Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:37, 11 July 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

Probable deceased Wikipedian..

I remember a while back there was a set procedure for Wikipedians who passed away, someone indicated to me privately that we probably have such a situation with User:Mike Keith Smith. Anyone want to look this over, and determine if we should do the usual things (whatever they are) with them? (link to contribs),(link to story on death). Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is some debate over whether deceased Wikipedian accounts should be blocked, I don't think there's any consensus on it so it should probably just be left. Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians is for Wikipedians with "at least several hundred edits or are otherwise known for substantial contributions to Misplaced Pages", I don't know if that is the case here. –xeno 19:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no... he didn't even have 50 edits, so while he had an account, I would not consider him a wikipedian..---Balloonman 19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if he had 1 edit, it should be looked into and respect paid if the user has passed away. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Had this fellow been an otherwise undistinguished person who made less than 50 edits to Misplaced Pages, I'd agree with Xeno & Balloonman. However, Mike Keith Smith appears to be a notable individual who either has, or may in the future have, an article about him. I'd block the account, & leave a suggestion at the Signpost about either an article or a mention there. (Notable people who edit Misplaced Pages are always worth at least a line in the "In other News" section, IMHO.) He doesn't rate an entry to Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians -- although I would be surprised if the other three who've commented in this thread don't rate a section there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the user's contributions, looks like there is an article about him. Michael Keith Smith. SirFozzie (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Llywrch, a mention in the Signpost would probably be nice, but the Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians seems out of date, so I don't see an entry (at least by me) happening. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Dead wikipedian}} on the userpage might serve well, too. Ks0stm 20:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That template title should probably be renamed to something a little less blunt. "Deceased Wikipedian" maybe. -- œ 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done. Someone with a bot might want to go through and change {{Dead wikipedian}} to {{Deceased Wikipedian}} on all the many pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note that the manual of style opposes "polite language" such as "passed away" in favor of the blunt "died." Edison (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• If I may weigh in as one of the primary contributors to the development of the style guidance in this area. The advisement against euphemistic language—like the rest of the guideline—is meant to apply to literary composition in article space. This sort of template is much more in the nature of a personal communication; thus, in terms of tone, "deceased" strikes me as more sensitive and appropriate than "dead".—DCGeist (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• This makes sense; the MOS doesn't really apply to pages such as this that aren't articles or templates that appear in articles. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that I was only suggesting renaming the title of the template, not the text within it. But it's fine, anyhow. -- œ 06:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason his user page has been left as his autobio? Also, the account has been blocked but the template hasn't been put on the page. If the template is put on the user page, it would be an idea to tidy up both the user page and the user talk page, and also the article talk page (in case someone tries to reply to the comment he left there in February 2008, however unlikely that might seem). Also, as he edited his own article, the template about that should be put on the talk page of the article, even though he has died. Also, the article itself could do with some attention, and that is arguably more important than what should happen to the userpage or account. Is there a place to ask if others are willing to tidy the article up? Carcharoth (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• It may seem odd, but the editors who patrol Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are willing to tackle such articles, if you can explain more clearly to them what the attention required is. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I wasn't aware they dealt with recently deceased people as well. I'll pop over there. The reason I mentioned it above was that the above post I made was more trying to make sure things didn't get forgotten, and listing everything as I thought of it, covering both issues raised above and issues that could be dealt with elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• The template didn't feel right. I've added a note to the user page and made the user talk page a redirect and protected them both. If that resolves this, then someone can mark the thread resolved. If something different needs doing, it can be discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow Commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias

I'm crossposting this from the Commons ANI: On meta I proposed on allowing commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias. Please see this page for reasoning & post any feedback there. --DieBuche (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2010 (

Propose Topic Ban

For User: Wittsun, on all articles and edits relating to race, ethnicity, and religion. Per and .

Supports and opposes can go below. Also feel free to comment on either of the two original threads, if you wish. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - having seen the article Six Families of Berlin, which Wittsun deprodded, it is clear that Wittsun holds extremist views on this subject matter. The page was an anti-Lebanese racist hoax/synthesis, and it is clear that Wittsun's views show that he cannot edit impartially on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Claritas (talk • contribs) 22.39, today

How so? Being only one of two German speakers on that thread, I was able to evaluate the referenced sources for notability. As for stonemason89's partisan fixation to get me banned, I encourage others to evaluate his 'contributions' such as the supposed widespread misuse of the metaphor 'black hole' and his close following of the 'redneck shop']--Wittsun (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have been accepted by the Did You Know editorial team as legitimate, and were even featured on the main page, so you're going to have a very hard time getting people to agree with your statement. Also, simply creating an article about a particular topic, as long as the topic is notable and appropriate for an encyclopedia (unlike, for example, the aforementioned Six Families of Berlin), is not in an of itself a reason to suspect bias. If everyone on Misplaced Pages was afraid to write or contribute to articles about certain topics because they thought other people would judge them for it, then Misplaced Pages's growth and comprehensiveness would be greatly harmed. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban -- 6 months, say? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as Stonemason89 is an activist who himself is biased when it comes to racial issues.--Wittsun (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Since when is being anti-racist being biased? In my opinion, you're lucky this isn't a full ban. Support per Stonemason's reasons. (By the way, I really think this dispute belongs as ANI instead of the main noticeboard.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Being 'anti'-anything for ideological reasons is an admission of bias. By the looks of things admins have shown more tolerance towards your presence here than you show others.--Wittsun (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • First of all, I think it's more than a little ironic that someone who defends Podblanc would accuse other people of not showing "tolerance". Second of all, Misplaced Pages has a very definite policy regarding WP: FRINGE views, as opposed to mainstream ones; white nationalism is definitely the former, while being opposed to racism is generally regarded as the latter. You may think that's unfair, but it's how Misplaced Pages operates. WP: NPOV means that we try to avoid adding our own bias to articles, but it does not mean that we have to give FRINGE viewpoints the same amount of weight as mainstream ones. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban related to race and ethnicity only. There doesn't seem to be an issue in regards to religion. -Oescp (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a heavy-handed editor yourself with a history of over-involvement in ethnic disputes this vote is hardly surprising.--Wittsun (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at Oescp's comment on Spylab's talk page, it appears as though he conducted himself civilly. He didn't attack Spylab, he merely asked Spylab about some of the latter's edits, which Oescp didn't understand the rationale for. Nothing wrong with that. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While I support a topic ban as a minimum, why aren't we talking about an indef block? An editor with a history of making unacceptable edits to push their political views has no place in Misplaced Pages. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban (six months as per Sarek is ok). Salvio ( ) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Who was it that said "Many laws make bad men, as bad men make many laws"? -- Answer: Walter Savage Landor--Wittsun (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  I didn't know that apothegm; personally, however, I'm more for quid leges sine moribus vanae proficiunt?, as Horace put it. Salvio ( ) 12:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  I prefer Tacitus myself: corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.--Wittsun (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - seems excessive, only one block for 24 hours, nothing here warrants such a punishment. Requests for a full ban are laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Leland Yee new editors scared away

So two new editors try to improve Leland Yee's article and what do editors do? Threaten them, report them and then scare them off. Is this really appropriate conduct for an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.148.164 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here. One problem I just discovered is a lot of close paraphrase - I removed 'most notably' from a paragraph and then discovered that it had been copied from the newspaper source (which is clearly a press release). Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

He's referring to Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Leland_Yee. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalk and harass Ricky81682 much? –MuZemike 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

Could someone please take a look at this on AN/I and do whatever closing out and implementation seems appropriate? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the related RfC here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I just cleared a sizeable backlog there. IT's quietened down now, but more admin eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Block review

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I've blocked Rodhullandemu for 24 hours. It's been suggested that because he's an admin, I should get a second opinion. While I don't think that's really true - why get a second opinion for blocking an admin, and not get one for blocking any other established editor? - I'm always open to feedback, so I'll bring it here.

Quick history:

• Rod and Malleus were part of an argument at Misplaced Pages:BN#Asking for adminship back.
• Rod told Malleus to stop arguing at BN, and take it somewhere else.
• Rod went to Malleus's talk page, and rather pompously repeated the same.
• It may come as a surprise to some of you that Malleus doesn't like admins coming and being pompous on his talk page.
• For the next few hours, Malleus, Rod, and some kibitzers traded childish insults.
• It's worth noting that Malleus did not post to BN again.
• Rod told Malleus that he was "less important to me than the occasional dogshit on my shoe".
• Malleus told Rod basically the same thing.
• Rod blocked Malleus for 31 hours for personal attacks.
• I blocked Rod for 24 hours for a personal attack.
• Moni3 unblocked Malleus.
• I asked Rod to assure me he wouldn't go back to Malleus' page, and I would do the same. He wouldn't so I didn't unblock. There's an unblock template up there now.

To be clear, I would not have blocked Rod if he hadn't blocked Malleus. Malleus is a big boy, can take care of himself, and was being rude too. But it is completely unacceptable to block someone you're arguing with, especially for "personal attacks" on yourself, especially when you just called him a name on his own talk page. If Rod truly believes that Malleus should have been blocked for "personal attacks", I don't see how he can believe that he isn't guilty of the same. If he doesn't believe that, then I suppose I could change my block rationale to "grossly inapproriate use of admin tools".

On Rod's talk page, Rod is saying I should not have blocked him because he's an admin. On the contrary, I think admins should actually be held to the same, if not a higher, standard. He's also saying he should have been given a warning (really? It's not obvious you don't call someone dogshit, and then block them when they dare to answer back?), and that I've further insulted him by not placing a template on his talk page (??).

I welcome a couple of things:

• Some feedback on the block.
• Some feedback on my opinion in the extreme inappropriateness of the use of admin tools against someone you're arguing with, on their own talk page, right after you call them dogshit.
• Some feedback on whether this misuse of the tools is worth an RFC/U or recall attempt.

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I unblocked Malleus. I don't have an opinion on the block. I wouldn't have blocked Rodhullandemu, just because I don't like to block other editors. But I do agree with Tony1's suggestion that Rodhullandemu should go through a admin review. First, to come to a user's page and patronize him as an admin is abhorrent. To continue to bait the user, to attempt to silence him for using valid (albeit profane) arguments is simply stupid. It has no basis in any effective administrative duties. It's petty and childish. To block the person with whom you're arguing is astonishingly, breathtakingly abusive. Rodhullandemu does not seem to grasp these cause and effect relationships per the unblock requests and exchanges with Floquenbeam on his talk page. Stunningly, he uses the argument that he writes GAs or something. I don't get that. Does Malleus then have the right to be more abusive or ...gosh, I have no idea... something, because he's written over 20 FAs?? That's just weird. --Moni3 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable block to me. Welcome to the club of those who have blocked an admin, Floquenbeam. Though I imagine you'll soon also be member to those who have had their blocks of an admin overturned before it expires. It's pretty rare that these things stick, valid as they may (or may not) be. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  FWIW, I just declined the unblock request, and he stated that that was unacceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• The argument at Malleus' talkpage was escalating and the blocks certainly put a stop to it. However, it cannot be acceptable for an admin to use their tools in an argument against their opponent. Given Rod's volume of work on the encyclopedia, I can only assume that he lost his cool and didn't think through the ramifications of using his tools in such circumstances. His subsequent comments on his talkpage show he is still missing that point. Since the block is preventative, not punitive, as soon as he regains his composure and realises that he crossed a bright line, he should be unblocked. I don't feel that there's any pattern of tool abuse here to require any further action. --RexxS (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam acted appropriately in this situation. Rod has a long pattern of good work both as an editor and as an administrator. However, current consensus is greatly opposed to blocks by involved administrators. Thus, the act of blocking by Rod was questionable. Hopefully this issue can be resolved without hard feelings by any parties. Rod disengaging totally from the situation, while difficult, is the quickest route to such a non-negative resolution. Lewis Windsor (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good Block You do NOT use your admin tools to win an argument. Let the dust settle and cooler heads prevail. I think we'll see one red-faced admin tomorrow. N419BH 05:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards