Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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:

1. Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
4. 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)
5. 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The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion.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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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)

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

I closed the Main Page one. The one about currency images is archived and didn't reach any consensus. I'm not sure that editing the archive to add a "no consensus" box around it would add any benefit. --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

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

---

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy crap, what? We're enacting a topic ban based on three people's comments? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone or something, all of a sudden. The only reason that I didn't speak out about this earlier is because I never saw it gaining any significant support.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually count six supporting comments. Whether that is sufficient to enact a topic ban, I don't know, but please don't misstate the circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yea, I'm reverting this. I kept EdJohnston's rational as a !vote to enact. 3 days and three people (directly) commenting on the subject is nowhere near enough support for a community ban.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (this is kinda pro-forma now, but...) It seems as though, based on the users own statements, the person is tracking image use for appropriateness. Someone should take the time to explain to this user that they can use links to the images without displaying them (by prefacing the link with a colon, like: [[:File:Wikipedia logo.svg]]) before jumping down his throat over this issue. what I see is a ton of people over reacting here, the user in question becoming defensive (somewhat understandably so, looking at the way some of you have addressed him to date), and then that being used as a rational to restrict the persons chosen activity here. Aside from the obviously circular reasoning being used here, I don't see any demonstration that any kind of actual disruption is occurring here (with the possible exception that several people appear to be harassing Nmatavak, arguably).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Both N0rp and Images under surveillance had ledes which poorly attempted to give the pages a semblence of legitimacy. N0rp's lede included a sentence indicating Nmatavka selected the images he did because they aroused him; Images under surveillance was filled with personal attacks against everyone who pointed this out in N0rp's MfD. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 07:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, I requested another uninvolved admin review and close the discussion at ANI. Cunard (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Support While I'm here, I may as well add a support vote. I had previously reviewed M's page, and assumed that there would be sufficient response to enact this ban, but that's apparently not the case. I don't find M's page to be either offensive or pornographic, but I also don't see any encyclopedic or project value in it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'll kindly point out that pages under user space doesn't have to be encyclopedic... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that pages under userspace do not have to be encyclopedic (such as user pages). However, the userspace should not be a repository for pornography. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I had previously encountered a page by this user at MfD (the porn collection), and a response like creating User:Nmatavka/Prawn shows that the user does not understand the need for collaboration—the porn collection was deleted at MfD for the good reason that such pages are not helpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That page would also appear to be in breach of WP:UP. It may be that we need to go through all userspace subpages of this editor and delete all those that do not conform with the relevant policy. Mjroots2 (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Look, I get it. I understand what the objection to the page(s) is or was. Has anyone here, who seems to be so concerned about this, actually tried to discuss the issue with the guy? And I don't mean dragging him to MFD and yelling at him about it, I mean actually going to his talk page and asking him about what he's doing, or trying to do, in a respectful and collegial manner. If we were discussing someone's use of tools here instead, I think that the response would be very different here, and I don't see why this should be different. Anyway, it looks as though you guys have pretty much driven him away (for now, at least), so this is kindof a moot argument in terms of this one particular editor. I'd hate to see this sort of "gotcha!" attitude generalized even further than it already is, though.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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, HeyMid (contribs) 09:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

{{•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)

@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)

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)

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)

'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)

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

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)

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)

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)

This user is a retired administrator on the English Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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)

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

I agree.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"...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)

New Era Building

Would an administrator please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. --doncram 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.--SPhilbrickT 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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. --doncram 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've now asked at Wikiproject talk Disambiguation for comment here. --doncram 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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? --doncram 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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. --doncram 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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?--SPhilbrickT 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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? --doncram 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. --doncram 21:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. --doncram 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, thanks Cbl62. Would an administrator please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to New Era Building (New York City) (which now redirects to the main topic). Station1 can open a wp:RM to move the dab to "New Era Building (Disambiguation)" if he sincerely believes the New York one meets wp:PRIMARYUSAGE, which I believe it does not. Station1, thank you for commenting promptly above, responding to my request. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going to open a RM. WP needs less disruption, not more. When this discussion is over, an admin will move things around or leave them as they are, mark this section resolved, and we'll all (hopefully including doncram) gladly move on to more productive endeavors. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram 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)

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. --doncram 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'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)

In this AN discussion, I ask for simple resolution of one dab page issue. --doncram 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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. --doncram 23:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing the Downtown Main Street Historic District history it is interesting to note that you created it Feb 23, 2010. It was redirected 2 days later. It stayed that way until July 20, 2011 when you reverted as "incorrectly redirected". And then the back and forth today.

Bluntly: As per WP:TWODABS ad dab page is not needed. Station1 and SarekOfVulcan were correct to redirect it. Pointed reversals of that are not needed. MOS:DABRL is sound, but only if a dab page is needed. A single potential "other" article does not a dab page need. Nor a hatnote at this point.

- J Greb (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Removal of a dab page is not called for. The dab page, and others like it, have served purpose of helping clear name conflicts in NRHP list-articles which used to separately point to the dab topic. Putting the first-to-be-created article at the general name, rather than at the more specific, proper, final name including (City, State) disambiguation, often causes error and more future work resolving conflict between the future article creators and the first article creator who will tend to have ownership and in effect assert primaryusage. When only one of two known-to-be-valid and pretty-clearly-neither-primaryusage topics have an article already, it is not possible to set up hatnotes (I am sure that if you set up a hatnote from the one existing article to a redlink, that many editors would object and remove it). What is possible and makes sense is to create the dab, which is not disallowed by any policy and which obviously serves the need. This has been done for many hundreds of cases, and there is no problem with it. It would defy logic in developing the wikipedia to prohibit just creating the known-to-be-needed dab, which serves readers and editors right away who could be looking for either item and want to know whether or not articles exist, and if not, would like to see the redlink suggesting the topic is valid for them to go ahead and start the article. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it is also worth noting that TWODABS as written points to the hatnote currently on New Era Building as sufficient unless consensus shows that none of the 3 building is the "primary" topic. - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that none of the 3 buildings is the primary topic, but "TWODABS" does not state the disambiguation page should not exist, it just at best suggests the dab page might not be absolutely necessary, if all of two or three articles exist and one is primary. Since there are likely further entries to be added in the future, and since cluttering all three current New Era Building pages with hatnotes pointing to the other seems excessive, the best thing editorially is to have the dab page. It is not prohibited, and it is best. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS on "Disambiguation pages with only two entries" is slightly more explicit. To quote Disambiguation pages with only two entries: "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. The {{for}} and {{redirect}} templates are useful. If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name."

And, obviously if only one of two valid topics has an article, hatnotes won't work, so the dab page is in fact strictly necessary. Knock on wood, there has been no change on the restored dab page Downtown Main Street Historic District, so i am thinking this part of the discussion is resolved well enough. --doncram 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal: Vote (X) for Change

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.

Banned. Courcelles 20:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

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)

• Since he keeps complaining about not being notified, I've gone ahead and eliminated that excuse for socking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• No harm in just making it de jure. No-brainer support. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I thought they already were. Resolute 18:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support To much hassle to let this go on. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support The recent contributions by IP socks, for instance these, confirm the assessment of this editor. Favonian (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support He keeps using IP socks to make changes to calendar-related articles and to attempt to stir up trouble here and at ANI. I've been reverting anyway, as blocked users are not allowed to edit, but we might as well make it official. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Recuse since I am an involved editor, but doubt there is any logical basis for the 3RR policy distinction among various classes of blocked sockmasters. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

No WP admins are WR moderators as far as I know. Nor do moderators on WR pre-approve postings before their publication. If I were you, I'd ignore the leakings. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

As for the discussion dieing down, that is not likely to ever happen, although discussion of this particular proposal has slowed dramatically. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [1] and his other blatant disruptive accounts. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Support, RBI: Misogynistic troll. Acroterion (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Definitely, and especially per the diff provided by Favonian. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Yeah, this editor isn't here to contribute positively. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I have updated filter 294 to detect his puppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Persistent and obnoxious vandal. No evidence of any possibility of positive contributions in the future. --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about User:Penwhale's premature closure.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The above close of the community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy is against consensus I am not familiar with WCGSOldBoy (talk · contribs) and have not reviewed the user's history. However, I dispute the above closure. Despite there being unanimous support for a ban, Penwhale has failed to execute community consensus. I request that his closure be overturned. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Block log of the user has this: 17:04, 12 July 2011 Acroterion (talk | contribs | block) blocked WCGSOldBoy (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing). My closure comment was due to these factors: (1) Look at the history of the talk page in question. There are multiple accounts used to perform disruptive editing; and (2) CheckUsers have already blocked the accounts on the grounds that they are ALL sockpuppets of an indef blocked user. A community ban would just be a formality, in theory, and there's nothing more to be done. It's not a closure against consensus, but more of a there's nothing more that needs to be done here closure. Remember: a block that isn't going to be overturned is a de facto community ban. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Since you haven't bothered to review what's going on, I don't see why you bothered to offer an opinion. I agree that a "community ban" on someone who's de facto banned is pointlessly procedural, but your claim that it's "against consensus" is even more so. It's an adolescent troll in any case, not much different from others of his kind: RBI whether it's a serial block-evader or formally banned, and arguing about what flavor of block/ban it is is a waste of keystrokes. Acroterion (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC) There are a steady stream of ban requests here which seek to formalise de-facto bans so that admins can block socks on sight without any dramas and raise the threshold to the editor ever being unbanned if they stop socking. These previous discussions were allowed to run their course, even in the most obvious cases, so that the ban could be formalised. As such, the discussion should either be re-opened or closed as the ban being approved. I'd do this myself if I wasn't involved. Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC) In this case, after looking over the contribs, I am forced to agree with Penwhale. User:WCGSOldBoy is a "trollz and lulz" account and has never been anything else. In this case I wouldn't be opposed to a checkuser seeing if he's using the school's computer to post his scribble and firing off an email to the school's headteacher and IT guy. Shame we can't find out who his mommy is and email her too. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC) This seems pretty straightforward, and I'm a bit suspicious that Cunard is being pointy here because of the Nmataka issue above. However, from a purely procedural standpoint, is there really this much of a rush to enact these restrictions? If there's an emergent situation than someone should institute a block. There shouldn't be any need to rush in to any sort of community sanction. We ought to at least be able to have a couple of weekday's worth of time to well consider things like this. If there's a sockpuppetry issue here, for example, then what possibly good is banning a single sock going to do? is there a public log of the known socks/IP addresses, so that concerned users have a reasonable chance to suss out future cases of possible sockpuppetry? Are there additional items that we're missing here, in the rush to "do something!!1!!1!"? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Overturn closure and reopen Cunard is not being pointy. A community ban discussion was begun and it is NOT within the rights of anyone to simply shut it down as "pointless" with discussion ongoing. A lot of admins around here are not very current on policies. For example, as was mentioned in the recent Vote (X) for change banning discussion, formalizing bans (which affect an EDITOR, not an ACCOUNT) reduces drama down the line when future socks make marginal or apparently good faith contributions, are reverted for being socks, and then the reversions are reverted because some pedantic idiot says "there's no offical ban". Regardless of tyhe type of vandal this is, this discussion was closed out of process and the premature closure flies in the face of consensus. It needs to be reopened and the closing admin needs to be trouted. Night Ranger (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I've re-opened the ban discussion. Rd232 talk 17:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

#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)

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

Edit-warring, original research etc.

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{resolved}} Removed resolved template due to discussion of TreasuryTag Egg Centric 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 09:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 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) Absolute nonsense. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 09:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 - virtually impossible without the mindset of a lawyer and an encyclopaedic knowledge of policy - 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) P.S. Did anyone notice his re-adding the block notice to Skylark's talk page [2] AND THEN IN HIS VERY NEXT EDIT ALTERING POLICY TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTION: [3]??? Egg Centric 16:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) In all fairness, that's longstanding policy; if a discussion took place to support Camelbinky's preferred version, I've never seen it. I don't understand why you request removal of Twinkle, as it seems that everything going on here was done manually. Or are you talking about Twinkle usage at the userpage policy page? Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) How do you figure that everything was done manually? All of the edits in question here say "in the Twinkle of an eye.", and just glancing at his contribs I see a good dozen other Twinkle uses yesterday and earlier today, and I'm not even trying to search for them... — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Surely Twinkle isn't set up to create edit summaries such as "Rvt vandalism – removal of valid information about the history of IR"? Most of the edits in the recent history of International relations (e.g. 09:12 today) don't even mention Twinkle. Or are you talking about some other edits and I'm simply misunderstanding you? If so, my apologies for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I was speaking generally, not limited to the event/incident in question. but... <shrug> my level of caring about this is really minimal. I just thought it was worth mentioning, because I have seen TT really abuse Twinkle in the past. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, okay. I've not really paid attention to TT, so I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with his use of the tool in other situations. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Twinkle asks for an edit summary when reverting as simple "rollback": Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Revert_and_rollback. Can't comment at this point on whether there are issues of Twinkle abuse, but I've declined TT's unblock request. Rd232 talk 09:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I just visited TT's talk page for this first time since this started (in response to your [rd232's] note above), and it appears as though he's "retired". I can't pretend to actually be upset, but... I think we should back off, so I'm going to archive this discussion. No need to rub it in the guy's nose. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Isabella Ranger Station

As an encyclopedia, do we tolerate guesswork like this edit in which Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) asserts that the Isabella Ranger Station was architected by the Architects of the United States Forest Service? (I believe he put that assertion into there because he's contesting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Forest Service Architecture Group.) I told him that I went to the Minnesota Historical Society's State Historic Preservation Office and worked directly off the form that's in their files. If there had been a specific architect listed, I think I would have mentioned it. And, if I really wanted to go to the State Historic Preservation Office to verify it, they aren't open until next Tuesday.

I don't get the accusation. Elkman's version of article, and his infobox generator report on the site, asserts that Forest Service architects are to be credited. He says that is unsubstantiated? It is what he wrote. I added a link for that. Also, I removed his assertion that the place was architected by the Civilian Conservation Corps, which seems false. --doncram 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm at WP:AN, though, the content dispute is secondary to Doncram's editing practices and inability to collaborate with other editors. I'm getting really tired of being accused of lying. And, as an encyclopedia, I thought we worked on verifiable information, not guesswork. His continued assertions that I don't know the difference between an architect, a builder, or an engineer are limitations of the source database, because they glop the architect, builder, and engineer into one field. I would have thought he'd clean up his act after coming off a three-week block, but that didn't happen.

Finally, I apologize in advance for the huge walls of text that this discussion is going to produce. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about Elkman's unsubstantiated assertion in Isabella Ranger Station that a given building was architected by the Civilian Conservation Corps in addition to being designed by Forest Service architects. Discussed already at User talk:Elkman#Your unsubstantiated edits to Isabella Ranger Station and User talk:Doncram#Your unsubstantiated edits to Isabella Ranger Station. I don't see any wp:AN issue here. Elkman should not make unsubstantiated assertions. He, like many other users of his programming, should not be misled by its erroneous output. It is a documented error in his "Elkman nrhp infobox generator" that it mislabels, as architects, associated persons and organizations who were builders or engineers instead. Elkman, why don't you fix your generator? --doncram 16:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In this edit Elkman now removes the probably false assertion that the CCC was an architect. Resolved? --doncram 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix in the generator because the field's purpose says, "Architect, builder, or engineer". I can't fix it. In fact, the source forms (like this one for the Cass County Court House, Jail, and Sheriff's House) have a line in Section 8, Significance, saying "Builder/Architect". That's what is transcribed into the database. I can't create information from a database that doesn't exist. Again, you are accusing me of lying and I don't appreciate it. This situation is not resolved. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the NRIS database provides Architect, builder, or engineer. Your generator takes that and labels it "architect=", which is wrong in many cases, and which misleads editors, including, apparently in this case, yourself. As you are aware because it has been pointed out several times to you, an alternative mirror site of NRIS data, the private "NRHP.COM" site, avoids this error, correctly labelling as "Architect, builder, or engineer". For Isabella Ranger Station, see their page correctly labelling it. For one option, you could change your generator output to label the info correctly, perhaps "architect-builder-engineer= ____" (which {{infobox nrhp}} correctly would not display) and further add a hidden note to editors to obtain clarification from the NRHP document before splitting into "architect=" and "builder=" fields that would display. The builder= field was added to the infobox template upon my request recently. Improvements to your generator and to the nrhp infobox are probably best discussed elsewhere. There could be better ideas than this one i suggest now. At a minimum, I think you should include a warning note in your output that the asserted architect= information is wrong about five percent of the time, as has been shown, so it should not be relied upon.

Anyhow, you have acknowledged that the previous versions of the page, which asserted Architect included CCC, was wrong. You wrote both programmed it and wrote it into a Wikipedia article. It was wrong, and you agree that it was wrong. Is that what you mean when you say that I am accusing you of lying? I said the assertion in the article was false. You agree. What is "not resolved"? --doncram 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, I remind you that Elkman's generator is a tool, not a source. If you think Elkman's generator is so flawed... stop using it.

To move beyond the immediate content dispute... what concerns me is that Doncram seems to have learned nothing from his recent long term block. Looking at both this dispute and at his talk page, he appears to have gone right back to his combative editing behavior. And he still insists that it is all "someone else's fault". Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to issue a final warning (e.g. something on the level of {{uw-npa4im}}) and to levy a months-long block if the warning be ignored. Doncram very knows both our policies and the fact that Elkman's generator is a generator, but he continues to make "lies" or "lying" statements over and over again. Such statements plainly have the effect of disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. In an edit summary, I stated I was going to remove a probably false assertion from a Wikipedia article, and did so, and Elkman eventually agreed that it was probably incorrect information, actually in the edit before he opened this wp:AN thread. I did not assert that Elkman was lying. It is also true that the Elkman generator generates sometimes incorrect information, but it cannot be wrong to point that out, in a thread which he opened. And certainly if there is information in a wikipedia article which is inaccurate, that should be corrected. There is no issue of civility or personal attacks or anything like that here, unless by misinterpretation. Nyttend, I wish you would please acknowledge that. --doncram 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was called rude for plainly observing that he did not seem to understand that DodoBot is a bot not a human. He then reframed things as if he understood. --TimL (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram... What needs to change is the entire tone of how you interact with others. Being the subject of two unrelated ANI reports on the same day should tell you something (and the message isn't "they are ganging up on me")... it really is something you are doing. Think about it. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

eHarmony Video Bio

This page would be a redirect to Cara Hartmann, but it does not seem to be editable by the general public. If an admin could please redirect the eHarmony Video Bio page to Cara_Hartmann#eHarmony_Video_Bio that would be great.

Thanks for your time. --Drdak (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. What type of message did you get when you tried to create it? Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a second. How in the world does this one person meet the expectations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "eHarmony Video Bio"? You mean to tell me that, out of all possible people and uses, this one person is so famous for having a video bio that she(?) uses for eHarmony that the title should redirect to her page? (Not that the eHarmony Video Bio page should be protected, but still... that's sort of a different topic).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted the article's text as an indication that the title of the video was "eHarmony Video Bio". If that's correct, such a popular video title really should be redirected to the article about its creator, as long as that article is in existence. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading the section of the Cara Hartmann article... I don't see that. She's one person who's turned herself into a minor celebrity by self publishing to YouTube, and has happened to create a video (for, or about? That doesn't seem real clear, to me) eHarmony. Anyway, Looking at the eHarmony Video Bio page history and logs... it wasn't protected, or what? It's certainly not protected now, so it doesn't seem that this is an appropriate place to discuss this any longer. I'll just go and change the redirect to point to eHarmony. It'll probably get changed again, but... <shrug>
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a problem with the title blacklist. Graham87 05:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh... that makes sense. Thanks for the heads up, Graham.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the topic, she made a video proporting to be an eHarmony bio. In the video, she pretends to be an obsessively crazy cat person. It's good for a few laughs. Anyway, the video went viral a few weeks ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BAG candidacy

Since it looks like we need more active BAG members, I volunteered to help out; feel free to leave comments. On a related note, if any of you are experienced editors with good tech skills when it comes to bots + would like to make it a haunt, please feel free to open one up as well. --slakr^\ talk / 10:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rohith goura and Twinkle

I have concerns about Rohith goura (talk · contribs) using Twinkle properly. The matter came to my attention when the above user warned me for not using edit summaries. Despite proof to the contrary that I used edit summaries, not reply was forthcoming on the issue. It was not a one-off incident, and MikeWazowski (talk · contribs) was incorrectly warned for vandalism for this edit. Rohith goura failed to engage with editors over either issue and simply archived the notices. Today it seems Rohith warned Dayewalker (talk · contribs) about marking edits as minor. All these notices were handed out using Twinkle. If Rohith can't use the tool properly, and doesn't seem inclined to discuss the issue, I don' think the user should have access to it. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I had just finished leaving a message on his talk page when I saw this thread. My edit was [4] actually with Rollback, as it was vandalism to a BLP. I left a polite message so as not to bite the newbs, but if he's not going to respond, something should probably be done to get his attention to prevent disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe those old warning were archived, they were simply deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

If someone's available, WP:RPP hasn't been cleared in seven hours. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)