Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:09, 1 May 2010

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

Request to move/create page on my behalf?

Hi

I was trying to publish this page () when I received the following message:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

* Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. * You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. * Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. * If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

I'm not quite sure what the error is and would like some feedback and help with getting this page published.

Much appreciated, Gloria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionlineed (talk • contribs) 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you've written a draft of an article at your userpage (User:Dionlineed), and it seems to show up just fine. It's unclear what you mean by publish, though - do you mean that you wish to move it to a new title? Which specific title gives you the error? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I go about moving this article from my userpage to something publicly accessible on Misplaced Pages? I can't seem to make sense of the help instructions on my own. Is it a matter of waiting a few days to I get the "Move" tab on my userpage as I've read elsewhere? In the meantime, could you please or someone please review my article to make sure it's good enough for Misplaced Pages? Thanks! --Dionlineed (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Gloria

It looks like she wants to create Dance International (magazine), but she's getting a message saying the title is blacklisted. Maurreen (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the blacklist message. But I just clicked on the red link and there was no obvious problem.

Glorio / Dionlineed, do you want to try clicking on the red link in my post above, and pasting your text in there? Maurreen (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Or maybe you tried that already, I dunno. Maurreen (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dance International does not exist. Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be there? Maybe that's why it was blacklisted? 124.171.194.6 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the blacklist doesnt work like that. It's not "intelligent". In any case, I cant replicate the problem, so I have to wonder if maybe Dionlineed accidentally typed something different at first, and that it was that erroneous title which was causing the error. After all, she never actually said what the title she was trying to create it at was. It's either that, or there's something I've yet to learn about the blacklist. I've posted a link to this thread on MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist just in case someone there might be able to help. —Soap— 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're still here, do you remember the exact title that you typed out when trying to create the page? —Soap— 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

After an Afd and a DRV, the article has been restored. The original consensus was that it should be split from the article on the accident itself. It appears that OpenFuture (talk · contribs) will not accept that the article is not going to be deleted anytime soon. In order to avoid edit warring on the article, I've created a sub-page of the article's talk page, where I have rewritten the article to remove cruft and convert tables to prose. Other improvements are still needed. I've invited comment on the proposed rewrite at the talk page.

I don't want to end up taking this to ANI if I can avoid it, but am not sure how to deal with OpenFuture. As far as I'm concerned, the argument about deletion and OTHERCRAP has been lost. Effort now should be put into the development of the article. It is titled "international reactions to...", which means that said reactions are a fundamental part of the article.

Any experienced admins able to point to a way forward? Mjroots (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Consensus is clear that the info should be retained. I've now warned OpenFuture that further removal of material against consensus will be considered WP:DE and reported accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

POV BLP coatracking

Hi. Additional eyes needed please, concerning User:Murray McDonald (talk · contribs · count) who's repeatedly re-inserting poorly sourced controversial material on living persons. The user's pov-pushing additions are a clear coatrack. The Zac Goldsmith article, one of the two involved, is a (little-watched) high risk BLP per {{activepolitician}}.

The content policies and living persons policy have been repeatedly pointed out & material removed per WP:BLP. He refuses to stop, referring to removals of his content as vandalism, complaining the remover hadn't sought earlier author's permission and that it's all "true" with accusations of vested interest truth silencing, and namecalling.

Aside from a self-published page (itself used to support a claim about a person not mentioned on the source), the sole source of content is an open-submissions pay-per-view community blog site. Its about page has this to say on who writes their content: "Anyone who wants to. We actively encourage debate and so have an open-door policy on contributions", pointing out anyone can contribute an article—somewhat like Examiner.com which consensus determined unreliable. The user insists it's "impeccable".

As for whether the author he attributes is an authoritative journalistic source, neither Nexis UK nor ProQuest press/media archival services return a single result on his name to indicate he's a professional journalist having written actual press articles. Neither do they return any results from a search on Zac Goldsmith and this org. name. If something's significant, reliable sources covering it will exist. The user repeatedly engages in 'IDIDNTHEARTHAT'—his latest tactic is saying "would you like to propose another wording?". It's been repeatedly explained what the problem is—not 'wording' or 'prose', but poorly sourced controversial/contentious content about a living person.

He continued after a level 4 warning - see his reply, so I reported it to AIV. This blp matter doesn't seem to be playing out well:

1. One recent changes patroller applied a 3rr warning despite edit summaries referencing the BLP policy, which notes the three-revert rule doesn't apply. He did at least strike it after I pointed this out.
2. Next, another cvu-rollbacker responded to the AIV report referring to 3O. Although I thanked him for the good faith effort and explained the RS & living person issue requires removal without waiting for discussion, he shortly afterwards posted a 3O listing on the talkpage saying the article 'appeared to cross the WP:NPOV line and run afoul of WP:BLP' anyway, leaving in the material.
3. Afterwards, an admin templated the report suggesting it be taken elsewhere. Because it concerns a living person I took it to the blp noticeboard. Unfortunately, it brought no replies or additional editors. As of right now, the contentious material is in the article.

Can experienced administrators please look into this? Thanks. 92.30.83.94 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Right off the bat, I'd say SpinWatch could head for an AfD. Sourced to itself and a paywall site. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably. A delete outcome where the target changes to the bio means the problem continues of course, since the pov-pushing user persistently reverts it in. It's since been nom'd for AfD (thanks Jayron). Still leaves the pov/blp vio material in the article though. Can someone take care of it? 92.30.124.63 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mk5384, contributions on John J. Pershing

I think it is time to forcibly retire Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who is watching this page) from John J. Pershing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The determination to include the word "nigger" in the infobox has gone beyond a joke. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this appears to be an attempt to get wider participation in an RFC, and a content matter that seems to be being handled quite efficiently (as RFCs go) there. What am I missing?--Tznkai (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also note that unless this is disingenuous as Tznkai thinks, it would belong at ANI, not here. Equazcion 22:51, 29 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't say its disingenuous, I'm just expressing my confusion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The larger problem with MK is incivility: frequently calling other editors liars, and claiming (without proof) that the SPI on him was known to be false when it was posted. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he should be notified of this discussion? Briefly Verbose (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The above user is a sock of the sock that tried to get MK in trouble the other day, and is now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• The user is upset over a recent sockpuppetry accusation that turned up negative. Two users showed up one after another to support his position at the talk page of the Pershing article. I'm told one looks like a sock whose m.o. is to turn up to a situation and pretend to be a sock of someone; both to try and get them in trouble, and to throw fuel on a smoldering fire. Some relevant discussion is here. As for the Pershing issue, if the user's contributions' to the talk page of the article have become disruptive, wouldn't a topic ban solve the issue just as well? –xeno 23:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I seem to have misparsed the original post, which appears to be a topic ban proposal –xeno 12:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If his contributions have in fact become disruptive, the case has yet to be made, even in broad strokes. Clearly Guy has an idea of what Mk5384 is doing wrong, but I'm not sure what it is.--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the community has to consider whether a user whose entire raison d'etre appears to be to add "Nigger Jack" to the list of nicknames in an article is here to improve the encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure an number of admin's fingers have been hovering over the "indef" button with this editor; it only remains for one to have the courage of their convictions. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of other interests in his contrib list, even since this incident started. Also, it's been nearly a month since he actually edited the article page (aside from a mistaken posting of the RFC tag on the article page). Feeling strongly about a particular point (even one like this) and remaining stalwart on a talk page doesn't seem like a reason to indef, IMO. Consensus against his view has been adequately demonstrated. If people don't like listening to him they should just stop responding to him at this point. Perhaps just a final statement on his talk page saying that consensus has shown to be against him and that he should not edit the nickname into the infobox again or risk being blocked for acting against consensus. Equazcion 00:13, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was the point I was trying to make. Enough is enough; it needs to stop now. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk3584's major problem is his aversion to civility. The user is overly hostile , accuses me of deliberately bringing false charges of socking, and expects me to be blocked for it. Anyone may review the SPI case in question, and if uninvolved contributors think I brought a case without sufficient evidence to begin an investigation, I will apologise. I don't appreciate the idea that I brought this false case deliberately just to "shut him up." That is completely untrue. Mk5384 doesn't seem to understand WP:CIVIL is a major policy. Auntie E. (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, there is a glimmer of productive editing in MK and it would probably be a bad idea to block him at this point- rather let him cool down and discover the errors of his ways. The main problem is seeing other users as "out to get MK" full of conspiracies and all users being against MK telling lies. If all of that were put out on the shelf, what would remain would be a very knowledgeable editor. Its up to MK at this point to change his ways. -OberRanks (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think he should be blocked, I think he should be removed from the Pershing debate, which would have closed ages ago were it not for him. Guy (Help!) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I completely agree. -OberRanks (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Considering that he's announced that he's "done with this" three or four times now, maybe he'd even welcome being forcibly removed from the fray - he can't seem to help himself. Regardless, his continued presence on the talk page has become disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My raison d'etre is including Nigger Jack? I have over 2100 edits, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with Pershing. If that was my "raison d'etre", don't you think I would have returned it to the article by now? The fact is, that I have made a total of 1 edit (not counting a few minor ones for punctuation) since the article was unprotected weeks ago. Also note that Black Kite, as stated above, indeed had his finger hovering over the indef button, just waiting for me to make the edit. This coming after I discussed the proposed edit at length with the protecting admin before making it. I have been absolutely nothing but civil on the talk page, until these false allegations of socking were made against me. Before that happened, everything was fine. OberRanks even bestowed an award upon me for my civility. So, imagine my anger and frustration, after weeks of bending over backwards to be polite, and do things by the book, when I saw the SPI issue. And, as can be seen above, OberRanks still ofers no apology, but instead, says that I need to "discover the errors of my ways", which is basically the same thing that Auntie is saying. If I accused someone of something that turned out to be false, you can be damn sure that I would apologise to them. Check out a few articles like "Evander Holyfield", "Bill Bruford", "A Christmas Story", "List of World Leaders by Countries", and "List of Surviving Veterans of World War I". What these pages have in common, is that, in each case, I made an edit, or edits, that were demonstrated by another to be wrong. In each case, I corrected myself, thanked the editor who pointed it out, and where necessary, apologised. What I really don't understand about the whole Pershing thing, is that I've been made out to be the lone dissenter. I'm not the only editor who feels that "NiggerJack" should be included. Guy talks about my "determination to include nigger in the info box", yet I haven't included it, nor have I encouraged anyone else to.Mk5384 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

MK, you don't really have a leg to stand on here pointing the finger at others and demanding an apology. When you get right down to it, you have committed some SERIOUS violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Take these three edits for instance where you make snide references to my service in the military and then state outright that I am lying about my military record. Take another, where, in violation of about three or four policies, you intentionally brought up four to five year irrelevant information in an attempt to attack one of the parties in your SPI , an action which you were later advised was improper . And, on the subject of the SPI, lets take a look at what I really stated . You will notice that in that edit I state you may very well be innocent of SP charges and offer an apology. So, to be honest here MK, I have a hard time really offering you any more apologies. You've been given all the patience that the community has to offer and it is you, not others, who engage in blatant violations of policy and make false statements about what other editors are doing. Stop this now before its too late. -OberRanks (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep rehashing the same discussions with you. I'm going to say this once, and then I'm done. I have no idea why you continue to call the fact that I don't believe you're in the military a "personal attack". It is not. It is my opinion, based on a number of things I've observed. I also have absolutely no idea why you seem to think I didn't have the right to bring up your behaviour, (i.e. lying, personal attacks, unblocking yourself, allegations of death threats, ect.) in response to your attack on me. Bottom line, you owe me an apology. Also note, that this entire mess was started by your false allegations of socking, and instead of simply apologising, you have chosen to let it escalate to the current level.Mk5384 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not OberRanks is in the military has absolutely no bearing on the article concerns. Comment on content, not contributors. –xeno 14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I do realize that. My concern is not if he's actually in the military. My concern is his misleading allegation of a "personal attack" because I don't believe him.Mk5384 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not I'm in the military is detracting to the main reason for this thread, so I will let one go. As far as bringing up activites of User:Husnock from 2005 and 2006, and trying to imply in some way that activites of four to five years ago are in any way relevant to these current discussions, this posting is all that really needs to be said about that . -OberRanks (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban. If what the editor is doing wrong can be articulated, a stern warning and if that doesn't work another and *possibly* another short block .

The editor clearly has a strong opinion about this edit, and this often makes editing wisely harder. In this case, Mk's problem behaviours are some of the same ones I face: strong emotional attachment to an edit leads to confrontational behaviour. Mk would be more successful, I think to:

• firmly and permanently remove focus from the editors and their motivations and place it on the content and why WP community would want it in or out
• never bring editor concerns to the article talk pages... it is disruptive, because is removes focus from the content and places it on the editors and their inter-relationships, making it harder to reach wp:consensus
• provide quotes when challenged for them
• avoid dramatic usage, like claiming to be "railroaded", or "attacked"
• firmly abandon calls for punishment of other editors- Sinneed 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban: MK has already shown once before that, after calming down and settling into agreement with everyone, after a few days or perhaps a week, opening up the same topic again in an attempt to get his version accepted. This was in fact exactly the reason why this user was reported before on ANI here. MK has given no indication that he will depart from the stragety of repeating talk page discussions, conducting polls, and pressing this issue over and over again. MK has also shown an obvious pattern of lashing out at those who oppose him, as evidenced by this most recent call to have users "punished" . MK might not be the only user to support having the n-word in the infobox of the Pershing article, but he is without a doubt the only one who will not let it go and will press the issue for as long as possible until he gets his way. -OberRanks (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, false. Father Goose suggested the proposal, I supported it. It was not my version. My version was "Nigger Jack", "Black Jack", which OberRanks removed, igniting this entire issue. Father Goose suggested the compromise proposal of "Black Jack (originally Nigger Jack)". I supported this compromise. OberRanks summarily, and thereafter referred to it as "MK's new proposal", even though I, myself referred to it as "Father Goose's proposal". Also note, that I never called for anyone to be punished for opposing me. I called for them to be punished for falsely accusing me. As OberRanks was one of the 2 (he likes to pretend he speaks for the entire community) users involved in the false allegations, it is not surprising for him to twist the facts, as he has done, yet again, above.Mk5384 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent - and offtopic possibly) - Point for my ignorance, I just noticed this is on AN, rather than AN/I... shouldn't it be over there? I followed a link here originally... then could not find it when I came back, because I was searching ANI.- Sinneed 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans are sometimes/ideally discussed here. –xeno 20:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Xeno. I don't come here normally, didn't realize that.- Sinneed 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support, reluctantly. Topic bans should only be used for repeated behavior that can't be addressed any other way. If this editor were generally engaged in editing the article, thought this was an important fact to include along with other improvements to the article, then it'd be different. But this is the only thing that he is adding, and he's done so nine times. He's been asked on his user talk page and on the article talk page to stop adding it. However if, in the future, he asks to have the topic ban lifted to add different material then that should probably be granted.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What to do about an unusual AFD

John Penn ("the American") was prodded two days ago, but the tag was removed about an hour later after several editors expressed opposition. In the mean time, two editors created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Penn ("the American"), seemingly thinking that the PROD tag was an AFD tag. What should be done with the AFD page? May it be deleted under G6? Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

G6'd as the proper AfD process was not followed. Article needs a better title and expansion but notability seems established well enough. Mjroots (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Financial Statments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't know if this is the right place to put this or not but I require assistance. I am an accountant that has been hired by Henry's Bookstore to prepare their financial statements - profit statement and balance sheet for the year ended 31 March 2010 (the end of their financial year). So I created a page to prepare their profit statment so that they could see that they had made a respectable profit in the last financial year. But it got deleted by administrators who said that it was "orignal research". The information provided is from the company, not myself. With the exception of the fact that the company has hired me as their accountant, I have no affiliation with Henry's Bookstore at all so I don't understand why this would be "orignal research".

If it is possible that I can re-create the profit statement here and prepare the balance sheet without the financial data being deleted again, please tell me how. I did originally think I was doing it wrong because the page that loaded for me was more like Microsoft Word than Microsoft Excel and I was hoping that a spreadsheet would load for me to work with instead. How do I create a spreadsheet on here?

Thank you.

--Melons Accountants (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3 needs you

I just wanted to point out that WP:AN3 has all but been completely ignored by admins over the past three days. Yes, I could conceivably take care of things myself, but I am far too busy at the present time. Perhaps someone (or sometwo) could help clear the backlog. Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All the cool kids are down at the Soda Parlour - as are all the admins "looking after them"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You could always make me an admin, i`ll happily help out muhahahaha 21:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)

User:AboutFaace

AboutFaace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive610#User:AboutFaace. AboutFaace's block has expired, and he's doing the exact same thing again. Woogee (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a week, and has put an unblock request on his Talk page, though without a reason. Woogee (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

and appropriately declined. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice going stale

Hate to do this, but could admins take a look at "user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct" (top thread at ANI) and give their thoughts on the proposed interaction ban? Users GK and Draganparis have been arguing all over ANI, article and user talk pages - unfortunately only one admin has stopped by to give their opinion and I'm concerned it's going to drift off the board unresolved. Many thanks! SGGH 07:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards