Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:54, 23 July 2011

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia: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.

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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:

~~Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2~~
~~Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes~~
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 53#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy? (which was archived but then restored to the main Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)
~~Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover~~

The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ed, for closing Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still no closure? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed number 2 for you guys. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DQ! Cunard (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some RFCs that could do with closing

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Did_recent_currency_image_deletions_go_beyond_the_proper_aims_and_objectives_of_the_NFC_image_policy.3F
- Launched 10 May 2011
~~RfC on whether images of historical importance must themselves be the "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use for them~~
- Listed 4 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
~~Poll to gain consensus on use of hyphens and dashes in relation to a request for arbitration~~
- Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
~~RfC on improving account security~~
- Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011

Not necessarily an admin job, but this seems the conventional place to ask for closures. Rd232 public ^talk 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The account security one has seen a few additional comments today, so perhaps hold off on closing that one for a couple or days more. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dash drafting poll says it is supposed to remain open until the 16th. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several more recently archived RfCs:

~~RfC on a proposed new exemption from the three-revert rule~~
- Listed 8 June 2011, archived 7 July 2011
Proposal to establish a minimum prep-time for main-page blurbs
- Listed 22 June 2011, archived 7 July 2011

Cunard (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) for closing Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption
Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs) for closing several of the proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security and filing bugzillas for them. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A community ban of Nmatavka from creating userspace pages has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that Nmatavka (talk · contribs) be banned from creating pages in her own userspace as she is using this privilege solely to stock up on pornography and similar titillating images from Commons, in violation of WP:WEBHOST. At present I've taken the presently-up userpage User:Nmatavka/Images under surveillance to MfD as an extremely thinly-veiled resurrection of an earlier porn-repository page, User:Nmatavka/N0rp (MfD debate), but as she seems to be unable to understand we aren't her own personal e621 (or whatever porn site you want to substitute in if you don't like the implications, which I agree are inaccurate) I think a topic ban is the only way to go here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S*d MfD, is this deletable under G4 and/or G11? Support ban if this is a recurrent issue. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nmatavaka is not female. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. I'm used to sussing gender based on name. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. They had a condescending preface to their last 300-image repository page of anything with exposed genitals, picture painting or woodcut, and now they've moved up to being uncivil and making a thinly veiled attack at the people that argued for the last one's deletion. They obviously do not understand the REASON that their first page was deleted: they are assuming it was homophobia (despite most of the images being of heterosexual sex if I recall) when in fact that had nothing to do with it. If they cannot understand why we deleted it and are recreating it, then they need to be stopped from doing so again before it becomes a drain on our resources. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the new page under G4. Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban, and also blocking user if they continue to act belligerently. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban and shooting any new porn repositories on sight. Danger (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, hasn't this person heard of tumblr yet? -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban per the repeated posting of inappropriate content in userspace. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Patient closer wanted

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis. This has been through an epic RFC, a DRV, and now an epic CFD that's been open more than two weeks. Someone needs to decide on a winner. I'm offering one barnstar to whoever has the patience to read it all and close it properly, barnstar payable irrespective of the way it goes.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp to prevent archiving.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting closure of merging request

Talk:HC Litvínov#Player Mergers has been opened for more than a month. Since the merging request has been inactive for a couple of weeks, could an uninvolved admin close the discussion and remove the relevant merge request template from the article? Thanks, Hey Mid (contribs) 09:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Restored from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011~~

Discussion closed by Heymid. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community ban of User:Chaosname

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

– I'm calling this one. Consider him banned --Jayron32 13:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I would like to propose a community ban on Chaosname (talk · contribs) who has, to date, abused dozens of accounts and is basically taunting the community with edits such as [1] and his other blatant disruptive accounts. –MuZemike 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposed ban. Looking through some of the socks' edits (see here for a list of socks), I see no reason to believe that this user is here for any other purpose than to disrupt. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No-brainer support. T. Canens (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any actual disruption involved here? I could easily support blocking to prevent disruption facilitated by sockpuppetry, but I'd like to point out that socking in and of itself is not an actual problem.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a partial list, diff by diff, of all the blatant vandalism by Chaosname and his other account which I would hope would justify a community ban (please note that some of the edits were RevDeleted per RD2, but I have went ahead and provided the summary of the edits for transparency reasons):

User:Chaosname

"Chaosnamepuppet" socks

More to come. –MuZemike 20:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of those diffs lead me, even more than before, to point out WP:DENY... seemingly half of those diffs are from talk pages, and the other half are so obviously intended to be noticed as vandalism that... I mean, wp:point is important, but it's also indicative of a missed opportunity. Have you and others tried talking to the person at the other end of the username, and addressing the concerns that they have? I'm very much aware that such endeavors can be fools errands, but that it is a fools' errand needs to be demonstrated.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ban I sent an email to MuZemike asking about just such a ban ten days ago. I was ready for this then, I'm ready for it now. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more:

Other socks

Seriously, I don't know how to reason with such a user who has persisted the past 5 years at this. Unless we're expected to simply protect all the articles, ignore his disruption, pamper and coddle him with encouragement, and hope he doesn't do it again. –MuZemike 20:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all talk pages... and user talk pages at that. I think that you're falling for the bait here, is all. Still... <shrug> if you want to go this route, I'm certainly not going to stand in your way. Weak Support. This could have been avoided, but it's clear that at this point person behind the username is attempting to make a point. Who am I to stand in the way of displaying the hypocrisy of overbearing members with control issues? Having spent a good period of time on their shoes... I don't know, at this point it's likely too late to turn this around regardless.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been avoided how? There are many people out there who only desire to vandalize and disrupt Wikipedia for the hell of it – that is a (rather unfortunate) side-effect of having an open wiki. I think it is unreasonable for the community to have to passively act like nothing is going on while others shout out childlike gibberish and make puerile death threats at others. And watch who you call a "hypocrite" and "overbearing"; nobody has called you anything close to that here, so I don't know why you have had to now resort to such attacks. I am more than happy to offer second chances to others (and I have a couple of times recently), but there gets to a point where it's simply fruitless to reason with the unreasonable – in my view, this is one of them. –MuZemike 22:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is, as someone unfamiliar with this editor, what is a community ban going to accomplish? You might as well ask whether Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned. If someone is being this transparently abusive, are they going to be nice and go away now that we banned them? And per Ohm's Law's reference of WP:RBI, one might ask whether anyone needs permission from AN to revert and block for diffs like these. I'm not saying you're doing the wrong thing, but why don't we just revert, block, and move on? --causa sui (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Exhausted the Community's patience for sure. At least in theory, we've done what we could (WMF apparently urges us to develop practices to get rid of and discourage disruptive behavior). The issue arises when there are problems with enforcing our measures (a couple of users have made suggestions along those lines here in my view). A recent suggestion to tackle that is to try therapy (eg; banned Naadapriya's most recent puppet is now on an arb/CU's talk page, while another admin quite foolishly offered it a welcome template) - such therapy is quite pointless in practice. I do hope that WMF, godkings, and others can offer more active assistance than simply sitting at a distance, passing vague "resolutions" (with conflicting objectives) and then expecting everyone else to deliver a positive result. One often ends up questioning whether this website is supposed to contain good quality content, or whether that doesn't matter, given that the latter is so often encouraged by other stated goals of this project (such as openness, being free to edit, and so on)...but I think I am digressing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban No more diffs with look-at-me details please! Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The name definitely speaks for himself. This has to stop. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban as clearly warranted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ban this Chaotic-Stupid-Shin-Megami-Tensei-Gaian already. Chaos for chaos' sake is inimical to the way Wikipedia operates. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban. Giggity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names

Resolved

– User:Fastily closed the other one--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could an uninvolved administrator please close the two open RFC's? They have been open for almost a month each and have both had plenty of discussion.--v/r - T P 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I closed the easy one. That's the closest I recall ever having gotten to actually citing IAR! I tried really hard to close the second one Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Cranialsodomy but the comments of 22 experienced editors were of no help and they were evenly split. The closest any got to referencing policy was to say that it was or was not obscene. I was going to be left with my own interpretation of policy, so I ended up commenting. I highly encourage others to comment to; hopefully with what you think the actual language in the policy means and why the username should or should not be allowed rather than the "I don't like it" and "It doesn't bother me" comments that I found.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, this one has been open for 34 days now.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"CranialSodomy" is editing an encyclopedia of knowledge; his mother must be proud. And, we've now thrown -bot ending usernames to the wind. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

Taking into account Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers#Proposed solution, would an admin close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers? The RfC has been open since 9 June 2011. Cunard (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed due to inactivity. It's fairly clear that the subject has considered all of the allegations and proposals and has no further endorsements to add. RfC/Us by their nature are not binding, so if (1) problems persist and (2) users want a binding remedy, they need to either request the Community to impose something, or go to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a summation by someone neutral will be helpful feedback for the participants in the RfC. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Asher Heimermann

Asher Heimermann, a user blocked since 2007, has asked to be unblocked. As far as I can tell, there are no issues of sockpuppetry since August 2008 (nearly 3 years ago - the latest I found is SheboyganTeen). I'm inclined to grant him an unblock. Any one else have any opinions? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unblock seems reasonable. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After nearly four and a half years a second chance seems reasonable. I will unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest if they are unblocked that they have a mentor. This user has not had apparent sockpuppet activity which is visible on the account, but has added links to their promotional website for Sheboygan on and off the last couple years through IP's and cleverly named socks which have been maintained and pulled by editors like me based in eastern Wisconsin, and submitted this vanity article for creation under the account Asherheimermannissogreat (talk · contribs), which was rightfully turned down in February. There was also this IP claim that their LLC bought a school district radio station for a low price that I had to revert a couple months back. I can't even see the need for their newest article, George D. Warriner High School for Personalized Learning, which is a small charter school that currently has no need for an article. I am willing to give them one last chance, but with the caveat that if they pull this stuff again, they need to be gone. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a mentor. However, that user ({{user|Asherheimermannissogreat}) was not me. It was a person named Nick on Facebook who was harassing me and asking me repeatedly to accept his friend request, which I did not. As far as the Warriner High School article, there are other charter schools who have an article about the size of Warriner. I am open to ideas. I'm not here to play around anymore, I just want to be a meaningful community member. Any thoughts? Asher Heimermann (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked this account, as I indicated above. When I did so, I fully intended to check back from time to time to see what edits were being made, and was ready to block again if I saw anything unacceptable. This is what I always do when I unblock a user with past problems of this kind. I had warned Asher in my unblock notice "If you edit disruptively you may expect to be reblocked immediately", and I subsequently posted a message to his talk page telling him that I had been checking his edits, so that he was aware of the fact. When I looked at Asher's editing I did not see any problems.

The concerns raised by Mrschimpf (who signs as "Nate") are worth consideration.

The article for creation produced by Asherheimermannissogreat is strange. It looks like a ridiculous vanity article until the last paragraph, when it suddenly turns into a criticism of Asher for refusing to accept someone as a FaceBook friend. If it was by Asher then that last paragraph was very odd. If it was not by him then it was by someone who seemed to have a strange degree of fascination for him, possibly to the extent of an obsession. However, that last paragraph certainly does fit in with Asher's explanation given above, and there are people who develop just such obsessions.

I am not at all sure what the significance of the IP edit about the school district radio station is. The same IP address has been used by someone with a dislike of Asher, who has tried to keep a perfectly legitimate link to a web site off Wikipedia purely on the grounds that the web site was designed by Asher. (See the removal of the link and the user's comment on it. Is there any evidence that the edit referred to above from the same IP case was made by Asher? If so, what evidence? If not, is it relevant?

As for George D. Warriner High School for Personalized Learning, my personal view is that very few high schools are notable enough to justify having articles, but there is a very long-established consensus on English Wikipedia that all high schools are notable. There is no basis for criticising Asher for creating an article which is fully compliant with accepted standards, whatever I or Mrschimpf or anyone else may personally think about the school.

Finally we have "has added links to their promotional website for Sheboygan on and off the last couple years through IP's and cleverly named socks". Unfortunately no specific examples are given, so it is impossible to assess that claim at all. The only thing I have seen which could remotely be considered relevant to this is the case I mentioned above of removal of a link to a website purely because Asher was the designer. I hope this is not the sort of thing which was being referred to, as who designed a web site has no bearing whatever to its relevance or appropriateness to the article from which it was linked. Trying to remove it simply on those grounds is unacceptable. What is more, the link was placed in the article by Asher Heimermann on 21 January 2007, just over a month before he was blocked, and so it is not relevant to suggestions of sockpuppetry or other unacceptable editing during the block. The editor who tried to have the link removed used the section heading "Asher's at it again". However, the link in question had been placed nearly four and a half years before, suggesting that the anonymous editor was accusing Asher without taking much care to check their facts. Also "at it again" suggests that the same anonymous editor may have taken similar steps before.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that no evidence of the supposed sockpuppetry has been presented, nor has any been found by my searches. There is, however, evidence of an unreasonable campaign by at least one editor to suppress content related however indirectly to Asher. (In the case of the removed link I have referred to, the web page linked does not mention Asher. The only indication of a connection is a small note at the bottom of the page saying "Website Designed by Sheboygan Communications", and to make the connection one has to (a) know enough about Asher to know that that is his company, and (b) be searching for such connections, or for some other reason be looking at the small print at the bottoms of web pages.)

There may be evidence that Asher has been evading his block. However unless and until such evidence is presented we have to assume good faith. I shall keep up my periodic checks on his editing, as I always intended to do. If I find no problems with his editing then that will be fine. If I do find problems I will take whatever action seems necessary, anything from a friendly warning to an immediate indefinite block, as seems appropriate. Anyone else is, of course, free to keep an eye on his editing too. Unless and until problems arise I see no need for any other steps. Asher has said that he would be willing to accept a mentor, but the word "mentor" is very broad in scope, and can mean anything from someone who will generally keep an eye on his editing and give him advice and guidance as and when necessary, to someone who will conduct an organised course of lessons in how to edit. I really do not think that Asher needs the latter: he clearly already knows a good deal about how to edit Wikipedia, but if anyone else who disagrees wishes to volunteer to do it and Asher wants to accept then they are of course free to do so. However, as far as the more low-key kind of mentoring is concerned, I have undertaken that role before for an unblocked editor with a controversial history, and I am willing to do it again if Asher wants me to. In that case I would change my informal intention of keeping an eye on his editing for a little while into a commitment to doing so for a specified period (three months is the period I have specified in the past), with feedback, advice, and warnings if and when I think fit, and an offer to be available for Asher to approach for help if and when he wants it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the unblock. Asher conduct back 4.5 years ago wasn't heinous, it was irritating to a bunch of editors with his youthful exuberance. He was young and it showed. I didn't have a big problem with him back then and I think it's worth our time to give him another chance because I'm optimistic that we have come across a good editor. He just asked me for help with an article so that's an improvement already. I'm too busy in real life to be a "mentor" but he can ask me questions like he did.

I would be more comfortable with his agreement to be a better editor if his userpage didn't have links to his websites and social media pages. I don't think they're forbidden but since this was the problem before I think removing them would show good faith to the community. Royalbroil 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for copy of deleted page

Please could an admin send me the contents of this deleted page for some research I'm doing? Thanks :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed you the content. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does emailing effect attribution of the re-write if the article is restored? Or do we typically restore the history when a the re-written article passes deletion review and just make the re-write the most recent edit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the history is restored (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material) and history merged with the new draft. This is sometimes done even when the drafts are written independently, with no attribution dependency. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted in 2007; my assumption (based on the phrasing of the request) was that this request was not a pre-cursor to getting it undeleted :) otherwise I would have restored it to userspace. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at requests for amendment,

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Need check on file moved to Commons

File:Erie County, NY Map.png was moved to Commons some time ago, but it started out here. Could I trouble an admin to check the deleted version of that file from here and see what the original source was? Was it Own Work, or did it come from some other source? Powers ^T 00:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no explicit source. The description page said. == Licensing == {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. --Courcelles 01:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Dashboard

Any one notice it just died for a few minutes - the content is getting too big for a template. It suddenly ended up being in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - a quick look at a failed page showed...

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 25296/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 116476/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 115/500
-->

It's quite hard to fix these Post-expand include size problems. The main drain is usually the large use of {{•w}} in Navboxes - ideally take them all out and replace with a fixed dot. I would look at it, but it's time I retired for the night. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a super-expert on how that template works, but couldn't we replace all instances of that with a non-breaking space   before each bullet? –MuZemike 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done it before when some of the Chemistry Navboxes got out of hand. I'll have a look. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done the three boxes, that has released 10864 bytes. I suspect the problem occurred as there were a lot of pages listed that day, hopefully the extra 10K will prevent any more problems. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do those templates have to use "no wrap". It's rather awkward to have them spilling off the page. DrKiernan (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point me to this "Dashboard" so I can investigate. I doubt using {{•w}} is the source of the problem. — Edokter (talk) — 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Admin dashboard}} - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{•w}} and {{·w}} are not the cause; they increase Post-expand include size by only 20k. Some other template/page must have triggered it. — Edokter (talk) — 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Edokter - This is only peripherally related, in looking at the templates I was wondering, is there a performance issue with nested transclusions? If a template had transclusions 20 layers deep (template transcluded → another template transcluded → another...), would it create a performance issue? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told or read somewhere that templates within templates are counted twice (I think it might have been Gimmetoo who said this). So, if there are more layers, then I guess it quadruples, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion depth does indeed come with a penalty, but translclusion count far less so. Transclusion depth is cumulative, not exponential, meaning added levels do not double level-count. — Edokter (talk) — 11:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'retired' admin userbox?

In light of the recent mass retirement of admins, is there a 'retired admin' userbox anywhere? I dug around but couldn't find one. Manning (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm often last last to know things, but: mass retirement? o_O? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure someone can find the link. There was a recent RFC which 'Voluntarily retired' any admin who had not edited for some time (12 months I believe). As it is 'voluntary', these admins can reapply for their bit without going through RFA. I am actually asking because I also recently surrendered my admin bit - I'd taken a year long break and since returning I was getting a lot of "You screwed this up" and "you have violated policy" messages, hence I thought taking some time to get thoroughly reacquainted was in order. Manning (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks, I was looking for something more like an arbitration outcome, your pointer was enough for me to find it: Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins. With respect to getting flack upon re-appearance, and without looking at you actions yet, my $0.002 is that "you need a refresher" an easy stick with which to whack someone with whom you disagree. Are you intending to ask for it back in a suitable period? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No immediate intention of asking for it back, but having been an admin for nearly ten years I'd like something as a badge of my period of service. Manning (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a retired administrator on the English Wikipedia.

<-- Would that work for you? Jafeluv (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, thanks very much :) Manning (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should have a userbox for this, so {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} (includes Verify link). Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, but, if the editor (now former admin) is no longer active, when are they going to put the nice little userbox on their page? Nobody else can do it for them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to say "former", since "retired" suggests total inactivity. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--SPhilbrick T 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "retired" because former might be more shocking to them when they return and it doesn't say they have retired from the project, only from being an admin. But that's just me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} does say "former". I've added an inactive parameter, which produces "whose administrator rights were suspended due to inactivity" Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More or less shocking than seeing they've been forced into retirement? =) I think Rd232's inactive=yes parameter works. –xeno^talk 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Former' doesn't really suit my situation, as many might interpret it as "involuntary'. I retired in good standing and of my own choice (I wanted to take some time to get back up to speed on everything after a long wikibreak). As MRG comments, 'Retired' could get interpreted as 'complete editing inactivity', but a check of my contrib log would demonstrate otherwise (assuming anyone actually cared that much). Manning (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a adjective parameter in the userbox so you can customise the description. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why nobody else can do it for them. If they have retired, they shouldn't have an admin userbox, but if the retirement was involuntarily implemented via the referenced 1 year inactivity period and they aren't around, then obviously they aren't going to remove their own, now inappropriate, userbox. In such a case, there is no reason that someone can't replace their current userbox with this one. There is not an absolute prohibition on editing someone's userpage and a good faith edit to replace their userbox to reflect their current status would be no more problematic than simply removing the old one.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly if there's any now-incorrect categorisation, but even if there's merely text or userbox on the userpage which could be misleading, this should be fixed. I've added a note to WP:INACTIVITY. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not long ago I was inactive for a long time (6 months in my case). If I had returned to find my bit removed, and saw the proposed userbox (the one with the "inactive" parameter and additional language included) I would not mind at all, and would have even appreciated it. I wholly support the suggestions in this thread. -- Atama頭 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug. has it absolutely right. It is incorrect for the "Admin" userbox to remain on display, and if the editor *does* return, then a new userbox which conveniently links them to pages which explain the situation is an easy and painless way for them to find out what happened. Manning (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...for them to find out what happened." - well hopefully they would receive {{Inactive admin}} or something similar on their talk page at the time the bit is removed. But the WP:INACTIVITY link/explanation is useful for editors who might visit a userpage but not read through past user talk discussions. Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impending deployment of MoodBar extension

The Foundation plans to deploy the "MoodBar" extension to the English Wikipedia some time in the near future. For more information, see WP:VPT#Quick Feedback on Editing Experience: New Editors, the extension and discussion pages on MediaWiki and the test deployment on the prototype wiki. MER-C 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Era Building

Would an administrator please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. --do ncr am 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also have drafts for the other articles in userspace? Barring that, it's a disambiguation that leads to one article. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some feedback on what our normal approach is in this situation. When there are two actual articles, it makes sense to use a hatnote, but if one or both are redlinks, hatnotes do not appear to make sense. That's why there was a dab with two redlinks. I'm not all that big a fan of redlinks, but that's not my call to make. If redlinks are allowed for plausible articles, (and an NRHP location qualifies as a plausible article), how should it be handled? I do not think it is reasonable to expect the editor creating the dab to have draft articles in progress. That would be nice, but I don't see it as required. I'm inclined to make the move (as requested here), but I'd like to see what others think, in case there are rules I'm missing, or a better solution.--SPhilbrick T 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is disambiguation policy and practice that disambiguation pages differentiate among topics and can contain redlink items, as long as each one provides a supporting bluelink to an article that shows the same redlink in context. More specifics at MOS:DABRL. From time to time it seems surprising to an editor, but it is further acceptable for a dab page to consist entirely of such redlinks (with supporting bluelinks), as has been determined in discussions among disambiguation-focussed editors at WikiProject Disambiguation talk. This dab page existed properly in mainspace for a long time. Recently it was deleted once by Sphilbrick, was recreated by me, was moved to current userspace location twice by SarekOfVulcan, and then a new page (which I moved to New Era Building (New York City)) was created in the mainspace location by Station1. The disambiguation page is needed, appropriate. It now takes an administrator to move it back. I suppose it would further be appropriate to have the previous edit history of the article restored. --do ncr am 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've now asked at Wikiproject talk Disambiguation for comment here. --do ncr am 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, now I'm cranky. When there is history to an action, and that history can reasonably interpreted as contentious, it's a bit uncool to drop a one-line "please do this." It sure makes it look like you were trying to slip something in under the radar. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that making the request on one of the most trafficed noticeboards on WP, rather than using {{Db-move}} (where it would hide along with the rest of the speedy deletion requests), is the antithesis of trying to slip something in under the radar. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A non-controversial move of a disambiguation usually gets done in thirty seconds when you put in on this page. The relevant facts weren't given by the requester, and there was clearly a good reason to give that background, see above and below. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my asking here was meant to convey there exists some issue, but I was hoping for simple resolution. It should indeed be non-controversial, and would not be except for SarekOfVulcan's determined and uninformed-in-my-view intervention on the article. I asked here rather than at wp:RM as some editors here are familiar with SarekOfVulcan's involvement with my editing, which is adding up towards repeated instances of pretty apparent edit-warring mentality (tho 3RR not reached this time). The last time SarekOfVulcan tangled with me here, regarding a page where he reached 4RR, he was blocked 40 hours and i was blocked 3 weeks. I don't want to have to go into all of that. I simply asked and do ask for the dab page to be restored, and hoped that someone informed about previous history would just make a sensible judgment on this situation alone and fix this situation. In effect I was/am asking for a simple override SarekOfVulcan's judgment that it is not a valid dab page, because it is a valid dab page. Is it possible to ask for a simple fix, without going into a big discussion about other stuff? --do ncr am 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that userfying the article was not what was originally asked for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an misleading statement by SarekOfVulcan, to link to a non-compliant version. As i explained to SarekOfVulcan, i was seeking restoration of the original article, not that version. The original article, as in copy provided by Sphilbrick at his Talk upon my request, included MOSDAB-compliant supporting bluelinks, and also a cross-wiki link to the German wikipedia version of this dab page. --do ncr am 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that OP's posting has the effect of ratcheting up the cranky meter, even if not intended. However, I take the point that asking here is not really slipping it under the radar, but the exact opposite. I also suggest that edit summaries using the word "attack" or "pressure" do not help, even if they were valid (and I don't think they are valid in this case). Can we concentrate on settling whether the dab is warranted?--SPhilbrick T 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments against the dab being presented here, and positive ones having been presented (i.e. that the dab is valid and compliant with all policies) could an administrator please make the move and restore the dab? --do ncr am 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram has asked me on his talk page to comment here. The chronology is roughly: 1. Sphilbrick deletes, correctly imo, New Era Building, at the time a two entry dab page where both entries are redlinks with a bluelink to a list article with minimal info about each topic (other than pages created by doncram, I believe such dab pages are extremely unusual and have always been subject to speedy deletion). 2. Doncram requests undeletion on Sphilbrick's talk page. 3. Without waiting, doncram creates a new dab page with two redlinks and no bluelinks whatsoever. 4. I request speedy deletion using {{db-disambig}}. 5. SarekOfVulcan userfies rather than deletes. 6. Doncram adds back original bluelinks and moves it back to mainspace. 7. SarekOfVulcan userfies again. 8. I Google "New Era Building" and seeing nothing about the two redlinked buildings, create a short article with several refs about a NYC building. 9. Doncram moves it to New Era Building (New York City). 10. I revert and explain at User talk:Doncram#Your move of New Era Building that this is the only article so far and in any case is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and please use WP:RM for obviously contentious moves. Bottom line: I believe consensus is that there's no need for dab pages with only redlinks as entries because dab pages are not search indices. In any case a dab page should not usurp a title needed by an article. These issues have been discussed with doncram by myself and numerous others over and over. Station1 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Over years, I have dealt with wave after wave of editors newly arriving at disambiguation pages and being unaware of policy or not accepting consensus. Consensus on exactly the no-redlinks-being-okay issue has been established previously, Station1's assertion to the contrary, and I refreshed Station1 about that already. Sphilbrick's deletion was wrong because all-redlink dab pages are in fact okay. However, now there is a bluelink article, the new one created by Station1, and there are three items on the dab page, getting by Sphilbrick's preference (not policy) for hatnotes only when just 2 items have the same name. Station1's assertion that the article name is "needed" by the new one is not valid; it obviously can be at New Era Building (New York City). Station1, could you please clarify that a) you would now agree that the disambiguation page should exist (albeit i think you think it should exist at New Era Building (disambiguation). Sphilbrick could you please clarify that you think the disambiguation page should exist, now that there are 3 anyhow. The only new issue is whether the New York City one should be wp:PRIMARYUSAGE or not a question properly settled in a Requested Move on the disambiguation page, after it is restored. I happen to think the non-nrhp NYC one is not primaryusage as the 2 NRHP-listed ones are definitely notable and as notable it their areas as the New York City one is in its area, and there is no world-wide primaryusage--face it no one has ever heard of any "New Era Building"; Station1 happens to think it does meet primaryusage. That subquestion should not require wp:AN attention, IMO. I suggest that the original request, to move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building be implemented. That would provide the necessary reversal of SarekOfVulcan's incorrect userfying of the valid dab page (important enough for wp:AN, and most properly covered here). Then let Station1 open a Requested Move at the Talk page of that, relating to his new article, created only after all this was already going on, if he wishes. --do ncr am 21:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If wave after wave of editors don't accept your notion of consensus, is it possible it's not the consensus at all? To answer your request for clarification, I've already said at your talk page, I think clearly, that no dab page need exist unless and until three articles exist, at which time New Era Building (disambiguation) could be created or a hatnote could be used per WP:TWODABS. Station1 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they all have different, conflicting, uninformed views. 99% agree with reasonable treatment, once explained. Now, that is a whopper of an assertion, that you agree a dab page is warranted, but not until the other articles are created, i.e. you defy disambiguation policy that redlink items are okay. That is completely unreasonable. Other editors observing here might say, well why not just create the other 2 articles. I could do that for this one case, but am balancing concerns of many NRHP editors and others who strongly dislike the creation of short stub articles. I myself would not mind having a bot run to create all the 50,000 missing NRHP articles, to end this kind of repetitive discussion with Station1 (informed) and with uninformed other new editors arriving. It is simply unreasonable to acknowledge that "New Era Building" is a valid dab topic, but assert it cannot exist. Just re-create the damn dab by moving it back into place. --do ncr am 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Two uninvolved editors have now created New Era Building (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) and New Era Building (Maquoketa, Iowa) (thank you to them). I still think the NY building is probably the primary topic because it has at least five independent reliable published secondary sources (i.e., books) that specifically address the topic (plus The NY Times, New York magazine and a couple less-reliable sources not counted), and I also think it's generally better to get readers directly to an article rather than make them go through a dab page (especially if the other articles are directly linked from a hatnote as they now are in this case), but if most editors here think otherwise, a move now has at least some rationale. Station1 (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page appears to be the right way to go here. Even if the structure in NYC is the most notable, there are multiple examples, and hatnotes are less desirable in such cases. See Disambiguation pages with only two entries. In addition to the three "New Era Buildings" listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, there are other uses of "New Era Building" that may or may not be sufficiently notable to warrant articles. E.g., buildings called the "New Era Building" in Chicago (on Blue Island Avenue dating at least to the 1890s), Johannesburg (12 De Villiers St.), and San Francisco, as well as the New Era Building & Loan Association in Philadelphia and the modular home builder New Era Building Systems. A disambiguation page services the 3 existing articles and leaves room to accommodate additional uses. Cbl62 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram attacks and SarekOfVulcan attacks

While we're on the subject, can we agree that "start article supporting architect article that is under some attack" is not an appropriate edit summary on a whole bunch of levels? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New Era Building situation is yet another where SarekOfVulcan seemed to me to be edit warring, by nature of rapid, undiscussed too-strong edits, with terse edit summaries at best. I requested nicely enough that SarekOfVulcan read up on the subject and fix the situation by moving the dab page back. He did not, so eventually i ask here for others to fix this. It's an example of SarekOfVulcan edit warring, IMHO. See edit history and discussion, such as it was. Countering by trying to raise a new issue seems off-track. Just move the dab page back, please. --do ncr am 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'add to article created to support architect article, which is under some "pressure"' is not an improvement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this AN discussion, I ask for simple resolution of one dab page issue. --do ncr am 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Stop making insinuations in your edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As (what I assume to be) an uninvolved editor, Doncram your commentary in this thread is pushing the borders of civility and tone. I know you've been warned previously about this so take this viewpoint as a friendly suggestion that you take a few minutes and consider your tone. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some prefer less, some prefer more clarification of the actual context here. I am somewhat cranky, too. --do ncr am 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another dab removed by SarekOfVulcan

I agree that explicit discussion at Talk pages is far better than carrying on with edit-war style reversions and insinuations or assertions in edit summaries. Such as this, this and the series of edits by which SarekOfVulcan kept removing the page, and did not properly discuss. Edit summaries just invoked an irrelevant essay Wikipedia:Write the article first, not convincing and not relevant to the development of disambiguation as here. I am again troubled by S's attention, but simultaneous unwillingness to actually discuss things, as in my comments in S's recent re-RFA, which I opposed.

Reviewing SarekOfVulcan's contributions now, I further see this edit, in which SarekOfVulcan removes another disambiguation page by redirecting it. The edit summary suggests that he now believes that a dab page having just one main bluelink should be removed, until a second one is created. That is contrary to policy and practice and even further contrary to reason than deleting dab pages that have valid topics but no main bluelink. I will restore that disambiguation page once now. I imagine SarekOfVulcan or another editor will now choose to redirect it. Please do discuss here. --do ncr am 23:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal: Vote (X) for Change

Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been abusing Wikipedia for some time now, continually socking, creating drama at discussions that have nothing to do with him and harassing admins by filing bogus reports at AN/I (see the one currently there with the MuZemike heading). I propose a full community ban for this editor. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm surprised that there isn't already a ban, this person comes up almost constantly with sock issues. It's well past time for a ban. -- Atama頭 17:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? The user has been indef blocked for over one year based on this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change/Archive. I'd consider that sufficient discussion to constitute a ban per Wikipedia:BAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions and in any case a de facto ban per Wikipedia:INDEF#Indefinite_blocks. Just log it if necessary.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's necessary because you can't automatically revert contributions of people who are indefinitely blocked without violating 3RR. A full siteban removes this restriction. Also, per WP:BAN a ban can only be enacted by the community or by ArbCom. If I just placed the ban template and logged it, I can guarantee someone somewhere would undo it and force me to go through the discussion anyway, so here we are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Burpelson said. It's usually uncontroversial and simple to turn a de facto ban into an official one. What's not so uncontroversial and simple is when an editor with a de facto ban is reverted and another editor objects because there is no official ban in place. This little bit of bureaucracy could save us time, drama, and bad feelings in the future. -- Atama頭 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in just making it de jure. No-brainer support. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought they already were. Reso lute 18:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support To much hassle to let this go on. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm familiar with this case, and support an official ban to save DRAMA, per Blurpelson/Atama. Appeal options remain available, of course - but I don't hold out much hope. Chzz ► 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I !Vote (X) for Ban from not only personal experience with this user but the clear and convincing evidence here that he has exhausted the community's patience. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: See this example from 2 July of the editor trying to make trouble for an admin at ANI while concealing his real identity. On 21 July he followed the same plan at ANI this time blaming MuZemike for taking action against his IPs. His ANI reports usually contain much indignation about admins not assuming good faith. If he keeps on doing this enough times perhaps it will become easier to recognize the bogus ANI reports. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I wasn't told about this thread. This is one editor Jc3s5h who is unable to demonstrate any failings in my editing. Administrators warned him for 3RR violation in a content dispute and said there was nothing in my behaviour which merited a block or even a warning. I will get the diffs. There is something on his failed RfA Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jc3s5h. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.110.136, 20:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Doug deleted my comment above

Although editors are required to be notified of these discussions, Burpelson tried to sneak a ban in through the back door. I wasn't notified as required by the rule. A few minutes before the internet cafe closed last night, by chance I spotted that this discussion had been initiated. I just had time to post a few words here and on the ongoing thread at ANI before I was blocked.

Burpelson is a hypocrite. S(h)e said on his/her userpage (before (s)he pulled the comment) "I utterly loathe hypocrites". Here [4] (s)he advocates the lifting of a "somewhat tainted" block resulting from a ban discussion which Nsk92 here [5] also describes as "tainted". A secret ban discussion in which the subject is not notified but nevertheless manages to get together a defence which is then reverted is no valid process.

Feel free to examine all my contributions. There is nothing in them which can in any way be described as abusive or incompetent. In the SPI Jc3s5h is reduced to listing them because he can't adduce any evidence of abuse. He refuses to accept numerous administrator decisions that there is no problem with them. Here is a warning from SarekofVulcan:[6].

He also argues with administrators over protection. He has been told endlessly over three years that articles will not be protected, but won't take "no" for an answer. When he doesn't get what he wants he then harangues the administrator on his talk page. On one such occasion GedUK told him:

"I'm sorry, but there simply isn't the protection history on any of the articles to indef protect them,and on two of them there isn't the recent editing to give any sort of protection at this stage." (User talk:GedUK, 10 March, 2010). He lost a community ban discussion which he instigated last year. His conduct was investigated at the time of his failed RfA (above).

When Jc3s5h files an SPI, it is commonplace for corrupt administrators to block me even before the SPI clerk has even looked at it. The record is thirty seconds after filing. Oversight, alteration or reversion of my evidence is standard. The last occasion was Doug yesterday, who reverted edits on the ground that they were made by a "tagged sock" even though the case is still open. Also Jc3s5h frequently doctors the sock notification template to look as though the page is protected so that I can't file evidence. On the current SPI an administrator has commented on the "strange" way it is formatted. 81.159.117.210 (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re EdJohnston's comment, the first example has no diff, in the second one I reveal my identity in the third line and in the third one I reveal it in the sixth line. As for Daniel Case, the rejection of the previous banning attempt demonstrates rather that the community has lost patience with what Atama describes as "tomfoolery" on ANI but is actually fraud. 81.159.117.210 (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The recent contributions by IP socks, for instance these, confirm the assessment of this editor. Favonian (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review of leaked emails

I happened to have seen the now redacted username in this posting. So, I suggest that the Admins who are involved on WR to review the leaked emails before they are posted by MaliceAforethought. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk:China is looking for an impartial closer for a move request

At Talk:China a move request needs an impartial closer to decide whether or not a consensus has been reached on this proposal. It seems like time to close the discussion but I am a participant in that discussion so I cannot make that decision. any takers? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked if the discussion had died down already, but it seems to me it could do with a good number of people commenting who otherwise have no involvement in the China related articles. Agathoclea (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed making a Request for Comment but it was decided that it made more sense to do things one step at a time, with so many having already participated, some felt that a consensus had in fact already been reached. If so there would be no point in requesting extra help. In general though. the issue does need outside help. No matter what the result of the move request is, the question of what should go under the title "china" will not be settled, to do so would require lots of outside help. The debate runs through the entire history of the page, all the way back to 2002. It's an extremely important topic and it needs to be settled, but not in a hasty fashion. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a close would be definitely welcome :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy

This is my first attempt at this so please bear with me, I would like to propose a community ban on WCGSOldBoy (talk · contribs) who has, to date, abused over a dozen accounts and is taunting the community with edits such as [7] and his other blatant disruptive accounts. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More info can be found by taking a look at the history of User talk:Acroterion‎. One page of the history. --

Σ talk contribs

05:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This person will never, ever be a constructive contributor to Wikipedia. A message such as this (admins only) pretty much sums up his career. Favonian (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, BRD: Misogynistic troll. Acroterion (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely, and especially per the diff provided by Favonian. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yeah, this editor isn't here to contribute positively. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have updated filter 294 to detect his puppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

Would an admin close #Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka and log the editing restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring, original research etc.

Resolved

– Skylark2008 blocked 24 hours by Materialscientist. Editor appealing block.LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please caution Skylark2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – and revert their edits to International relations since I'm at 3RR – for edit-warring and persistent original research across multiple articles and multiple months? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 09:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please inform Treasury Tag that his tone is unduly rude and he is adopting particularly personal position and blocking constructive editing by vandalizing a given edit? Also,he is slandering a given editor on the basis of earlier edit-controversies.Given Wikipedia welcomes the establishment of a position through healthy conflict,any such name calling makes it a potentially hostile place for any editor not empowered like an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 09:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TT has eight reversions to this article within a single day. Now that's edit-warring. Skylark's addition might be right or it might be wrong, but it's still within the remit of GF(elastically) editing and content issues, not the outright vandalism that might excuse a pass of 3RR.

So why a 3RR block for Skylark (thoroughly deserved), but nothing for TT - not even a warning?

TT's actions here should not have been to continue to edit war with one editor. 3RR is very clear on this. If the addition was so bad, other editors could have reverted it (I note that one did). If Skylark's additions were so inappropriate or tendentious, they would be (and indeed were) blocked for them. Nor is this a BLP with some terrible libel that we have to remove at all costs.

TT was edit warring here, plain and bright-line simple. So why no block for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also puzzled by TT's edit summary here:
Rvt vandalism – removal of valid information about the history of IR. In the Twinkle of an eye.
This is the removal of Skylark's addition, not any reversion of another removal. There are three deletions like this, all labelled as the reversion of another's vandalism by deletion. Nor are these Twinkle messages, they're messages that TT must have entered manually. They seem most misleading, when they're removing another's addition during an edit war, but labelling it as reverting both a deletion (which editors often don't like) and vandalism (which editors really don't like). If that's not a misleading edit summary, what is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because 8RR is definitely edit warring, I've blocked TT for 24 hours; he's quite sufficiently experienced to know that Skylark could have been reported to WP:AN3 instead of continuously reverting. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of you who really cares about this sort of thing ought to think about getting his Twinkle access revoked as well. If y'all look though his edit history you'll see that he abuses it fairly regularly. I'd say something myself, but... Skylark2008 is correct about TT's personality, and I've metaphorically gotten "in his face" about it in the past, so I'm concerned that me bringing this up in the appropriate place (somewhere on Wikipedia:Twinkle) will be seen in the wrong light.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag has driven off countless editors from this project through extreme incivility, biting, etc. Not just new users but experienced editors as well. He makes Wikipedia a less pleasant place and is a nasty little bully. He's also extremely difficult to deal with as he is a wiki lawyer par excellence and is a genius at sticking to the letter of rules while blatantly breaking the spirit of them. A typical victim's choices seem like engaging him on his terms - extremely difficult - or telling him where to go - and then they get blocked for NPA.

The only thing that will sort him out is if he pisses off the wrong person (unlikely: he prefers to pick on less competent targets) who can lawyer like him and get him community banned; alternatively I am convinced that a look through his history can provide enough material to the sufficiently motivated user who really understands how to present a case Egg Centric 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 384: / Line 384: @@
 :::::Because 8RR is definitely edit warring, I've blocked TT for 24 hours; he's quite sufficiently experienced to know that Skylark could have been reported to [[WP:AN3]] instead of continuously reverting.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::One of you who really cares about this sort of thing ought to think about getting his Twinkle access revoked as well. If y'all look though his edit history you'll see that he abuses it fairly regularly. I'd say something myself, but... Skylark2008 is correct about TT's personality, and I've metaphorically gotten "in his face" about it in the past, so I'm concerned that me bringing this up in the appropriate place (somewhere on [[Wikipedia:Twinkle]]) will be seen in the wrong light.<br/>—&nbsp;[[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
+:::::::TreasuryTag has driven off countless editors from this project through extreme incivility, biting, etc. Not just new users but experienced editors as well. He makes Wikipedia a less pleasant place and is a nasty little bully. He's also extremely difficult to deal with as he is a wiki lawyer par excellence and is a genius at sticking to the letter of rules while blatantly breaking the spirit of them. A typical victim's choices seem like engaging him on his terms - extremely difficult - or telling him where to go - and then they get blocked for NPA.
+:::::::The only thing that will sort him out is if he pisses off the wrong person (unlikely: he prefers to pick on less competent targets) who can lawyer like him and get him community banned; alternatively I am convinced that a look through his history can provide enough material to the sufficiently motivated user who really understands how to present a case <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">[[User:Egg Centric|Egg]] [[User_talk:Egg Centric|Centric]]</span> 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards