC/U would actually help the community somehow? Or that a serious sit-down and talking-to would dramatically change QG's goals, social skills, and overall behavior? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, that has very little resemblance at all to what I wrote. Skomorokh

• Skomorokh - I've pretty much outlined why I brought this to community ban, above. QuackGuru has had several opportunities to justify his actions, and has ostentatiously refused to do so. My current opinion is this: If QG comes to this discussion and participates properly and fully (either justifying his behavior or admitting that it is flawed) then I would be happy to see him get a short topic ban and some mentoring. If QG refuses to participate in this discussion (as he's refused to participate in RFC/U and Wikiquette) then to my mind a full site ban is the only possible remedy. If his respect for the community is that low, then he loses whatever benefit of the doubt we might be inclined to give him. would that be an acceptable criteria for you? --Ludwigs2 03:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral leaning to support There have been a lot of problems with QuackGuru and his editing of Jimmy Wales/Larry Sanger. Honestly, if the subjects weren't closely associated with Misplaced Pages he probably would have been blocked indefinitely for some of his actions there, but no one wants to be seen as silencing criticism of Misplaced Pages. If he's unable or unwilling to communicate with editors who have legitimate problems with him by deleting messages and not responding on boards in Misplaced Pages space, perhaps this isn't the project for him. Some sort of sanctions are necessary here, but I'm not sure a community ban is appropriate right now, but honestly... it will likely happen one day. He's fairly awful about working well with others. AniMate 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I've been involved in numerous conversations with QG related to Chiropractic, Pseudoscience, NPOV, and MEDRS. I haven't found them pleasant, and sometimes he leans towards being badgering , taunting , or even deceptive . He's also sometimes right, but he makes it very difficult to see through everything else. I think that despite the frequent displeasure he causes, a community ban would be a step too far. He is already under scrutiny of past arbitration cases, but one solution could be a three to six month topic ban on anything related to Pseudoscience, Chiropractic, Stephen Barret, and perhaps Policy pages. Other solutions could include a 1rr condition, a 'no claiming consensus condition', a 'no accusing editors of violating policy' condition, a 'no clearing your talk page condition' or anything that might encourage more civil discussion. I regret that my interactions with him biased me considerably towards other scientific/skeptical editors, but I have found that even many of them don't appreciate his style. With that, it seems like QGs contributions to the important area of improving reliability at alt-med articles may be overstated. If even editors who generally share his concerns are avoiding discussions where he participates, I don't see how his efforts are being helpful. It's not the lack of civility that is a problem, though, it's the lack of discussion. By asserting his stance as correct and barreling ahead with it, battle lines are drawn where instead there could be discourse. If I've taken the bait on that, it's been mainly to stop him from just running roughshod over articles. I do think QG has sincere intentions to advance the status of science and deprecate the status of pseudoscience--yet he brings that conviction to a head as if other editors are enemies if they don't automatically agree; and this makes enemies. Those are my thoughts so far. I won't pile on, but I will suggest that something be done, because if it's not I can't see how a) things will stop or b) it won't lead to a community ban later. Ocaasi (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I will abstain from supporting the ban because I have been involved with so many disputes with QG. However, I do support some sort of action if it can lead to the cessation of the tactics that QG uses. I have no problem with not seeing eye-to-eye with other editors, but QG's editing style is clearly tendentious, and makes for a hostile editing environment. There IS an issue here that needs to be resolved. DigitalC (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. From the list of sample responses and the threadstarter's case, I think QG's done his time as an editor. He is incapable of decently working with anybody and his ignorance of consensus plus those feigning-ignorance-cum-dumbness answers indicate defiance. I would probably be as incensed as the other editors here if he messed around in the article I work in. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature WP:Requests for comment/QuackGuru 2 is still a redlink (the last request was thee years ago). So too is WP:Requests for comment/Ludwigs2 despite almost daily instances of incivility. (See also Necessary Evil.) Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am concerned that Ludwigs2 may have been in repeated editorial conflicts with Quackguru. I would prefer that somebody with a more objective point of view consider decide whether such a proposal makes sense. I am worried that diffs have been cherry picked and do not provide a fair sampling of Quackguru's work. Also, the volume of evidence posted here is WP:TLDR, unlikely to get serious and thoughtful consideration in this venue, which tends to be better at dealing with clearcut issues. Quackguru seems to have taken my advice not to blank their talkpage. That is a sign that the editor might be willing to listen to reason. Jehochman 05:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. He runs in circles on article talk pages with endless repetition and IDHT behavior. He's an expert at stonewalling. Discussion on article talk pages doesn't help because he just makes edits in spite of objections and then claims consensus where there is none and uses reverting all the time. Appeals and warnings on his talk page (since nothing works on article talk pages) are deleted with no visible change in his behavior. His block log is huge, but his methods of disruption are so complicated that it's often hard to pin him down to a particularly grossly blockable offense, but his behavior is still very disruptive and his lack of communication removes an important possibility for helping him and dealing with him. It's time to cut our losses. He's not worth it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve Benson (cartoonist)

Oversight needed for long-term vandalism, several offensive edits exist in the history. The BLP was not in acceptable shape before it got cleaned up and semi-protected in response to an AFD today. I've added it to my watchlist, but so should some editors more active than me. THF (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't post oversight requests in public fora; WP:RFO. Skomorokh 04:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards