Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Majorly (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 7 May 2009 (→ChildOfMidnight: agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)


    Dispute at Manual of Style (icons)

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Biophys continuing harrassment

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    The Checkuser proved negative: [5]. 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"[6] and made other personal attacks as well. In October, 2008, Biophys had filed another report against me, which also proved negative: [7]. Biophys' continuous accusations have to stop. Admin action is needed to make sure that they will. Offliner (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Biophys said: "might be a meatpuppet as well."[8] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    So giving an official warning to Biophys is completely beyond the capabilities of this board? Offliner (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by User:I already forgot

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Yeah but it's a bad cross namespace redirect. 24.186.165.121 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing with you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Great job!!!

    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 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Test books and junk books

    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)[reply]

    PROD will not physically work anywhere outside of article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pity. Would CSD G2 (test page) be applicable to these sorts of pages, then? Zetawoof(ζ) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ping me on my talk page when you do. I'd like to be involved. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Splite table Toronto - Ontario

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    No problem, everything looks good. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction

    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)[reply]

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

    File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png

    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)[reply]

     Done –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – pages moved back by Tiptoety

    In 20th April 2009 Mactruth moved the Macedonian culture (Slavic) article, to Macedonian culture (ethnic group) here [9]. Mactruth did not undo the move in due time after he was informed[10] of the ARBCOM's temporary injunction on moving Macedonia related articles[11]

    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[12]. I cannot move it since I am an involved party. Thanks in advance Shadowmorph (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Great, thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – One now redirects to the other. hmwithτ 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    cant you do it yourself?  rdunnPLIB  12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Requesting neutral opinions regarding WP:WRONG and WP:PROTECT

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yep, that's what policy says too. It earned me a trout, though. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Transient top & sidebar weirdness?

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Like File:Missing history.png? I've been seeing that quite a bit lately. - auburnpilot's sock 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the rub. –xeno talk 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    FYI I just filed a bug report about this. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Also, I've been getting this for a week or two. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weirder & weirder. Let's all blame Microsoft. >:-D -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually a good scapegoat, but I'm using a Fox =) –xeno talk 12:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    What should I have done here?

    I'm putting my block here [13] up for review. And if correct, what template should I use? If you look at this edit history, [14] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:I COME IN hope

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I never knew that was you. What I did know then is that you'd be back :) Keegantalk 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Missing License

    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)[reply]

    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, Icestorm815 • Talk 03:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    thx :) --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stats on RevisionDeleted

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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: [18]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [19]). 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)[reply]

    ←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)[reply]

    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. [20], [21]. Until It Sleeps 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors have been notified of this thread. Until It Sleeps 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Harassment and personal attacks by User:Majorly and User:Landon1980

    Majorly was warned on his talk page and reverted one of his attacks [22] with a snarky edit summary [23]. But continues attacks [24] evn after.

    Landon making similar attacks [25]. Doesn't seem wiling to let go [26] and [27].

    Now they've started removing content from a userpage because of "plagarism" [28]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Majorly is a lot of things, but he's no vandal. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Harassment also on May 3 and April 20 [29] 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)[reply]

    Speaking of finding new hobbies, look at your buddy DougsTech. Majorly talk 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no harassment. Warning COM. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    Sceptre has already removed it twice. Majorly talk 23:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    ChildOfMidnight

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=288375976"