Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:29, 17 March 2011

• 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

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy#Misplaced Pages:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy/Archive 22#Misplaced Pages:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation were listed at WP:CENT and archived by SilkTork (talk · contribs). Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize these discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While I doubt that any user will be rushing to close the AfD RfC, I want to point out that it has a few days remaining in its 30-day listing period. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I withdraw for now my request to close the above RfCs. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I miscounted – the RFC bot delisted the AfD RfC yesterday. Thanks for creating this request. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead, would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Misplaced Pages:Non-free content/Cover art RfC (initiated 3 January 2011) and Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition (initiated 8 January 2011). These discussions were also listed at WP:CENT and were archived a few days ago. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this back from the archive. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp appended so this will not be archived until the four above RfCs are closed. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One relisted and the other three closed. Thank you Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs), ErrantX (talk · contribs), and Hydroxonium (talk · contribs) for closing the RfCs. This can now be archived. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ban national(ist) barnstars

Dialogue among Misplaced Pages contributors is already heavy with all kinds of biases, including those caused by competing nationalisms. Barnstars that are nationally denoted, without carrying any other qualification, should be banned because (a) they promote divisiveness, when barnstars are supposed to be a playful pat on the back by a fellow wikipedian, and (b) actually denote a compromise in the principles of Misplaced Pages through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased. Note that such barnstars are almost always "awarded" to fellow compatriots, thus adding to cliquishness and tribalism. (I submit a random example of such a barnstar for purely illustrative purposes.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Albanian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work in Albanian pages, keep up the good work, cheers!x (talk) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)(UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to y by x (talk) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with them. They are used in a similar fashion like thematic barnstars. Armbrust _{Undertaker 19–0} 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I. Most WikiProjects, which this appears to have come from, has their own barnstar. WP:VIRGINIA has their own (see at the far bottom; my creation) and that is in the US. So, this isn't just countries, but states. It is something to award members of that specific WikiProject when they do well inside that WikiProject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Working "in Albanian pages" could mean helping keep them neutral, as opposed to acting "in the interests of a certain nationality". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably belongs at WP:MFD or similar as its not really something admins have any particular influence over. I personally don't see the problem with this kind of barnstar, though I suppose it's possible for them to be misused by some editors (in which case the best response would be to sanction the editor using barnstars to reward bad behaviour rather than delete the barnstar itself, unless it was created for some kind of offensive purpose ). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. Od Mishehu: Yes, in theory it could mean "helping to keep them neutral". In practice, it never does. I cannot remember ever having seen any of these "national" barnstars awarded in any scenario other than the one where it's awarded by one nationally-driven agenda account to the other in reward for helping to fight the fight. – The other thing is that even if they were intended in a neutral, constructive way, their wording and symbolism typically doesn't fit. Using terms like "national merit", together with political symbols like flags, practically screams "patriotism", i.e. a pro-nation-X agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I was afraid people would focus on the Albanian barnstar, and this is what happened but Albania -or any other specific country- is not the issue. Picture any other flag here, your own country's, if you want. The issue is that national(ist)-tagged barnstars and symbols tend to worsen the significant and already extensive problem of competing nationalisms in Misplaced Pages editing. It is indeed, as Fut.Perf. reminds us, extremely rare to see national barnstars awarded to someone for objectivity or pure encyclopaedic work. Time to re-adjust our focus, methinks. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Golden Maple Leaf Award Nation themed barnstars are not a problem, and for editors that work on articles related to a specific country, offer a nice local touch when rewarding good work. Resolute 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In principle, these barnstars are fine. I've awarded threeMalaysian barnstars of national merit: one to a quiet wikignome and the other two to editos who got Malaysian articles to FA or GA status. It's a way of recognising good work within a national wikiproject. But, they can of course be abused. Per NickD, if an editor is found to be giving barnstars to editors as a reward for pushing a nationalist POV the community, or if discretionary sanctions apply, administrators, can impose sanctions for battleground behaviour accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sorry, but the notion that these barnstars "compromise in the principles of Misplaced Pages through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased" is nothing more than editor bashing. What The Gnome's statement contends is that one's heritage does not promote a desire to share and inform the world regarding that heritage based on reliable sources fairly and accurately represented and to bring awareness of that heritage to a wider audience. Rather, The Gnome tars and feathers as intrinsically disruptive to Misplaced Pages anyone with an identifiable national background. I suggest The Gnome work on promoting reliable content regardless of the venue instead of attacking editors en masse based on a label. This sort of insulting pontificating only polarizes the community and results in uninformed editors believing that their ignorance equals lack of bias, as if it were some sort of inoculation against by-definition biased editorial positions espoused by carriers of the nationalist plague. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is my suggestion "editor bashing"? I raise the possibility of a certain act of "harmless fun" in Misplaced Pages degenerating into an incentive and a mindframe for biased, non-objective contributions. I have no specific editor in mind, nor any specific nationality. This is not about editors ("en masse"!) doing some ...horrible things on purpose but about the threats inherent in accolade and success. The rest of your post seems equally misguided ("insulting pontification") and full of ad hominems, so I cannot comment on it. I was hoping for an exchange of experiences of other editors and some informed opinions. Hopefully, we'll get some of that.-The Gnome (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's editor bashing as your comment in no way discriminates "nationalist" bad from "nationalist" good. Misplaced Pages has already degenerated, barnstars are not a symptom, not an instigator, not a reward, not a problem. A barnstar is an "Atta Boy!" with a picture attached. Unless you are going to ban the passing of all on-Wiki congratulations between "nationalist" editors, there's no point in banning barnstars. The issue is not that I'm engaging ad hominems, it's that you don't even realize your position regarding "nationalist" editors is itself an ad hominem. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Short version, discuss the edit not the editor. You do know that principle, no? Just because you're not naming anyone specific doesn't make your contentions any less offensive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gnome has a point, albeit a philosophical one that applies to all barnstars, which isn't really that far from PЄTЄRS J V's position. Creating boy scout badges means some scouts will aspire to get them all, and arguing they are not symbols of merit doesn't prevent them from being sported as such. If they have to exist at all, they should be for general merit relating to encyclopedic achievements devoid of all other characteristics. Facts are facts, right? Good copy is good copy no matter who writes it, right? A barnstar for contributions that suck but fill a perceived gap somewhere is just mutual masturbation.

That said, if barnstars really don't mean anything, why do they exist at all? That question is entirely relevant to the recent invite to comment on statistics about contributors and how to make newcomers feel more welcome (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/March_2011_Update).

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  11:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What The Gnome decries is known purveyors of nationalist clap-trap trading barnstars with their cohorts. Quite frankly, I'm prepared to live with that. The (random) choice of Albania is telling, as twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of Eastern Europe is still held hostage to a general ignorance of its history. Bringing that history and culture to light is a noble purpose; casting aspersions based on labels one has indiscriminately hung on editors only serves the ignorance which those very same editors are seeking to dispel. I'm happy to receive any barnstar for any good work I've done. The Gnome's going around suggesting more ways we can rain on each others' parade doesn't do anything to make Misplaced Pages a friendlier place to contribute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As for making Misplaced Pages a friendlier place, that's not possible now that WP is at the top of every search engine. For every editor seeking to bring reputable balanced content to WP in an area of contention you have two trying to persuade us the Earth is flat. That is why Misplaced Pages is steadily losing editors. Unless you have a very thick skin and make the conscious choice to put up with the escalating level of crap, you leave. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On a personal level I couldn't agree more about flat-earthers and charlatans in droves trying to re-write history, adding utter nonsense and wasting everyone's time. I have been involved for some days now in an effort to ensure that certain aspects of Soviet history published on WP are reviewed to ensure accuracy, neutrality and an absence of the kind of revisionism that used to make unpalatable facts and people disappear from official records in the Soviet Bloc. But I don't see how doing so under the banner of any particular nation would assist; in fact, it might act as an automatic signal to distrust the motivations of the bearer. The efforts to improve WP must be neutral about nationality, and about personal loyalties or affiliations.

It is true, too, that it would be entirely rational to walk away from time-wasting disputes fuelled by irrational zealots who count on the fact that some good-natured but wrong-headed admin will try to seek 'consensus', which is really to be understood as a term for killing truth in order to pander to personal agenda: there is no committee version of truth, which is never ever subject to a convenient consensus. But defining and defending truth is never a national concern for the same reasons. It must transcend all personal allegiances to stand on rationality and facts alone. I think this is what The Gnome was getting at.

National emblems displayed with pride have their place, but not as adjuncts to discussions about language and sources worthy of an encyclopedia. Similarly, not all the barnstars in the world guarantee that their bearer has or will always produce worthy contributions, or that those contributions should not be subject to careful scrutiny, or that a many-decorated contributor's comments are always more worthy than those of others with no barnstars at all; truth, facts and rationality are not subject to any kind of seniority, rank, title or majority vote. That is why I am against barnstars of any kind.

Having said all of that, I recognise that I am expressing a personal opinion fully contestable in open debate, and subject to the same rationality I try to champion. That rationality tells me that if people want barnstars, they will have them. My best effort, then, can only be to make my case, as I hope I have, and to keep making it when it is challenged on grounds that do not persuade me. For what it may be worth, and without meaning to patronise, I recognise in you, PЄTЄRS J V, the kind of passion necessary to overcome the petty or sinister subversion of facts and rationality we have already touched on. But that will not happen if we walk away in disgust. Regardless of the outcome of this or any other debate, I hope to encounter many more engaged and interested people like you and The Gnome because I think no matter how much we may disagree or agree on any issue, by debate we learn from each other how to become more able not only as contributors to Misplaced Pages, but as versatile thinkers in our lives in general.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that barnstars are abused is not a reason to ban them. I've seen barnstars abused, but amusingly, not wikiproject one, but regular ones (like giving a barnstar to another user for disruptive behavior...). Also, calling project barnstars nationalist is hardly nice. We have country-themed noticeboards, wikiprojectts and awards. I cannot speak for all of them, but the ones I am familiar with are quite helpful for this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the objectives behind banning those barnstars will not practically be accomplished upon banning those barnstars, I would think it's a pointless exercise. That is, some could argue that some WikiProjects promote cliquishness and tribalism and that they promote divisiveness; given that, merely eliminating the barnstars will not accomplish anything useful because such contributors would still find ways to congratulate one another, praise one another's contributions, or to show their "pride" in some other manner which doesn't require the use of barnstars. And the converse can also be said about some WikiProjects; that they promote appropriate collaboration (in which event, the same could be said about barnstars when used appropriately/effectively). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Koch brothers manipulation of articles?

There is an article by Thom Hartman alleging that the Koch brothers have hired a PR firm to rework many Misplaced Pages entries to not only be more favorable to their client but to also remove favorable information about progressive group. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/are-koch-brothers-rewriting-wikiped 75.71.40.251 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to assert which editors are involved? Collect (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I registered an account over there to check. News organizations have already covered this in far better detail than Mr. Hartmann. Nothing to see here. lifebaka++ 23:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity do you have a link to some news coverage of this? Protonk (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thom Hartmann is a conspiracy theorist of the left-wing variety; he has asserted, among other things, that the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections were incorrectly decided due to electoral fraud (apparently, the 2006 and 2008 elections were free of the same fraud, and the 2010 Republican sweep was a result of the Citizens United court decision). I think we can safely close this section as "no action required. Horologium (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's gotten a bit of debate on wikien-l since this post. I might've misspoken a bit in claiming "new organizations," but the ThinkProgress bit certainly does a better job (and isn't hidden behind a wall). Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Old news. Already in signpost. See Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-14/In_the_news. Regards, SunCreator 00:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request gone crazy

I dont know where exactly to report this but here at the Libyan uprising on the talk page Talk:2011 Libyan uprising#Civil War? there is a move request that is now 12 days old and has everything from votes to now subsections, I am just requesting an admin step in and help out here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Any admins fluent in Italian?

Got this question on my talk page today. If I understand correctly what the user wants to do, it's something an admin would have to handle (I'm not one). Complicating the matter is this user is newly registered on en.wiki and it.wiki, so I can't easily track the issue down. Anyone willing to jump in? Townlake (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From Google Translate:

"Hello! Are you a manager? How do you delete parts of a page in history? Can you do it? Or need a manager? I'm hoping for an answer!"

Assuming "manager" means "administrator". Perhaps the user is asking for RevDel, but that can be clarified by someone who is using something more reliable than Google Translate... --Dylan620 01:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the translation you've provided for the admin community, I should clarify that I'm not asking simply for a translation, I understand the Italian in the question. I'm asking for someone who's got the tools to help the user potentially resolve a cross-wiki issue, or some other issue that appears likely to be above my pay grade one way or another. Townlake (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably an idea for somebody to find out what exactly they're requesting. Assuming it's something on this wiki which requires admin attention, I'll be willing to help, but there's nothing anyone can do without details. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone fishing for more info, thanks for the reply. Townlake (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request at 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

There is an ongoing move request here related to the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. There are claims that the current title is in fact incorrect (and was merely adopted because that was where the first news reports came from). It would seem silly to leave the discussion open the full 7 days if the name is incorrect, especially as this article is prominently in the news at the moment. See also the arguments made in the discussion itself. Could I ask that admins keep an eye on the discussion and consider closing it early if a clear consensus has been reached? Please note that there are two issues: (1) Whether to name it "earthquake" or "earthquake and tsunami"; and (2) Whether to name it Sendai or Tōhoku. It is the latter that may need resolving quicker than the normal 7 days allowed for a move discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion and moved the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD backlog

More eyes would be useful at CAT:CSD - the backlog is 140 and rising. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Kehrli (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

• Kehrli (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Maldives Scuba Diving v. Scubaboard.com

Thirty (30) references to back up the single statement "This case has been brought to the attention of many forum owners and internet news forums". I think this is just an excuse to link to various forums to reinforce the rationale for the existence of the article. I don't have a problem with the article, just the 30 references linking to forums and blogs for a single statement. I mean what news story doesn't get mentioned in forums and blogs? Pretty much every article on Misplaced Pages could have this statement and dozens of references to back it up.

So I try removing the references, and get reverted as "vandalism" three times, and warnings twice. Would appreciate if someone could look at this.

82.152.218.51 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of bothering with that, I've just gone ahead and opened Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Maldives Scuba Diving v. Scubaboard.com. However, those reverters should be reprimanded for not bothering to look at the ridiculous amounts of citations to forums that they were restoring. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion of an uninvolved administrator(s) required (case Jacurek)

I have a permission from the reviewing administrators to ask for a third opinion on this board. If any administrator(s) (previously uninvolved) are willing to spend some time and get familiar with this case her/his comments will be really appreciated. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For your convenience, here is the summary of the case as I see it:

The case concerns several editors, some or all of whom have been edit warring recently and where reported to AE. Roughly, we are dealing with two questions:

• For edit warring editors, do we need topic bans or would 1RR restrictions be enough? And
• Can editors who make no more then one edit to an article be still seen as part of an edit war and sanctioned (for their single revert)? There is also a related discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT resolved. Hours after Jacurek asked for an opinion of an administrator other than yours, you close the AE thread. This is not very heartening... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:217.23.69.206

This user has been warned 10 times in the past ten months to stop vandalizing wikipedia.Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From a brief look at their contribs, I also see a good bit of legitimate, useful contribution. Anyone blocking this IP might want to leave a note on the talk page asking whoever is using it constructively to register an account. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves

Got a mop but nothing to clean? Between today's ripe-for-closing discussions and the backlog, there's now an unprecedented 160 discussions needing to be closed (or relisted) at requested moves. We need some new blood. If you're unfamiliar with the area it can actually be quite educational and interesting. If willing to help out, but not very familiar, I'd suggest before plunging in reading:

• Misplaced Pages:Article titles
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
• Misplaced Pages:Official names
• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) and of course,
• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a cheat sheet with some text that you might need to use a lot on closes, and some of the code and instructions for the mechanics of doing the close:

{{subst:polltop}} '''move per request'''.--~~~~ ← replace the requested move template, just below the 
 ----                                           ← section header, with something like this, as tailored
 {{subst:pollbottom}}                           ← place at bottom of discussion
 Fix double redirect                            ← edit summary when fixing double redirects
 closing requested move survey; moving          ← edit summary on the close
 Requested move; see talk page                  ← reason given in text box when performing the move

I don't have a lot of backlog time available with "now" issues, but I am more than willing to help the inexperienced with history merges. I'm quite good at it. Email me or contact my talk page with questions. Keegan (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please review this talk page comment - I'm concerned it's potentially libelous

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.

 Sandstein  07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm permanently confused about where reports of relatively serious (legal) matters go... Thanks for moving it. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards