Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:53, 26 October 2009

• 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

Topic ban proposal - Otterathome / web content

Since Otterathome (talk · contribs) is showing a complete inability to step away from the morbid equine, I would like to propose the following community ban.

Otterathome (talk · contribs) is banned by the community, for a period of one year, from any interactions relating to web content, including web series, actors/writers/production staff involved in web series, news sites covering them, and other topics as deemed appropriate by the evaluating administrator. This ban includes articles, talk pages, and discussions in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Infractions should be handled with escalating blocks.

Opinions? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a good idea for someone involved with a user to be proposing bans? Which diffs actually show something like incivility, revert warring or other bad behavior rather than just relentless pursuit of the removal of low quality sourcing? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with _proposing_ a ban. _Implementing_ would be an issue. And the issue is his refusal to accept anyone's definition but his own of appropriate sourcing/notability/etc. A brief scan of his recent contributions shows him asking the same questions over and over again, making the same threats to remove material against consensus, etc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Related links:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Hounding.2FGaming_by_admin_SarekOfVulcan
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive202#AFD_closing.
• User:Otterathome/Deletion discussions

It amazes me how one admin can continue violate admin policies and push the envelope of WP:HOUND so far. Yet I'm the one in the wrong every time.--Otterathome (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, you don't seem to be acknowledging the two points being made in response to your post. #1 as someone involved in disputes with Otter you shouldn't be proposing a ban, and #2 normal procedure for reporting problematic behavior (after discussion hasn't helped in resolving the issues) is ANI. If in the course of that discussion editors and admins feel a ban is appropriate they will suggest it.

I suggest you post your diffs and links to past discussions there with a request that uninvolved parties have a look at the history. Suggesting your preferred remedies isn't helpful because it biases the discussion towards your opinions, which carry the added weight of being an Admin. At the very least you should disclose that your involved and aren't an uninvolved third party making a report. It's not good form for an Admin to recommend someone they are in dispute with be banned for reasons that should be obvious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with an involved person proposing a ban. If nobody else agrees, so be it. BTW, CoM, do you have to complain about every administrative action every time somebody posts anything to AN or ANI? There was an administrator a few years back who got topic banned from ANI for repeatedly questioning admin actions. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of an exageration to suggest I complain about "every administrative action". Having endured administrative abuse and incompetence on several occasions, I am well aware of the damage it can do. So I think it's very important to speak up when situations aren't being handled appropriately. Blocks and bans are potent tools that can do a lot of harm if used improperly, and we need to make sure those with power here lead by example and behave with civility and respect towards their fellow editors. Many admins would benefit from doing more in the way of mediation and discussion when dealing with good faith content contributors, instead of drawing and firing at the first sign of trouble. For example, in this instance I have suggested that Otter might benefit from some mentoring. The ways of the Wiki are not intuitive. I always prefer to see problems get solved and worked out in a collegial and collaborative manner. Whatever the outcome, Sarek's campaigning is inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the suitability/unsuitability of some users for mentoring. However, I agree with Who then was a gentleman only so far as noting that there is generally nothing wrong or inappropriate with an involved person "proposing" a ban (at least in this case), and users who participate in the discussion tend to take that into consideration when going through the discussion anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's long been standard practice that reports are supposed to be neutral and that disputants are expected to refrain from asking for particular sancitons. If there is an exception for involved admins that would be a particularly unseemly and inappropriate double standard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Irrespective of whether they are editors or have additional tools/privilleges, since when has it been a standard practice (or expectation) at AN/ANI for an involved user to refrain from proposing or asking for particular sanctions? I've been here since late '06, and it has never been an expectation/standard, except for users who fail to show a reasonable level of good judgement and common sense in their proposals. Users who fall under that exception risk having their proposals consistently/repeatedly rejected by the community and being sanctioned (as has happened in the past) - but that exception does not apply here. That Sarek imposed one unjustified block upon you, well over 2 months ago, does not entitle you to respond by exercising poor judgement with regards to Sarek now - your comments were (particularly the usage of the highly-charged word "campaigning") very inappropriate here, even in substance, and you need to avoid such comments if you don't want others to needlessly exhaust their patience with you. There was nothing unseemly here, and your perception of double standards, at least in this case, is unfounded. I hope that clarifies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is perfectly OK to post a report and recommend a course of action. I don't know how you got the idea that this is not encouraged, ChildofMidnight. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A fairly useful link to a past discussion is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive202#AFD closing, in the course of which I proposed a community ban on deletion discussions for Otter which did not obtain consensus.

Here's a series of diffs where Otter asks over and over again which sources are independent and non-trivial.

• • October 4, 20:40
  • October 4, 20:53
  • October 4, 20:59
  • October 11, 19:12

Here's Otter repeatedly removing a criticism of his article tags, despite being reverted and/or told not to do it by a couple of other editors and admins.

• • October 11, 13:48
  • October 11, 18:06
  • October 16, 10:31
  • October 18, 17:33

Also, see this series of deletion/merge/DRV discussions:

• • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last, August 3
  • Talk:LG15: The Last#Merge, August 12
  • Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last (2nd nomination), September 13
  • Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 15, September 15

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, you've posted a series of diffs where Otter asks repeatedly for people to explain how an article meets our guidelines. Since this was an AfD discussion, where people are supposed to provide evidence that articles meet our guidelines for inclusion, I fail to see how this is in any way inappropriate. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with any discussion of otter is it takes a fair amount of text to acquaint you to his ways if you haven't run across him. But he was blocked twice this month for being unable to back away from disputes in this area; his own user page is blocked from editing for another dispute. Admin Manning noted he could be very annoying (i know, he has caused me to lose some steam). I would think Otter could voluntarily apply his skills outside molehill-mountains of articles like Tubefilter, but he has not. --Milowent (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Tim, those are all from the talkpage of just one of the articles that Otter has bent his attention on over the past couple of months. The deletion discussions linked above are a different article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Both sets of diffs are very concerning - especially the latter; if this is a repeated occurence, I'm seeing why some sort of sanctions may be warranted for the smooth functioning of the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

More relevant diffs -- Otter @ GigaOM

• September 14, tags for notability
• September 15, asserts on talk that article "doesn't meet guidelines"
• September 15, when asked what guidelines the article doesn't meet, he pastes the notability template into talk
• October 3, tags for notability again, despite added independent refs
• October 3, claims that a ref about a conference organized by GigaOM was "Article about a conference the website owner attended, nothing much to do with the website"

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the GigaOM takpage, Otter comes across as a bit uncommunicative, but the initial response by Milowent of "otterathome has a vendetta against webseries related articles going on that is sad and pathetic" is a blatant attempt to personalize the discussion though an ad hominem attack. Even if you believe this to be true, how would making a comment like that going to help matters in any way? After comments like this Otter did a commendable job of sticking to a policy and source-based discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but see the October 3 diff above where he completely misrepresents one of the supplied sources. That's not sticking to a sourced-based discussion, IMO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From my reading, he made a mistake and was corrected. Once his mistake was pointed out, he didn't persist in that argument. If he had continued to press that view I agree it would be disruptive editing. However, if he makes lots of these "mistakes", then that would exhaust my good faith. I'm not seeing a major problem since it isn't like these articles on Tubefilter, GigaOM and the like are clearly notable, but are rather borderline cases where people's opinions can reasonably differ. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Tubefilter may be of borderline notability, but GigaOM isn't even close to borderline. It's Otter's determination to get these articles deleted without being able to tell the difference that's the problem here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd respectfully disagree there, the sourcing is pretty weak and the only in-depth independent source is from Valleywag, which mostly focuses on the author (who already has a separate article) not the blog itself. I agree it isn't in clear delete per WP:N territory since it is mentioned in some lists of notable blogs, but it seems reasonable to argue that the article does a poor job of establishing notability since none of the sources actually discuss and analyze the subject of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm of a similar to view to Tim in this set; it is a bit too borderline, particularly based on the last diff. At first, I was very much reminded of the type of problem editing that I found with Mythdon. But it's harder to judge in this set of diffs (not links) than it was in the last set Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the references on GigaOM, they suck. Someone who is persistent in asking for articles this to get better sourcing is doing a GOOD JOB. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I could look for more diffs, but I'd kind of like evidence I'm not the only one interested in this... Checking with the other people who have been involved would be a violation of WP:CANVASS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of considering whether to file a RfC/U, it would not be an issue to check whether other involved people have encountered similar issues, and have evidence they wish to present. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean you want to get all the people who have disagreed with my deletion nominations to create mass drama to make me look like the bad guy. Like we've done once already. When you bring diffs on the same level as these , then you might have a case. Enforcing the deletion policy is not disruptive.

But if I was an admin and somebody kept trying to delete types articles I didn't want deleted, instead of discussing it with them I'd persistently stalk and hound them and keep requesting topic bans to stop them at all costs in an attempt to drive them off the website. Oh wait..--Otterathome (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-involved opinion

This should be closed. No evidence has been brought forth other than editorial and policy interpretation disagreements. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As another non-involved opinion, I disagree with the above assessment, and find at least half of the diffs (not links) presented are concerning. Should this be closed (as I make no comment on whether it is ready to close at this time), RfC/U would be the alternative venue to consider any further evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, as someone who is involved, I'd like to see OaH do other things. His record of AfDs since May has been 20 deleted, and 15 not deleted. Few people have such a poor record of success. But what bothers me more is his persistence in placing 2nd and 3rd nominations when the article gets kept, even when he sees the consensus at the 1st is very strong. His % of success here is zero. But I still can not see banning him for this any more than doing similarly for someone on the other side. There seem to be many fewer problems of this sort lately, possibly as a response to these discussions, so discussing it does seem to have been having an effect. I wouldn't support even doing an RfC unless the pattern resumes. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Since consensus has been against me each time I've proposed sanctions involving Otterathome, I'm backing off. I'll unwatch the pages I added to keep an eye on him. There are definitely continuing issues involving his interactions with some of the other editors, though, so someone should continue watching to make sure they don't get out of hand. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (resolved)

Maybe it's just my sleep-deprived brain, but the DYK Guide (which I just looked at in an effort to help) doesn't make much sense to me; maybe someone experienced with DYK could have a look and see if it can be improved. Anyway, can't we just let DYK fall back on random old DYKs? These messages are getting a bit frequent. Rd232 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, one of the administrators who used to do this most of the time is indisposed at the current time and likely will be for the forseeable future. No one appears to have taken up the slack. Until someone takes this job on voluntarily, we will continue to get these notices with some regularity. --Jayron32 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this approving hooks or just placing approved hooks into the queue? MuZemike 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYKadminbot's message is about the next queue being empty, so placing approved hooks from the prep areas into the queue. :) Not a stupid question, btw. –Katerenka 23:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Got the backlog, removed the templated text. — Jake Wartenberg 02:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Date delinking

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion further amending Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.

Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll, Misplaced Pages talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "ate delinking bots in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their constructive work and consensus building.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Date_delinking_bots_2.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

A board & process to address multiple point copyright infringers

• WP:CCI

Misplaced Pages has several processes in place for dealing with limited copyright concerns--single articles or files, even a small grouping of these--but no workable process for dealing with massive multiple point infringement. While WP:COPYCLEAN has attempted to fill this gap with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys, this solution is not ideal. It is difficult to publicize and to regulate, and in addition it may seem to suggest exclusivity. I hope that generalizing clean-up will encourage other contributors as well as making it easier to publicize the investigation option at relevant policies and guidelines. (To substantiate the need for this, I need only point out the listings currently at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys and those few which have already archived. Additionally, these come up routinely at ANI, where response is hit-and-miss, depending on who is reviewing ANI in a given day.) The processes proposed are based on existing policies and practices for handling copyright problems (I've worked with many of these); the board is inspired in large part by WP:SPI. More information is available at the process page and in the purpose statement at the process talk.

I think this is critically needed. Misplaced Pages has chosen to address copyright concerns proactively, demonstrating due diligence, and when we know a contributor has widely violated copyright, we must have a streamlined process for handling it. The primary point for text copyright issues, WP:CP, cannot handle this specific situation: a listing such as Misplaced Pages:CCI/Singingdaisies would bring it to a halt.

Please help address this need. Your comments are much welcome at WT:CCI. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

any additional board is another place to check, and only a few regulars will do so, increasing ownership and decreasing general scrutiny and awareness. My comment is not intended to reflect adversely on the particular need or desirability of this proposal. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just bring it here, we can deal with it. User:Zscout370 21:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, DGG, part of the problem is that the additional board handling it is connected to a Wikiproject, and I think moving it away from said project will decrease ownership. User:Zscout370, who are the "we" you have in mind? Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys has nine of these currently open. Some of them are quite old. Some involve hundreds of articles. One recently completed was listed at WP:ANI, and so far as I know I was the only person there (aside from the lister) to contribute to it. If it were not for User:Kateshortforbob, the cleanup listing would still be open. --Moonriddengirl 21:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my request for feedback at WT:CCI. Particularly now that I've opened the RfC, we wouldn't want to fragment the conversation. I had already requested feedback at Village Pump, but so far no one seems to have responded...which is, really, kind of par for the course for copyright problems. :/ --Moonriddengirl 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 and User:Johnny Spasm proposed editing restriction

Moved from WP:ANI - looks like this was probably the better place for it. Wknight94 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A nasty situation has formed between User:Yankees10 and User:Johnny Spasm. They were both recently blocked for edit warring at Pete Rose. For background, Johnny Spasm does some good work fleshing out baseball bio articles, but has some WP:OWN issues and is having difficulty maintaining his composure, esp. as witnessed by three other blocks earlier this year (unrelated to Yankees10). Yankees10 also edits mostly sports articles and does a lot of good work getting infoboxes consistent and fighting vandalism. My probably-oversimplified view is that Johnny Spasm doesn't like "his" articles edited, but Yankees10 edits every article. So they have come into full-blown conflict for the last month or two and both reached a new low as far as civility. The latest gems include , , , and .

I'm not sure the best course to bring an end to this but something the lines of:

Yankees10 restricted to not talk about or to Johnny Spasm or edit or discuss articles which have undergone recent overhauls by Johnny Spasm. Desired changes can be brought up at WT:BASEBALL.

Johnny Spasm restricted to not talk about or to Yankees10 and is restricted to 1RR on articles on which he has performed recent overhauls.

I haven't composed or participated in writing edit restrictions, so anyone is free to improve these. I am trying to be fair while preventing an all-out war. Wknight94 17:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, although I'd add "both editors are reminded to stay civil at all times" since while this is mainly a content problem, it got ugly with the incivility.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards