Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:21, 7 July 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• 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 images on the Main Page Part VI

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:GardenStreetBridgeSchuylkillRiverSkylinePhiladelphiaPennsylvania.jpg (todays FP) reach the main page unprotected. β 00:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I thought you were looking at a technical solution for this.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The technical solution is probably a per-page setting to prevent images from displaying unless they are protected. We have ample evidence that anything short of this won't work, at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The trout should be aimed at the process for putting pictures on the main page as it's obviously broken. Might not need a technical solution, could be as simple as someone refusing to put an unprotected picture on the main page. Or if it's an automated process, scrap that for a manual one where someone makes a decision to put the picture on the main page. Or put a step in the process where it doesn't proceed unless it's been verified that the picture is protected. --86.145.163.16 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it does need a technical solution, because all of the "social pressure" solutions have continued to fail- short of just having big dicks all over the Main Page again, which thankfully hasn't happened yet. Because the big failure hasn't happened recently, it isn't possible to make the right people actually imagine the consequences if it does happen. That means we're setting ourselves up for one big failure and a round of agonizing about how bad it is that we never saw it coming, before the appropriate people start to care again - and then the evidence is that they'll get slack again, in a few years. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG! The trout that ate Cincinatti is back!!! Call out the troops! CO2, Dave, CO2! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression X! had a bot running that dealt with these. --Chris 13:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly isn't perfect, and I've had to do a fair bit of cleanup after it (just for information, not tagging). NativeForeigner /_Contribs 05:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there the possibility to run an #if: check for the presence/absence of protection? If it is not protected, then not to display the image, leaves us with a blank, or continue to display previous image, which may be better than a problem. billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Larry Sinclair

I want to know why there is not a single article - indeed, hardly so much as a mention - of Larry Sinclair and the related scandal - or lack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.5.167 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The page (at Larry Sinclair) appears to be create-protected so that only administrators can create the page, probably because it was used as an attack page several times before. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

[t is quite absurd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.45.106 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP N419BH 03:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If the subject is that meriting of an article, register and develop a prototype in your user space and put it up for a "Article for Creation". If the subject is notable, content verifyable, and does not establish any particular point of view then the article could be in the mainspace. This comment does not constitute a endorsement of said topic, only trying to help out. Hasteur (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL apply. Any attempt to add these allegations to Obama's article would fall under WP:UNDUE, and we don't have an article about Completely unsupported allegations against Barack Obama made by a convicted fraudster. Fences&Windows 23:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As well as the policies noted by Fence and Windows, there is also the ones such as Misplaced Pages:Original research, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability which are the basis by which articles may be produced. Since I, as a Brit, have never heard of any of these matters there is a likelihood that there is a lack of good, reliable, third party sources that are reporting these issues - there may be many reasons for this, but I am inclined to think that it is because it is unsustainable drivel propagated by persons who are disinclined to recognise the democratic choice of a nation (likely because the president is black). When credible sources note there may be some validity to the wild accusations formulated by fringe and extremist groups, then there might be the article(s) you desire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but when I was interviewing some Americans post-election, I honestly was told "we can't shoot him because he'd be a martyr. We'll just trash him bad and he'll give up". Honestly, you're not allowed to have a look of misbelief when they say that ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I seem to again have the minority opinion on this topic: Sinclair is notable enough as the guy with the bizarre story about him & Obama partying which no one believes, yet his name resurfaces just frequently enough to make some wonder what his story is. (I needed to Google him to verify that I remembered him correctly.) No, I am not an Obama-hater; my chief complaint with him is that he isn't leftist enough. I'm just calling it how I see it, & Sinclair would merit an article -- or a redirect to the appropriate section of an article -- if his off-the-law allegations were part of history. However, I'm not going to go against the consensus for a simple reason; not because I'm obsessed with Obama, but because Misplaced Pages will be around long after Obama has left office & the politics have died down, & we can add the sentence or two -- all which is needed to properly address this -- then. -- llywrch (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to apply WP:DENY to blocked user User:Jessica Liao

It has recently come to my attention that blocked user Jessica Liao has been posting on Yahoo Answers asking when she will be banned on this site. She has also come to the sockpuppet channel on IRC recently to ask why we were targeting an IP which she was socking on. This brought up the idea that she is thriving on attention brought up here whenever she is brought to the sockpuppet investigation page. I know that we recently have applied WP:DENY to banned user GEORGIEGIBBONS so that his sock's pages, the SPI, and other related categories were deleted. In the past we have also applied this policy to other users if I am correct in my assumption. I feel that if we ignore Jessica, she will eventually go away. I was told by someone to bring this proposal here before anything was acted upon so I am looking upon the input of others before we do anything else here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting on AN is the complete opposite of applying WP:DENY, by the way... NW (Talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that, I was just told that this would be a good place to bring it up since she isn't as bad as GEORGIEGIBBONS and the community might want a say in this matter. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of wasting time with this ringamarole, why not file abuse reports with her ISP? Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Misplaced Pages:Abuse response. Fences&Windows 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This will require someone with checkuser to file since she is using registered accounts that hide her IP address. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of administrator's no action of a move request

I recently closed the discussion to move Côte d'Ivoire as no consensus, no action; a person has asked for a review of that decision. Any takers? billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see a consensus for a move to the English name. Moreover, I agree that government/ISO fiat has aught to do with English language usage, much less naming conventions on en.WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see such a consensus at this time, and think that Billinghurst's closure was fine. NW (Talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus in either direction. --Deskana (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could i please get clarification on one point. Should the individual RM for an article take into account wider implications of other articles? I accept the point made by billinghurst about a move having potential implications for other articles relating to this country and a wider debate on dealing with that would be justified. But should that issue play a role in deciding the article name in question? It seemed to be the main argument against in the sum up of the closure. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Recursive effects, along with what some government or UN bureaucrat office has to say about it, have nothing to do with naming policy on en.WP. Likewise, consensus discussions have little or no sway on policy, unless held on the policy talk page or a another project page meant for broad policy discussion. Outside of these, comments which don't support policy carry much less weight as to consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I also see no consensus, and no problem with the close- the status quo remains lacking a consensus to change it. Courcelles (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see a consensus either, Gwen. I've posted there saying that there was no consensus and thus the status quo remains. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, this is why, there are some closes I don't wade into, why stir up a fuss? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou everyone for responding with feedback on this RM and ty billinghurst for closing it, i was worried we may have had to wait weeks for a closure so i am glad it is all over despite the outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment long term AnonIP disruption.

Updating this ongoing long term problem. I am asking here as instructed by the WP:DR page, as this is a condition where "...a user's conduct needs other urgent attention from an administrator, report it to the Administrators' Noticeboard". This matter raises to the level of urgent because of the continued page lock. If I am misunderstanding the best procedure to resolve this long term WP:DE problem coming from this AnonIP, I am requesting advice and help as to what the correct course of action may be, thanks.

The AnonIP continues with WP:DE and WP:NPA, here are three recent examples. The reason I mention this is that the WP:DE effect is serving to make the dispute resolution process at that article more tedious that it need be. And, as a result, this important article has been in a page protect mode for more than a month. This long term AnonIP's disruption is interfering with the important work of editing an encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr has been engaging in repeated edit wars to push his personal militia based theory of the Second Amendment. His edit wars have gotten the Second Amendment article frozen twice over the past month. His most recent edit war/3rr violation is detailed here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR but has not been officially filed. The militia based argument has been termed worthy of the mad hatter by the US Supreme Court and Salty just does not get that his pet theory is as dead as a doornail. The US Supreme Court has stated that

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Please be advised that Salty has filed this complaint against me without bothering to inform me so that I could respond.http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:96.237.120.38. Is there a WP:NoBackstabbing rule? 71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Time out: did the both of you actually edit the archived version of that complaint today? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did, my bad. Please accept my apology. Being as this is an already opened notice about a long term problem lasting almost two years, when I did it I was confused about proper protocol to use the previously opened noticeboard notice, or to open a new notice here for this old problem. That said, I am still requesting advice and help as to what the correct course of action may be, thanks. SaltyBoatr 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked on Saltys contributions and noticed he had added to his complaint against me. I naturally responded, not aware that I was editing an archive.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

PC David Rathband photos

May I direct experienced copyright eyes to this question? Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards