Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg

File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg got deleted on Commons. Is there an available version to bring back to en? It's being used in the infobox at Muhammad. Corvus cornix_talk 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a note at Commons:COM:AN asking for help from anyone who's an admin there and here. If you're reading this because you're that admin, could you also please check File:Mahabharata-big.jpg? I'd like to know if it's a duplicate of File:Lord Ram.jpg. When you've checked, would you please leave me a talkback? Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the file so this can be easily worked on, but the copyright is wrong (life+100 years for someone who died in 1934? No). See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg for discussion of the file. If someone can sort out a legitimate license, please edit accordingly. If not, please delete this file and find a more appropriate one for the infobox. - Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend: on your unrelated question: the two are entirely different images. - Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I've notified Corvus cornix of your response. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. Corvus cornix_talk 02:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Need Assistance at WP:SPI

If anyone has a moment, could you swing by SPI and help clear some of the cases there? There are several cases that have been checked and are awaiting administrator review. The instructions for patrolling admins are here and you're certainly welcome to ask me on my talk page as well. Basically, we need admins to review the findings and decide whether the sock policy has been violated. If so, you would need to decide what action (usually a block) is appropriate. Thanks! TNXMan 17:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing a move request

Could someone please take a look at Talk:Kraft Dinner#Requested move 2011 and close it if deemed appropriate to do so? It's been open for more than a week. --RSLxii 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked in and it looks like the arguments for and against are about evenly matched (With WP:GHITS being a significant argument on the Move side). I relisted it so hopefully there will be more thought. Hasteur (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

BAG nomination

I'm required by BAG policy to notify this noticeboard of my nomination for BAG member. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Multidimensional family therapy

Multidimensional family therapy got split off from Cannabis dependence, CorenBot is listing it as a copyright violation from another website. The copyvio tag is being removed. Any ideas? Corvus cornix_talk 05:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If the text at Multidimensional family therapy is seen as a copyright violation then the original text at Cannabis dependence should have been so tagged already. It was not and so I conclude that it is not my problem. It is not my task to verify every bit of text on WP that I come across. -- Hpvpp (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Not my problem" - pretty selfish attitude, there, Hpvpp. You are responsible for every edit you make, and if it turns out that you moved copyvio text from one article to another, while you may not be culpable for the origination of the copyright violation, it's certainly your moral obligation to help clean up the mess you helped to make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the article as a clear copyright violation (from scholarly publications from 2003, so not an error based on a wiki-mirror or some such). I'll try to check the other articles this text is included in. And I totally agree with the comments by Beyond My Ken. Fram (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the text (as well as the text in a few other paragraphs in Cannabis dependence) came from [1] (checked through Google Scholar, clear copyvio). User:Arcadian seems to have split it from yet another article[2], where it was first introduced by User:Bessmorris in March 2010. Fram (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Smoking cessation (cannabis), created by Bessmorris, appears to be a straight lift from this scholarly paper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bessmorris hasn't edited in almost a year, but I've nevertheless notified them that their editing is being discussed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So we can best check the articles Cannabis in Australia, Legality of cannabis, Effects of cannabis, Cannabis (drug), Long-term effects of cannabis, Smoking cessation (cannabis) and Cannabis dependence for any further or remaining copyright violations as well... Fram (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much disagree with your actions and I have raised a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Multidimensional_family_therapy. -- Hpvpp (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right to say it's "not your problem" in one sense. You did nothing procedurally wrong by creating the article. However removing the copyvio tag is procedurally wrong, it obstructs those who have made copyvios their problem. Moreover it contributes knowingly to perpetuating a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

I agree. Creating the article is one thing, but removing the copyvio tag is wrong as that should be left to those who work on copyvio issues. The complaint is also based on a lack of understanding (or disagreement) of our policy on copyvio and is going to fail if it isn't withdrawn earlier. Hpvpp, please don't do this again. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't - I resigned [3]. -- Hpvpp (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

uswer page in wrong place Krishnendu Singha, please delete--Musamies (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

HELLO!!!

Can somebody end the merge discussion at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis? What do I have to do to get someone's attention on this? B-Machine (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The "clarified proposal" discussion is only open since 5 April (it would normally be 30 days, unless there's a clear outcome before that), and is finely balanced. No rush here. Rd232 ^talk 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Masudi

Al-Masudi (born c. 896, died September 956), wrote a history book named The Meadows of Gold. In his book, he talks about the events from centuries before he was born until his own time. My question: Is The Meadows of Gold considered a primary source for the events that took place before Al-Masudi's birth?Kazemita1 (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think the Reliable Sources Noticeboard might be a better place to raise this as I'm not clear if the book features et stories told to him in childhood, or if he is a history professor, or what. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. He is definitely not a history professor, since there were no universities at his time. He is, though, a famous historian whose book is cited by many authors. Nevertheless, I will post it in reliable source noticeboard.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Masoudi is certainly an excellent source, one of the canonical ones for the period. However, it needs to be kept in mind that he represent the view of things as seen in his place and time, with the expected knowledge limits of his place and time. Fortunately, he has been well studied, so his strengths and limits are known--see our very good article on him. With respect to facts he's reliable--within his knowledge. But I would not assume any ancient or medieval historian had access to the full range of present knowledge. More generally, I consider no historian unbiased, and all conclusions about causes, results, rights, justifications, virtues, and motivations should be taken as well-informed expert opinion only, to be checked against other historians, & always ascribed to the individual, rather than assumed to be common knowledge that a single source will justify. (and as Elen says, such questions are more usefully asked at WP:RSN, the Reliable sources noticeboard.) DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Can some people please add this page to their watchlist?

Passover Seder has been having some problems with vandalism. Since it's actually Passover, many of the editors who would normally respond to such edits are off-wiki for the holy days. Could a few others please put this article on their watchlist for the next few days? Thanks! Risker (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been semiprotected now, that may have taken care of the problem. Hut 8.5 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Backlog of several dozen items at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. Just letting you know. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh hey, duplicate notice - We've got several old AFDs still open, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination) in its 11th day. The full list is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated Arbitration policy (final draft)

The final draft of a proposed update to the existing Arbitration policy is available. It has received extensive community review already but all editors are cordially invited to review the final draft and comment. The draft is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hide revisions

Hi. I would like my edits to be hidden from the history of this page. Thank you. 108.6.214.253 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? I see no reason to remove them from the history. TNXMan 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Move request open for over a month

Here is a move request that has been open for over a month. If an uninvolved admin would like to help out by closing it that would be fantastic. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that this is not the only request that is open. There is a long list from March 10. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes the backlog was mentioned at the talk page where this request is active, but the suggestion was made to put a neutrally worded request here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done This one is done, but there is still a massive WP:RM backlog and assistance is definitely needed there. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel request

These two bits of edit summary vandalism are breaking my browser's rendering of the page history due to their length and lack of spaces. Can the edit summaries be RevDel'ed under RD criterion 3? If they were just "poop" or "fart" I wouldn't request this; it's the screwing up of the page rendering I'm mainly concerned about. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, much better! My browser and I thank you. 28bytes (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist double "Category" prefix?

Feel free to participate in the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Blacklist double "Category" prefix?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Need a previously uninvolved admin to do a whole batch of G4 deletions.

I was involved in nominating these the first time, so I am recusing myself from using my bits, but I need an admin to go through and redelete a bunch of files that have been previously deleted, and crept back into articles by new names. First, the deletion discussion can be found here: [4]. However, in the intervening months, most of these pictures have crept back into the selfsame articles. If an uninvolved admin could help out with getting rid of them again, per WP:CSD#G4, that'd be great. Here's the list of the new uploads of the old pics:

• File:Noahpuckermanglee.jpg
• File:250px-Artie Abrams.png
• File:Tinacohenchang.jpg
• File:Quinnfabray.jpg
• File:Finnhudson.jpg
• File:Burthummel2.jpg
• File:KurtHummelseasonone.jpg
• File:Santana Lopez Glee.png
• File:Brittanypierce.JPG
• File:Emmapillsbury2.jpg
• File:Terri-Cow.jpg
• File:Will-MrSchue.jpg
• File:Sue-Queen-Glee.jpg
• File:Mike-Changster.jpg

Thanks again in advance to whoever takes care of this... --Jayron32 05:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Transwiki request

Can somebody please transwiki File talk:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg so that it is on Commons along with the file which is already there? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This requires a Commons admin, so this message should be at the administrators' noticeboard at Commons. Graham87 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Request placed at Commons. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 15:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Three-week backlog at WP:MFD

There is a three-week backlog at WP:MFD. Would a few admins help clear it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The backlog has not been cleared. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The backlog has not been cleared. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to the admins who cleared the backlog. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Systematic Removal of Links to One Site

• wisegeek.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is it OK for a Wikipedia editor to systematically remove hundreds of links to a particular website? For example, this appears to be a working list.

If you look at the history of the hundreds of links that are in the process of being removed, you can see that they were given neutrally by completely unrelated Wikipedia editors over many years.

The site in question has been discussed three times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and each time the community decided that there was not a reliability issue with the website. Furthermore, it should be noted that the site does not appear on the spam blacklist.

Disclosure: I have a relationship with the site that the Wikipedia editor is removing links to and so I want to make it clear that I have not made any edits, nor am I proposing to make any edits to the associated Wikipedia articles. I am not posting in the capacity of a Wikipedia editor, I am merely bringing this matter to the community's attention so the community can decide if this behavior is appropriate.

(I'm new here, so if there's a more appropriate place to raise this question, please let me know and I'll repost there.)Vrsti (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The website may be borderline reliable, but there's no requirement to link to it.   Will Beback  talk  07:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I do see a problem, as User:The Anome appears to be systematically removing these links. If he replaces them with better sources I have no problem with it, but something like [5] or [6] is not improving the encyclopedia. Is there some discussion where consensus was reached that this is not a reliable source, which could overrule those wp:RSN links given by Vrsti? Yoenit (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How can 300-plus neutral Wikipedia editors over many years be so wrong and one editor over the course of a few days be so right?Vrsti (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Have you asked The Anome why he is systematically removing links to your site? MER-C 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Requesting advice from a neutral body seemed like a more appropriate approach. This didn't seem like a purely editorial issue because it doesn't pertain to a Wikipedia article or even to a handful of related Wikipedia articles. This seems to be more of a unilateral meta-decision that impacts hundreds of Wikipedia pages and the work of hundreds of different Wikipedia editors.Vrsti (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I notified Anome of this discussion, also I tried to find a conversation which started this mass deletion but it seems to have been unilateral from the very start. Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that RSN decisions have been such that wisegeek IS a reliable source and Anome is removing them on the edit summary basis that it is not a reliable source just concludes with the fact that he is wrong. If he is wrong, then his changes should be reverted. If he wants to remove wisegeek as being considered a reliable source, then he needs to form a consensus that states this and not unilaterally make such decisions on his own that are at odds with numerous past consensuses. It's as simple as that. Silverseren^C 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The RSN discussions seem to say that it's a barely reliable tertiary source. Every addition that I've looked (only a few) has been made by an IP editor. In the past we've had problems with websites that pay their authors per view, which gives those authors strong incentives to add links to Wikipedia. It looks like Wisegeek authors are paid a small flat fee. Does anyone know for sure?   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek is not one of the sites that you are describing. This site does not pay authors per pageview. It does not give any (let alone "strong") incentives to get links from Wikipedia (or any other source). It's an independent entity with a single editorial/administrative team that maintains strict oversight and control.Vrsti (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Freelance Writing Jobs!

We pay writers per article. Current rates range from $10 to $14 depending on the article topic. Writers know exactly how much they will receive for writing an article before locking it.

Apply Now!

— [7]

• Yes, a flat fee per article. MER-C 08:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like link/cite spam to me. There are over 500 of those links right now (not all in mainspace). I'd suggest bringing to WT:WPSPAM. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on what? Looking at the two examples I linked one was added by a good faith IP, while the second was added by an SPA account who was trying to promote another site. Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia community researched when and how the citations were added, and contacted the editors who added them, you will discover that none of them are associated with Wisegeek in any way. Additionally, the hundreds of citations to Wisegeek are indicative of the size of Wisegeek's library. According to the homepage, there are currently over 135,000 articles. Many large and reputable websites have orders of magnitude more attributions from Wikipedia.Vrsti (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who is adding the links, the site appears to be content-spam (easy to create content used to sell ads). As such, removing links to the site seems like a good idea. --Conti|✉ 08:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone has no interest in the promotion of a site in which they have an interest then I would expect them to have no interest in whether the links are removed or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that is ridiculous. I care if references are removed from the article for no good reason and I never even heard of the site until I read this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a logical statement. Since you do not have an interest in the site you are not within scope of the statement. Vrsti has a declared interest in the site and has raised the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been clear about any COIs from the very beginning. I am presenting this to the community to make a decision about the unilateral removal of attributions to a particular site. The issue is an issue regardless of any COIs from the person who raised it.Vrsti (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the removals linked above by Yoenit seem reasonable (though the edit summary is weak). Wisegeek appears to be a bog-standard content farm; using such sites as references is, in general, problematic. They have minimal editorial oversight on the material, and accuracy rests almost always with the anonymous content writer. They never cite sources. As an example, it was being used to support the statement The best quality flamenco shoes are made in Spain; is that an objective statement? Who said it, or who has judged it? (are we really planning to say "According to Wisegeek", and if so what makes them a reliable judge of where the best quality shoes come from). This example highlights the specific problem with sites like Wisegeek. On the other hand more care is needed in removing the links, with proper rationale for each one. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Each and every article on the site is reviewed by a dedicated editor. Articles are subsequently revised, often, many times over. Readers report errors and suggestions and the content improves with time, just like Wikipedia articles, except all changes go through a dedicated team of editors. Vrsti (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase here: What interest do you have in having that site linked to all over Wikipedia? --Conti|✉ 09:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

{{ec}Meh, it looks a little better than most. And as a tertiary source might be useful in some cases; but the lack of depth and failure to cite sources (as a tertiary source) makes it highly problematic. In my experience even the best of such sites has only the lightest of (proper) editorial control, much of which is focused on the writing rather than catching inaccurate materiak. In addition, these sites tend to present opinion (or at least, what WP would treat as opinion) in their own voice (as in my example above). We can find much better sources, for certain. In the meantime, any of the cites that are supporting dubious or problematic material should be considered carefully (as my example above). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the links per se. Citations allow readers to click through for more information but they also are intended to provide attribution for the source documents that were used in researching the Wikipedia article. In other words, this is about giving credit where it is due. I am sure that most Wikipedians work tirelessly for the greater good, but they still appreciate the recognition for their contributions. I think there would be an outcry (rightfully so), if usernames were entirely removed from Wikipedia, and everything was replaced with "anon." When an article on our site was used as an original source for the Wikipedia article, and this was given attribution by the original author and it remained for years only to be removed (in hundreds of instances) by a single editor - that is disconcerting - and I thought the community should be made aware of it.Vrsti (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not really sure of the point you're making here. WiseGeek is a summary source; ideally we would be using whatever secondary sources their writers use, because that is much much better and easier to verify. There is another issue as well, quite often these sites use Wikipedia as a source. Without proper source citation (as is essential for any good tertiary source) we have no idea if this is the case, so it risks material becoming circular. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the community is aware of it now (and don't get me wrong, bringing this to the community's attention isn't the point I'm criticizing here). But both per WP:RS and WP:EL, the site should rarely (or probably never) be used here on Wikipedia. And it should most definitely never, ever be the sole basis for an article on Wikipedia. --Conti|✉ 09:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How is removing a source, but leaving the problematic statement in the article an improvement? I see you have now removed the entire statement from Flamenco shoes and if User:TheAnome had done this directly I would not have used it as an example. Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. There are two issues here. On one hand the use of this source should be reviewed. On the other hand any removal should be done properly & not unilaterally with a bad edit summary. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this discussion is going on. I note that original poster says they have a relationship with the site itself; I applaud them for their honesty. I'd also note that I'm not the only person removing Wisegeek links from articles.

There is no right for a site to be linked to from Wikipedia. Wisegeek is several rungs up from things like eHow, but certainly appears to me to be a content farm, if that term means an ad-stuffing pay-to-write site (see, for example, http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-dogs-eat-grass.htm for a typical page layout[1]), and a great many of the links are either tacked-on to articles, or have common formatting suggests that many of them may have been added by a relatively small pool of contributors; some of them apparently at article creation time.

Where a Wisegeek article is the sole reference for an article, I suggest that a better cite should be sought. -- The Anome (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

[1] Fascinating. If you visit that page directly, after first clearing all cookies (as I just did to double-check the link), you get a spartan page devoid of advertising, which would appear to make my claim nonsense. View it through the path that I arrived at it by, and you get a page with an entirely different layout, stuffed with vast numbers of AdSense ads. -- The Anome (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As a gesture to the Wikipedia project, Wisegeek displays a different template for any user that has wikipedia as a referrer and has done so for the last several years. If you click on the link that The_Anome posted above (or any link to Wisegeek from wikipedia), you will not see any advertisements. Regarding your claim that wisegeek incentivized contributors to plant links, please read my post above at 08:54, 18 April 2011Vrsti (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha. That's certainly the most positive spin that could be put on that behavior. May I ask what your connection with the site is? -- The Anome (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisegeek operates differently than Wikipedia. Advertising revenue, as opposed to donations, is used to run the site. Regarding my affiliation with the site: I have worked with the site for several years though I don't represent it in an official capacity -- but I don't think that is relevant here. The issue I initially raised and wanted to focus on is whether the systematic deletion of links to a single site that were organically added by a host of people over a number of years is in the best interest of Wikipedia. Based on the comments above, several other commenters in this discussion have agreed -- please focus on the ideas raised instead of calling my affiliation into question. I'm not interested in editing content or making changes (precisely because I don't want any COI to enter the mix). I wanted to raise the issue of systematic deletions for the community to address. According to some of the supporting comments above, it doesn't seem like it was an unreasonable issue to raise. About not raising this issue directly with the remover, I have addressed this in an earlier post.Vrsti (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't WP:RS/N (where this probably belongs), but I really don't see how this website could possibly qualify as a RS, so removing links to it seems perfectly reasonable. I note that the COI account Vrsti (talk · contribs) was created yesterday and their only contributions have been to complain about the removal of these links without first bothering to raise it with the editor in question, so I think that this was a bad faith report. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly interesting to consider the thought processes that drove the creation of that account. Special:Contributions/Vrsti makes interesting reading, following on from that chain of thought. It's also very interesting that the SPA in question knows so much about the history of discussions of Wisegeek on Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

About the recent creation of my Wikipedia account -- I am a frequent and longtime reader and supporter of Wikipedia, but I have never made any edits. I created this account precisely to raise this issue. The thought process of the account creation went something like this: Hundreds of Wikipedia editors cited our content over the years, and now all of a sudden, someone is undoing all of those editorial decisions. I think that the Wikipedia community might like to be notified about this.Vrsti (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. Has anyone looked at the site without the Wikipedia referral (delete your cookies and do a google search for them)? There's literally more ads than content to be found. In this case I'd strongly suggest blacklisting the site entirely. --Conti|✉ 11:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since when are COI editors and SPA accounts completely forbidden from raising concerns? The OP has done nothing but request wider review of this matter with civil and argumented posts. Is this considered a "Bad faith nomation" nowadays? Yoenit (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. There's nothing wrong with bringing this to our attention. --Conti|✉ 11:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to agree as well. There is nothing at all wrong with Vrsti's raising the issue here, particularly since he/she was careful to disclose the COI at the outset. LadyofShalott 13:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. This just smacks of shooting the messenger. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now discussion seems to have died down a bit I would propose the following:

• An RFC is opened to determine the reliability and desirability of wisegeek as an external link or reference.
• User:The Anome and any other users involved in systematically removing wisegeek links promise to stop doing so until consensus has been established that this is desired.
• If no such consensus is found all instances where the link was systematically removed should be evaluated and the link reinserted if this improves the article.

Does this sound reasonable? Yoenit (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such a formal resolution is needed. Just take it to RS/N to check. I've gone back over a big portion of the links removed so far and almost in their entirety they should not be re-added. Anyone want to open an RS/N thread (my view is that it is not likely needed because it is clearly not a very reliable source). Even if RS/N decides it is unreliable, The Anome a) needs to use better individual rationales in their removals b) also remove problematic text associated with the source (because otherwise it begins to defeat the object) and c) make sure they are checking each carefully and not removing indiscriminately (there may be a small number of cases where this is a useful link) or at least replacing it with a better source. Removing links like this is a slog :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's embarrassing to me to find out that there are so many links to a site whose pages are so full of ads. That in enough should be enought to blacklist it. WP:ELNO seems to rule it out as an external link entirely. I agree with Conti, there's more advertising than content on the pages I looked at. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto; I've just done a dip-sample of five random pages and each one has more advertising than content (and some are laughably bad). Agree that in no way can this be considered a reliable source for anything other than articles about itself, and concur that this should be added to the blacklist. – iridescent 16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of advertising shouldn't be an issue: otherwise, we'd end up dropping links to practically all news media websites. But having looked at a few of the links on The Anome's list, it is clear that the vast majority don't add value in any way I can see -- for example, why should List of oldest CEOs need a link to [8]? However, there are at least a few which might benefit from the link to Wisegeek -- for example Monte Cristo sandwich to [9] -- but I believe those cases are best handled on a case-by-case basis with discussions on the related talk pages. Maybe The Anome should have announced he felt these links weren't helpful & that he would be removing them -- but that's an issue of Wikiquette, at most. And where would one make this statement? -- llywrch (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The amount of advertising certainly becomes an issue when there's more of it than actual content. --Conti|✉ 17:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. On that "Monte Cristo sandwich" one you link to, for instance, I count 13 adverts in the body text. Legitimate media outlets may carry advertising, but they don't intersperse lines of advertising with lines of text to make it appear that the advert is an integral part of the article, nor do they carry more advertising than actual content. Even MyWikiBiz—the gold standard of user-generated wiki-based puffery—carefully separates the adverts from the body text and makes it clear which parts are promotional and which are intended to be neutral. – iridescent 17:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't see any ads as I use Firefox, but when I used IE the website looks quite different. I agree that the website should not be used as a link in the EL section due to the mass ads, and that it can not be used to back up any controversial statements, but there are still some cases where it is an alright source such as at Testamentary trust. If better sources are found to back up text, they can replace the wisegeeks ones, but until then, it would hurt wikipedia to remove them. Buttercrumbs (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggested way forward

Thanks for this. I think that -- except for the special versions specially served up from links within Wikipedia -- these links are clearly covered by WP:ELNO, point 5. Given their extreme ad content in their "real" non-Wikipedia-tailored versions, I can't really see how these links ended up being injected into articles in the first place, given that presumably editors first encountered these articles in their not-linked-from Wikipedia versions. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of the SEO stuff here, with this odd combination of made-for-wikipedia and made-for-adsense content but something about these links to morphing-content pages definitely feels not right to me, over and above the usual WP:RS issues.

Given that these removals seem to be supported by existing policy, I propose that I continue to do these removals, subject to community review in the normal way, with the following changes:

1. when I remove a Wisegeek cite, I will also remove the statement it cites, if clearly identifiable, unless that is supported by another cite
2. I will provide a more informative edit summary: I propose "link to wisegeek.com removed: please see WP:ELNO, point 5"

It's just possible that in some cases, these links might be merited, but I have yet to find a case that justified linking to such a heavily ad-dense page that could not in principle be supplied from another source. In this case, these links will remain in the article history, and my edits, like any others, can be reverted -- nothing of value will be lost.

Is this generally acceptable to those here, and can you suggest any improvements I should make to this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. --Conti|✉ 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see the discussion around this issue. Regarding "linking to such a heavily ad-dense page," I would like to remind you about a comment made earlier: for years, Wisegeek has supressed all ads for visitors who have Wikipedia as a referrer. In other words, users click on citations on Wikipedia will not see any ads on the site.Vrsti (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, but ultimately irrelevant. The site is a content farm, and we generally don't like to them or use them as sources. --Conti|✉ 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Err you realise that in saying "It's just possible that in some cases, these links might be merited, but I have yet to find a case that justified linking to such a heavily ad-dense page that could not in principle be supplied from another source." you are admitting that some of your edits are bad for wikipedia (blanking of valid content)? The suggestion that same material could be "in principle be supplied from another source" is only relivant if you are going out and tracking down such souces and adding those.©Geni 06:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any negative comments in the last hour, other than the not-unexpected comment from the original SPA above, I'll now continue with the link removals, on the terms proposed above. Please let me know via a message on my talk page if you want me to stop again, and I'll do so before going back here to review this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What? Did you read any of the above conversation? and what the hell is this about - "In this case, these links will remain in the article history, and my edits, like any others, can be reverted -- nothing of value will be lost." That is not a valid excuse for making bad edits unless you are a complete noob. Do not remove the source when it is being used to source non controversial text unless you also replace it with a superior source. Buttercrumbs (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to be a considered a "noob", whatever that is. You certainly know a lot about how Wikipedia works after just 19 edits over 9 days. Can you tell me how User:Vrsti, a SPA created in a very similar timescale, and you got chatting about this in the first place? I find this edit particularly interesting: you seem awfully familiar with previous discussions of Wisegeek on Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no relationship with Buttercrumbs whatsoever. I am not familiar with the functioning of Wikipedia and posted in a few places to find out the appropriate place to post what seems to be a legitmate issue. (I think the debate that has occurred in this discussion is indicative of the issue's legitimacy.) As you can see, Buttercrumbs along with other Wikipedians replied to my initial post(s) in other places on Wikipedia. I must say that the repeated interrogation and implications that I am acting in bad faith is a testament to the shady characters that you all must run into here - not your fault of course but I would have hoped that raising issues in the community's interest would be welcomed (as some have expressed). I would urge you to avoid the temptation to speculate about hidden motivations and ulterior motives - I can assure you there aren't any on my part. I have to admit, that this hasn't been a very welcoming experince for this particular noobie - I came here trying to present what I viewed to be a potentially important issue and mostly I have been bitten.Vrsti (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your edits here were in good faith and meant well, and I was impressed by your being up-front about your affiliations with the site. As you say, it is sometimes difficult to assume good faith; we all try, but it can be difficult, given the circumstances. Please continue editing here! -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

However, it's a very good reason to make good edits, and removing citations to unreliable sources is a very good kind of edit. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the dedication and veracity of the Wikipedia community and the effort that you have placed into this issue. I am not sure if any of this will be helpful, but the site's founder (who I work for) has recently posted on some significant changes to the site that are currently underway.Vrsti (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the implication that there is an attempt here to create a false consensus through the use of sock- or meatpuppetry (either coordinated or accidental), and suggest that the actual consensus of actual Wikipedia community members is that these links should be removed. I support the removal of these links and urge that their deletion continue.

If Wisegeek changes their website in an significant way, this subject can be reopened in the future, but there's no reason to change our actions now on the basis of what they may or may not do in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh this just keeps getting better and better. First we have bad faith nominations, now we have sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry trying to establish "false consensus". I assume the new editors are supposed sockpuppets, but who is their master and how are they establishing false consensus? The only false consensus I see is some editors pushing a total ban of the site in this discussion. If somebody wants to start a proper discussion at one of the noticeboards or an RFC I would support restricting its use, but I refuse to be part of this lynch mob. Yoenit (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I respect whatever the community decides on this issue, but these accusations against me have no merit. I have no relationship whatsoever with anyone who posted in this thread. I have never posted on Wikipedia ever before with this or any other username. I do not have any associates that are addressing this issue under any other Wikipedia usernames. Quite frankly, I do not know a single editor that has anything to do with this at all. I have worn my COIs on my sleeve from the outset. I honestly wanted to raise a philosophical issue. There must be a way to determine whether these accusations are true, and if not, I urge people not to make such serious false accusations without more than a cynical hunch. Since I don't know about the intricacies of Wikipedia as you all seem to, one could argue that collusion is more likely plausable among long term contributors; since I have no proof of that, I have refrained from making any such claims.Vrsti (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry for not being more releaving, if you had read my talk page you would have seen me say that this account was for an experiment to see how new editors are treated, which I found to be very poor - editors talking to me in code, getting templated, messages left on others talk pages being deleted without response. Then I saw Vrsti's problem from a talk page and commented unknowningly logged into this good-intentioned second account, but I didn't switch back to my real account in fear of getting that account in trouble...still I stick with what I said above, while many links should be removed, some are not fine and the website should not be de facto blacklisted. And you can block this account, I'm done with it now, Buttercrumbs (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you were truly interested in how new editors are treated, you wouldn't be here at all. Truly new editors generally don't find their way to the noticeboards for weeks or months -- some never do at all. In fact, a new editor showing up here almost immediately is generally a good sign that something is going on -- so I stand by my analysis. The deletions should continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a long response to this, but lost it due to an edit conflict. Instead I will just show you this link and leave it at that. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you just go back a page in your broswer you get back what you meant to add and can copy and paste it to add it when you have an edit conflict, and if there is a indenting or chronologic problem you should add {{ec}} to make other aware of what happened. More friendly advice from me, just like the diff you posted above, . Buttercrumbs (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we stop making various accusations and get back to the issue at hand. Fact is that this site is a content farm that - if not visited from Wikipedia - has more ads than content. It pays its authors to create the content which gets them the page views which in turn brings in the money, so they have a very, very clear interest to be linked from highly visible sites like Wikipedia (even if they don't show any ads for Wikipedians). Regardless of good/bad faith, sockpuppetry and various other accusations, I don't see at all why we should ever use this site, and I have not yet seen any arguments from those supporting the site trying to convince me of the opposite. --Conti|✉ 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, no one is paid or incentivized in any way to bring visitors to the site. Writers are paid up front for their work. Wisegeek is not a website based on revenue-sharing whatsoever.Vrsti (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and the only reason I mentioned the other is because I believe people (aggressive commercial websites, sockpuppeteers, vandals, etc.), sometimes see our policy of WP:AGF as equivalent to being naive or weak, and thus easy prey for them, but AGF doesn't prevent us from being clear and frank when the evidence is staring at us in the face. We assume good faith to begin with, but only until the facts allow us to drop our initial assumption and act on the basis of the underlying reality that the facts reveal. 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I also support the removal of these links. Anome should continue with the policy consistent removal of unreliable and unsuitable links. There is no policy based reason for these links to be present or for Anome to stop. People are free to advocate the use of unsuitable sources that very obviously do not meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:EL and question their removal at any noticeboard or article talk page they like for any reason they like but the work to build an encyclopedia based on the policies and guidelines of the project should just carry on. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not argue for using the site, just using caution in its removal. It seems User:The Anome is now at least removing the sourced information along with the link, so that is an improvement. His editsummary is still weak though, as wp:ELNO 5 does not apply to references. Yoenit (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Conti's suggestion above. This isn't a RS and there's no reason to include references or links to it. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Taking the links to RSN at this point seems like forum shopping to me. I think there is clear consensus here that they are spam and should be removed. WP:ELN is another place to consider if discussion is to move someplace from here. The Anome, if you're using a bot to get rid of them, how about having it dump all of the removed text and links onto a noindexed page in your user space, so people can see all the stuff in one place and pull out any actual RS's? It could also leave an html comment in the articles saying where the info has gone. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We should have handled this better

We really should have handled this better, IMO.

@Vrsti, thank you for bringing this to our attention and thank you for disclosing your possible conflict of interest. Typically, it is best to speak directly with the user in question and then go to the community if things don't work out. Because you have recently registered, people may think you are a single purpose account and I'm sorry about that. It's more a case of once bitten twice shy and nothing against you. Unfortunately, this will probably mean that links to wisegeek will be removed from Wikipedia.

@The Anome, you have been a great Wikipedian, and excellent admin and an awesome bot programmer. I have a lot of respect for you and agree that the wisegeek links should probably be removed —but— from the discussion here, we should probably get community input before doing so. Would you please mind pausing while we get more input?

@everybody else, I would like to move this discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wisegeek as a reliable source. Everybody is encouraged to speak about the issue there. The more input the better. If everybody agrees, would somebody mind closing this discussion? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I will certainly wait for community input, and I'll follow the discussion at WP:RS/N and wait for a consensus to form. Best regards, -- The Anome (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangential point

Sources is actually a vague term. Vristi raised the good point of acknowledgement above. So while the validity of some Wisegeek articles to support certain claims might be in question, there is also the issue of acknowledgement. Marginal or non-RS can be used as sources to write an article, provided the material can also be sourced to an RS. We do this with direct copies of CC-by-SA or PD material such as Citizendium, Planet Math, Eastons, etc... Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Expired PRODs

If anyone has a moment, please could the large collection of expired PRODs be attended to? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Working /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I got the last of the 14 April cat, but the 15 April one to which you linked should stay open for a couple more hours, until midnight UTC. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban: Jacurek

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.

I'm going to close this down; it's been open for almost 4 days, well past the 24-hour minimum recommended at WP:BAN and there is no consensus for enacting a formal site-wide ban. The current block will remain in place until it expires of its own accord, and the indefinite topic ban on Eastern European topics will also remain in place. However, there is not widespread support for expanding sanctions at this time. --Jayron32 06:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruption and sanctions involving nationalist edit-warring and sockpuppeting related to Eastern European conflicts. He's racked up eight long-term blocks, totalling more than 14 months of block time in the course of a three-year editing career. He was additionally topic-banned for 6 months in the WP:EEML case, placed on a no-interactions ban with another user for several months last year through a WP:DIGWUREN enforcement measure, and most recently got another Arbitration-enforcement topic ban this March, this time an indefinite one. He was now again caught ban-evading through an IP (24.85.232.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) to continue the same nationally-driven revert wars; see current Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek. The socking was met with another one-month block by User:Sandstein.

I propose it's time for a full, indefinite community ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note that to these and the recently admitted socks add this and related socks, probably, a CU will reveal even more. Support ban per my comments on the recent SPI. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, support unblocking. I am not surprised that Future Perfect is trying to get Jacurek banned. A year ago he blocked him for three months for... a single personal attack. I'd really suggest to FP, again, that he should take a break from monitoring Jacurek's activities, as his judgment here seems to be clouded. That said, Jacurek has a history of socking, but his explanation about a cousin should be considered per AGF. I find it plausible then if one was to explain some wiki battleground to a family member, that member may take disruptive actions. At that point I support blocks on the IP, but I see no reason for any block of Jacurek at this point, unless his recent IP underlying Jacurek identity matches the IPs (which checkuser so far as NOT confirmed) or Jacurek himself breaks the topic ban (which has not occurred). Also, I find it surprising that Jacurek was blocked for what somebody else (his cousin) did. Are we in the business of family's group punishment? What I see here is a user admiting in good faith that IPs sharing the same city (but nothing closer, as far as I read the SPI) might have been incidentally influenced by him in real life. Such admission should be commended, not punished. Unless checkuser can show that it was Jacurek himself who did those edits (in which case some sanctions would be justified), what we should be discussing is not a community ban, but why Sandstein was trigger happy and instituted family group punishment instead :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, he says it's his cousin! We must immediately unblock on the basis of Jacureks enormous credibility and flawless track record!--Atlan (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• For a similar situation awhile back see [10] and [11]. In that case also a family member made similar edits to another Wikipedia user. After it was explained, the brother was told not to do stuff like that or register a separate account and the matter was left at that. It was the right decision there and this case is similar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The only similarity is that they both claim a family member did it. Herkusmonte did not have a prior history of abusive sock puppetry.--Atlan (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support the one month block, previous history of socking, feeble explanation. The user appears to be on a one step out of line and an indefinite site ban will follow. It would appear that as he is indefinitely topic banned on east European issues that he will stop editing here anyways...so there is a lengthy history of arbitration sanctions and previous sockpuppetry, I support an indefinite community ban.Off2riorob (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If the indef topic ban is effectively the same as an indef ban, then I see no reason to issue another fiat. If on the other hand, said user might want to edit a Pokemon article I see no benefit to stopping them. Hence oppose based on Rob's arguments. Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC).
    
    • Ha, a rare "greater good" argument here. My hat is off to you, sir. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Repeated socking is unacceptable, and combined with POV pushing it's highly disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. This looks like a fine example of Wikipedia:My little brother did it. Very unfortunate that Jacurek's cousin shows exactly the same interests as Jacurek, and came to en.wikipedia and acted similarly. The last thing we need is more nationalist strife... bobrayner (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only on the basis of opposing draconian punishments in general, but do to the clear personal conflicts involved which included somewhat poor accusations on SPI. If and only if a CU is done, and results in problems, then and only then should a block be done on that basis. This is a poor place to insist on a ban on what any editor thinks a CU will show. Collect (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but what do you expect a CU could show that we don't already know? Jacurek already admitted it was his IP, otherwise there would have been no reason to come up with the little-brother-did-it story. The only thing a CU might yet be useful for is detection of any more sleeper socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Per comment above "probably, a CU will reveal even more" and comments on the SPI pages similar thereto. I now have over two decades of experience in dealing with disruptive "multiple persona" users. In my experience, the "permanent ban" system is one of the least effective systems yet devised. Collect (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, he did not admit it was his IP. He admitted the IP, which so far we have proven only shares only the same city, is his cousin. If he didn't admit it, it is likely that the entire CU would've been closed as inconclusive/no action in the first place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban Eight long-term blocks after a history of edit-warring and socking is already sufficient reason to get him out of here for good. Agree with Bobrayner's stand on mybrotherdidit. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Long history of blocks for disruption, including abusive sockpuppets and violating sanctions. A net negative to Wikipedia. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the real reason why Burpelson AFB is voting to ban somebody (indef!) is because I had the nerve to question his/her premature templating of Jacurek [12]. So he's voting to ban one person, because another person disagreed with them and you know, that puts him/her in a real foul mood. Ok. That is NOT the stupidest, most petty, and pathetic reason for voting to indefinitely block somebody on Wikipedia, but it sure is up there. What's next? "My teacher gave me a D, so I'm going to vote to block you"? Seriously folks, what kind of community is this?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can show me some convincing diffs, I believe you attribute this line of reasoning to Burpelson based on absolutely nothing but your own imagination.--Atlan (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm.... he pretty much says it right there on his talk page. "You made me mad so I'm going to go vote to ban this person" or, if you want the exact quote: "But since you're assuming I'm an "enemy" right off the bat I'll be sure to go and support the community ban." - right, because whatever *I* am assuming (nm that he's wrong) really determines of whether *someone else* should be indef banned or not. If you're not convinced by his own words, welp, there ain't much I can do to convince you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Welp"?? Anyway, I read that as a cynical response to your badgering on his talk page. I don't see how that invalidates his vote here but I get your point.--Atlan (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My !vote is based on objective reasoning as anyone can see. Volunteer Marek is just playing politics, not to mention grossly violating WP:AGF. Perhaps even trying to disrupt this discussion by deliberately provoking me and then using his hounding me on my talk page and my response as a red herring. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"But since you're assuming I'm an "enemy" right off the bat I'll be sure to go and support the community ban." - that's not "objective reasoning" that sounds more like being vindictive. I'm not deliberately provoking you, playing politics or violating AGF. I am criticizing your actions - and since you're so eager to template other with nasty notices, and willing to vote based with a, in Atlan's words, "cynical response", you should be able to take some criticism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Public humiliation via templates is a regular procedure, and happens often, but not always, mostly depending on whether an admin who cares about that punishment sees a case it should be implemented. As such, VM, I think there is nothing bad faithed about Burpelson's using the template in the first place, and your comment on his talk page was a bit too aggressive. At the same time, his reply there is rather more bad faithed/PA/sarcastic, and so are his insinuations here. VM quoting him/her here didn't help, even if I can see why he would like to draw attention to this unusual voting rationale. I'd have expected an admin to be able to keep their tempers better. I'd suggest both of you reconsider your attitude, and refactor (remove) most of your comments here and there, and then shake hands. It's always a shame when two editors in good standing flame one another over a silly reason. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Regarding FP playing the EEML card, I would remind FP that in my case my "conviction" and year-long (!) ban was for circumstantial evidence that I responded to canvassing (when I had categorically NOT READ the emails in question) and that a personal comment acknowledging many editors watch the same article was taken as bad faith canvassing on my part. Invoking EEML here confirms this just another witch hunt by someone with a long history of self-involvement carrying a personal grudge against the editor in question, and editors I have never seen before jumping in with opinions to perma-ban who have no base of experience with the editor in question. I can't respect a request like this when it comes from someone who is not objective in this matter. I suggest FP recuse themselves from Eastern European topics as they appear to be carrying a club just waiting to whack someone. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Peters, on Wikipedia nobody cares if a past sanction was right or wrong. If it has been given, it is all that matters. Just like nobody cared or cares that FP has blocked Jacurek for 3 months for a single personal attack that if brought to AN(I) on a normal user would be inactionable or at best, result in a warning. If you make an admin dislike you, and you have no friends in position in power, you are just staring at a longer or shorter path to an indef... Not too mention it is difficult to prove somebody is biased against another, and even if you do, if all you show is that a respected admin in good standing (and even I do respect FP, and think that outside Jacurek his judgement is usually pretty sound) may have a bias against a controversial editor with a number of bans and restrictions, do you really think most people will care to make a fuss? For most people here, it is "good riddance", and Jacurek's block log is hardly earning him friends or AGF here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there is a pattern of automatically assuming bad faith on the part of any editor that can be labeled by anyone as being "nationalist" while there is clemency for those who attack "nationalist" editors, c.f., change by one POV-pushing user to "AntiNationalist" username deemed not offensive, and another editor being granted the opportunity to return to WP after deliberately posting information off-Wiki to intentionally harm one of their editorial opposition @ EEML. This is the grossest of double standards, that is, "nationalist" = pariah, whereas anyone in editorial opposition, even the grossest POV-pusher, is granted a free pass. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question Is there a reason this wasn't brought as a request to amend the relevant arbitration case(s)? It seems much of this is under ArbCom's umbrella. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Um, for instance, because ArbCom doesn't normally do indefinite bans? T. Canens (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Given that ArbCom have almost five times as many indefinite site bans in force at the moment than they have of fixed duration site bans, that's a bit strange. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
      • How many of those came from the past year? T. Canens (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Currently in force after being imposed by AC: 7 indef site bans and 4 definite duration site bans from 2010. An additional 3 definite duration site bans were imposed this year. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Yeah, but Asgardian got an indef after they tried repeatedly to evade the original one-year ban. 3 others are like pedophilia-related bans, which is rather a special case since those are directly handled by arbcom. Not as sure about Misty Willows but the first block summary was oversighted, so I assume that there's some serious issues not suitable for public discussion as well. So in "normal" cases there's only like two that went directly to indef (A Nobody and Alastair Haines). T. Canens (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, if we do enact such an indef site ban for this "normal" case (despite your suggestion that AC only uses such a measure for serious/special cases), and then the user makes assurances to BASC, I'm not sure this is a good use of time when it could have been handled by AC in the first place (see also what I said to Fut Perf below). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) The sanctions from the EEML case have officially run out. DIGWUREN provides for a discretionary-sanctions rule but has no provisions for full indef bans. I don't see why this couldn't be handled by the community first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, there has been a high rate of amendments to that case which have relaxed restrictions yet I'm not sure that a great number of requests have been made to reimpose a restriction or to impose a more restrictive restriction. I would think parts of this particular topic area have created a great deal of controversy within the Community, and seeing ArbCom have "continued jurisdiction" (much of the alleged problems stem from topic areas which are essentially under an ArbCom sanction regime and an user previously sanctioned by ArbCom), it may have been good to seek their opinion (on what, if anything, they are willing to do about the matter). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Because AE doesn't do community bans, and AE regular (Sanstein) already issued a month-block, which seems to a user with a grudge against Jacurek not enough? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The request to amend an arbitration case cannot be done via AE or through any AE action; it would require ArbCom to directly intervene if a concern - be it about the user, the sanction, or the admin enacting a sanction - was reasonable. They usually do so via motion. That said, I haven't yet looked into this enough yet to have an opinion on whether the block was reasonable/justified and whether a site ban is called for. These are just procedural questions (and are not intended as support/oppose for the approach(es) taken in this matter). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Question: please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understand, all the SPI evidence so far (CU request is outstanding) is that IP sharing similar editing pattern has been traced to the same city. Before CU commented on whether they were or weren't Jacurek's own IP, Jacurek declared that the IP is likely his cousin, for whom he apologized and promised to make him stop. Shouldn't we wait to see if CU declares that the IP shares IP with Jacurek or not? Because if the IPs don't match, this will give a strong support to the "it was my cousin" argument. Now, if the IPs do match, it is indeed his word only that we have to weight. But wouldn't it make more sense to withhold judgment till we know if we are dealing just with his word, or his word and supporting evidence, before discussing sanctions in the first place? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Because if the IPs don't match, this will give a strong support to the "it was my cousin" argument. Or that s/he was at an internet cafe down the street, or even at his/her cousin's house.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

AGF? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If one was willing one could also believe that the editor's cousin was editing from the editor's own home, if, for instance a CU result came out conclusive. In other words the CU wont prove or disprove who was behind the keyboard. Should the community assume good faith at this point? That's the question I guess, and with this track record I find that unlikely. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You are aware of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry, where it states "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.""? It also specifically comments upon the recruitment of family members in the nutshell. Having your cousin edit from just up the road places the primary editor in the same category as a sockpuppet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, provided we can prove that Jacurek asked the cousin to do so, instead of the cousin acting on his own. Can you point me to that proof? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, its already more than enough for me, as has been pointed out at the SPI, even if they are two users they can be considered as one. There is nothing to support Jackerak for here and no reason to do it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to; read what it says above, "...or several users with similar editing habits..." - meat/sockpuppetry is defined by a similarity of location and editing history. Nothing in that comment about the need to prove recruitment. The page I linked to says recruiting should not happen, but not that it is necessary to evidence that it happened - because, as you have made clear, it is impossible to prove either way - for the determination to be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not Dianetics. Otherwise, Wikipedia will have run itself into the ground by now. –MuZemike 01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's more fun to get a mob together and run buck wild.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose until the accused has a chance to defend himself, be it after the current block expires or on his user talk page now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A mob is not needed, whatsoever happens, Jacurak is topic banned from his only interest indefinitely, he is blocked for a month, he himself has accepted the connection between him and the ip edits - "it was my family member I told him not to" whatever its of no value now, Jacurak himself said he is finished with wikipedia anyways, all of this is a side really a bit of a side show. There is nothing the user has to do here anymore. The most minor of violations will get him a indefinite community ban so all this is really defending the indefensible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, which is actually why I neither supported nor opposed. Just expressing my annoyance at some people's actions. Sometimes these discussions, as pointless as they are, do have the silver lining of serving as a kind of a reflection pool on the "community" and its members.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I have a bad habit of arguing the innocent until proven guilty on Wikipedia, even through it is not, in fact, anywhere in our policies :> But the day people will stop standing up for the "little man", this project will be no longer worth contributing to. Bottom line is that if Jacurek is to be sanctioned we should be able to point to a clear and indisputable proof of guilt, instead of stretching existing policies and piling on his problematic history. In such social settings, policies and rules first used to get rid of "problematic" elements very quickly became abused by everyone for their own ends, as the habit of bending and stretching the rules becomes a justification for whomever is in power (which, on Wiki, may well be the righteous "mob" mind). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Let's see. The IP is, by Jacurek's own admission, linked to them. It engaged in the exact same type of edits that Jacurek was topic banned for. Jacurek says it's his cousin. Now, I suppose it is possible that Jacurek's cousin, on their own initiative, came to Wikipedia on Jacurek's IP and decided to have some fun redoing Jacurek's edits, just like it is possible that I'm Barack Obama editing Wikipedia for fun. But the far more likely explanation here is that Jacurek has something to do with it. As our sockpuppetry policy makes clear, "closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives". WP:ARBSCI#Multiple editors with a single voice similarly explains that "it is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity....[E]ditors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits [may] be treated as a single editor."

  All the above is just a long-winded way of saying that Sandstein's block is sound. I voice no opinion (yet) on the question whether a community ban is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Jacurek has taken up a lot of time of other editors, which is detrimental to improving articles. He has received sufficient warnings and temporary sanctions that it is unlikely he will ever work cooperatively with other editors. Also, if he does not obey the procedural rules, he is unlikely to follow core policies of neutrality, etc. when writing articles. TFD (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose permaban. Not because I buy into the cousin explanation, nor for the pragmatic reason that such bans are easily and frequently evaded; but because I think they ought to be used only in cases of clearly racist comments, obscene language directed at users, privacy violations (like contacting a content opponent's employer), or repeating violations of BLP or copyvio after notification. Retain the current block and the indefinite EE topic ban, but let him talk on his page, maybe he'll find a (non-Eastern European) mentor. Novickas (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not necessarily opposed to a site ban, but neither am I convinced that it is really necessary. The current indefinite EE topic ban seems to amount to pretty much the same thing with this editor, and any continued ban evasion will probably result in an indefinite block pretty soon.  Sandstein  20:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Fetchcomms. Either wait until the block expires or discuss this on his/her talk page. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am troubled by the fact the Fut.Perf seems to consistently come down against Polish editors in Lithuanian/Polish content disputes, when it is ubundantly clear that it takes two sides to cause a dispute, (for example, see this). Ill considered community bans will not solve the problem. --Martin (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  Framing content issues - and responses to problematic editing - in terms of "sides" is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Jacurek's record

• 29 August 2007 — Jacurek (talk · contribs) account created [13]
• 30/31 August 2007 — blocked 24h for 3RR [14]
• 15 March to 3 July 2008 — socking as 154.20.146.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [15]
• 24 April to 26 April 2008 — blocked 48h for EW [16]
• 26 April to July 2008 — blocked 3 months for "Disruptive SPA coming in from open proxies and multiple IPs, per CheckUser. Editwarring. Blocked previously without effect."
• 27 April 2008 — Cvc42 (talk · contribs) sockpuppet account created [17]
• 26 May to September 2008 — blocked 4 months for block evasion with Cvc42 [18]
• 13 June 2008 — Ambor (talk · contribs) sockpuppet account created [19]
• 3 July to 6 July 2008 — socking as 70.79.12.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [20]
• 11 July 2008 — socking as 154.20.89.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [21]
• 8 July to 12 July 2008 — Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacurek
  • Ambor account and IPs blocked;
  • 10 July to November 2008 — Jacurek blocked 4 months for socking [22]
• 7 June 2009 — rollback removal and notice of editing restrictions [23]
• 2 July 2009 — notice of editing restrictions after AE case [24]
• 18 September 2009 — Jacurek identified as member of the "EEML" group, arbcom case opened
• 27 September 2009 — EW warning [25]
• 11 October 2009 — agreed to 1RR [26]
• 24 October to 31 October 2009 — 1 week article ban after 1RR breach [27]
• 24 October to 29 October 2009 — AE case, result: moot, already blocked
• 29 October to November 2009 — blocked 1 month for disruptive battleground behaviour and harassment [28], placed on 1RR for another 6 months (December 2009 to May 2010) [29]
• 4 November 2009 — unblock request declined [30]
• 7 November 2009 — block shortened to 2 weeks [31]
• 15 November 2009 to January 2010 — blocked 2 months for "WP:POINT at a BLP, various other forms of recent disruption" [32]
• 22 December 2009 — EEML arbitration case closed:
  • findings
  • 6 months topic ban (December 2009 to May 2010)
• 25 December 2009 — Mamalala (talk · contribs) sockpuppet account created [33]
• 28 December to 31 December 2009 — socking as 99.64.215.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [34]
• 13 March to June 2010 — blocked 3 months for topic ban evasion and incivility [35]
• 2 May to 7 May 2010 — SPI: Mamalala blocked, no consequences for still blocked Jacurek account
• 25 September to 1 December 2010 — interaction ban following AE case [36]
• 17 March 2011 — indef Eastern Europe topic ban after AE case [37]
• 9 April to 16 April 2011 — socking as 24.114.238.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [38]
• 10 April to 17 April 2011 — socking as 24.85.232.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [39]
• 14 April 2011 — socking as 173.180.189.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [40]
• 18/19 April 2011 — SPI, IPs blocked, Jacurek account blocked 1 month [41]

Note: This list is incomplete. I have limited the list to what is recorded on Jacurek's talk, at SPI, at AE and in his block log, but I may have missed some issues even in that sample. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If I tot that up correctly, in the four years the editor has been here he has been blocked for roughly a year, for several different violations spread over that time, and it seems unlikely he will change. Why does Wikipedia need him? Why him in particular? What unique insights or skills does he possess, that hundreds of unproblematic editors do not? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This would be more informative if the list wasn't padded with unproven allegations (like Mamalala or the recent's IPs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not one "unproven allegation" in that list, all SPIs linked.Skäpperöd (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mamalala account is in fact an "unproven allegation", among a few others, I believe. Whatever Jacurek's transgression in this case, your single minded obsession with getting Polish editors banned, and your willingness to stretch the truth for that purpose is, frankly, embarrassing to watch (nm, that it is also several other things).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

PA noted, I give you time to redact.

Regarding Mamalala: The checkuser patrolling the respective SPI, User:MuZemike, closed the case with the comment "however, CU still declined per clear behavioral evidence, not necessary" ([42], emphasis added). So much for "unproven allegation" and all that. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that people take nationalist positions so quickly. Obviously a debate around Jacurek is going to cause some polarisation; but the polarisation is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If this "single minded obsession with getting Polish editors banned" is real rather than merely a spectacularly negative way of defending an ally, then it is a very serious problem in its own right, and I would welcome some evidence of it - in a new thread, not a thread about jacurek. bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending Jacurek. In fact, I'm the one who pointed out the problematic behavior by the IP to Sandstein, which led to the block. As for Skapperod - if you've edited in this area you know what I'm talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you reported[43] the (Jacurek-)IP and another account, which had reverted the (Jacurek-)IP (which in turn had continued the edit war that got both Jacurek and you in trouble at AE [44]); and your report came only half an hour after said account had reverted the IP on two articles and asked for semi-pp [45], which had promptly been granted [46] [47], meaning that at the time of your report, Jacurek's IP sock had already lost the ability to further revert on these two articles and would successively have lost that ability on the other articles in question, too, if this strategy had been followed through. Thus, your report was directed primarily against the account that reverted Jacurek's IP, and in any case can not be employed as an argument here for you "not defending Jacurek" as you claim. Nevertheless, reporting the IP was the right thing to do. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I saw two users continuing an edit war that has been going on for months and reported both of them. I didn't check any requests for protection, or "strategize" as to whether the IP would "have lost that ability" (and here you somehow manage to insinuate that I somehow knew this IP was related to Jacurek - which is of course complete bullshit) or any of that kind of nonsense. As I said, the only silver lining of these kinds of discussions is that they tend to reflect on some of the users who participate in them. Your statement is a pretty good reflection of your mentality, not mine.

And oh yeah, regarding the "edit war" that supposedly got me "in trouble at AE", since you follow these developments with such attention to detail, I'm sure you know damn well that the "trouble at AE" ended up with me NOT being in any trouble. This is the typical "stretching of the truth" and slander-by-insinuation that you routinely engage in that I was referring to above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here; this is the war room! bobrayner (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's pretty funny. I'm gonna go and work on closing the "DYK Gap" right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old AfDs need closing

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman (I participated in it)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season/FA Cup Fourth round replay (not even going to try)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between conservative and liberal brain (ditto, though looks like a delete based on vote count)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight Watson (American football) (makes my head hurt)

Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents looks like a bucket of fun. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I closed all except one of them. I hope you don't mind that I struck through the ones I closed. The one I left, being Differences between conservative and liberal brain, I am inelligible to close as I participated. --Jayron32 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikispott

Could someone SNOW close the above RfA? It seems a clear case (as I've said there) and it seems senseless to let it go on. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 06:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Courcelles has closed it. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed for difficult closure of AFD

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between conservative and liberal brain is at 9 1/2 days, is reaching WP:TLDR level and is getting snippy. I have already commented, so I am not eligible to close it. Could an uninvolved admin please step in and make a decision final so we can close it down before it decends any further. The same arguments are coming from the same people and its getting repetitive. --Jayron32 00:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think I'm the third admin who wandered over there with the intent to close the debate and ended up making a comment instead. Sorry. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I closed it with a highly unsatisfying "No consensus" result. --RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated canvassing for AfD

User:Nascarking has ignored my reminder about inappropriate canvassing for the Afd for Over the Limit (2011). Yesterday, he posted the following notice on the WT:PW page: [48]. I reminded him that this was inappropriate, and quoted the relevant section from WP:CANVAS. He acknowledged my reminder and posted a more neutral notice (while keeping the old one on the page). Today, he posted another non-neutral notice of the WT:PW page: [49]. Talking to him hasn't worked, so I am following the instructing from WP:CANVAS on how to deal with canvassing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reminded Nascarking of the need to post neutral notices to Wikiprojects when notifying of AfD discussions. GCF, your reminder might have been better placed on his talk page, rather than at the Wikiproject talk page. Although the notice could have been worded more neutrally, there is no excessive spamming that I can see. If there is no further repeat of this, then I don't see any need for further admin intervention on this issue. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Abusive language by User:Nascarking

I have been advised by TFD to move the discussion below from WP:WQA. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nascarking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011)

This user continues to be abusive towards fellow editors at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011), despite having been asked twice to refrain from abusive language, diff #1 [50], diff #2 [51], diff #3 [52]. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable language. However, it would probably be best to close this discussion thread and move your comments to ANI, where another thread has been started.[53] TFD (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I presume that TFD meant here rather than ANI as here is where their link lead to. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have issued a warning about continued use of inappropriate language. Any further examples please let me know on my talkpage, or otherwise make a report to ANI - which is the more appropriate noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

hello

User Krawl pls unblock me — Preceding unsigned comment added by The last 5454534 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This smells fishy. The only user with a userpage whose name starts with "Krawl" is an indef'd sockpuppet, and this user has also created User:Hgfhfhf. I'm not sure what's going on; if anyone does, it'd be great if you'd handle it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} ? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This guy is coming back, after five years? Wow, some vandals don't get tired (they also are really bad at making their case) --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) KrawlingKreep is one of many, many sockpuppets of User:Blu Aardvark. I doubt User:The last 5454534 was referring to this. Of course, a CheckUser should clear this up. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also a Krawl (talk · contribs), although they're not blocked and haven't edited since 2006. Jafeluv (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It looks like there's lot more going here than meets the eye. The following are  Confirmed as being the same person:

• BENJIECI (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Johnaarguelles (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Guz23456 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The last 5454534 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Krawl64556645564 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kas53454353 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wallbot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jennifer love hewitt234089 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jennifer love hewitt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• LucPower Portal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thewillofgod1006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anime Nut (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ninpou kobanashi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Khjjghjghjgjg32432 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Eror23131321 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Slap123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lapaqweqweq1232131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Laxasad12334 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Start12113213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Burnley12132131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Orangesms1231321 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfghfg211213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xasfdafsafda1213123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Napa1213131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Orangesms (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Else1211 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Else1287654 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhkkjjhkkj (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhjghhg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Георги Тодоров (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf6544564 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf754323 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf765867 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fsu376576575 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf7656765 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf765657 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfgfdfgfd5423 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fdsdf123454321 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mgkhgkhfghfg21231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kjllhkjlhj5535 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Тодор Тодоров (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Find123423523 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Goodher3214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • No, I have no idea who this is or what's going on. TNXMan 16:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Seems like someone had a lot of free time. I think User talk:Mgkhgkhfgfdfgf7656765 is the only one blocked, for violation of the username policy. Guoguo12--Talk--  17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked each and every one of them. Many of them also made similar edits and seem to not care about disrupting anything. Underlying IP range has also been blocked. –MuZemike 20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I also blocked User:Else12987766, User:Khjkhjh231312312, and User:Hgfhfhf, which were each created by one of the above accounts, for consistency. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi,

It is claimed that this image is in public domain, but there seems to be no evidence. Please, advise. p.s. I already asked the person who posted it.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done – image tagged with {{di-no permission-notice}}. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Question - Whilst having no opinion on the merits or otherwise of the image or its tagging, the image was originally uploaded in 2008 with a website given as a source. That source was presumably checked by at least one other editor and accepted as valid. Now the website is down, the image is tagged as unlicenced. Does this have ramifications on all images where the source website is taken down, whether they are PD or fair use? Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it has. Thankfully we have the webarchive, which has several copies of the source website [54]. Note I do not see any evidence of the images being public domain on that page, nor does it seem likely that this is the true source of the images. Yoenit (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinions please.....on whether an editor who happens to be an admin initiating an AfD is "involved"

See Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#.22Involved.22_status_of_nominator. Some numbers of !votes'd e good here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Move protected page page move

Can someone move Rod Blagojevich corruption charges to United States v. Blagojevich.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's appropriate or not, as the article goes a bit beyond the case. Maybe opening an WP:RM discussion would be a good thing? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Super-injunctions and unnecessary censorship of Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Summary - WP is not currently oversighting to comply with UK "celebrity super injunctions" - although it is following its standard BLP practices. Legal matters are the province of WMF (who have been sent a query) and of individual editors. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

There has been a much-bemoaned trend in the courts of England and Wales recently to grant super-injunctions, which limit freedom of expression for those under their jurisdiction. Sometimes these block reporting of trivia like the identities of celebrities with embarrassing personal lives, but often they are much more sinister. As per "Wikipedia is not censored", Wikipedia's main servers are based in Florida and are under the jurisdiction of the Floridian and US federal courts (with their admirable First Amendment). I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that the super-injunctions currently attracting attention in the UK bind Wikipedia. There is therefore no valid reason to keep information covered by them, which for the most part is obviously in the public domain judging by a cursory inspection of the web, out of the relevant articles. I have brought this up on the talk pages of ETK (the redirect, not its target) and Imogen Thomas. I am mentioning it here because Wikipedia's non-censorship policy is not being adhered to (oversight is being used), but there is not a great deal those of us under the jurisdiction of the injunction-granting courts can do about it. The help of Wikipedia's international team of admins is therefore required! Thanks and apologies for cross-posting at the village pump: I wasn't sure where was best. Terminal emulator (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is out of the remit of admins or other editors; this sounds like an issue for the Foundation to deal with. Issues regarding legal issues, even those which apply to jursidictions nominally outside of Florida, usually cannot be handled by anyone except the Foundation (that stir-up last year regarding the old paintings from a British museum comes to mind), and so if you are concerned, you should probably contact the foundation directly by email as described here; in my experience they are generally responsive to serious concerns raised by Wikipedians. --Jayron32 19:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This needs oversighting, incidentally. <giggle>. 87.194.239.235 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think rather than it being an issue for the Foundation it is a more straightforward matter of editors having some unjustified fear that Wikipedia is breaking the law by reporting on matters covered by injunctions, when the location of its servers means there is nothing to worry about. As far as I know, no lawyers have threatened Wikipedia or its editors directly (and if they do I'm sure the Foundation will respond suitably robustly, or at least I hope they will). The solution is probably some kind of awareness-raising amongst editors and admins to make sure that they do not feel the need to censor Wikipedia by reverting edits or using oversight because there is a court order in some part of the world other than theirs or that of Wikipedia's servers. More proactively, it would be great if Wikipedians outside of England and Wales and therefore beyond the reach of its courts could keep an eye out for news of super-injunctions (at least, those that cover matters less frivolous than celebrity sex scandals) and make sure that suppressed information that's of encyclopaedic relevance is added to the appropriate articles. Terminal emulator (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the users above. This is generally a Foundation issue, and if there are potential legal challenges, then it is entirely up to the Foundation as to what the official stance on the inclusion of this information should be. For editors to use tools to supress these edits seems extremely inappropriate, and most certainly a direct violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. It is not our job to enforce the dubious laws of a country that actually has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia itself at all. We could probably all debate about the information in question until the cows come home. I understand how some users may have an "unjustified fear", but the use of oversight/revision deletion/voodoo is the only part of this that is actually disturbing me. --Dorsal Axe 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that any UK based editors steer well clear of the area in question, lest they find themselves in Contempt of Court. Clarification from the Foundation would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the situation because of the allegation of improper use of suppression tools. None of the edits have been suppressed/oversighted, although egregious BLP violations have been deleted. Folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip sheet. Information, especially salacious or highly controversial information, being added to biographical articles must be sourced, without exception. This is Wikipedia's policy and standard, and it has nothing to do with injunctions or superinjunctions or anything happening in the courts of the United Kingdom. If people feel an overwhelming urge to spread gossip, I strongly urge them to go elsewhere, as repeated BLP violations is grounds for removal from the project. Risker (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is bound by United States federal laws and the laws of the state of Florida. As far as I know, we can volunteer to do anything that any other court asks, but they don't have the ability to compel Wikipedia to do anything. Keep that in mind here. Risker's advice, however, is important as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I am British. I think the injunction is against publishing the material, but being able to otherwise view or learn of the contents is not covered (or the editorial staff, printers and others would all be in contempt). Nor, do I think, would a British national be in contempt if they were to be involved in the publishing of the material in a foreign jurisdiction. Regardless of that, other than the fact that the subject has felt themselves compelled to apply for such a super-injunction can it be argued that the issue is sufficiently notable in itself to be included in a BLP? Since unsourced negative and non-notable content should not be included, what are the exceptional circumstances that mean WP should be publishing this content? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick response concerning one specific point: If English courts handle international matters even remotely like German courts do, in this respect, then a UK-based editor publishing something abroad in media that is targeted (exclusively or to a considerable extent) to the UK market would actually be in contempt of court. So it's better to leave such edits to others unless you are sure you know what you are doing. Hans Adler 20:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly confident in regard to such matters, that English courts injunctions are limited to its own jurisdiction only. I would, of course, not presume to tell another Brit that they must or even should get themselves involved, since I am also aware that what is permissible and what is practiced under application of law in the UK is not always the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it actually covers communicating to an audience (IIRC that is the specific wording). So theoretically announcing it to the whole pub (say) is a violation :) The injunction actually covers, I think, the EU (athough I am a bit shaky on how that works, but that is what one law journal was claiming - I have yet to tie down what they mean by that). All I will say is; publishing the material in another jurisdiction might be fine... but I wouldn't risk it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Risker, unless I'm mistaken you haven't looked at the oversights in question because you don't know the identity of the people covered by the injunctions. It's at their articles where edits have been removed. I have not divulged them here for obvious reasons alluded to by Hans Adler above, but I discovered them after reading media coverage of a couple of recent super-injunctions and spending five minutes Googling. I came on Wikipedia to see if anything was mentioned in their articles and saw from the page histories that information had been removed and oversighted. Perhaps I didn't make it sufficiently clear above, but I'm less concerned by the celebrity gossip than I am by the general principle that material should not be removed to comply with injunctions that don't bind Wikipedia, for all I know on matters covered by injunctions I don't know about but which are being discussed on the internet and reported in the foreign press, and concern something more important than tabloid sex scandals. I don't want Wikipedia to be a gossip sheet any more than you do, but if information is of encyclopaedic relevance (some probably is, some probably isn't) then the efforts of foreign courts to censor it should not prevent its inclusion. Terminal emulator (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Terminal emulator, I had no difficulty at all figuring out what articles you were talking about, and I have reviewed the relevant deletions (not suppressions). They were of material that is the stuff of supermarket tabloids, unsourced and inflammatory. The presence of that material in the article would have constituted an egregious BLP violation. There is no censorship involved here; the deletions were done entirely within policy and entirely appropriately, and had nothing at all to do with any superinjunction. Risker (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well how am I meant to know that, given that the revisions in question are in greyed-out text in the page history and can't be clicked on? Wikipedia is chock-full of unsourced information, plagiarism, innaccuracy, dodgy medical advice, and while such things are often removed they aren't thrown down the memory hole. I am not alleging some kind of conspiracy, I just see some rich people with their well-paid lawyers getting court orders to prevent discussion of their sex lives, which I am not interested in, and am concerned about the wider principle that Trafigura-type information could be being oversighted because of misplaced concerns about injunctions, and I as a reader wouldn't know a thing about it. Terminal emulator (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question, about 95% of those "greyed out" entries in this project are revision deletions, which can be full or partial, and can be done by any administrator. In order to tell whether an edit was revision deleted or was suppressed (what you call oversight, though that actually refers to deprecated software), click on "view logs for this page" at the top of the page history. It will list what's been deleted and by whom; if there are no entries there, but there are still "greyed out" entries in the page history, then those edits were suppressed. Further, just because something is suppressed is no reason to jump to the conclusion that a legal process in England has anything to do with it; BLP violations (according to the Wikipedia policy) in various forms make up the overwhelming majority of article-page suppressions. I just wish that people would not automatically assume that something nasty is afoot when there could be a perfectly reasonable, project-specific, explanation. Comments like this hurt the reputation of our Oversight team, all of whom take great care in their work, ensuring it is policy compliant and sensitive to specific circumstances. I can count the number of "legal"-related suppressions done in the past two years on the fingers of one hand, and I believe most of those were done by WMF staff or at their request/authorization. Risker (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Risker. As someone who is basically a reader rather than an editor, and does not have a comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and technical features, it seems that what I have referred to here as oversight is actually what you call revision deletion. I appreciate that you've checked this out and taken the time to explain things to me. Terminal emulator (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, insofar as anything needs to be removed from public view, that's kinda the idea. Certain people at Wikipedia have been entrusted with tools which allow information to be removed because the community trusts their judgement regarding what is proper to remove and what isn't. If everyone could just view removed material, what would be the point? Risker is a highly respected member of the community, having served at high-level positions like ArbCom, and so her reputation is impecable. What's special about you that you (and no one else) gets to "check up" on someone like Risker? We do have an entire class of users called the Audit Subcommittee, who are specifically selected to check on oversighted edits to make sure they are aligned with policy, and Risker is on it. There's no one more qualified in all of Wikipedia to make a decision about what you should, or should not, be able to see. If Risker says its all copacetic, I trust it... --Jayron32 23:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, I am not against oversight per se (or what I thought was oversight, see above), and I am well aware that it exists for good reasons. My point was really the trivial one that if a revision is hidden, I am not in a position to see whether that hiding was justified, and would appreciate someone with the requisite permissions checking it out, which is why I raised the matter at the administrators' noticeboard. I never said anything remotely like "I am special and have a special right to check up on Risker". I have no reason to believe that Risker is acting anything less than completely properly here and I don't believe I have suggested otherwise. Risker has left a message on my talk page giving some examples of the proper use of suppression/oversight/revision deletion/similar tools, such as the removal of personal phone numbers, and suggested that I am jumping to the worst possible conclusion about something I don't understand. To stress it again, I am well aware that there are often good reasons to remove edits from the page history. I am not jumping to the worst possible conclusion, I am raising a concern because I am not sure what has happened, and I appreciate that it has now been looked into. Having said all this, the fact that two people I cannot name here have obtained injunctions which are the subject of much discussion in the UK press and amongst legal commentators and other interested people really ought to appear in their articles and still does not. This is because it is interesting and notable from a legal point of view, not because we are interested in their sex lives. I would have thought that someone beyond the jurisdiction of the relevant courts who had seen this discussion would have added the fact that they took out injunctions to the relevant articles by now, not because they think the details of celebrity sex scandals are important, but because the legal issues are notable and worthy of encyclopaedic coverage. Terminal emulator (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

While you are mostly right in terms of the restriction of material being bad. From a practical perspective it shouldn't really concern us, so far nothing covered by the injunctions has been relevant (to my recollection anyway) to WP, mostly being of the level of gutter tabloid allegations/nonsense. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the recent ones are, but super-injunctions are not always used for spurious reasons (e.g. there is a long-standing one preventing anyone, anywhere reporting on the [suspected] new identities or locations of the killers of Jamie Bulger, lest the individual[s] named be killed as a result). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone can point to any specific noteworthy information that was suppressed, I will assume that this is just another case of the usual bad logic: When some people want to censor X, and Wikipedia (or some Wikipedians) don't want X in an article, then obviously they must be doing it because they support the censorship, or acquiesce to it.

(It's a natural conclusion, but not a correct one: Courts want that X is not published. Wikipedia doesn't want to publish X. I don't understand why Wikipedia doesn't want to publish X. => It must be because of the courts. Nope. Every day thousands of people complain that we are deleting information that they think should be published, information that nobody wants to censor. Many of these people don't understand why we are deleting it either.)

I think the much likelier scenario in most cases would be the following: It takes pretty much before a British court decides that information should be censored. We have BLP rules which, at least in theory, are much more stringent. (This is natural because our rules are what we, an encyclopedia, do, not about what the Sun or the Mirror is allowed to do.) Therefore once the courts have decided something should be censored, the odds are we will independently deem it unsuitable.

There may still be cases in which the courts are actually abused to suppress information of the type that you would expect to read in Encyclopedia Britannica. I doubt that we would be censoring that unless really forced to do so, which the UK court system may or may not be willing and able to do but to my knowledge never tried. Hans Adler 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• If there is significant coverage of the suppression then the suppression itself may well meet our inclusion guidelines. In any case, the suppression itself should not be a reason not to cover a topic. WP:BLP may be such a reason, so it's worth treading carefully... Hobit (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with this completely. After all this discussion, still neither the article on the person covered by the injunction arising from ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd, nor the article about the person covered by the injunction arising from the Imogen Thomas case have any mention of the eminently notable legal proceedings they have been involved in. Their names are all over the web and for all I know in the foreign press (possibly not in this case, but possibly so in more important cases relating to corporate wrongdoing, for example). If someone famous is involved in a court case that because of its significance for the legal system (possibility of a privacy law by the back door, abuse of the courts by people who can afford expensive lawyers etc.) attracts considerable coverage in the press because of the legal angle and not the prurient gossip angle, this should be mentioned in their article. We have an article on e.g. Meinhard v. Salmon not because these two obscure people's business dealings are notable, but because the legal issues arising are. Same goes for many other mentions of legal proceedings on Wikipedia. I hope I've made myself clear on this point now. I doubt the foreign press are much interested in the sex lives of the more obscure British celebrities, so perhaps there are no reliable sources in these particular cases, but I am trying to establish two general principles here: (1) If a super-injunction is granted somewhere, which, if complied with, would result in encyclopaedic information being excluded from Wikipedia, someone outside of the injunction's jurisdiction should not feel any need to refrain from adding the information, provided the usual standards about reliable sources etc. are met. (2) The fact that a super-injunction has been granted may itself make notable matters not otherwise encyclopaedic, because the phenomenon of super-injunctions is notable and the subject of much debate and coverage, with implications wider than the often salacious and trivial facts that any particular injunction covers up. Terminal emulator (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good opportunity to test out the WMF's new general counsel, Geoff Brigham. I believe the email is gbrighamwikimedia.org ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

While I have no problem with Geoff Brigham being informed (actually I already did that when I first saw this thread), I will point out once again that the revision deletions were perfectly normal administrative revision deletions for BLP violations; certainly they meet our project's standard for them. There was no oversight/suppression. Any requests to act on an injunction or other legal document is passed through WMF counsel, and these situations are exceedingly rare. Risker (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify once more, I have not at any stage been of the belief that there was some kind of secret office action at work here. I just think that if someone is involved in legal proceedings that are attracting enough comment to be notable, we would normally expect this fact to be mentioned in their article, and the fact that it isn't in these two cases made me wonder if this was because editors believed that Wikipedia is bound by these injunctions. What I believe is encyclopaedic information (the legal proceedings not the salacious stuff) is not appearing in articles. You've assured me that this state of affairs is not the result of a misuse of oversight. Thanks for that. Terminal emulator (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be a bore about this but I'm back briefly because the discussion has stalled without my points being addressed and I want to knock this "you want to turn Wikipedia into a gossip sheet" suggestion on the head, to which end I will use an example. If a senior politician took legal action to obtain compensation from a neighbour who had chopped down a tree on their land which had fallen wrongly and damaged that politician's house, it might well be that we wouldn't consider the affair notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If however they attracted a great deal of comment and controversy by attempting some highly controversial legal remedy, like getting Parliament to pass an act of attainder against the offending neighbour, this would probably make the trivial matter of a badly felled tree very notable indeed. Compare this situation: some 'celebrities' are involved in sexual affairs, which are not particularly notable in themselves, but they obtain controversial and much-discussed injunctions in an effort to cover it all up. This makes the affairs much more notable. It's quite simple. Terminal emulator (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Super-injunction is currently a redirect to injunction. Perhaps you might want to work on that; I quite agree that it is an encyclopedic topic, and there is probably sufficient discussion in reliable sources, including scholarly ones, to develop it into a full article. Mention of examples of such super-injunctions, as they are discussed in reliable sources, would be appropriate for inclusion in such an article. But that isn't where we started on this thread; we started with accusations that Wikipedia was bowing to the will of the UK high courts on this issue, and that is patently not the case. Risker (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise this discussion has been closed but I would just like to add a brief comment. I'm slightly concerned by a lot of the editors here who are simply dismissing these injunctions because they fall out of the juridiction of Florida. Regardless of the lack of juridiction, these super-injunctions have been created by competant courts with access to a lot more information than you or I and after full consideration of both the UK's equivalent of the first amendment and the individuals concerned right to privacy. In my view the competant decision of the judicature of a soverign state should not be trumped by a random editor's interpretation of a private organistation's biographical policy regardless of whether that courts view can be enforced or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob House 884 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That is so wrong, that it should not stand without noting it's wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful and insightful comments there. What exactly is 'wrong'? Bob House 884 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As we are not bound and should not be bound by German retcon judicial removal of the names of convicted criminals once the sentence is completed, we are not bound and should not be bound by English (or UK) judicial removal of information, whatever it might be. We are bound by US law and WP:BLP, which is much stronger than US law, and stronger than the text of the European right to privacy. The decision in regard German courts is already referenced in a Foundation announcement and an ArbCom decision.

As an aside, Article 10 is not at all parallel to the 1st Amendment, as can be seen in the English (not necessarily UK) judicial position on libel, which would be considered not only contrary to the US Constitution, but absurdly so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to offer more than a sentence in rebuttal. I still can't agree with you though, I adknowledge that wikipedia is in the priveliged position of choosing whether it follows the information laws of other countries (the UK and in your example, Germany) because of its fortunate geographical location. I'm not arguing that we are bound to follow the laws of other countries, just that it would be nice if we afforded the laws and judicial decisions of other countries a modicum of respect. If I was pressed on why one of the largest worldwide sources of online knowledge was diseminating information which clearly 'contravened' a legitimate court order, I would like to be able to give a better answer than 'they are physically located across the pond, so just chose to ignore it completely'.

I realise that European and American case law on freedom of speech differs but essentially the two rights protect the same things and that's the parrallel I was trying to draw. Whether one approach makes sense in terms of the other is neither here nor there. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Really hate to request this at an Admin Board

Resolved

Could some one delete Sathya Sai Baba : Returns back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) its one the most egregious WP:CRYSTAL violations I have ever seen. The Hoax tag has been sitting on it for an hour. Normally I wouldnt mind waiting but this is rather bad one. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanx The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

Could someone please get around to dealing with the large backlog of redirects for discussion pages (eg. this one) which are overdue? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There's only one; it's hardly a backlog. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's a backlog you're after, please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog. Jenks24 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unit cohesion

Resolved

 – Closed by NW.

Could an administrator speedy close this AfD? All delete !votes have at this point been withdrawn. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd opinions & advice por favor

I recently closed this FfD discussion as keep, but Damiens.rf pointed out an issue I had overlooked. I would reverse this, but as both !v's were 'keep', it would seem to be going against the consensus. Would this be an issue for WP:Deletion review, or an IAR issue where I could reverse the action? Skier Dude (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The simplest solution might be to reopen it and relist it on today's log page, with a note, and perhaps drop a comment in yourself. IARing it could end badly, and DRV has a pretty decent chance of just relisting it anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion: 5 days late

Come on, it's very easy indeed, could an admin please take the 90 seconds necessary to get this page dealt with once and for good? Please? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 21:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done it was only one item. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally ask, but...

Can we please have some input at WP:ANI#Persistent editing abuse by User:TrackConversion, where there is possibly a sock of a banned editor causing major problems for WP:TWP members to sort out. Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Just noticed a new user with apparent multiple accounts and claims of being an administrator:

• User:Ramesh Heart
• User:Oracle Oracle data entry operator
• User:రమేష్

I suspect more to do with being a new user rather than socks, any suggestions or help appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ramesh_Hart --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Current case-only redirect policy

Hi, i am just an IP, but bear with me… What is the current policy regarding redirects that differ from their targets only by their titles' case? I have seen the village pump proposal about that, but did not see it come to any kind of solution. So, are they deleted, are they inserted, are they just left as they are?

A few examples:

• ipad
• akaneiro ni somaru saka
• simple network management protocol

Thanks for any advice you are able to give. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.81.136 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. If it can be plausibly typed or linked that way then it's a valid redirect and won't generally be deleted. That doesn't mean a bot should go around creating redirects for all the alternative cases, but if it's done where appropriate then nobody will care about them. The guideline at Wikipedia:Redirect probably has more. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If a redirect had no inbound links, would it be "eligible" for deletion or, without anything for or against it, would the status quo be upheld? I read the page in the Wikipedia namespace, however, it wasn't particularly enlightening (but maybe that's just me). Specifically, the point that "Go and Search ain't all there is" is brought up several times, but never actually explained in any sort of detail. Let's keep count:

• Go (which has no problem with case)
• Search (which I use case-insensitively all the time)
• browser plugins which invoke a Search URL (which behaves pretty much like plain old Search)
• internal links (which can be found and changed, trivially so)
• external links (which cannot, at least not feasibly)
• direct links like en.w.o/wiki/appd (which do not redirect to APPD like Go or Search would)

The last case is arguably a Good Thing™, for a user does not generally expect URLs to be rewritten for case (except on Windows hosts). Which brings me back to my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.81.136 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Inbound links are generally not relevant, only whether it might get used by someone somewhere at some point. If someone's thought it useful to create one it'll generally be left alone. Consensus or reason can dictate otherwise of course. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. In fact redirects seem helpful and if they don't, to someone else they surely will. Redirects are cheap, after all, and there is not much reason not to use them. There is but one problem with them, and that is inconsistency.

Typing "metal gear 2: solid snake original soundtrack" in some Mycroft plugin (or Go, or Search) does the right thing, but "usb flash drive" does not. It gives redirects for nothing but upper or lower case a non-zero cost. There are a lot of cases where the benefits of a redirect outweigh this cost, but it can be argued that in many or even most cases the value of a redirect is questionable and does not justify that.

That's just my opinion, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.81.136 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Secondary vs. Tertiary Sources

Hi,In section Allegations of Disagreement with Ali of article Fatimah I am running into two not-so-agreeing sources. One is Verena Klemm's Book Chapter titled: "Image Formation of an Islamic Legend: Fà†ima, the Daughter of the Prophet Mu˙ammad" published by Brill in this book. The other source is a tertiary one, i.e. Encyclopedia of Islam.

The Tertiary source emphacises that Ali was rude and harsh (Shiddah and Ghelaz) to his wife during their marriage life without showing support (primary or secondary source). The secondary source however, mentions one occasion in the history where the wife complains about her husband's rudeness (Shiddah) to his father, i.e. Muhammad. Due to which the husband promises not to do anythig that his wife dislikes. The author of the secondary source provides primary sources to this incident.

My question: Can I write just the secondary source and not the tertiary? Considering the following guideline of Wiki: ((Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources.)) [55]Kazemita1 (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC) p.s. I already posted it on reliable source notice-board but no one replied (yet)

You should probably wait for a reply on the reliable sources noticeboard or post on the article's talk page. This noticeboard isn't really for questions about article content, so there's no need to fragment the discussion where it shouldn't be. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

overuse of speedy deletion

It's been a while since I came back, but I really must deplore some of the "overly quick" decisions some people have been using when speedy deleting something when really, these articles should be put through afd. I see no reason why a museum director and Ivy League graduate's arts magazine should be deleted with the same prejudice as some punk who wrote an article about his skatebook. I wanted to put that article up for afd at the time, but I was in class but had no time to do so.

Before speedy deleting, I at least ask that people look at the clues... if some people had googled "Tin Pei Ling" before speedy deleting her, they would have seen that the Singaporean national discussion of her online was immense. I only worry about all the legitimate stubs that get deleted because of lack of research.

For example, yesterday I contested the speedy deletion of some band's article at talk:RT N& (because of technical issues, the speedy deletion template failed to create a talk page title that matched the article's name, and I am unable to recover the actual title of the article that has been presumably since deleted, but I did not know it at the time). Based on my own judgment (and the fact that five different interviews with five different media outlets were cited) I thought it should be put through afd. When articles are created with such background (and obvious citations!), I believe administrators should be compelled to do research rather than take the lazy way out. I mean, I couldn't judge for myself how notable those five different media mentions were, but that's what community process is for, right?

In general, speedy deletions should be reserved for articles with no claim to notability, right? If the article makes a weak claim to notability -- like "so and so is the ruling party's candidate for so and so constituency" -- shouldn't the discovering administrator use afd? Why then does there seem to be a rampant culture of speedy deleting things without the slightest bit of diagnostic research (like a quick google)? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are several regimes where speedy deletions are appropriate, you can see them at WP:CSD. As to Tin Pei Ling, thanks for bringing her to attention since I've now proposed deletion as a NN candidate for election (per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG). So someone could say the same thing about you, that they are worried that illegitimate stubs are kept because of your unclear grasp on deletion criteria...tho I personally wouldn't say such a thing. You were clearly acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, just as those people who are nominating the articles for deletion are as well. Syrthiss (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf appears to have a good grasp of the speedy deletion criteria. It is not appropriate to speedily delete an article about a political candidate on A7 grounds, because that does constitute a credible claim of significance. Thparkth (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) who? why does La goutte de pluie have a different username and talkpage? and (2) I never said A7 applied. Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

She is definitely of clear importance -- she has so many articles in the press talking about her -- I am just at the moment overwhelmed with exams and I do not have time to write in factual statements citing those articles. But she is obviously notable. (She is also a member of the national executive council of the Young PAP). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And I would much prefer that prod be used much more than speedy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer Syrthiss's first question, Natalinasmpf changed names to La goutte de pluie (back in 2007) but apparently only half the signature was fixed to reflect the change (which isn't a big deal because the old account name redirects to the new anyway). As to using WP:PROD instead of WP:CSD, that's not a reasonable request. Proposed deletion serves one purpose; it allows for the uncontroversial deletion of articles (articles where nobody objects to deletion, even the author) when CSD doesn't apply. It saves all the work of an AfD. If one of the CSD criteria apply, that should be used instead of PROD, in fact sometimes when I see an article with a proposed deletion tag, if it meets one of the criteria at CSD I will delete it right then (citing the criteria of course). One is not a substitute for the other. -- Atama頭 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be preferable if you tagged for CSD in such a case and allowed others to make a decision, instead of being nominator and deleter. Anyway, CSD is only essential for BLPvios and copyvios. Anything else, then no harm is done by allowing a little time. DuncanHill (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:POLITICIAN, status as a candidate for office is not an assertion of notability; mere candidates are not notable; so "so and so is the ruling party's candidate for so and so constituency" is not an assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes but she's not a mere candidate. The candidacy is unique partially because of the way elections work in Singapore. She has been mentioned many many many times in the press -- this would be obvious if the original deleter (or the person who proposed the speedy) had googled her in the first place! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And of course A7 asks only for an assertion of importance or significance, NOT notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see that she has been mentioned many many many times in the press. She even has her own music videos, just like Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black! So this could be the article on a someday notable politician, or could be free advertising for a candidate for an election. A bunch of press articles remarking on a single event doesn't signify that someone is notable. In any case, Nuclear Warfare deprodded it and I'm not spun up enough to want to take it to afd. She will either be elected and notable, or not elected and possibly notable, or not elected and not notable and deleted. Syrthiss (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if she fails to be elected (and I hope she does), she remains notable because she remains an example (to most Singaporeans) of how a complacent ruling party was so arrogant as to offer such a weak and incompetent candidate because of perceived lack of strong opposition (or feeling confident to be co-running her with for prime minister Goh Chok Tong). Her notability has been the public outrage online against her -- but I don't have time to research really good resources to summarise this online backlash. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the proper venue where you'll be told again to pound sand. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs

I would like to propose that Doncram (talk · contribs) be topic-banned from creating stub articles in mainspace of the form he used here and here. More specifically, but not exclusively, he may not use the phrases "It was built or has other significance", "is or was a property", "It was designed and/or built by", or any other phrase which reasonable editors would presume to be answerable before starting the article. In addition, he may not add code designations without knowing to what they refer, as shown at Talk:SS John W. Brown#NRHP info.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, obviously. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, why did you pick the very first edit of the St. John's Block Commercial Exchange, rather than this version with pic and map that I edited a short while later, and gives a better look, well before you opened this here? It's now at this version after another editor's and my edits. --doncram 09:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because (a) he was formulating the proposal above in the interval, and (b) your later revision in any event does not address the points he raises, which were about the text rather than co-ordinates etc ? I accept that you have edited it again since, perhaps because of the prompt here. However, the contributing building paragraph still seems incredibly awkward and arguably unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

About the Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures item, that is a thorny one, with first stub article correctly identifying it correctly as having ambiguous status in NRHP's database. Then why is it included in the county NRHP list-table? What is its relationship to the River Cities Speedway, also correctly identified in the first draft as being an associated place? These questions are best addressed at Talk page of the article.

Indeed, using the customized "find sources" search for it, set up at its Talk page as for all other Grand Forks articles that I started, I find that indeed there is more information for it and that it has been reported as fully NRHP-listed, e.g. in this North Dakota press release. And I see that there is a database typo for the architect name, who is Theodore B. Wells rather than "Weels", so there is more development and linking possible, to connect to other Grand Forks NRHP-listed places designed by Wells. The article drive process is iterative and goes around in circles, as I discover need for related articles and develop them and come back. As I did develop articles for architects Joseph Bell DeRemer and Buechner & Orth in this drive, upon discovering need for them in multiple NHRP listings, and can come back to related articles add wikilinks and further info. The County Fairgrounds WPA Structures article needs a few hours existence in mainspace, and some Talk discussion perhaps, to sort out and develop what is needed. It would be better, but still wrong, to put it up for AFD. An AFD on this would fail, actually, I am pretty sure. I do strongly object to Orlady's abrupt removal of the Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures article from mainspace. --doncram 10:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In a few edits, I developed the Grand Forks County Fairground WPA Structures article, and now also SarekOfVulcan has edited it. SarekOfVulcan, can you now please acknowledge the article has merit? --doncram 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, no. It still lacks sufficient context for me to answer that question one way or the other.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Eventually it got returned to mainspace, because indeed it was a Wikipedia notable topic. Contrary to some claims that it would have to be merged with a separate Speedway article. Yay, the initial stub was eventually improved, by me and others. --doncram 20:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, it turned out the Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures topic was unusual for 2 reasons: one it seems to have been NRHP listed after the cutoff date for the NRIS database I am using, and which Elkman's system relies upon as well. So the available info was odd, giving a "DR" status which would have probably have disappeared if I and/or Elkman were working from the more recent NRIS database version. So finding a press release becomes more important than usual. Also, among the Grand Forks county sites, it is unusual for not having the NRHP nomination document available on-line. In all the other 60 NRHP listed places in Grand Forks, most of which I have created articles for, I believe the NRHP nom docs are available online. --doncram 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Strong oppose because this editor seems to be being singled out for a restriction against creating mediocre articles. The ones you link to really aren't that bad and can always be improved, by yourself in particular. I wouldn't object if you politely asked Doncram to do more research before hitting 'save page' but is this seriously worthy of a topic ban? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I received notice of this proposal, but don't have further time to discuss this today. Just to note quickly: that would be an extraordinary proposal. Creating stubs is encouraged by Wikipedia policy and is good to do. The stubs I create are generally within a WikiProject NRHP-sanctioned (well-discussed, consensus although not everyone is happy) program. Specifically my developing articles within Grand Forks County, North Dakota is a specific demonstration, not yet complete. The standard i am immediately achieving in my first edit is higher than that in a number of other stub creation campaigns, and I am working to develop the articles further. I do prefer to work in mainspace where categorizer-editors and others can help right away. I prefer not to develop articles in other areas and create extra work in moving them, linking to/from other articles, which is fine and good. There is no question about notability of articles. Sources are included. The "and/or" statements are accurately vague, an improvement upon others' overly precise and sometimes incorrect statements, e.g. when all that is at first known is that a building was either designed by or built by a given person or firm (when previously it would have been asserted, sometimes incorrectly, that the person or firm was the architect. The best form of initial draft articles is a fine topic to discuss at WikiProject NRHP, but previous consensus there is that the WikiProject cannot and should not stop article production. It can/should engage in "jawboning" about what can be achieved, in which I would and have participated willingly and respectfully towards others' concerns. Probably the majority of NRHP articles created out of about 25,000 now in the project, were started at a lower level at first. A topic ban on me, cutting at the center of what I do and contribute to wikipedia usually without dispute, is not an appropriate response. Again, I can't comment further today, do have to run. --doncram 15:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 47#just do it by bot now, where this sort of content creation was discussed at length. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is a fine discussion at WikiProject NRHP, which I opened and participated in, and in which I proposed the current article drive on Grand Forks NRHP articles, ongoing. --doncram 10:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it your opinion or contention that the "just do it by bot now" discussion linked above sanctions putting articles in this form (for example) into mainspace? I ask because I've read the entire discussion and I might be wrong, but I find it very difficult to believe that any editor involved in that discussion, much less the Project as a whole, favors doing so. Station1 (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Other than the fact that I don't see a major issue here or consensus that non-bots aren't allowed to create stub NRHP articles, many NRHP places have very little coverage other than that basic info and those basic phrases from the nomination information, so (as NRHPs are considered inherently notable) any article about most of those places would inevitably end up about the same. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  To be a bit clearer, I don't object to Doncram starting stubs on NRHP properties -- I object to him putting information in when he doesn't know what it means. If you don't know what 1923 means in a year field, look it up before you send the article live, or leave it out until someone can fill in the proper information. Note the 3rd ref in the St. John's Block article linked above -- it still says "___ (, 19). "NRHP Inventory-Nomination: St. John's Block Commercial Exchange". National Park Service. and Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___ (see photo captions page __ of text document)" 4 hours after he created it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have filled out the author and date of preparation fields in that reference. It is in fact a great improvement upon the Elkman infobox generator used previously by many editors for first draft NRHP articles, that my /draft generator provides for an NRHP nomination document and accompanying photos documents to be included, up front, in the first draft of the article. That provides a good source for further development by editors and for immediate perusal by any readers. It is not possible to include the author and date of prep in the first draft; the blanks serve their intended role of calling for an editor to fill them out manually, as I do for articles that I create (with a few exceptions, such as when I am interrupted and don't notice i missed it for a while). Occasionally there turn out to be unexpected document problems which take a little more time to verify, such as for the accompanying photos doc for St. John's Block Commercial Exchange which seems to having a document error, and that might need to be commented out (which I have now done). To be clear, I believe that any blanks like those criticized should be addressed. I believe it is okay/good to start articles and allow the blanks to exist temporarily, until filled out as intended, as that leads to immediately better articles than avoiding that small amount of work by including no reference at all would provide. I am trying to develop pretty good articles efficiently. --doncram 10:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Opposeedit: changing vote based on new evidence below He's not doing anything wrong except starting stubs of articles which are clearly notable. That he doesn't write eloquent grammar is irrelevent; anyone else with that gift is free to come along and fix it. He's making Wikipedia better, and we shouldn't stop him. --Jayron32 16:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not criticizing his grammar -- I specifically left a couple of annoying phrases out of my original proposal because they didn't fit my criteria above regarding should-be-known-before-article-creation information. "Is or was a property" - if you can't even answer that question, why are you creating an article on the subject?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Why not? Please can you explain how it is better for Wikipedia if these articles are not created. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Can you explain how is it better for Wikipedia that John M. Winstead Houses was created? Pay special attention to the references he cites. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Certainly. Wikipedia is the better for that article because it now contains the information that the John M. Winstead Houses are located in Brentwood, Tennessee and were inscribed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1988. That in itself is a benefit. Surely you can see that? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  That information was already at National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Look, the biggest battle we fight at Wikipedia is getting people to stop creating articles on stuff that should never have an article about it in the first place. I'm not about to start complaining about the creation of articles on notable subjects merely because we don't like how the person who created the stub formats it. If it bothers you, fix it. Deleting his work (or preventing him from doing it) merely so someone can come along and do it better is not how Wikipedia works. He's not creating any additional work for anyone, since its no more work to fix his problems than it would be to create the article from scratch, indeed it would take less work to fix the few mistakes he's made than to create it from scratch. --Jayron32 19:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Ok, Jayron, I'll bite -- what can I verifiably add to that article that's not already there? Can you even verifiably state that both houses are in the same location? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  (ec) It will be a repository of no more gobbledegook than already exists? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

NRHP stubs break 1

• Oppose, but Doncram should be encouraged to research articles as thoroughly as possible even at the expense of slowing down the rate of creation. One B class article is worth dozens of stubs. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The John M. Winstead Houses article is in no respect a good article, or even a well-put-together stub, but having it is certainly better than not having it, and the solution to its obvious problems is to fix it. It looks like Doncram should work a bit harder on making better stubs, but I do not see that his or her behavior rises to the level of requiring a topic ban -- that seems like overkill to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as unwarranted draconian solution to something far more easily remedied by asking him to provide more details and somewhat more informative wording than heretofore. At least the material meets notability standards, and has references. Collect (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Draconian? Maybe. Unwarranted? Did you happen to notice that one of the refs he supplied at the Winstead Houses article is a placeholder saying "record not yet digitized"? (Cue Doncram saying "well, if you really care about it, order the supporting documentation from the National Park Service")--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Tentative support Support - need a bit of time to think but have previously suggested elsewhere (before this AN thread) a moratorium on creation while discussions take place. I'm concerned that there is apparently no intention to develop them by doncram - see [56] - and that some of them are so bad that they have been moved back into his userspace by User:Orlady. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Changed to definite support: I've found it impossible to deal with Doncram in a collaborative way and this is causing at least as many problems with NHRP articles as benefits. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the ones moved back into user space by Orlady were ones he WAS in the process of working through, if you're referring to the recent ones in ND. As far as your second comment, it sure sounds a lot like, "Support 'cause I don't like him." to me Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, "Wikipedia is written collaboratively" is a pretty basic concept here. Sitush's concerns are completely valid; your criticism of them is out of line and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the project.

If other editors find it difficult to work with you, then you either need to loosen up and act your age or leave. Take for example User:NYScholar. Here we have a user who was a good contributor to the project in the realm of copyright. However, he displayed misunderstanding of some key guidelines and policies, believing even in the face of strong opposition that he was right and everyone else was wrong. He was summarily banned because he could not and would not learn to play nice with the other kids. Now, Doncram is not as bad as NYScholar. However, there are valid parallels to be drawn, and Doncram must shape up or slide further down this slippery slope. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about NYScholar. I have in fact worked diligently to maintain respect for copyrights in NRHP articles, including to avoid actual or perceived plagiarism vis-a-vis NRHP nomination documents at the National Register's website, often incorrectly perceived to be in the public domain.

I also know nothing about Sitush, with whom I don't believe I have ever had interactions, except during the last couple days where Sitush commented at User talk:Orlady. I don't understand what personal experience Sitush is bring to bear, to comment that he/she "found it impossible to deal with Doncram in a collaborative way". We have never had opportunity to collaborate, AFAIK. --doncram 10:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot collaborate because of the ownership attitude, as demonstrated in the discussion you refer to. I made perfectly reasonable suggestions and was shot down for them. Suggestions which, pretty much, are now the subject of this AN discussion. You will note that I specifically explained to you that I had not commented while doing my own research into the articles and history. Basically, you came across as being intransigent and unwilling to accept any alternative to your way. How can I collaborate with that attitude? Sitush (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are projecting. I would be very glad to collaborate with you, if you are interested in developing the NRHP list-article for Grand Forks County, North Dakota, or another one. Perhaps you could help start some descriptions in the list-article? Please comment at the Talk page. Or what would you like to get started with? Are you able to develop maps, by any chance? --doncram 17:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

With what I have seen at talk-pages and here, your attitude makes you difficult to collaborate with. Even here at this thread, you display a brazenly unacceptable WP:OWN attitude which you cling obstinately to. Things like "Especially if you interrupt me, and effectively prevent me from taking an article further!" and "Articles criticized here include unfinished work in a bigger article drive, in progress, interrupted." indicate to me that you are A) rushing to create as many articles as you can and B) acting like these are your own personal territory and trespassers will be shot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply more later, but yes there is an article drive going on, which is unfinished, about the Grand Forks County NRHP articles. Which I feel obligated to complete out, and to report back to interested NRHP editors about how the article drive worked, relative to previous article drives, now using the starter tool of the /drafts here. I would like to do some development of descriptions in the main list-article, and improve links between articles and new architect articles, and otherwise make some now feasible improvements, before it is review-ready. I have been working for a couple months at it, not in a terrible rush. I have been inviting others to be involved, and have happily noticed some contributions by Elkman and by categorizers. --doncram 17:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is a pretty big interruption, to be blocked for a week just now by SarekOfVulcan. I was just before then working on some Winstead house article, then was developing Winstead House disambiguation, and I didn't get back to them. He or someone is criticizing one of those in particular. And then when I start after the block, i was called out immediately by Orlady, and I have been responding to her accusations at her Talk page. And then it is a pretty big interruption for SarekOfVulcan to open this topic ban discussion. Aren't those pretty big interruptions? --doncram 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because they are not your articles. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TIND (my own personal opinion, not policy), I see why this must be frustrating but a topic ban seems far too harsh and wikilawyerish. - filelakeshoe 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment (toward a cautious "support")Support This sort of falls into Wikipedia:Redlink territory, where it is suggested that having a redlink to a potentially notable subject may encourage that article to be written - and goes on to say that creating a sub-stub simply to turn a redlink blue is not sufficient. This may be argued in this matter, that having a generic work in progress stub might discourage another editor from working on it in the belief that someone else is about to. The other view is that someone might search for a particular subject to find that there is a stub and decide, especially if they have an interest in it, that they could do (far) better. My personal opinion (only) is that "Something is NOT better than nothing at all". We remove test edits as well as vandalism because it makes the project look bad, and having poor stubs with ambiguity on the current status of the subject reflects poorly upon the project. I would rather there be less but better stubs, because sometimes a stub is all that notability can support - so it had best be a good one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Changing to Support, after reviewing doncram's response to Orlady's (and others) reasonable commentary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Partial response: I am strongly in favor of wp:Redlink policy, and in fact am one of the principal builders of the system of NRHP list-articles that currently provide about 55,000 redlinks (out of 85,000 NRHP-listed places) in good context, encouraging article generation. I was involved, productively though with considerable long dispute between Orlady and myself, in addressing one editor's campaign to redirect NRHP topics in Connecticut to town topics, specifically to preserve redlinks. However, in fact there is little NRHP development going on in many geographic areas, and the campaign to do all the articles in Grand Forks County, North Dakota, was meant as a demonstration possibly encouraging North Dakota editors including students at university there, to become involved. The prevailing theory among NRHP editors, in past discussions, has been that newbies are more likely to contribute to already-started articles, and that they find new starts daunting. Indeed they should, given present reception for me and for other editors. In [[the recent "just do it by bot now" discussion I describe and link to one shameful example, of editor GrapedApe's chilly reception upon starting several NRHP articles, and his being hounded out of that. The "pretty good" stubs that I aim to provide, get over the obstacle of getting started, and usually provide links to good NRHP nomination documents that are difficult for new editors to find documents and reference them properly. (The NRHP search system for documents is maddening: it provides means for you to find articles and it asserts documents are available, when in fact they are not.) --doncram 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. While these articles are, by any standards, quite poorly put-together, I am not sure if this is really grounds for a topic-ban. This is either a case of hastily trying to throw together lots of articles or just plain incompetence. For now, I'll assume the former. That said, the comments by Sitush and LessHeard have given me pause. Perhaps it would be better to have him create these stubs in his userspace, then have them checked by an admin if and when they are ready to be moved. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Having actually reviewed the user in question and his contributions, I am changing to firm support. The testimony by Orlady below is very telling. Doncram seems to be just going for some record number of articles by churning out as many horribly mangled stubs as possible. This discourages legitimate content-building by editors (see WP:REDLINK) and should not be condoned, excused, or tolerated. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support This isn't a case of a newbie creating inadequate stubs in good faith, but rather a veteran contributor who creates garbage stubs by the hundreds, does not clean them up {they remain for months), has been repeatedly asked to create his pages in user space if he doesn't have solid info for an article, but refuses to cooperate -- and pitches fits if anyone touches his work. I will say more later -- my web access is limited right now. Orlady (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Doncram has rejected suggestions of developing in his userspace in the discussion at User_talk:Orlady. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I and other NRHP editors discussed the option of developing draft articles elsewhere, in the "just start them by bot" discussion. I do reject, for multiple good reasons, that approach. I seek to promote collaborative development of articles involving local editors, with pretty good starting information and links to good sources. It is inefficient and attracts no interest to start articles elsewhere, is my view from experience. It is not possible to add categories and attract categorizer editors and to build links between articles from the getgo, if articles are not in mainspace. And for more reasons, when proceeding in an article drive such as for Grand Forks County NRHP articles.

I resent the term "garbage stubs" and other negativity in Orlady's characterization of me here. That constitutes incivility, by my reading of wp:Civility#Identifying incivility which specifically covers use of the term "crap" within statement on belittling a fellow editor. I do not refuse to cooperate. In the context of coming off a block for perceived incivility myself, I am naturally a bit sensitive. --doncram 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please think very, very carefully before going further down this path. I've read the discussion of this past December on your drafts system at WT:NRHP, and I really don't see any support for you to reject the compromise developed there. You and I have both been around since 2005. We've seen a lot of water under the bridge, and we both know that no matter how good a person's reasons are, trying to single-handedly defy consensus here is a quick route to blocks, burnout, disenchantment, and disgust. Your tool is a great tool, but I think what a lot of people feel is that you've invented the electric nail gun and insist on using it to try and screw things in. Please be a little flexible about how you want to achieve your goals, or I fear this will end very badly. Choess (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based on new evidence (struck through my vote before.) Let me make this very clear; my support of the topic ban is unrelated to the creation of the stubs per se, and everything to do with doncram's interaction style and apparent WP:OWN attitude towards these stubs. When people do try to improve his stubs, he throws what can only be described as a fit. That is unacceptable, and clearly the sign of someone that needs a break. --Jayron32 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The mass creation of stubs and substubs (especially when they're completely unsourced, like this one and the mass of similar ones that were created on monastic foundations in Britain) is something that has irked me for a long time, without my saying anything. I agree wholeheartedly with LessHeard vanU's comments above; it's time for this activity to be explicitly discouraged. Deor (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. That stub [57] was of no use whatsoever; it was not so hard to write a rudimentary article. Mathsci (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)noting that this stub on an English monastic community was not created by doncram

I have no association with either of those articles, for English places. I am aware that for historic sites in England, usually only Grade II+ listed buildings are deemed by British editors to be usually Wikipedia-notable. And that supporting documents for them are not regularly available. The U.S. NRHP-listed places in North Dakota are different: there are usually full NRHP nomination documents available online in fact. The NRHP docs are often reliable good sources written by architectural historians, include multiple other sources, and have passed through multiple layers of review. It's out of my area and I wouldn't want to go against the current views of British historic sites editors without understanding more, but I would probably not support wholesale stubbing of articles like the British one you refer to (again not started by me), if there were not good sources likely available for further development. (Relatedly, see Talk:Order of Women Freemasons#Merge request for my position against split/separate existence of a stub article that involved material by me, whose split and separate existence was/is supported by editor SarekOfVulcan, contrary to at least one British editor's preferences.) --doncram 11:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as per the arguments above. For those suggesting we just "fix it," please tell us how to fix 10,000+ stubs of this sort. Bms4880 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  How do you do 10,000? You do it one-at-a-time, slowly and patiently. Bear in mind that according to the Wikipedia vision, those articles would eventually each be created anyway. What's the difference? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Unfortunately for that line of thought, WP:DEADLINE cuts both ways. From "View one": "Wikipedia is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone. Turn this into a strength by working on your article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality." Just as there is no deadline for improvement, there is no deadline for these articles to be created, either. In my opinion, it's better that someone who is willing to put time and effort into creating a quality article creates the article, rather than the user in question's blunderbuss approach. As has been brought up by Orlady, Doncram actually takes offence to editors who attempt to fix his half-assed sub-stubs "one-at-a-time, slowly and patiently" into something that looks remotely presentable. Defend that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not take offense to development of articles I start; that is exactly what I want. I do take offense at a pattern of what i feel constitutes wikihounding, involving repeated derogatory statements and repeated accusations against me. --doncram 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

NRHP stubs break 2

• Support, though it's pretty pointless for me to do so. I've told Doncram and other NRHP editors repeatedly about how these sub-stub size articles are embarrassing for Wikipedia. I've encouraged him to actually read the reference material and explain why the subject is notable. Take a look at St. John's Block Commercial Exchange with phrases like, "The listing is described in its North Dakota Cultural Resources Survey document," with a reference of, "___ (, 19). "NRHP Inventory-Nomination: St. John's Block Commercial Exchange". National Park Service. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/82001338_text. and Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___ (see photo captions page __ of text document)" This indicates that Doncram hasn't even read the document. (It's four pages, written in 1981, with one postage-stamp sized photo, and there's no photo captions page.) There's also this initial revision of Art Troutner Houses Historic District which gives us the knowledge that, "The houses are, indisputably, houses. At least one looks like an A-frame. At least one has a carport."

About the Art Troutner example with "indisputably" and otherwise joking language, that is an article created in 2008, which was revised by you to this version within a few days. You have brought up that example numerous times in previous discussions. I am sorry that in 2008 I made a joking first draft. I announced the articles creation in regular process at WikiProject NRHP and it attracted editors (including you) to further develop it. I believed then that editors would collaborate in developing the one new weekly featured NRHP listings each week, and I had made a quick start on that one. You have quoted from that, I believe without providing appropriatre context, a number of times in other discussions that I recall. I really am sorry I offended you back then, but could you please give this one a rest, please?

More specific response to substance of Elkman's comments on St. John's Block are given below, by me, in several "To Elkman:" replies. --doncram 20:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've voiced my objection to sub-stub articles like this over and over again, and I've pointed out that creating a bunch of these stubs leaves a lot of work behind for other Wikipedia editors to clean up. My complaints have fallen on deaf ears. I've largely given up on the concept, which is why I think my support for this motion is pretty much pointless.

By the way, under these standards, I probably could have written Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Depot Freight House and Train Shed to say, "The CMStP&P Depot in downtown Minneapolis is a train station that, indisputably, had freight trains stopping there. It was built or otherwise expanded or something was done to it in 1879 and has Renaissance and Italianate architecture." I could have saved myself some time and not had to buy books about railroads in Minneapolis. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Here's another piece of brilliant prose at Pierce County Courthouse (Wisconsin): "Pierce County Courthouse in Ellsworth, Wisconsin is a building." No kidding! I now feel enlightened. This sub-stub article has existed on Wikipedia since September 2008, and nobody has come back to indicate what kind of building it is, what its function is, or whether you can get married by a justice of the peace there. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've expanded the article slightly. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. How long did that take? Less than three years? Thought so. I'm pretty sure no one here would argue against Doncram creating a stub of this quality; why is it so hard to take 15 minutes to do a quick Google search or look through an NRHP nomination form. That was, in fact, part of the loose consensus gathered at WT:NRHP a while back.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

About Pierce County Courthouse, as indicated in my edit summary creating that Wisconsin article, I created it to defend the disambiguation page Pierce County Courthouse, mediating between determined WikiProject Disambiguation editors and determined NRHP editors. The disambiguation page was needed to resolve article name conflicts. The only workable solution as of a few years ago, was to create at least one article, against preference of some NRHP editors including Elkman, but meeting demand of Disambiguation-focused editors. It happens I have been the main developer of disambiguation covering NRHP-listed places: My talk page displays 0 articles in Category:NRHP dab needing cleanup out of 3,686 articles in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles overall, which I maintain. (And I am the sole signed-up participant in this NRHP dab cleanup drive, though User:Sanfranman59 actually helps.) Since then, there has been recognition by some Disambiguation editors that a disambiguation page can exist with all redlink entries (but with properly formed supporting bluelinks), in part given clear support for the practice by a German wikipedia editor. At this point, I would not now create the stub article, if i was just creating the disambiguation page. It was required, then, to stub one, and at random i picked the Wisconsin one. I am sorry no one chose to develop the article further, sooner. --doncram 11:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: the German wikipedia version of Pierce County Courthouse disambiguation page contains all redlinks currently, with no supporting bluelinks, and would not be accepted by English Wikipedia disambiguation editors. When I developed the english language dab page, it was required that a stub be created for at least one article covered. Now, though there are occasional disagreements, it suffices to have supporting bluelinks for each redlink entry. --doncram 12:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this not approaching the entire concept of disambiguation from the wrong end? As I read WP:Disambiguation, the purpose of the pages is to disambig articles rather than to disambig all possible uses of a name etc. You are creating articles in order to justify the disambig page. Am I misreading? - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your first reaction is like many others: that disambiguation is to distinguish among existing articles only. So all redlink entries should be deleted? Many have started ahead deleting them. Many have started deleting any dab page that has all redlinks (whether or not there are supporting bluelinks establishing context and notability of the topic). Many have started to redirect dab pages that have just one bluelink. There are, over time, dozens of persons, some quite determined, who start to tear down disambiguation that I have set up. It takes time to convince the new arrivals that in fact the dab pages comply with policy (and it also takes a lot of time to get the Disambiguation policy updated for some matters). The Disambiguation policy is about topics, and Wikipedia-notable topics need disambiguation. Given a system of 85,000 NRHP-listed places in lists, with many sharing the same name, it is necessary to resolve article name conflicts so editors can proceed, and so that readers can discover whether a local NRHP they are looking for has an article or not. See User:Doncram/NRHP disambiguation for some reading, not recently updated. One pivotal past discussion with dab-focused editors was what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation? in 2008.

Dealing with the Disambiguation editors in 2008, negotiating for the NRHP editors, the best I could do was to get consensus that a dab page could exist if at least one article existed. So, I created a stub article each time necessary, probably a few hundred. It had to be done. I worked at getting the policy changed, because NRHP editors like Elkman and Dudemanfellabra really disliked the stub articles, but it took a year or two or more to do so. Meanwhile I gave courtesy notice to Elkman if I created a stub in Minnesota and I gave courtesy notice to User:Niagara if I created a stub in Pennsylvania, as they preferred to be notified and would improve them. Finally sometime I completed out the creation of all dab pages needed for 2 or more NRHP places of the same name; there are 3,686 articles with one or more NRHP entries in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles now.

Sitush, would you have been the type of editor seeking to remove the redlinks, or would you have been on NRHP editors' side that the disambiguation is needed but a stub for one should not have to be created? --doncram 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as saying that Doncram's approach to disambiguation is entirely wrong (I've created several articles for purposes of disambiguation -- typically after discovering situations of mistaken identity in the destinations of links, and most often for people of the same name), but it does seem to be a case of misplaced priorities ("the tail is wagging the dog," instead of the other way around). Doncram has become single-minded in his focus on disambiguation, to the point that he loses track of the main point of creating content. Another example of what I perceive to be inappropriate emphasis on disambiguation over content is displayed at Talk:Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), related to an article over which Doncram has repeatedly asserted ownership and where he maintains (among other things) that an prehistoric Indian mound complex known as "Old Town" and a 19th-century house built on top of the Indian mounds and also called "Old Town" are actually unrelated topics with the same name that must have separate articles that may be connected only via disambiguation hatnotes (and do not discuss the relationship between these two entities). --Orlady (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a certain amount of sympathy for that point of view -- as a database geek, I want a primary key to refer to one and only one thing. The mounds are notable for one reason; the house (presumably) for another. Therefore, they should be in separate articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

They are in separate articles. The current issue is doncram's insistence that there is no relationship between the different instances of "Old Town" other than coincinot allodence of name, so he will not allow the different articles to discuss the relationship between the various features called — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlady (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC) posting incomplete comment as i lost view of window where i was typing

Much thanks to whoever added the unsigned template on the above. The rest of my comment was going to be "...features called 'Old Town.' He will only allow the different articles to disambiguate between them as coincidentally similar names." --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I resent the side discussion here, in which Orlady is making negative claims about me on tangential issues. I am not "single-minded" in my focus on disambiguation. I have done a lot of disambiguation, to support development of NRHP in Wikipedia, and I continue to do it, to respond to pressures of Disambiguation-focused editors, specifically a continuing cleanup campaign specifically to mollify editor Station1 (which seems not to have converted him to a personal fan, but I continue nonetheless). It is in fact false that the Old Town house is built on top of mounds; let me state it clearly: I believe that Orlady is lying with that statement, for effect here, and I resent it. She may think it is an allowable stretch of the truth, an exaggeration for effect, because there exists a photo of at least one historic Tennessee house perched ridiculously on top of a mound, but it is not true here. Instead, there are in fact two small burial mounds on the house's property, which are lesser mounds within a larger area of multiple mounds, per the NRHP nomination document describing the site. Her mischaracterization has the effect of suggesting that I am wrong in my views in that discussion unrelated to the present proposal. I perceive it as another negative comment chipping away at my reputation. I expect that others may chide me for making this comment, which is itself negative. Her comments will not be seen as obviously negative to many readers here, but in context of a long program, it is one more instance. I am frustrated; I don't know how to get Orlady to stop focusing upon me and chipping away at me in a wikihounding way (that's what i perceive); she has refused Mediation several times and it is exhausting to contemplate an RFC/U or an arbitration requiring diffs to cover years of this. --doncram 00:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As near as I can determine, I am not making negative claims about you as a person, Doncram. Single-mindedness is often considered to be a virtue, but it can sometimes affect people's perceptions and judgments. I thought I was observing that you truly are focused on disambiguation, that that your creation of stubs about topics for which you have no solid information is just one of the ways in which you get carried away in your determination to disambiguate article titles. The situation with Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee) is one that has generated at least 74,178 bytes of discussion (counting just one talk page) over a year's time. I persist in seeing it as a situation that you perceive to be a disambiguation issue, but where several topics with similar names are in fact related. It is somewhat ironic to note that you started that page as a minimal stub (but not one with the "could be this or could be that" attributes that are the subject of this WP:AN discussion) that asserted that "Old Town" was a house. The title you created was (appropriately) clearly intended to disambiguate from other "Old Town" topics. Less than 24 hours later, I came upon the stub, researched the topic and greatly expanded the article to discuss three different co-located National Register properties (the house, the Indian mound site, and the Natchez Trace bridge) that share the "Old Town" name. You have been most vehement in your insistence that the three National Register properties must be addressed in three separate articles. I long ago gave up arguing that they should be covered in just one article. However, until now, I did not realize that the primary reason for your intransigence is that (although you have no sources indicating that the three properties are unrelated) you still refuse to believe/accept the various cited sources that other users have found -- not to mention the lengthy discussions of latitudes and longitudes -- that indicate that the three properties are at the same place. Didn't Bms4880 email you the sketch map from the Tennessee Anthropologist article that shows the house and its driveway in the midst of the mound site? (I am not aware of what you refer to when you mention a "photo of at least one historic Tennessee house perched ridiculously on top of a mound.") It appears to me now that I was giving you too much credit when I ascribed your behavior on that talk page to single-mindedness in pursuit of a worthy goal. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are doing anything to mollify me, you have my permission, indeed encouragement, to stop immediately. I will be delighted to edit any pages myself. Just let me know on my talk page what you prefer. Station1 (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support as clearly warranted per user LessHeard vanU. Writegeist (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Hey, I am pretty shocked by what is being said here. I am not sure how to respond, point by point interspersed into comments above, or what. The main thing going on in my editing, big picture, is that I have worked collaboratively, for years, with a number of other editors, to develop the NRHP system of articles, starting with collaboratively developing List of National Historic Landmarks in New York and List of NHLs in NYC, then extending to all states' NHL list-articles (indexed here), then developing table-format NRHP articles nation-wide (indexed here). Of which I have created a great portion. And I have developed out the majority or a great portion of articles and content of specific list-articles, including:
• National Register of Historic Places listings in Henrico County, Virginia
• National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut
• National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York

and others which I brought up to a reasonable state that I am proud of (though others looking to find fault, might still find fault). It happens that I took on the thankless task of creating disambiguation, and dealing with wave after wave of editors on issues with that.

Recently a main effort of mine has been to proceed within Wikipedia guidelines to create articles using a new NRHP article starter system. In compliance with a program to do so, indeed and well covered recently in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 47#just do it by bot now discussion. Several dissenters in that discussion have commented here; I do believe the consensus there was and is that stub article development is okay. Using an external database program that I wrote myself from scratch, drawing upon NRIS database, to develop better starting points for NRHP articles than have heretofore been used. To reduce tedium in edits, and to serve as basis for a trial to see if it could serve mine and other editors needs discussed in that "just do it by bot now" discussion.

You can point to selected incomplete articles that are brand new, or you can find a stray from 2008 that has apparently been long bothering an editor, where in fact my editing is interrupted and patchy. Especially if you interrupt me, and effectively prevent me from taking an article further! I do not hold out the set of Grand Forks County articles yet as being well-developed; I have considered myself partway through development there, which so far has yielded:

• this United Lutheran Church
• this Telephone Co. Building
• this Ost Valle Bridge
• this Building at 201 S. 3rd St.
• and numerous others. You could also find other articles further developed by me which would give a different picture if you looked at those ones selectively too. Out of 92,000+ edits contributed by me. I'll stop now. I would be pretty offended, personally, if this topic ban is passed. --doncram 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • • You have failed to address the complaints about your WP:OWN attitude. In fact, with remarks such as "Especially if you interrupt me, and effectively prevent me from taking an article further!", you have provided further evidence of it. The number of edits you have doesn't help you here. You'd think that with over 92K edits, an editor would have the clue to not dump out shoddy articles like this, this, and this to the mainspace. So many of your articles are heavily laced with ambiguity ("was built or has other significance", "may or may not", etc.) that one wonders if you put any care or second thought into what you write. People are usually offended by topic-bans, but that doesn't stop them being handed out to those who deserve them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty much a tangent, because the 3 items Lothar von Richthofen notes are not NRHP articles. About the first, the St. James' Church one relates to this addition of that item about St._James%27_Church,_Međugorje in Herzegovina to the St. James' Church dab page, back in 2008. When cleaning up St. James' Church|the dab page, I first fixed up all NRHP entries with the supporting bluelinks that are now required. Another editor was deleting all imperfect entries. In broad terms, i believe that items added by newbies and IP editors to dab pages are often about notable places, and it is unnecessarily unfriendly to delete them for not complying with complicated Disambiguation and other guidelines. I was willing to do some work to improve some non-U.S. entries. I invited editor Peter I Vardy to fix up British entries, and he did. I created articles for several other non-U.S. ones, with quick Google results, including that one I guess (I can't see it, it has now been deleted by SarekOfVulcan). I created St. James Church, Kerikeri in New Zealand, about a clearly notable historic church, for example. The other option I saw was to allow these to be deleted; i thought that creating stub articles with what sourcing I could find was better for Wikipedia and was respectful of other editors' contributions. The now-deleted stub might have attracted attention of Herzegovina editors, but did not I guess. I think no harm was done by creating that article. No great harm was done by it being speedily deleted, either, but I think a PROD or an AFD would have been more appropriate, and could have led to improvement of the article. --doncram 14:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent for display purposes) In full, it was

'''St. James Church''' in [[Medugorje]], [[Herzegovina]] is a significant church.

It was built during 1934-1969.

== External links ==

*[http://www.sacred-destinations.com/bosnia-herzegovina/medjugorje Medjugorje as a sacred destination], website

[[Category:Roman Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina]]

{{church-stub}}

The only difference between the way you left it and the version I deleted was the addition of the category.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for displaying that. The source included, http://www.sacred-destinations.com/bosnia-herzegovina/medjugorje, does suggest some notability for the topic of the church or churches here. Like I said, i think a PROD or AFD woulda been more appropriate, and coulda led to improvement especially if notice posted to the Herzegovina wikiproject or wherever. It's not an NRHP article though. --Doncram

P.S. User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 15#possibly notable churches shows evidence of collaboration and outright appreciation for the disambiguation set up by me for U.S. NRHP topics ("I'm very impressed by the way this is organised in USA; we are miles behind!..."). --doncram 14:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are your organizational skills relevant to a discussion about your stub creation?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Others have asserted that I am not collaborative, or that my disambiguation efforts are "misplaced". This speaks to those charges. Should I respond or not to the many assertions and implications made in this discussion by others? --doncram 16:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

One could take this as an answer to that question... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. I will agree that the George Hancock (architect) article needed development and further that I regard leaving <pre>...</pre> lists in mainspace more than briefly is not acceptable. I wasn't aware of the status of that one; i've now fixed it up somewhat (and SarekOfVulcan also edited it). --doncram 22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: I and another editor or two developed the George Hancock (architect) article somewhat. SarekOfVulcan had moved it to userspace. This causes overhead: specifically 2 needed redirects from Hancock Brothers and Hancock Bros. were since deleted as being cross-namespace redirects. Linking between the architect article and buildings/NRHPs it itemizes is made awkward if in userspace. I moved it back and restored the needed redirects. It doesn't work to put articles in Userspace, in general: no one ever pays attention to them; categorizers and others will not find them; categories are often turned off; necessary redirects naturally created during development can't be created or will be deleted if they are, etc. --doncram 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, are you asserting that the "overhead" at George Hancock (architect) was caused by SarekOfVulcan, rather than by you creating this original version in December, leaving it in that state for four months and then, 11 minutes after SarekOfVulcan cleaned it up and prodded it in mainspace, restoring the original version? If so, can you understand how others might disagree with that assessment? Station1 (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

About the second of 3 items Lothar von Richthofen comments upon, Double_pen_architecture, that is also not a NRHP place article. It is a needed article, or probably better there needs to be a redirect from it and from Single pen architecture to some common article (perhaps Single pen and double pen log house architecture?) to cover the styles of log house architecture described for numerous NRHP-listed places in Williamson County, Tennessee. And we need a corresponding category or two. A big advantage of doing a focused article drive in one county in a state, or on one type of building like List of Elks buildings, is to discover the need for supporting architectural style articles and architect articles that are relevant. I get to observe that there are multiple articles needing the architecture style or the architect to be described. An individual editor, especially a newbie, would not notice the commonality. Do let's develop that one, please! I'll add some to it now. Happily Central-passage house article was recently developed, serving need for some other Williamson County NRHPs. --doncram 22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

About the third of 3 items Lothar von Richthofen comments upon, Leland Hotel (Springfield, Illinois), that is a short stub which I created as a courtesy for newish(?) editor GregCampbellUSA, who added it as an item with footnote in this edit to Leland Hotel dab page (his edit summary was "Springfield IL had several major downtown hotels, including: The Leland Hotel, Abraham Lincoln, The Governor, and the St Nicholas. Sorry - no time to create a new article for the hotel itself".) I was there to refine the NRHP entries in response to other Disambiguation-editor pressure. It is claimed to be "home of the Horseshoe sandwich". A disambiguation-focused editor would have deleted the reference in one edit, then another would have arrived to delete the then-unsupported item. Six editors have since edited the article, including Orlady just now to support it with a different reference. Seems good to have saved it, IMO. --doncram 23:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unclear I am strongly opposed to the creation of these meaningless stubs; much of my "new" article writing for a long time has been the conversion of NrhpBot stubs into decent articles (e.g. Josiah Kirby House), largely because having such minimal pages is rather disgraceful to the encyclopedia. I'd much rather have 9 redlinks and 1 decent article than 10 substubs, since at least that way we'd have one article that actually tells the reader a bit about the topic. However, I'm uncomfortable with telling Doncram that he isn't allowed to create pages like this: I fear that the remedy for the problem may be overly harsh. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Note that the wording of my proposal doesn't prevent Doncram from creating stubs. It only forbids mainspace creation of stubs containing I-don't-know-what-this-data-means-but-I'll-mention-it-anyway language. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  The topic ban as proposed does not prevent the user in question from creating articles and stubs per se, it merely bars him from creating useless ones, thus encouraging him to actually put time and thought into what he adds instead of just substub-dumping at his leisure. If he accepts the terms of the ban (should it pass), I am sure he would be a valuable contributor. But if we let him go, he will inevitably lapse into his previous dumping behaviour. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Obviously I wasn't clear in my statement: sorry. I'm uncomfortable with absolutely forbidding him from creating articles in any format that wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion. I really wish that he'd stop, but I'm not a fan of topic bans because of the many ways that restricted editors can avoid them and the many ways that restricted editors' opponents can misuse them. This comment isn't meant to denigrate Doncram or anyone else here; I simply fear that a topic ban isn't going to help because of its nature as a topic ban. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Wishing only gets one so far...

  Ah well, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. I'll leave it at that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  I know that it doesn't really help; my point is that topic bans generally succeed at solving the problem at hand but are liable to producing other problems. Too often the result is a Pyrrhic victory — the immediate difficulty is solved, but only by taking an action that results in worse issues — and thus not a good idea. I'm afraid that wishing is the best thing that can be done here. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  I've spent a good deal of time here navigating the minefields of Eastern Europe On En-Wiki, which has produced at least three ArbCom rulings and innumerable topic-bans. I've never as of yet found myself on the receiving end of such restrictions, but I've watched them be variously debated and implemented. I can understand them being used against editors in such partisan environments where people's political beliefs and perceived ethnic conflicts exist. But this is a case of one single established editor churning out worthless stublets en masse, then responding in a recalcitrant, hostile manner (crossing the border into the land of WP:OWN) to attempts to remedy this situation. If no restrictions are placed on his article creations, then it is difficult to curb such disruptive behaviour. Even revoking his autopatrolled rights would be a step better than just wishing that a highly obstinate editor would change his evil ways. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  "Churning out worthless stublets en masse"? That's hardly all he does. What en masse production are you referring to? Is a "masse" a county? I think that what he was doing most recently was starting a counties worth, then going back through to improve them somewhat. Is a "masse" all the ones for a given architect? I think he may have done that at some point. Is it all the ones that fit in some list article he's working on? My point is that I have most often seen him creating stubs to support some other type of development he's involved in. I don't see that as a situation that needs to be remedied. But, the people who follow around after him do not care what his purpose is. They are not interested in the development he's working on. And, they are not forced to do it. But, they want him to spend his time doing things their way to the detriment of his being able to work on the development he's working on. They follow him around from area to area from project to project, not caring at all what he is carefully building that THEY are disrupting. I "wish" that the people who follow him around and search his old edits looking for things to fuss at him about would stop. I find them "disruptive" and "evil". They ruin my enjoyment of Wikipedia. Lvklock (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't work for your enjoyment, Lvklock. It's an encyclopedia. Also, if you don't know what en masse is, wikt:en masse can help you out. As far as I can tell, the only thing you do on Wikipedia is to come out and support Doncram, so I'm not sure why you're even participating in this. Now, if maximizing editor satisfaction was one of Wikipedia's goals, then maybe I could state the reasons why I haven't been satisfied with Wikipedia editing, and the whole National Register of Historic Places project for many, many months now. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  To clarify, supporting Doncram appears to be the only thing Lvklock has done recently. I presume has been on a wikibreak. - edit history - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you, Sitush. Elkman, I began my recent set of contributions by noting that I had been on a business trip, gotten some new pictures and stuck my nose back in hoping to find that the environment had improved around here. That initial post was directed in exasperation at both Doncram and Orlady. No, I haven't been contributing, because this stuff takes all the fun out of it. I know Wikipedia doesn't exist for my enjoyment, but why would I bother if I didn't enjoy it. As far as my "wish", it was a direct response to someone else's "wish". It was to point out that many people wish many things, but that, just as you say, Wikipedia isn't here to grant people's wishes. There is nothing about my post that indicates that I do not know what "en masse" means. I was ASKING which set of articles he was referring to, and providing examples of why different sets of articles were created. I was pointing out that he was not creating them just to create articles, but in support of some other development. And, even though maximizing editor satisfaction isn't one of Wikipedia's goals, I'm pretty sure that I recall hearing some of the reasons why you haven't been satisfied with Wikipedia editing, and the whole National Register of Historic Places project for many, many months now. And some of them may be the same, and some may be different from why I feel the same way. But Wikipedia doesn't work for your enjoyment, Elkman, so I guess that's not something we need to go into here. Lvklock (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Lvklock is a fine contributor who I hope will be finding time to add more content to Wikipedia. I want to believe that his return to support Doncram is coincidental, but I must note that past conversations on Wikipedia talk pages have indicated that Lvklock and Doncram are personal friends, both at Wikipedia and in real life. I wish that all of us could get along as well as they apparently do. --Orlady (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So what if Lvklock did return specifically to support me? I appreciate the support. I am sure many real-life friends share similar views in Wikipedia discussions. You seem to be insinuating something negative, not relevant to this AN topic. --doncram 00:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

NRHP stubs break 3

• Strong Oppose Stubs are allowed. If it were someone else creating these stubs, we wouldn't be here. He has sometimes created bunches of stubs to support some other aim, such as setting up a nationwide network of disambiguation to help new editors get NRHP articles properly named. The disambiguation folks wouldn't allow him to set up the disambiguation pages with all red links, so he had to start stubs for some to support that. This editor takes on huge ambitious projects that he sees as important. Isn't that the whole point of a wiki? For editors to choose to work on what's important to themselves? I understand that many others don't see the point, but he does. I don't see the point of a lot of things people do here, but I don't try to stop editors from writing about every cartoon character that ever existed or to stop people who are very interested in categories from adding them just because I'm not interested in them. As long as they don't make me stop every time I do something and try to figure out every category it could fit in, then I applaud their efforts. But, if they wanted to bog me down with the details that are important to them, I'd just stop. Doncram has proven over and over again that he's not going to just stop just because some people aren't interested in the same things he is, nor is he going to spend all his time attending to the details that they personally find important. It seems to me that Wikipedia is losing a lot of the original vision, that by letting each person contribute what he/she enjoys contributing and is good at, then together a great thing can be constructed. In my opinion, driving people away because they don't attend to the details you think are important is going to turn Wikipedia into just another failed project. Lvklock (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Looks like someone failed to read the fine normal sized print. This is not a topic-ban from creating stubs or articles outright, this is a very specific one which seeks to prevent the creation of articles that are just "XYZ is or was a significant building. It may or may not have been built in 1903. Something significant happened in 1915." Nobody ever said that Doncram was 100% worthless, only that he rushes unnecessarily to create sub-stubs with little to no meaningful content. We are not asking him to stop contributing, we are asking him to hold his horses and make his contributions less by taking the time to take more than a superficial look into the subject of the article. We are also asking him to cease his WP:OWNERSHIP attitude towards that which he creates. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Looks like someone has failed to grasp my point in this and other comments on this page. Not everyone agrees that the stubs convey "little or no meaningful content". Not everyone objects to what are factual, supportable statements based on the information available from the source being used at that time. The stubs are not the main point of the contribution for him. They are suppoting some larger development he is working on. You are basically asking him to abandon what he is working on in order to develop what you want done in the way you want it done. And doing so in a nasty and sarcastic way to he and his supporters. Lvklock (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Could you provide examples of "nasty and sarcastic" comments made about User:Doncram, and to those you might indicate are his supporters, as they would be violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks - specifically "comment on the content, not the contributor"(s) - on this page or the discussions that lead to this proposal? I do see many comments describing various editors opinions on the quality of some stubs that doncram has produced, that are the issue at the centre of this issue, in forthright language and also in respect of doncrams history of producing stubs of such quantity and alleged reluctance to improve or allow others to improve said stubs, but that is permissible as it is in reference to content concerns. However, personal attacks on the editors involved does hinder the proper conduct of this discussion and I would be keen to try and ensure that those who have transgressed are properly warned about their future conduct. I would end by commenting that accusations of personal attacks without grounds is in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and may be itself a personal attack upon the named editors (except, of course, where such claims were made in mistake.) You may respond on my talkpage, rather than clutter up this page further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (I've already !voted support) - The problem with far too many of Doncram's stubs is not that they are stubs, but that they are elaborate embroideries upon a near-total absence of information. One Doncram-created stub (first pointed out on my talk page by Station1) that I found particularly offensive in the last ~36 hours (and, indeed, that I consider a "poster child" for the problem with all-too-many Doncram stubs) is Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures, which Doncram created in article space and which I userfied -- and then move-protected after he immediately moved it back to article space with an edit summary that provided the nonreason that "Deletion/move by Orlady is unacceptable." That article is one of many that Doncram has written solely on the basis of a terse database entry in the National Register Information System. In this particular case, the article makes it clear that it is nothing more than a description of a database entry, with the lead sentence that says it "is or was a property ... that had a status change in the National Register of Historic Places NRIS database in 2008." Outside of a fairly decent photo, there is no substance on that page more meaningful/solid than that lead sentence. In contrast, Argyle Flats is an example of one of Doncram's contributions (in this case, from December 2010) that I was able to trim back to become a sensible one-sentence stub (and a relatively attractive stub, since it includes a nice photo). I've interacted with Doncram frequently for about 2-1/2 years now, and I know he has contributed some high-quality work, but his persistence in creating and defending garbage -- like that Grand Forks County Fairgrounds article -- or his "maybe this, maybe that" version of Argyle Flats -- is counterproductive and disruptive to Wikipedia. Experience like the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National_Register of Historic Places/Archive 47#just do it by bot now demonstrates that no benefit will be derived from further discussion of Doncram's approach -- other than Doncram (who dominated the discussion with his verbose and frequent comments), nearly every participant in that discussion expressed significant reservations about his proposal, but Doncram's assessment is that the consensus supported his proposal. --Orlady (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Elaborate embroideries upon a near-total absence of information." In your opinion. And my often voiced opinion is that I would rather know an ifobox worth of information about an NRHP in a town that I'm visiting than nothing at all. And, since you bring it up, I found your "move-protect(ion) after he immediately moved it back to article space" to be objectionable. It had just been brought up in a discussion of which you were well aware. There was an extremely high likelihood that if you'd left it, it would have been improved. Instead, you not only userfied and move-protected that one, but after I specifically asked if you were purposefully goading Doncram you went and userfied more of the batch he currently had in process. I find your following, goading and high-handedly imposing your standards on Doncram to be "counterproductive and disruptive to Wikipedia." He "dominated the discussion with his verbose and frequent comments"? The reason you find them "verbose" is that you aren't interested in hearing anything about the reasons WHY he does something. You often tell him so. So, he can't explain why it's important to what he's doing to create the stubs, because you don't care. You just want him to do it your way or not at all. Frequent comments? Of course there are frequent comments. There are frequent barbs and incivilities toward him and his work and he comments back. SURPRISE!!!! Lvklock (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As above, could you please provide me with diffs of these "barbs and incivilities". Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is preventing Doncram from improving pages in his user space. Regardless, the histories of pages like User:Doncram/Clifford_Annex (which sat in article space, untouched, for 4 months before I moved it to Doncram's user space -- after determining that there wasn't enough content there to allow the article to be trimmed to a solid one-sentence stub) and Mansfield Center Cemetery (also not touched by Doncram for 4 months) do not support the theory that these insubstantial stubs would have been quickly improved if only they had been left in article space. --Orlady (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is a narrowly tailored proposal. Unfortunately, this appears to be the only method to prevent articles such as User:Doncram/Grand Forks County Fairgrounds WPA Structures from appearing in mainspace. Normal methods suggested by some opposers above, such as appeals to Doncram by other editors, or simply editing after the fact, have been tried and have failed. The creation of tens of thousands of similar automated articles has been proposed, and despite the objections of numerous other editors, Doncram has in the past claimed or thought that he has had consensus to proceed when others reading the same discussions come to the opposite conclusions. There is a danger that thousands of these articles will be created if there is not forceful and clear community disapproval. Station1 (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support While in general even the idea of banning someone from creating articles is repulsive to me, it appears this user is not willing to take sound advice on-board, or even willing to work within their own user space to flesh out articles that while notable, are simply not ready for prime time. It appears that "edit count" and "articles created" is their primary goal here; and that just isn't what the project is supposed to be about. @Doncram, work on some articles in your userspace for a bit, get some feedback and collaboration from other editors, then roll them out when they have some meat behind them. Perhaps then we can revisit/lift this proposal. (if it does indeed pass) — Ched :  ?  06:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• I just don't feel comfortable supporting this. I completely agree that some changes need to be made, but considering everything "en toto", I don't feel right about a "BAN". I'd rather find another solution here. — Ched :  ?  22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit count and articles created are not my goals. I have worked on many focused drives, and the Grand Forks article(s) being criticized are part of an article drive whose natural discussion point should be Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota#Article drive, not here. The following shows Recent Changes to Grand Forks County NRHP articles (during last 30 days, so not including majority of my edits). It shows a pattern of my making multiple edits developing articles over a day or two. And, before completing an article drive, as I did for National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut or National Register of Historic Places listings in Henrico County, Virginia or others, I would develop some or all descriptions in the NRHP list article and in the process revisit many individual articles and make further edits. Articles criticized here include unfinished work in a bigger article drive, in progress, interrupted. --doncram 09:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

doncram, I would absolutely love to have you convince me to change my stance here. First you would need to understand and accept the reasons behind this proposal, and second you would need to vow to make adjustments so as the concerns would be addressed. I honestly don't care if you delete comments from your talk page, or prefer to carry on conversations on another person's page. It is the articles that are of concern here. ex: "The XYZ building was built (sometime) by (somebody) and was mentioned in the New York Times"^ref" just isn't the type of stub that's ready to be pushed into article space. This proposal is very narrowly construed, so I don't think it would be difficult to find a solution. I don't understand why you're not willing to work on things in your own user space, but I'm willing to listen. To be honest, I have maybe a half dozen articles which could probably exist in article space at this time; a couple which have been sitting in my user-space for well over a year. From my point of view, the condition of the article reflects directly on me as a writer, so I want them to be as good as I can possibly make them, especially if the history is going to show that I am the one who created them.

How about this suggestion: start putting these articles in our Incubator project until they have been worked through a bit. To be honest, I am flattered when either someone asks me to help with an article they are working one, ... OR ... someone else is willing to help me with an article. There's nothing wrong with collaboration, in fact it can be a very enjoyable experience. Just pushing out "It Exists", and "Here's the ref that makes it WP:N isn't really helping the cause here. Just a thought, and best of luck. — Ched :  ?  11:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you all totally don't get it. Doncram was instrumental in building great huge parts of the NRHP project. The tableizing, first of NHL's, then of every county of NRHP's. The hours and hours of disambiguation to get identically named NRHPs in different locations named properly so that new editors would know how to proceed when confronted with something like Main Street Historic District, which probably exists in some form many multiple times in the country. Working through issues where projects clash with other projects like Ships, disambiguation, etc. He works in big scope. He's not INTERESTED in working in the small scope you all want him to. Do you really want to drive away such an experienced and prolific editor? I get that you don't care that you pretty much drove me away. I don't get it with him. Lvklock (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I drove you away? .. To be honest, I don't even recall ever editing with you Lvklock. I offer my apology, and ask how I can make amends for this. As far as "what I get" or "don't get" - all I can say is that if his/her efforts are causing disruption, then I'm in favor of limiting that disruption. I'm also in favor of encouraging and assisting any editor in improvement so there will not be any further disruption. — Ched :  ?  14:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody who has watched NRHP coverage on Wikipedia in recent years should surely recognize Doncram's great contributions. But the good stuff he's done doesn't excuse his ownership of these subpar substubs. Nobody is insisting that he "work in the small scope" or engage in any other Wikipedia work he's not interesting in volunteering for. Nobody's asking him to do anything, rather to refrain from doing something that harms Wikipedia. He's been requested not to put these embarrassingly bad stubs in mainspace before they're ready, and the plea has fallen on deaf ears. So the community is now being asked to impose it as a requirement. Ntsimp (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Ched, I'm sorry. I was not replying directly to you. You are one of the saner voices here. I refer to the change from a "live and let live" culture that Wikipedia seems to have had in the past to this conform or go away culture I see now. I'm sure I did something wrong by not outdenting, or not starting a new section or something. The truth is, I don't have time for this, but I hate seeing everything so one-sided here. And heaven forbid Doncram should defend himself at length...that would just feed into the criticism that he is verbose and too frequent in his comments.

Ntsimp, no one seems to be listening to the crux of what I'm saying. Stubs are often part of the framework of the bigger, more ambitious projects Doncram undertakes. He cannot undertake those projects without building stubs, a task which I presume is not his favorite thing to do. He cannot build the stubs to your standards while achieving appreciable and enjoyable progress on the things he is good at and enjoys. Therefore, take away his ability to generate quick and easy stubs and you take away his ability to chieve the big ambitious projects that have helped grow the NRHP project so much. HE CAN'T DO WHAT HE DOES WITHOUT GENERATING STUBS! He couldn't have built what he has helped to build without being able to generate stubs. I believe that when he began in Wikipedia and the NRHP project, these stubs would have been considered more than adequate. The stub DOES provide a great starting place for new editors. If you put it in userspace, new editors cannot find it. The reference with blanks in it provides a proper reference framework for a new editor that might otherwise be clueless about what was being looked for there, or how it should be coded. The sentences that he puts in are a response to those who didn't want a stub with just one sentence saying that the place is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Every time he has tried to evolve something to please someone else, it angers four other people. Is it any wonder he is seen as being recalcitrant? If I were he, I'd go by the "you can't please everyone so you may as well please yourself" rule myself. The bar is being raised on how good the stubs need to be to the point that it will make it impossible for him to undertake the focused, widespread, ambitious kind of thing that are what HE enjoys contributing to the Wiki. So, instead of the community working to incorporate his strengths, you're going to insist that he either do a lot of work in the areas of his weaknesses in order to do the things that are his strengths, or that he not do anything much at all. Maybe he'll still be like me, and take some pictures once in a while. What a waste. Lvklock (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I thought the long-running consensus was that newcomers tend to create articles, not build upon existing articles. Also, what "bigger, more ambitious projects", becuase I haven't seen any. –MuZemike 20:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some people, but as a newbie I wouldn't have started with a whole new article off the bat. I certainly started with smaller scale contributions to existing NRHP stubs before I began a whole new one myself. Lvklock (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bigger more ambitious: NHL and NRHP tableizing, large scale NRHP disambiguations, working with other projects like ships and disambiguations, all mentioned elsewhere on this page. I doubt anyone has seen all of what he's done. It's nearly 100,000 edits. Lvklock (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You said, "He couldn't have built what he has helped to build without being able to generate stubs." My reply to that is that yes... he definitely could. It just would have taken him longer, and fewer people would have ostracized him. As has been brought up numerous times in this debate and the thousands previous, There. Is. No. Deadline. Why is it imperative to set up thousands of disambiguation pages now? (Never mind the fact that the pages don't exist yet) Why is it imperative to get something rather than nothing about every single one of these places in North Dakota now? It isn't.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, here, I'll give y'all some more to pick apart. He could not have helped to advance the project as far as it has come as quickly as it has come without being able to generate stubs. Better? Satisfy the semantics police? It's not imperative it be done now, but it IS what he enjoys doing, while filling out stubs to your standard apparently is not. HE DOESN'T LIKE DOING IT!! He's a volunteer, just as we all are. Why the heck would he volunteer to do something he finds onerous? It's also not just a matter of looking up the online document to fill out the stub a little more so that he can support the thing he's working on. You want the project he's working on to grind to a halt every time it needs a stub while he requests a nomination document and waits for it to arrive? That's not just slowing things down a little from the way he enjoys working, that's STOPPING it entirely. Next, it's easier to set up disambiguation pages ahead of time than to sort out the mess afterwards when people who don't know any better get them titled inappropriately. It doesn't have to seem important to you. All the gobbledy-gook you spent hours and hours on coding for the infobox variations meant nothing to me, but I appreciated the time and energy you put into it. Doncram does lots of things I couldn't care less about, but HE is passionate and enthusiastic about them. I say let him continue to work in the way he has historically done. Lvklock (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "HE CAN'T DO WHAT HE DOES WITHOUT GENERATING STUBS!": Once again you demonstrate your disastrously incomplete understanding of the proposal. How many times does this have to be repeated? Doncram would still be allowed to create stubs. He would be prevented only from making them unencyclopaedically vague. Is that really unreasonable to ask that we report solid facts in an encyclopaedia? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again you demonstrate your disastrously incomplete understanding of my point. Lvklock (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

NRHP stubs break 4

Doncram asked me to comment and I do so reluctantly - mainly because I think almost everybody is acting badly.

Please see the substub article Belcoville Post Office. There are at least a couple of folks who put these out on a regular basis. My first reaction when I saw one was that they should be deleted, but then couldn't find a reason in policy to delete these, then I learned to live with it. Now, I'd still prefer that they weren't written, but as long as they are there, I make a point to hang some of my pictures there. :-}

The moral from the above, is that folks can write NRHP substubs without upsetting too many people and we can all learn to live with it. There's no policy against it.

Two major differences from the Belcoville Post Office article and Doncram's

• 1 Belcoville has less content, but is written in more natural language.
• 2 Doncram didn't write the Belcoville article.

So, I think we can all politely ASK Doncram to please make the language a bit more natural, and to update the articles a bit more quickly. I'll also ask him not to put out too many of these before he updates them - maybe only one county at a time. If there are really more serious issues, perhaps we could set up a special page at WT:NRHP, i.e "Substub review" and userfy or delete anything that is too offensive after a given time, say 2 months after creation.

I will also TELL Doncram. I think you are bringing much of this onto yourself by ignoring the wishes of other editors. You've done some great things at WP:NRHP, and you will continue to do some great things if you can avoid silly arguments like this.

To the editors on the other side. If you are going to topic ban somebody, please specifically identify which policy you think they broken. WP:Own might apply here, but I don't think it is the crux of the issue. I think the crux is that you've let Doncram's sometimes acerbic style get to you. Could you just relax a bit? I don't think Doncram will react too well to threats and banning and the like. And I really do not think that we want to end up throwing out an editor with his record of contributions (which is the likely ultimate end of this).

That's all I have to say.

Smallbones (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Belcoville article doesn't show any of the problems relating to the topic ban proposal. If Doncram had created the article, it would have read something like: "Belcoville Post Office is a property that is or was located in Weymouth Township, New Jersey. The building was built or has other significance in 1918. It was designed and/or built by Vivian Smith. It was added or had other action taken on the National Register of Historic Places on March 14, 2008. The listing has one contributing building on an area of 2 acres. The building is described in its National Register listing."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones for commenting. I'd be happy to talk about improvements to specific phrasing that can be put into starter articles, for future county or other batches. SarekOfVulcan doesn't understand the variety of phrasing actually used. The "is or was located" phrasing only was put into the relatively few starter articles where ambiguous listing status is present, i.e. where it is appropriate/crucial to question the continuing existence of a building, for example. The "is described in its National Register listing" phrase is only a placeholder to hang the NRHP nomination document upon. Other placeholder wording have been vehemently discussed previously; this was relatively innocuous and actually survived a lot of scrutiny so far. I would absolutely include the NRHP nomination for the site, if it is available online, which is a huge advance on what Elkman's system, (the alternative provider of NRHP stub articles) serves up. --doncram 00:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The link to the NRHP nomination form is really only useful if you read it. I found at least one article you created where the NRHP nomination form said, "This record has not yet been digitized." Or, how about St. Michael's Church (Grand Forks, North Dakota), a typical article where you provided a link, but didn't include anything from the nomination form. Had you read it, you would have noticed that it's the oldest parish and the largest church in the state, and that it's a source of pride for the neighborhood. If you spent a few minutes to read the nomination form (or at least glance at it), you could come up with a few sentences that would make the articles mean something to the reader. In any case, it looks like I'm going to have to get on the stick and start creating articles on the Minnesota side of the river, so we don't end up with articles such as, "The Crookston Carnegie Library was built or has other significance or something in 1907. It presumably housed a collection of books sometime in its existence." --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I am happy to facilitate a substub review system, perhaps to implement the "virtual holding pen" concept that I offered up in the "Do it by bot now discussion". In the batches started so far, I implemented a different system, the use of Recent Changes review for a batch, to accommodate what Dudemanfellabra wanted instead. --doncram 01:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, Doncram, my suggestion to use the Recent Changes feature was to monitor moving these articles into mainspace.. not to monitor the work being done on the substubs. When I originally proposed the idea, I envisioned someone browsing the Related Changes list, seeing a new article created, and checking to see whether it was an acceptable quality. If the new article was of an acceptable quality, then that's great.. the person browsing may even help flesh it out. If the new article wasn't acceptable quality, however, the person browsing would alert the user that created the new article of this fact and possibly report them to the project. (Remember the whole jawboning thing?) Again, the Related Changes idea was to keep people from creating the articles prematurely.. not to monitor their slow but steady progress after being prematurely created.

I think every single person here would be fine with you developing these articles in the /drafts subpage (i.e. having all of the code on the same page like my subpage User:Dudemanfellabra/NRHP) and moving them to mainspace only after they were acceptable quality. The problem everyone here has with what you're doing is not the fact that you are developing the articles.. it's the fact that you're doing it in mainspace. If you would simply do your little tidy-ups on the draft page itself instead of in mainspace, I sincerely believe that no one here would have any problems with that.

We are not trying to keep you from developing the stubs. Let me repeat that: We are not trying to keep you from developing the stubs. We are simply asking you to do it in a different place so that these ambiguous statements are clarified before going live. While yes, the statements are correctly ambiguous because of the ambiguity of the NRIS database, it takes only minutes to do a quick search (through the NRHP document or even Google) to clarify the statements. We ask that you do that search before moving the articles to mainspace. If you can't find anything, post a message on WT:NRHP or on a few individuals' talk pages, and we will try searching ourselves. If - and only if - neither you nor other members of the project can clarify the ambiguous statements, we can do one of three things

1. Keep the statement in (possibly elaborating on why it is ambiguous) and move the article into mainspace
2. Remove the ambiguous statement and move the article into mainspace, or
3. Simply keep the article on the /drafts page until something can be figured out, possibly by requesting the NRHP nomination form.

In summary, no one is saying you shouldn't be allowed to develop these stubs. In fact, we want you to develop them. We are simply saying that you should put a little more thought into them before moving them to mainspace, and the bulk of the initial work should be done on that /drafts page. Is that reasonable?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where best to have this argument. But,

1) You implicitly prefer overly precise statements that may well be false, instead. Elkman's system, though he states he doesn't want it to be used to create stubs, it is widely used to create stubs. The stubs created from Elkman's system appear precise but often are actually factually wrong in the statements made. Elkman's generated infobox makes unjustified assumptions, i.e. that a builder is an architect, that the first in a series of significant dates is actually a built date and the other dates are irrelevant. A topic ban on me is not the right place to discuss refinements to the /drafts system.

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't use Elkman's infobox generator to create stubs.. I use them to create infoboxes – their intended purpose. I do not prefer false statements to "accurately ambigous" ones.. I prefer clarified, true statements with a non-ambiguous source to back them up. The output of your bot is not at question here. I agree with you that the statements your bot outputs are "accurately ambiguous." The problem that I–and I assume several other editors, thus this ANI discussion–have is that, for many of the articles you have created with these statements in them, there already exists a source or multiple sources that can indisputably clarify that ambiguous statement. Because that source exists and clarifies the statement better, I am asking you to read through that source and clarify the statement before putting the article into mainspace. If, after you have read through the source(s), you still cannot clarify the statement, we can choose one of the 3 options I listed above.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I know you know this, Dudemanfellabra, but the reason you can say that, that others can see that there is such a source, is because I put the source into the article. In the very first edit! It is very inconvenient for new editors to search for the NRHP documents in the unfriendly National Register search system. It is very convenient for the references to be set up already, and clickable for reading the reference. Which I do, and then I enter at least the author name and date of preparation, and usually I characterize the importance of the place, in a following edit.

The /drafts system could possibly be set up differently, so that the /drafts page was more suited to being edited and including an already-clickable reference there, rather than it being activated only after being copy-pasted into the mainspace article. I see mostly disadvantages of going with an alternative way, especially as I do not believe anyone else would edit there, but I would consider designing it differently in a real discussion somewhere else about improvements for new batches. You have less credibility with me in that future discussion, though, if you have not once tried the current /drafts system. --doncram 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that the /drafts page should be more suited to be edited there and include an already-clickable link to the NRHP document (if it exists, of course); that is in fact exactly what I was asking for above. Anyone that has tried to search through Focus knows how confusing it is if you aren't accustomed to the syntax, so I agree that these links are a considerable improvement over the Elkman infobox generator in that regard. The part I don't agree with about your system is that it requires the stubs to be pasted in raw form into mainspace first before being fleshed out. Making the /drafts page more editable would allow you (and/or other editors) to fill in these placeholder links to the NRHP documents and flesh out the ambiguous statements on that page–the /drafts one–before moving them into mainspace. If you would, on the next county you run the bot on, make the /drafts page editable–and actually edit there–I believe that would definitively silence this topic ban discussion. If you would like me to, I can go to the ND county /drafts article and make it more editable to show you what I am talking about/how I would support it being done. I will personally go through and flesh out a few of the ND articles to show you how I envision the bot process going. (time permitting of course.. the next two weeks for me are full of presentations and finals, but after that I'm out on summer break, so I'll have more time) And btw, don't take that as me saying "I'll help you out as you go through the entire country and create 50,000 stubs." I'm still against stub creating, but if it takes me churning out a few to suggest to you how it should be done and end this discussion with at least some sort of compromise, I'm fine with that.

If you agree to make future /drafts pages editable and agree to edit the stubs (as I will do with a few in ND if you accept) on the /drafts page instead of in mainspace, only moving them into mainspace once the ambiguous statements have at least had the chance to be clarified (i.e. you search or alert the project of it), I will withdraw my support for this topic ban. If that seems like too much of a stretch for you, then I have no other choice but to continue to support the ban.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't just agree the topic ban proposal is unreasonable. But, sure, actually, I am happy to try a different version of /drafts in a new batch, for a county in a state where NRHP docs are available on-line (I was thinking Utah, if Ntsimp would be interested in having articles started for some county or counties, and if you would care to edit some there). In which the /drafts will be designed to have the articles edited there, before being copy-pasted over to mainspace. And I would try it out in terms of editing some there. In advance, I think that will be less efficient in several ways, but I am willing to create what any specific editor actually wants to use for development of articles in a given county or for a given architect or in some other set. I personally would want my edits to count in mainspace, and for my contributions of writing to be forever recorded in the article history, which would not be achieved in your preferred model. Also I don't in advance much believe that anyone will edit articles not in mainspace (certainly categorizers won't), but okay to try. Not sure exactly what you mean about what happens if the articles are not developed in a reasonable time, like if you are suggesting i could give an ultimatum to others that they need to develop them by date X or else I will paste them into mainspace. If that's what you mean that is fine by me. And then for discussion of improvements for future batch after that is done. I do want to finish out the already started demonstrations and would appreciate actual positive help in doing so. I would like to have Elkman's actual cooperation in programming coordinates and otherwise, if he could see his way to that, but can do without if he can't. I would also appreciate your supporting me in publicly discounting others' future criticisms in general, if they have not seriously tried doing /drafts both ways, but I can do without an advance promise. --doncram 05:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not suggesting that the articles on the /drafts page are under some sort of deadline.. I'm saying they're under a "quality-line," meaning they must stay in the /drafts page until they meet a certain quality–specifically that the ambiguous statements your bot outputs are clarified, and no blanks are left in the stub. As far as future criticism goes, I can make no promises here. I believe that if you stick to the system that I will implement later today with the Grand Forks /drafts page, you won't receive as much criticism. If you, however, dip back into your mass substub creation, I won't blindly defend you.

I have created a new section below detailing our compromise. I invite you to read over it there, and if there is anything you would like to clarify/comment on, do so below.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

2) The deliberately ambiguous statements are accurate and sourced and encyclopedic. You implicitly want to assert that Wikipedia knows all, is finished. No, we don't in fact know whether a named person is an architect or is a builder or is an engineer associated with a building. It is proper to state what we know and it is proper to reveal the ambiguity, what we do not know. I know this bothers some editors; I have had similar disagreements with Orlady previously about accurately ambiguous statements about relationships of historic districts to unincorporated villages several times; it obviously bothers SarekOfVulcan. But the ambiguous statements are accurate and sourced and I believe it is best to provide them. It provides a good prompt to other editors to dig in and find out the facts, to make more precise statements with sourcing. In my version of /drafts, I have been including the infobox line suggesting a person is the architect, but including the deliberately ambiguous statement in the text, prompting the additional research to be completed (and I hope that when an editor who refines the text to clarify a person is a builder, they will remove the infobox assertion of architect).

Again, I agree that the statements are "accurately ambiguous." The whole point of this discussion is that other sources exist–chiefly the NRHP document–that explicitly clarifies the ambiguity. Instead of "prompting... additional research," I am asking you to do that research yourself since you are the one creating the article. It takes at maximum 15 minutes.. that 15 minutes would avoid all this discussion. 15 minutes. Really.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be required, but actually I think i have put more than 15 minutes in, on average, on articles created in the /drafts process. It takes some time in the very first edit copy-pasted from a /draft, before I hit Save on that, so the clock started sooner than you understand. Probably a lot more than 15 minutes is put in by me on average, if you allocate credit for my developing supporting architect articles and architectural style articles and building inbound links from other articles and disambiguation pages. There are many articles completed to a pretty good status. The examples focused upon here are least-developed ones, naturally including problem cases where a document that is reasonably expected to be available is not in fact available, etc. --doncram 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

3) Your statements are your own opinions. I don't know who you mean to include in your "we" statements, and I do not accept that you speak for others except where you specifically support such statements by diffs or otherwise. There have been plenty of other views.

4) Others in this discussion have at times seemed to be saying I should not be allowed to develop these stubs. Whatever the original proposal here is, there are persons who would be happy to expand the proposal and cut the drama short by just banning the stubs or me or whatever. Many other ANI proceedings have been cut short by more strict bans than originally proposed. You can't speak for everyone, to say what "no one" wants.

Even though people may be happy to extend the proposal to ban you–maybe even indefinitely–that is not the proposal we are discussing. All this proposal is asking you to do is spend a little more time on these stubs before putting them into mainspace. If you did that–though as you point out I can't speak for everyone–I am extremely certain that 99% of the people here would have no more to argue with you about.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

5) I don't want the drama and am only partially, at best, responsible for all this drama. I have opened channels of communication. Specifically, i opened and ran the "let's just run the bot" discussion at wt:NRHP, and opened article drive discussions at each of the batches, and applied for bot approval and gave notice at wt:NRHP, and so on.

6) I have some expertise and some experience and some goals for collaborative editing that you, Dudemanfellabra, and others do not have. I did all the programming to create /drafts, and I have gotten scant cooperation in developing articles from the first batches. I asked for others to use the /drafts system to test it out. Only one editor, Pubdog, did, giving me useful feedback that I incorporated into subsequent batches. You, Dudemanfellabra, have not created one article from a /draft, AFAIK. You are telling me how you want me to edit over in the /draft page, and you do not have the experience of the inconvenience that that causes. For one thing, it separates edit history. I think you, Dudemanfellabra, are unusual as an editor in personally preferring to draft articles in your own userspace and then to copypaste them to mainspace, with no edit history and, usually, with no help from others in drafting the articles. I strongly prefer to start articles in mainspace, to immediately add redirects and links that work from the getgo, to immediately get help of categorizer editors, to invite involvement of local editors, and to otherwise work in a collaborative, open way which I think is good for Wikipedia. You don't have to share my views, but I am not crazy to have them.

That's right that I have not created any articles from your /drafts system, and that is because it is something I am not interested in doing. I would prefer to work on my on-going projects (some in my userspace, and some in mainspace–though none in the shape of these /drafts substubs) instead of starting new ones.

As for your method of editing, I don't agree with it, and that is well known. That is not, however, why I am asking you to do a little work before putting these in mainspace. If I were the one working on these stubs, I would spend a much more considerable amount of time on each individual stub before moving it to mainspace–probably more than many here would spend; that is just my style. Me working in userspace a lot is not, however, requiring others to clean up my mess. You working in mainspace is... especially since when you say you are "working" in mainspace, it actually means that you are creating 20 stubs at a time and then getting criticized and claiming they interrupted you while you were working so you can't go back and pick it up now. Instead of creating 20 at a time (which is a random number not based on any facts.. more suitable is the word "multiple"), try creating one at a time and working to improve it before moving on to the other(s). As I have said many times before, that may not be what you want to do, but if you suck it up and just start doing it, you won't have to read these mile-long conversations anymore. I understand that it may be hard for you to accept, but sometimes you just have to do things the way others want you to, even if that's not how you want to do them.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't completely respond, but one thing I don't get, is your expressing no appreciation for how I did run with your suggestion on the Recent Changes monitoring tool, which you suggested/requested for use in a somewhat negative reviewing way, which I fully assisted in providing, though I hoped it would serve more positive use, too. That's one example of me doing things the way you wanted. I would be glad to avoid the long conversations, but I am on trial here and I can't avoid it. --doncram 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

7) I will be happy to run a new discussion of possible improvements to the /drafts system, after completing the Grand Forks and other batches that remain open. I will again give consideration to your suggestions and preferences in that process.

I will participate in any discussion at WT:NRHP or elsewhere about improvements to the system, but for now, let's focus here and get this wrapped up. Too many times with you, discussions never end, and people just lose interest or get frustrated and go away. Then you go on about your daily grind as if nothing ever happened. I hope that this discussion will not end like that but that something actually substantive will come out of it. Please stop trying to demonize the people that are commenting here; maybe actually listen to what they are saying and try it out. Showing at least some flexibility in your methods can go a long way, believe it or not.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I expect you will have good suggestions that i will try to work with, in future discussion. For now, I would appreciate if you could help wrap this up with a decision not to accept the proposal. I am not in general demonizing others, i don't think. I really welcome and invite others' participation, including, notably, that I appreciate Elkman's continuing reluctant-but-positive contributions in the Grand Forks articles. I am fed up with long-running all-negative all-the-time commentary from one or two other editors, though. --doncram 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's all for now. I can't comment much further today. --doncram 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So, now my infobox generator is suddenly on trial here? For the record, and for the benefit of other editors who haven't used my infobox generator, here's what it says on a query: "The infobox is NOT enough for a standalone article. You need to enter some more information about where the property is located, its history, and why this property is notable. In other words, don't use this infobox generator to create one-sentence stubs." I have said, from the beginning, that the infobox generator is just a tool to create infoboxes, not to create full articles. I never said anything about not creating stubs using my infobox generator. My position has been that, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we need to do more than just regurgitating information from the NRHP database. Anyone can just present it and add a few bells and whistles around it. I've seen plenty of references to these at city-data.com, pubcrawler.com, and nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. My position has also been that any editor using my infobox generator is responsible for the content. I'm not taking responsibility for someone else's edits.

To Elkman: You're not on trial here; I am. However, many commentators here are not aware of wide usage of the NRHP infobox generator you make available, and how it has been used by many editors to create stub articles on NRHP places that are inferior in several ways to the /drafts that I provide. I always have been, and remain, grateful that on your own dime you provide the tools for NRHP editors on your own website. Your statement that you quote illustrates what I meant by your wishing for other editors not to create stub articles. You indeed want them to provide more. I do too, but I have a different approach. I believe it is better to provide more so that they can improve the articles using that additional info, and avoiding some kinds of errors they might introduce. You believe it is better to provide less, demanding more of the other editors to meet the standard you want them to achieve. I believe my approach, broadly, will yield far more articles more efficiently at the standard you want met. --doncram 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

However, if you would be willing to consider improvements to your infobox generator, I would have several suggestions, that would generally lead to better articles. For example, I think it would be better if you could provide some caution within the generated infobox or text that the architect= field does not necessarily report an architect, and that the built= field does not necessarily provide a built date. I have other suggestions too detailed to state here.

Also, if you were willing to collaborate, I would be grateful if you would share your copy of the coordinates database, and otherwise work with me for both our systems to include improved coordinates (better coordinates in KML files are available for many/most sites, than the coordinates that your system uses). And I would share some information and some other coding that I have done (probably still useful though i bet we are programming in different languages), if you chose to collaborate to improve both of our systems. Either way, I am glad you provide what you do.

As far as the accuracy of "built or designed by", "was built or has other significance in the year", and so on, a little research into the NRHP nomination or other source documents should provide more context into these details. That's the part I have issue with: You still continue to generate articles on a semi-automated basis without actually doing any more research to flesh out the article. Even when the NRHP document is conveniently available online, you often haven't read them. I've seen a couple NRHP nomination documents cited in your sources that actually lead to a page saying, "This nomination has not yet been digitized."

To Elkman: You are absolutely correct that when i place the first /draft into mainspace that I have not read the nomination document. I have created a reference which links to it, and then it is convenient to look at the document and to refine the reference (filling out author and date blanks) and hopefully to use it to characterize the importance of the place. It is NOT convenient to find the documents and read them beforehand; that is not practical and not necessary in the first edit. I agree that a batch of new articles should not be deemed complete if the NRHP doc links have not been checked, and if the author and date blanks have not been filled out. I have developed a process that gets these good references into articles efficiently, saving vast amounts of time for local editors who do not need to learn how to get frustrated with the crazy National Register web systems, and greatly advancing Wikipedia in these areas. --doncram 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's something else I have an objection to: In these edits to Sorlie Memorial Bridge, you added some automated edits that included material that already existed in the prose, or that should have been added to the prose. The article now mentions twice that it was built ("or has other significance in") 1929, that it was built (or "designed and/or built") by the Minneapolis Bridge Company, and that it was listed on the National Register in 1999. Do you have an objection to integrating your changes into the existing text? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To Elkman: Thanks for bring that up. It is a great example of the /drafts system providing information that can be easily used to improve an already existing article. The Sorlie bridge article lacked NRHP nomination document and the MPS document and other stuff which my edits added, though i did not integrate them immediately. My edits were on April 24 and included "Under Construction" tag. I went off in next edit to add Sorlie bridge to Red River Bridge disambiguation article, and didn't get back right away. Note I was already being raked in User talk:Orlady#Stop and discuss and this topic ban proposal opened the very next day. See my last 500 contributions and search where "Sorlie" is located. I use the Under Construction tags as a quick way to remind myself to come back; I would usually notice the UC tag removal by a bot a week later, and return, if i did not return sooner. Thanks for taking care of it fully already, in your improving that article, doing that obviously necessary integration, immediately after you posted this comment. Don't you agree that the article is substantially improved? --doncram 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so that's why you are sticking Under Construction templates onto so many pages! That recently adopted practice of yours is something that I have been bothered by. The intended purpose of that template has never been entirely clear to me, but because I believe that it causes many contributors to think twice before editing the article, it is easy to perceive it as a declaration of article ownership. As I see it, that template has value in two distinct sets of circumstances: (1) when someone is in the middle of a major reorganization of a complex article and (2) when the creator of a new article is aware of serious shortcomings to the article, is actively working on fixing them, and wants new page patrollers to be understanding of the situation. I sympathize with the desire to keep track of your current projects, but using such a highly visible tag to remind yourself that you intended to continue working on the article is not a good use of a that tag -- and is arguably an expression of WP:OWN. I know that you also use User:Doncram/CertainCats and possibly other personal/project templates as personal reminders. Would it be possible for you to expand your use of those types of "private" reminders -- so you can refrain from using publicly visible article space to make notes to yourself? --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I object to the familiar tone, and the chiding in that suggestion. Orlady, you're on the record here in this discussion to ban me creating NRHP articles. I prefer the more civil tone to your other more recent rude-in-my-view comments at your Talk page and elsewhere, but I don't want to chat amiably about this side topic here with you, thank you. To others, for the record, I use the Under Construction tag in compliance with policy, largely in what Orlady describes as function (2), to signify serious shortcomings, exactly as was appropriate for the Sorlie Memorial Bridge article which needed reorganization. It also has the side benefit of providing a reminder for editors who watch their watchlists. I am on trial here, and I resent the new implication that I am out of synch with proper practice is some tangential way. --doncram 00:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Two comments to clarify the record: I can't find a "familiar tone" in my comment that anyone would object to. Are you referring to the fact that I indicate familiarity with your editing and with your user page?
As for your comment that I am "on the record here in this discussion to ban me creating NRHP articles," I didn't say that here. I supported SarekOfVulcan's proposal to ban you from creating stubs containing language that indicates an absence of actual information or serves as a blank to be filled in, such as "...is or was a building", "has some significance in 1843 and 1902," etc. Please re-read the actual proposal. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content. Instead, the sandbox should be used to develop the article so that it has reasonable content when it is copied into namespace. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose While I was one of the stronger opponents to creating these stubs, I don't think that a topic ban is necessary. I think and hope that Doncram has got the message. Topic bans should only be used in clearly defiant cases; this is not a clear-cut scenario. We need people like Doncram here to help build Wikipedia and I don't want to see Doncram leave. Doncram, I hope that you read the many excellent suggestions posted here for you and take them to heart. You said that you're not here to get edit counts. Then spend the 30 minutes that it takes to find additional sources on the internet! I rarely have trouble finding many reliable sources for a NRPH article. You're concentrating on turning out articles instead of turning out start/C-class content. Royalbroil 02:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I've compiled a list of some of the article pages that might be affected by this proposed ban, if it is implemented, or other resolution that may emerge from this discussion. See this page. Note that some of the items on that page could be cleaned up by removing the problematic language. There are many more articles that contain some of the language identified in the proposed ban, but also have solid information content. --Orlady (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You have put in considerable effort to identify arguably problematic articles, selectively. I object to the negative thrust of that, and to the negative, wikihounding type of following of me that you have pursued, in general. This is one more instance to add to the list. (Others, please allow me some liberty here; I am not going to provide diffs here, but many here have seen a long history of Orlady following my edits and a long history of disputes, and will have observed deterioration in tone.) I am naturally going to perceive your creation of such a list as biased. It is not irrational for me to do so. You are suggesting reviewing just the problem cases, not the scope of a whole campaign. You are, I presume, identifying just articles that I created or edited. There are many worse articles in wikipedia in general, and NRHP articles in particular.

Thanks for providing a cleanup list, however. I am not able to review them all right now; i can't really comment more today. I or someone else should put some kind of cleanup tag in them that will attract attention of NRHP editors. Elkman has used one cleanup tag that has not generally attracted any interest, though I posted its category within the ToDo list (which I created) that displays at wt:NRHP. I have created other cleanup tagging systems that worked better. It's a topic for wt:NRHP i think. Also, if you have some specific searches that you could share the specifics of, about how you found these, it would be helpful for you to share those specifics, so that others interested in cleanups can follow those procedures and improve those articles. --doncram 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose at least as long as the creator of this stub won't be banned for creating stubs. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• People seem not to be understanding this proposal. There is nothing in it that prevents Doncram from creating stubs. What is being proposed is that the stubs are initially placed in his userspace until such time as they are suitable for inclusion in mainspace. With a decent review system and/or further development by Doncram to eliminate issues which even he seems to agree sometimes exist, those stubs could soon be moved over in the vast majority of cases. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Of course, if you are being frivolous then please strike through your !vote. No-one is suggesting that Doncram be banned, let alone Jimbo. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, the point is: At least as long as it is not depreciated to create stubs no user should be critizised or whatsoever when creating stubs. Don't like stubs? Then ban stubs consequently and thoroughly but not under certain circumstances only and/or not on certain topics only. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I feel compelled to make some sort of comment here, as I've been impressed by Doncram's NRHP work before, but I've also been involved in a similar situation dealing with an editor prolifically creating substubs. I'm very wary of setting a precedent about minimum standards for articles, in part because of the possibility that such a bar would keep on getting raised. But from my past experience, I feel that systematic creation of article, as seems to be the case here, should involve a higher standard. It's one thing to polish up a few one-liner stubs someone tossed off on a busy afternoon. If they're cranking out, say, ten a night, it tends to burn up the people polishing very rapidly—high rates of article creation make a higher, rather than a lower, standard of article quality necessary.
• I generally endorse Smallbones' remarks above, and the idea of having these articles flow through some sort of draft location in userspace or projectspace rather than entering mainspace directly seems like an excellent one. I do, regretfully, have to say that the previous discussion makes me worry about Doncram's compliance. This discussion was very civil (in comparison to the current one), and, to my uninvolved eye, generated a consensus that the output from the bot shouldn't go directly into article space without some sort of rewriting exercising human judgment. We appear to be re-fighting that issue right now, to very little profit.
• Perhaps it would help if Doncram and the other members of WP:NRHP took a step back and discussed their goals for the project, without reference to specific articles of contention, and tried to reach some sort of consensus? I can't help but think, in looking over this, that part of the problem is that people's implicit goals seem to be quite different, and exposing some of those goals and assumptions to fresh air might improve understanding on both sides. Choess (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You summed it up nicely, and most of us would agree with Smallbones's solution. However, the NRHP project has continuously brought this issue to Doncram's attention, and he continuously ignores it. I seriously doubt there is anything the NRHP project can do at this point to convince Doncram that these proto-stubs don't belong in the mainspace. Bms4880 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Many people have asserted that Doncram thinks Wikipedia policies don't apply to him. I don't think that's the case. Rather, he truly believes these stubs are NOT against Wikipedia policy. I am in agreement with him on that in most cases. I think he sometimes includes some things that could be moved to the talk page. But, in my opinion a stub with the infobox and a reference, especially if it has a picture in it, and a simple sentence saying that "Such and such was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 19??." is enough for a valid stub. Enough people had a problem with that, so that Doncram started trying to put in more, and that's where all this trouble began. He WON'T say something he can't be absolutely certain of, so he writes those factual but ambiguous statements that so bother everyone. Have any of these stubs that so bother some people been taken to AfD? I would really like to know whether they are, indeed, against Wikipedia policy. I would like to know whether the old one sentence stubs I used to make in order to add pictures are against Wikipedia policy. I pretty much quit creating stubs when they started "requiring" more than that bare sentence. Now, unless the documentation is available online and it's something I'm particularly intrested in, if there's not already an article, my pictures go only in the list article. Seeing my pictures in little tiny form on a list article is not all that exciting, so I don't post as many pictures as I used to. That's what raising the bar and forcing editors to do things they don't enjoy accomplishes, IMO. Lvklock (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Support ban; this would seem to b e the best course all round. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Provisionally voting support. For me, it is not the content-less stub creation that is most bothersome, it is that Doncram insists that these sub-stubs are the only way to discuss the topic and also his near fanatic insistence that they be left alone. In many cases, consolidation of some of these sub-stubs (like when they are part of a MPS) or merging to locality articles (when they are historic districts representing the core of the locality) seems like an appropriate course of action pending further development. If Doncram is willing to loosen his ownership of his sub-stubs by allowing them to be developed not necessarily the way he likes, I am willing to put some of my time to actual article development of these sub-stubs that Doncram creates and leaves untouched for months. --Polaron | Talk 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent article work

I'm breaking this off into its own section, because it's not directly relevant to the proposal we started with.

Doncram started George Hancock (architect) on December 18, by pasting in a large unformatted list of NRHP properties, many of which had no relation to George Hancock. No substantial work on it was done until yesterday, when I removed the list and PRODded the article, as it didn't have any sourcing in it, and merely asserted that he was an architect who worked in the Midwest. Doncram removed the PROD, which was natural, but then proceeded to restore the list with the edit summary "restore a table in development. This architect designed many notable buildings". I then moved it to userspace, where he finished trimming the unformatted list. Later that evening, he created a redirect from Hancock Brothers to the userfied article with the edit summary "set up temporary redirect, until target is moved to mainspace". He then set up Hancock Bros. as a redir to Hancock Brothers, but a bot fixed the double redir to point to userspace. After those was speedied as a cross-namespace redirect, he moved the article back to its original location (now at least tolerable in mainspace) with the edit summary "restore to mainspace a) because needed in mainspace b) related redirects being deleted c) userspace location causing disruptions and overhead". He then recreated the Hancock Brothers redir, with the edit summary "recreate needed redirect that was deleted. Overhead caused by an editor having put the target into Userspace, now returned to Mainspace", and recreated Hancock Bros., again as a double redir.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see Doncram already put his take on this above -- I hadn't read it before writing this. Naturally, our opinions on where the disruption lies differ slightly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that particular conflict between SarekOfVulcan and Doncram is explained in part by Doncram's belief (documented in this talk page discussion from January, wherein Doncram informed me that I am wasting my time when I fix the double redirects and disambiguation problems that are created when I move a page) that misdirected links and double redirects are not a problem. --Orlady (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is copy from above: (begin copy from above)

One could take this as an answer to that question... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. I will agree that the George Hancock (architect) article needed development and further that I regard leaving <pre>...</pre> lists in mainspace more than briefly is not acceptable. I wasn't aware of the status of that one; i've now fixed it up somewhat (and SarekOfVulcan also edited it). --doncram 22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: I and another editor or two developed the George Hancock (architect) article somewhat. SarekOfVulcan had moved it to userspace. This causes overhead: specifically 2 needed redirects from Hancock Brothers and Hancock Bros. were since deleted as being cross-namespace redirects. Linking between the architect article and buildings/NRHPs it itemizes is made awkward if in userspace. I moved it back and restored the needed redirects. It doesn't work to put articles in Userspace, in general: no one ever pays attention to them; categorizers and others will not find them; categories are often turned off; necessary redirects naturally created during development can't be created or will be deleted if they are, etc. --doncram 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(End of copy from above) Yes, i developed the architect article further, and in the process of going to and from the articles that turned out to be bluelinks to get pics and otherwise, i added links in those articles. It is part of the process, to go back and forth and add links. It doesn't work to have some articles in mainspace and some in userspace, and bots interfering. Thank you for agreeing that the article is "at least tolerable in mainspace". Hopefully no more needs to be said, this is done. Thanks. --doncram 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC?

This discussion is getting very difficult to follow. Does anyone else think that an RfC/U would be a more productive method of discussing this? Indicate support/opposition below. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be an RFC about what? I don't welcome an RFC/U about me, if that is what you suggest. I am just off a one-week block by SarekOfVulcan, only to run into accusations at my Talk page by Orlady on unrelated-to-the-block topics (then moved to her Talk), which SarekOfVulcan watched and then opened the present proposal here focused upon me. SarekOfVulcan also previously opened an RFC/U about me. Elkman also previously opened an RFC/U about me. I am feeling a bit persecuted here. I don't welcome quadruple or octuple or whatever number of jeopardy that would be. I was considering asking for arbitration, to address my perception of a pattern of wikihounding, and where there would be active management by arbitration rules to stop tangential discussions about whether sourced articles on notable topics are allowed in Wikipedia or not, and about other tangents. I would appreciate advice, separately, about that possibility.

I would welcome this AN proposal being closed with rejection of the proposal. About the NRHP articles, which I was starting in a generally approved program, I will welcome comments in appropriate discussion for improvement of starter /drafts, and will seriously take implied or explicit suggestions from all comments here into account. --doncram 01:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting this as a way to "persecute" you, and I resent being painted in such an antagonistic light. I am proposing this as a way to organise debate so that it is easier for users to present concerns about your conduct AND for you to respond individually to their concerns without having such a nightmarish web of tangled discussion threads as above. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, one has to wonder... if there has been so much discussion about you, maybe you should start thinking.... "Maybe it's me?" Just my observation.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an RFC/U would help. I tried that once, and it went absolutely nowhere. Another RFC/U about Doncram would generate more, but different walls of text, and would never achieve a behavior modification. Just politely telling Doncram to stop creating mechanically written, thinly populated stubs hasn't worked either. I'm starting to think that only a request for arbitration would solve this problem. (Either that, or I could go completely insane and run screaming off the end of the end of Bridge No. 5757, but that probably wouldn't help.) (Or would it help if I went completely insane and ran screaming off the end of the Seventh Street Improvement Arches?) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd recommend the Canton Viaduct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration would be fine too, perhaps better. What I desire here is some form of organisation in the "walls of text" in addition to a decisive outcome one way or another. The current threads here are so convoluted that I've lost track of much of the debate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, without the RFC/U first, the ArbCom will just kick it back to the community. Given that Doncram just posted "I would also appreciate your supporting me in publicly discounting others' future criticisms in general" (click the link for context, but it's almost as horrifying with context), I think things should be moved along without delay. I didn't realize quite how far out of step with community editing norms he was before that line.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do click that link and see the context. In that comment, I agree fully to what critic Dudemanfellabra requests. It's not horrifying. I am becoming horrified that SarekOfVulcan can take this comment, mild in larger context and not a personal attack, and use it to justify a week-long block. Or watch an adversarial conversation at User talk:Orlady started by her pouncing upon a first draft which I updated in subsequent edits before she posted her blast, to justify a Topic ban request. Or now seizing upon one comment towards justifying something else. Is this a big game of "Gotcha"? What SarekOfVulcan seems to object to is my acknowledging that there is likely to be continued dispute about the fully sourced accurate new articles about NRHP sites. And I am mildly irritated by some various shortages of understanding, including about the difficulty of setting up better program to support NRHP editors, than the system which Elkman provides, which is the main thrust of what I am doing. Not one editor here, besides me, has tried using the demo system, set up during the WikiProject NRHP discussion. So some mild frustration on my part is justified, and I should not be hauled away for saying it.

I agreed to what Dudemanfellabra wants. Please consider that. --doncram 13:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to that bit; I see it as essentially saying "I'd appreciate it if you'd help me to show that others' criticisms are invalid". On the RFC thing, I reluctantly agree that this is the best option. Contrary to what Doncram seems to be saying up above, there haven't been tons of RFCs about him: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram exists, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 2 was deleted, and there was never a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 3 or a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 4. Assuming that there wasn't one whose creator skipped several numbers, there have only been two. You'll notice that the first one was somewhat related to this, as the introduction mentions disputes over Doncram's inclusion of statements of "The district has some significance" in very miniscule NRHP stubs. I really wish we didn't have to go this way, since Wikipedia isn't officially a bureaucracy, but if we must, we must. By the way, Doncram, this isn't double or triple jeapordy, as that applies when you're brought up multiple times for the same thing; if you do something, are brought up, and do it again, it's new charges and not double jeapordy. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what my objection is. How about waiting for the criticisms before asking someone to decide they're invalid? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I agree to wait for future criticisms before responding to them. But it seems rational to anticipate future criticism (given perennial complaints about stubs not being perfect at once (which will always be a feature of wikipedia in biographies and in science articles and in every kind of topic area) and it seems rational to ask/pressure likely future critics to do some actual testing, within the rationally designed, approved demonstration program, before they offer their criticisms of the next demonstration trial. --doncram 13:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Above, Doncram has agreed to a solution that I think accomplishes the goal of this discussion without technically "banning" Doncram. The details of the proposal are as follows:

• Later today, I will go through and make editable (i.e. remove all the <pre>...</pre> tags) Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota/drafts, which is the source of many of the articles in question here. Then I will develop a few of the stubs on that page (not in mainspace) to remove ambiguous statements and fill in the NRHP document references. After developing a few there, I will post back here and make sure the quality to which I bring the stubs (though obviously not FA or even Start-quality status) is acceptable. If they are, I will move the few stubs I develop into mainspace (and possibly tidy up a few that have already ben created by Doncram or others on the list).
• While I am editing these stubs, Doncram agrees not to create any stubs, though his help in developing stubs on the /drafts page is welcomed.
• In future counties on which Doncram uses his bot output, Doncram agrees to make the /drafts page editable and develop the articles there. The articles he develops using the bot in the future will be required to match the quality that I put out later today. If it is impossible (e.g. no NRHP document or other source online) to clarify the ambiguous statements outputted by the bot, he will notify the WP:NRHP project, and members will look over the stub–which will still be on the /drafts page and not in mainspace–before deciding what to do.
• The "Recent Changes" feature (e.g. this one for the Grand Forks stubs) will be used to make sure than Doncram is not promoting stubs of questionable quality any more. Anyone interested in keeping an eye on the process can periodically browse this list (and later, other counties' lists) to check up on progress.

Pending Doncram's acceptance of this proposal here, I have decided to withdraw my support of this topic ban and Oppose it. I now ask all those that !voted in support of the proposal to consider this resolution and change their !vote to "Oppose" as well.(Redacted after Doncram's comment below and then reinstated after clarification) A watchful eye will still be needed, but for now, I think this suffices to wrap up the discussion.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree to try to provide meaningful trial of a different form of /drafts, accomplishing what Dudemanfellabra wants in substance. I don't specifically agree to extremely specific details that Dudemanfellabra is specifying here or that he will dictate by edits on one page. He cannot exactly dictate, in detail, what i must do. I assure you that i will accomplish the substance of what he wants for a future trial, which I was suggesting for a different county in a different state. The substance is that the /drafts in a new trial should facilitate edits on the /drafts page (not in mainspace) before stuff is copied over. I am willing to honestly try to make that work, and D is willing to try testing out the existing way, I thought he agreed.

I have received plenty of input here in this discussion, which I will take into account. I do not promise to meet specific quality standards and I do not promise to satisfy Dudemanfellabra's ongoing concerns or to submit to some process with sanctions if someone else judges an article is not up to their standard. That's too overreaching. Read what I agreed to further above. However, I can't talk more now, really have to go. Something here should work, but you cannot contract on it in exact terms probably. I will try to meet D's concerns and to do a trial as he wishes, is what i said. --doncram 18:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Doncram's reply does not indicate acceptance of this proposal. Also, I note that the proposal does not provide a path for addressing the many deficient stubs he has already created, such as the collection I compiled at User:Orlady/List. When I've put cleanup templates on pagebuildings like those in the past, or userfied them, edit warring and tantrums have ensued. I'd like to know that doncram will not pitch a fit if those sorts of measures are employed. Orlady (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, the entire purpose of making the /drafts page editable is so that the stubs can be developed there and not in mainspace. While I am thrilled that you are agreeing with the idea of making the page editable, that only provides a framework to solve the problem at hand; it doesn't actually solve it. If all you're agreeing to is to make the /drafts editable, then nothing is stopping you from creating the "accurately vague" stubs which are the focus of this discussion.

To solve the problem entirely and end this discussion would require your agreement to only promote stubs that didn't have the "accurately vague" phrases in them and the promise of ongoing arbitration by other editors. Without that requirement, making the /drafts pages editable serves little purpose.

I have struck out my !vote change above in light of your response, but the strike doesn't have to stay. Maybe you're fearing that my standards (after being agreed to by editors here, of course) will be too high for you to follow? If that is the case, I would suggest waiting until a few articles are developed on the /drafts page. If, after seeing what we suggest minimum development should be, you still think the bar is too high, then we will have to find a different method to resolve this conflict. I think, however, that you will be pleasantly surprised by how little this proposal is asking of you.

In a county where I am implementing the version of /drafts you prefer, to facilitate editing there, I will abide by that mode of operating. I wasn't expecting to go backwards and manually change the /drafts page for Grand Forks. It is almost done; it is not worth investing manual edits there. But, if you want to convert it manually, I will abide by that there, and i will program a next batch for some other county implementing that type of approach (and better, as my programs are already better than the Grand Forks /drafts version). I think this is the thrust of what you want. I will cooperate in allowing you to prove to me that that way can work. I am perfectly willing to provide batches that facilitate other editors to more easily create good articles; that is the point of all the hours I put into programming already. That is fully agreeing to what you want, I believe. (I now see Dudemanfellabra's clarification far above, and accept that, including "As far as future criticism goes, I can make no promises here. I believe that if you stick to the system that I will implement later today with the Grand Forks /drafts page, you won't receive as much criticism. If you, however, dip back into your mass substub creation, I won't blindly defend you.") I just can't promise, either, to never create any other NRHP stub articles. There are various good reasons why I create scattered short articles, not part of a county-based campaign, using the Elkman generator if it is a NRHP article (for example, to resolve a naming issue or to defuse a situation where a new-to-disambiguation editor takes issue with one redlink on a dab page). I believe Dudemanfellabra and I have been talking together about the main thrust of article generation campaigning using my programming. I agree to direct my effort within that to accommodate his and others' preferences for a while at least. I cannot agree to something putting broad restriction upon me alone, among all editors, not to ever offend any judge on quality. This is agreeing with Dudemanfellabra, but not accepting over-arching, open-ended restrictions with unintended consequences. I believe Dudemanfellabra can recognize this, and can recognize that my word is good. But simply put, to head off future misunderstandings, I am not agreeing to a broad editing restriction, which would not be justified, for my building Wikipedia by creating sourced articles on notable topics. --doncram 22:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said that you shouldn't be allowed to create stubs, and that is not the focus of this discussion. The focus of this discussion is that the stubs you create shouldn't include ambiguous language in them like "was designed and/or built" or "has other significance in ____." This restriction would not only apply to you, as you seem to think from your above comment; it would apply to anyone using your /drafts bot. I do believe the restriction (that no stubs that come out of this bot can still include the vague language when moved into mainspace) will be longstanding, and failure to comply with the standards drafted will probably result in future hardships.

I have now removed that strikethrough and will begin working on the Grand Forks articles later tonight. After I develop a few to the minimum standard I believe they should be before moving them into mainspace, I will post back here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Replying to Orlady now, I agree that this proposal does not address those stubs already created by Doncram (or other editors). To further show willingness to compromise with Doncram, how about you join me–after I have developed a few stubs from Grand Forks–in cleaning up those articles listed on your userpage? Doncram is invited to help as well, of course, but he can't be required to scan through six full years of work and find every single problem article out there. As these problem articles are found in the future, the project can work together to bring them up to the standards we set here or at some later discussion at the project. If Doncram agrees to create future stubs at or above that standard, eventually all the problem articles will be repaired. Sound like a deal?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one takes that to mean Dudemanfellabra is suggesting that there exists six years of all-bad work out there. Not sure if I have been editing six years, or if that is the start-date of the WikiProject NRHP (before me). I have done a lot of great work, and the articles that I started or developed or encouraged others in the development of, comprise a pretty good chunk of Wikipedia now. At some point I assessed that NRHP articles make up 1 percent of Wikipedia, about 30,000 out of 3 million articles. About scattered articles that could be better, sure those do exist, and can be tagged for cleanup. Even though probably all could have been fully compliant with all standards and even to have represented best practices of their time. Dudemanfellabra has worked with me on several huge cleanup campaigns of NRHP articles on various specialized matters, and is aware of other huge cleanup campaigns i have pursued. Cleanup campaigns are fine and good. I facilitate NRHP cleanup campaigns, including by use of the ToDo list posted at the NRHP wikiproject. --doncram 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help clean up the vague sub-stubs in Connecticut (assuming Doncram relinquishes his de facto ownership of these sub-stubs). As Connecticut NRHP documents are all online, this would be fairly straightforward to do. --Polaron | Talk 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to have your help developing the Connecticut articles, Polaron. Your and my past disagreement was mostly about your hijacking the NRHP article titles in Connecticut to redirect to town/village/other articles which did not describe and were not the appropriate place to describe the NRHP topics in detail. This disagreement seems largely resolved, by a long mediated discussion leading to some development of articles and some removals of the redirects (to restore the redlinks), and then since by my creating most of the missing NRHP articles. Please do help develop them further. Thanks. --doncram 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just be aware that cleaning up of some of these vague stubs can sometimes mean merging when a locality and historic district are essentially the same. I hope you're fine with that option now. --Polaron | Talk 14:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are suggesting you are going to proceed with undiscussed unilateral merges, contrary to specific previous discussion in mediation about each contested one of those, please don't do that. You should be fully aware that redirects and mergers of those topics are basically contested. If you are suggesting there are cases where additional research provides new information which you are now willing to share, that can and should be discussed at Talk pages, in merge proposals, and I look forward to the organization of topics being improved by such discussions and decisions, sometimes for mergers. Thanks. --doncram 14:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that "offer" doesn't work for me, Dudemanfellabra. I hasten to say that I have had some very pleasant and productive collaborations with Doncram, but there have been way too many negative interactions -- and I am utterly uninterested in becoming his designated cleaning lady. The fact that he creates scores of deficient pages about obscure topics, and I notice those pages, should not obligate me to devote my personal life to making them into decent articles. I have no interest in the vast majority of the topics about which he has created his ridiculous stubs; my interest is in ensuring that these deficient articles don't remain in article space in their dreadful condition (and I've discovered many of them by searching on peculiar text strings). Even though I don't care about the topics of most of his stubs, I've cleaned up plenty of Doncram's stub creations over the years. Because of his attitude of ownership toward those stubs, far too often I've gotten grief for my cleanup efforts (for example, on multiple occasions he has castigated me for not writing to the state authorities to request copies of the National Register nomination forms so I could fix his articles to his satisfaction, instead of doing it my way). When I identify a page like the current version of Noel Owen Neal House or the current version of Red River Bridge (Arkansas) as inadequate for article space, I believe that I should be able to either (1) insist that it be moved out of article space until it is improved to minimal quality for article space, (2) remove the offending language, or (3) insert appropriate cleanup templates (for example, inline templates such as {{what}}, which generates a request to "clarify", {{vague}}, and {{by whom}}) on the page to give it a chance of appearing on somebody's "to do" list and to notify users and newbies that it's not exactly deemed to be an example of Wikipedia's best work. I am tired of having those kinds of efforts be rewarded by accusations of pointyness and by pointless edit warring (for example, see the 2-3 February 2010 counterpoint in this page history over my effort to remove Doncram's deliberately vague sentence "The district and the village are substantially similar"). I've been through this sort of thing way too many times with Doncram already. --Orlady (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is fair to call for you to get the NRHP document that would reasonably be expected to resolve some informational issue, on several occasions, when you have battled unreasonably-in-my-view on small points. You have sometimes emphasized your disdain and dislike for the topics and the related sources: then, why on earth are you focusing upon them? And if choosing to be involved, I think you should defer to others who are actually interested, and not make a big deal to find fault in small matters. It often seems to me that you are following me to find fault (which you acknowledge), and in your eagerness to find fault you make biased judgments. I observe that you are sometimes absolutely wrong about content facts and about Wikipedia policy, and my former respect for you as an editor is diminished each time that happens. Also, you have different subjective opinions on how best to write something, which are subjective, and your following me and battling on subjective matters contributes to making Wikipedia a more unpleasant place. It seems like wp:wikihounding. The exact term you cite, about district and village being substantially similar, is one I already mentioned somewhere else in this AN discussion, as an example of an accurately ambiguous term which you disputed. As Orlady fully well knows, that was negotiated language used to settle, between Polaron and me with help of a mediator, a lot of dispute about Connecticut NRHP topics where Polaron had battled to redirect/force mergers, where in fact the relationship of a district to a village was not known. Accurately stating the ambiguity in that way, was part of settling a bigger problem. Orlady's role throughout that mediation was, in my opinion, that of a spoiler, seemingly trying to prevent settlement and to extend dispute and unpleasantness. As here, IMO. --doncram 14:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two major reasons for my persistent refusal to write to state history offices for NRHP nomination forms. First is my position that the fact that you have created a meaningless stub does not somehow obligate me to research the subject matter of that stub and fix it. Second is that I happen to believe (call me crazy, if you want) that the properties listed on the National Register had an existence before and after they were listed on the National Register, and that in almost every instance there are reliable and useful sources other than the typed form submitted to the Keeper of the National Register. An important corollary of this principle is the notion that the National Register nomination form is not the be-all and end-all reference for topics related to National Register listings. Accordingly, I see no strong reason to obtain those documents when there are other sources at our collective disposal. I've been arguing this point with you for 2-1/2 years now, so I'm well aware that I will never convince you of my position, but I feel it necessary to repeat it anyway.
Since you also have chastised me (in this discussion and several others) for listing myself as an NRHP WikiProject member even though I don't devote myself body and soul to that WikiProject, be advised that I initially signed on as a member of the NRHP WikiProject not because of a fascination with the National Register, but because I had discovered that WikiProject members were effectively claiming ownership of articles about properties listed on the National Register, and I didn't like that. I considered it inappropriate that articles like X-10 Graphite Reactor were being revised (and sometimes renamed) by editors who consider the National Register status to be the property's only claim to notability. This ownership attitude by some members of the NRHP Wikiproject, which I once labeled "NRHP ũber alles", also relates to my longstanding position that the historic district designations for places like Wilder, Vermont, Wauregan, Connecticut, Poquetanuck, Connecticut, Wyoming, Rhode Island, and Norris, Tennessee should be addressed in the article about the place, not in a separate article focused on the metes and bounds and other details of the historic district designation. --Orlady (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now developed a few stubs to what I think should be the bare minimum standard for copying them into mainspace. The two examples I did can be seen here and here. Though, obviously, the stubs can be developed much more using the references given by the bot, I think they are a big improvement over the raw output/vague statements that are the focus of this discussion. Doncram, that is all we are asking you to do.. nothing too grand; just a little effort. It took me about 15-20 minutes for each of those two; one would assume that the process would go faster after a routine was formed. Can you agree to do at least that much (and ideally more, though that's only my wishful thinking) for future stubs that you create using your /drafts system? And to others, do you agree that those two examples–though I agree not ideal–are at least acceptable to be copied to mainspace?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe they are fine and i edited them further, to add see also links to one another (which show as redlinks because the targets are not at the mainspace intended locations, and to add coords. Please do copy them to mainspace. --doncram 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Working off Orlady's list I just did something similar here, here, here, here and here in under 45 minutes. If Doncram does not revert these it will be a good start. Station1 (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded on Station1's work here so that it is now Grand Forks Woolen Mills. IMO, the point to which Station1 took the article is the minimum that is acceptable for mainspace (although perfectly acceptable - what I have done merely proves Doncram's argument but I suspect this is an exceptional example in terms of info immediately available). - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to see the further development of the Grand Forks Woolen Mills article. Extraordinary interest has now been shown in the NRHP listings of Grand Forks County. Thanks for contributing there. --doncram 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sitush does remarkable work in researching and documenting industrial history. --Orlady (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Washington School (Grand Forks, North Dakota), Midway Bridge (Johnstown, North Dakota) and St. Michael's Church (Grand Forks, North Dakota) got straight reverts, followed be a little cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are improved articles now, don't you agree, including that they have the somewhat-complicated-for-newbies inline ref in complete form for the NRHP docs, and some more factual development from the NRHP doc. It was easier to revert Station1 and then work ahead, than to reconstruct. I did add back a topic sentence Station1 had composed (though it was only based on info I had already put into in the article) to the Midway one. These edits by Station1 were all of the type showing that he did not read the NRHP nom doc, and removing accurately ambiguous statements rather than resolving the ambiguity. Some other edits, including by SarekOfVulcan and by Polaron in various of these ND and CT articles, have shown some actual reading and positive contribution. --doncram 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I do not agree. I believe Doncram just doesn't get it. Based on his extreme ownership tendencies, inability to stop reverting certain editors, contentious and defensive responses throughout this proposal, and rejection of Dudemanfellabra's proposed resolution, I will not be changing my Support !vote above. Station1 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are some ways of editing these that amount to negative editing, and some which are positive and building. I have in the past often viewed Orlady's just-again-self-described as resentful, fault-finding editing, as detracting from articles in progress. Her behavior is, in my opinion, hateful and shameful. Station1's edits here may be well-meaning, but I view this "cleanup" by Station1 of one here, as taking the article backwards. Specifically, instead of reading the NRHP nom and adding the author and date of preparation to the inline reference, and beginning to develop from the reference, instead Station1 removed it as an inline reference, stripped out the date and author blanks, and moved it to an external link. So my first step in further improving the article would be to revert his edit. I think the quality of edits depends on your purpose, whether you are trying to build and provide information for the local and other readers who might then dig in and add more, or if your purpose is to find fault and complain and tear down. If you don't like the article, I would prefer you take it to AFD. --doncram 13:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since that listing is not being used to reference any specific information in the article at present, Further Reading is a perfect place for it. Then, when it's used to source information in the article, it can be moved back into an inline ref. I'd suggest adopting this format in your program going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Which would defeating the purpose of facilitating locals and other editors in further development of the articles. I agree that there should be some information used from the reference; that is why I am providing it. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that articles must meet any particular quality standard in the first edit. You can add a cleanup tag if you want; you can prod or AFD it (though, if you know the topic is wikipedia-notable, you should not because you are wasting many editors' time). --doncram 13:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how that prevents further development of the article, when the information is right there, and clearly tagged as being something you'd want to read for more information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Providing a fully formed complicated reference to the NRHP nomination document is a help to most local editors who don't know how to format that. Dudemanfellabra, in this AN discussion, acknowledges that providing that is a big advance in my /drafts over what the competing system (Elkman's system) provides, and it is obviously beneficial. The NRHP nom doc reference is often/usually going to be the main reference to be used in developing a lot about the topic, and should be invoked repeatedly in the article. Removing it as an inline reference is a step backwards. If you don't understand this, you are showing that you are not interested in NRHP articles, and you should not be making AN proposals to micromanage in that area, IMO. --doncram 14:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to use the nomination document as an inline source, then at least pull something out of it, as I did here with the information about the architect, John W. Ross(btw, the linked guy is in Iowa.. same person?). In this edit, I used the nomination form as an inline reference, mostly for the word "built" instead of your "built or has other significance." Doing something like that would allow you to use it as an inline reference. If you don't do something like that, though, I agree that the reference should be in a "Further Reading" section. I didn't think about that when I was editing those two, but I now think the MRA document (not the nomination form) should be in a Further reading section on those two as well. I'll go ahead and do that and move them into mainspace.

As to the proposal, will you accept the terms and at least do this much work on the /drafts page before moving the stubs into mainspace?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've given my substantial agreement to what Dudemanfellabra wants, already. I don't want wikilawyers following and saying, in the future, that some article I created does not exactly meet "at least this much work", whatever that means, in the first edit in mainspace, in all future edits of mine. More specifically now to I do agree, for articles in the /drafts of Grand Forks and in at least one yet-to-be-created /drafts of some future demonstration for a different county, to include the NRHP nomination document as an inline reference (which I was already doing) and to work awkwardly in non-mainspace for an edit or two which would include some information from the NRHP doc, so that the inline reference can hang on a specific fact, rather than on a placeholder statement that was always meant to be replaced eventually. In many/most articles in Grand Forks I already did that, just not in the first edit. I hope this clarifies for Dudemanfellabra that I will cooperate in developing a batch of NRHP articles in the way that he is suggesting, so he can try to show that works better. I am not going to try to sabotage those trials. If I am questioned too much, I begin to think you are doubting my agreement is good. I said I would do what I understand you want, Dudemanfellabra, in substance that will probably involve more than is written out here in wikilawyerspeak. --doncram 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound like I am doubting your agreement, Doncram, but I think many people here really need a clear-cut statement from you saying that you will refrain from creating stubs with those vague statements in them. I acknowledge that you have done so lately, with at least two examples of that on my talk page right now. I notice you reference above to "the /drafts of Grand Forks and in at least one yet-to-be-created /drafts of some future demonstration for a different county." That's a big step, I know, but I think what will definitively put to rest the idea of this ban (which seems to already be falling apart due to your cooperation anyway) would be a statement saying that you will not only develop to the minimum standard the remaining stubs in Grand Forks and one future county, but indeed for all future counties. Like I said, I trust you will do so, but without the pure, set-in-stone evidence of a single statement from you, I fear many others that have supported the ban will not.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I've updated the links above, and the two articles can now be found at Grand Forks Mercantile Building 1898 and Grand Forks Mercantile Co..--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: I developed in the /drafts area the 2 remaining Grand Forks drafts, and Dudemanfellabra commented they were fine in his view and I copied them to mainspace. I've started developing the descriptions in the Grand Forks County list-article, as in this diff of 4 edits. When trying to describe a listing there, I draw from the started article; if the started article is inadequate I tend to develop it more, and I have continued with that. In some cases benefiting from others' recent contributions to some of these articles, and in some cases requiring a restoration step before I can continue with reasonable development. The continued development at point of list-article description writing is how I have worked in other county list-articles, yielding good descriptions and articles, such as in List of RHPs in Henrico and List of RHPs in New Haven for 2 examples. An article is not done with its first edit, contrary to the apparent concern of some editors here. Also I developed the two remaining Grand Forks articles which Orlady had moved to my userspace, and moved them back to mainspace, and continued with developing links to and from these and other Grand Forks articles. I hope the continued work, what I like to do and will continue with, demonstrates something to some editors commenting here who are not familiar with NRHP articles or me. --doncram 21:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

wikihounding

Sheesh, watching like a hawk, Orlady has already edited one or both of the returned articles to remove crucial clarifying information, with possibly sarcastic edit summary "removed nonencyclopedic sentence -- the code in the NRIS database is not a topic that readers of an encyclopedia expect to find. (How is it listed in the phone book?)". As I have informed Orlady and as she fully well knows, there are multiple websites on the internet proclaiming that the Clifford Annex and the other site is NRHP-listed, incorrectly (and asserting incorrectly that they were NRHP-listed on the date that they were actually listed), including this page at private website www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. I don't think Orlady should be following me at all, and should not be making strident edits on points that are subjective at best, about what is best to state. For these, where the public record is mixed, I think it is good and worthwhile for Wikipedia to provide strong, clear, sourced statements that correct the public record. How these should best be stated could be discussed, but I disagree with Orlady's removal of the treatment, and I don't believe that her following me and disputing me at every such case is the way to help NRHP editors reach a consensus on how to word these. It's more wp:wikihounding, IMO, though other editors looking at just these edits might not see that. They don't see the previous multiple instances where Orlady has disputed similar cases. Probably on this, and certtainly on other technical issues, Orlady states disdain for seeking out wider consensus. She won't agree to Mediation. She won't do the work of opening positive, productive short RFC-type discussions at wt:NRHP; she just proceeds to critically edit the work of a productive content editor (me) in an adversarial way, yielding something different but not better. The simplest explanation of her behavior is that she is following my edits to find fault. I am sick and tired of it. --doncram 21:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you already have "but was delisted in 2004" in the article, with another source on it, you don't really need the NRIS listing code. I understand the frustration with Orlady following you, but the information that she removed was already clarified in another part of the article in a much more casual, flowing manner. If a ref such as this one in that article can be found supporting the site's delisting from the register, that reference is more desirable to have instead of the NRIS citation. Yes, the NRIS citation is correct, but the other source is more readily available and more easily understood than some random two-letter code in an obscure database.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that i don't happen to agree with the change she made, it's how she made it, with a possibly sarcastic comment here (far milder than many outright derogatory edit summaries she's made), how instantly, how she's-gonna-wikihound-me-forever in spirit, it is. The fact that is her making yet another a reverting type edit, jabbing again and again. I take perfectly well to good discussions, I help to identify disagreements about technical matters and to raise them productively. I don't see her doing that, i see her selectively, incessantly criticizing me. I see her often being outright wrong in points that she is reverting me about, and I cumulatively respect her less and less. It should not be her following and nit-picking. At this point, it is reasonable for me to believe that her edits against me are biased, and I will tend to experience one more of her hundreds/thousands of jabs as negative, when coming from an uninvolved person I would perhaps view it differently. --doncram 22:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to my calling her wikihounding, she is expanding her wikihounding. In this edit on a Grand Forks article i just further developed Orlady removes (by commenting out) a useful link towards additional information on the site, and rewords + puts in a "by whom" tag about a quote that is a quote that is supported by the darn reference at the end of the short paragraph. She didn't check the reference I guess. I don't find her edit subjectively better, and it removes and calls into question stuff unnecessarily. Why does Orlady have to do this?

I figure I pretty much "have to" look at your recent work in order to see if your recent editing is consistent with the promises that Dudemanfellabra has asked you to make in order to resolve this discussion. I don't "have to" edit the pages I've looked at, but sometimes I see things I can improve, and I can't resist the urge to do so.
That "by whom" template refers to the fact that the word "outstanding" was given in quotation marks without any indication of who had called it outstanding -- putting an opinionated statement in quotation marks and putting a reference at the end of the paragraph is not the same as attributing the opinion to a source. Yes, I could have downloaded the PDF document that you cited and read through it to see if I could find the word "outstanding" so I could identify the source and context for the statement, but I don't actually care why an old auto repair shop is considered "outstanding." If you want that detail in an article that you seem to WP:OWN, you can provide the documentation needed.
I commented out that "useful link" because I looked at the link and didn't find it to contain anything that could be cited in the article. It's a link to the contents list of the archived papers of one of the non-notable authors of the NRHP nomination document. The contents list indicates that Lyons Garage is one of the topics covered in the papers, but it gives no details on the garage or on the nature of the information in the papers. The fact that the papers are archived in the university library might be of interest to a researcher, but I can't see the fact as being worthy of note in a very short Wikipedia article, nor do I see the link as having information value. --Orlady (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I went off to a completely different area, plugging along on cleaning up disambiguation pages, and relatedly created two new stub articles Majestic Hotel (Dubai) and Hotel Majestic (San Francisco). The first is not terribly obviously notable, I will agree, but why does Orlady have to jab me with a Speedy Deletion, instantly? Why cannot she let me alone. Some other discussion about whether the hotel is notable, at its Talk, or in some other way raised, like "perhaps it should be mentioned in List of hotels in Dubai but doesn't require an article", or some other less confrontational way, would be possible. She's disputing everything, confrontationally, in gotcha-style editing. She's said online that she dislikes me. She's said she doesn't like the topics I work on. Then why on earth is she following every edit? --doncram 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Woah, "She's said online that she dislikes me. She's said she doesn't like the topics I work on" is quite a statement, whether true or false. Can you provide the diffs for this? Even in your wall-of-text comments, this one stood out. Something is wrong here, I just don't know what. Either way, it does not affect my view of your often (IMO) inadequate stubs & I remain to be convinced about how far you really can work in the spirit of Dudemanfella's proposal ... but that was one heck of a statement to make. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

He's correct that I have admitted online to disliking him (this was roughly two years ago). I commented that he had accused me of engaging in some sort of campaign against him (I forget his words) before I had even noticed that he was someone I had interacted with on multiple occasions. I said that he subsequently had worked very hard at giving me reasons to dislike him, and I told him that he had succeeded in making me dislike him. As for not liking the topics he works on, I don't recall saying that, although I have repeatedly said (usually by way of explaining why I often put cleanup templates on his articles instead of undertaking to fix the problems myself) I'm not particularly interested in many of the topics he creates articles on. --Orlady (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it was roughly two years ago then I wouldn't credit it with too much significance. We have all said things in a manner which might perhaps have been more diplomatically stated. If it was, say, six months ago then I would be more concerned. For the record, I have found Doncram to be, IMO, awkward, Someone else here (Smallbones), whom he asked to comment, mentioned that he may sometimes have an "acerbic" style. Perhaps that is a part of the issue. We're all different, and none of us perfect. Except me, of course. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And, Doncram, someone who wrote "don't be a jerk" in an edit summary less than 36 hours ago[58] should perhaps not be commenting on others' edit summaries. Station1 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want participants in this discussion to consider withdrawing their support for a ban on your creation of certain stubs, you had better expect that some of us will look at your recent new article creations. I had no preconceived notions about Majestic Hotel in Dubai when I first looked at your stub, but I didn't see anything in it that I would consider to be a claim of importance or significance. I did consider posting on your user talk page to politely ask if you had some additional information there that would constitute a claim of significance, but I remembered that you don't like me starting conversations on your talk page, and I figured a speedy deletion template would get the attention of an uninvolved administrator. --Orlady (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence Please see these discussion sections on Orlady's Talk archive from April 2010 (one year ago, not two, and there's been plenty of hatred expressed, since):

1. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#it's harassment. Please stop.
2. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#Old Town Bridge
3. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#Moved to this page from User talk:Doncram who added the title "counting"
4. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#causing drama by wikihounding, again

That one includes Orlady's statement of "strong dislike": (begin quote)

Orlady, i have repeatedly and politely enough asked you to stop bothering me. I believe it is abundantly clear that you dislike me personally. Your following my edits to find minor complaints, to threaten to move new stubs to Userspace, to start deletion processes, etc., is amounting to wp:wikihounding or wp:harassment. It appears you are trying by this personal campaign to detract from my contributing to wikipedia, to cause me to quit, perhaps. It is indeed causing me grief and it is causing some others, such as User:Elkman, great concern. You are causing needless drama. --doncram (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Doncram: It is true that I dislike you. I have admitted that in private e-mail to you. However, I believe that you played a key role in causing me to form a negative opinion of you. As I stated last Sunday in an e-mail reply to you that you have not yet acknowledged:

As I see it, you started disliking me first -- long ago you became convinced that I was pursuing a personal vendetta against you. Quite honestly, I believe that you formed that view before I had even realized that I had interacted with you on multiple occasions (I had not paid much attention to you as a person at that point). However, with the passage of time I have to admit that the feeling became mutual -- I have formed a strong dislike of you. Still, I have no quarrel with 99.9% of what you do (and in fact agree with you much of the time), and I actually pay no attention to most of your work.

You are hardly improving my opinion of you with your behavior. For example, how would you expect me to feel about you when you remove my comments from your talk page and place them on my talk page with a refactored structure that turns them into personal attacks on me -- particularly when you repeatedly revert the changes I made to my own talk page? --Orlady (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(end quote)

That was followed by:

1. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#your following me on Confederate Monument
2. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#Butting in on yet another case, Veterans Administration Hospital
3. User talk:Orlady/Archive 11#hey what's going on, again

See I was really asking her to stop. That was a year ago, when I was trying to tell her at her talk page when she did stuff like that. I later tried avoiding her, not commenting, not responding. It has continued and escalated, instead. What can a person do to get her to stop? --doncram 01:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You could allocate your time on Wikipedia more efficiently. Instead of spending two minutes generating an article from a database and spending an hour arguing, you could spend an hour researching and writing a good article (or two, or three, but not 30), and then spend only two minutes arguing. I bet the wikihounding would stop if you wrote an article at least as long as one typical paragraph of your arguing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

new issue: false proposals

SarekOfVulcan has now opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Ross, towards deletion of an article linking to/from several of the Grand Forks articles. It appears to me to be a possibly "false" proposal, in that he does not believe the article should be deleted, but is opening an AFD to force further development of the topic. If so, IMO that is bad practice: one should use a cleanup type tag and discuss informational issues at the Talk page instead (where SarekOfVulcan is indeed commenting). SarekOfVulcan could reply here and in the AFD to assert he really does believe it should be deleted, which I would accept as meaning this was not a false proposal.

However, SarekOfVulcan has opened other false proposals where he will not take a stand, and I think it is not helpful. Specifically, SarekOfVulcan noticed dispute between Orlady and me and others about the name of an NRHP historic district in Tennessee, and opened Talk:Jonesboro Historic District (Jonesborough, Tennessee)#Requested move in an open-ended way, without taking a position. I objected and asked him to state his actual view, and he has not. If you are not in a position to support your proposal, I think it is unhelpful for you to try to force many other editors to address the topic in a way satisfactory to close the proposal. My view is that the timing of the rename proposal was not helpful, rather that the issue was already being discussed, and that it would be better for time to go on and for editors to collect more information and to develop material in the related articles which would likely settle the issue (that is my view, the timing was wrong, which will not change if someone chimes in to say they think the timing was right to). Let's not argue the specific merits of the naming for that district here; my point is that he opened a proposal that he did not himself support.

Another instance is the RFC/U which SarekOfVulcan opened about me previously, which he did not himself endorse within the 48 hour requirement, and there was only one other endorser within the time limit, so, after some mean-spirited-in-my-view discussion here at AN, it was, correctly, deleted.

This AN proposal, also, seems to be somewhat of the same nature. SarekOfVulcan put forward a proposal directed at me, in a trial way perhaps, that has attracted both opposition and support. Just because a proposal can be made, doesn't mean it should be made. There are considerable costs involved; these put demands on other editors and force discussions at times when the proposal is not "ripe". For example, the present whole AN proposal is not timely in the sense that it forces earlier discussion than would have happened more naturally in expected review at WikiProject NRHP of the Grand Forks and other /drafts program trials, upon the completion of the trials. This forum unnecessarily attracts editors who are not familiar with NRHP articles and sources available and the competing system (Elkman's system) and the past discussion, and seems, broadly, to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't appreciate having multiple proposals made repeatedly about me. It only takes SarekOfVulcan a few keystrokes to open a new proposal; this is imposing a lot of costs on me and others. Of course there will be persons attracted to any proposal to ban stubs, such as two British editor voting Support for this proposal, with reference to some stub campaign in Britain that I had nothing to do with (one of the editors removed his/her Support vote, when that was clarified). Particularly if the proposals are "false", just testing the waters to see if someone might agree, without the proposer putting some credibility and commitment into actually supporting the proposal, the proposal should not be made at all. --doncram 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is the other British editor? I do hope that you are not referring to me. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Deor's support diff and this 1st and this 2nd step in Mathsci's support and Mathsci's reversal after i explained no association. --doncram 22:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I do not habitually look at the nationality of contributors - it is their contributions that matter, not their origin. - Sitush (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, this particular statement/wall o'text certainly seems like a pretty massive failure to assume good faith towards Sarek's motives in the AFDs. Claiming that he was attempting to create "false" AFDs to gain points in this dispute is pretty much the thing that AGF is intended to *avoid*, isn't it? rdfox 76 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to see AGF applied in general. However, SarekOfVulcan has opened a series of big administrative actions against me, and taken small actions as well, which I don't believe I deserve, and he has not even deigned to answer whether he thinks some of them are deserved or not.

I am criticized roundly, above, for commenting that the block he imposed and this AN proposal are pretty big interruptions. He has not deigned to respond here in this sub-discussion. He did not deign to respond to my request that he state and support his position within the Requested move. That requested move was just closed, after I opened this subdiscussion, by editor Huntster, who later acknowledged that it was this AN subdiscussion which brought his attention there. Hunter closed it in this step counting a 3:1 vote and this amendment changing that to 4:1 to include nominator as support, which I amended to state "The votes were Three for, One against, with the nominator never taking a position (he was asked and never responded to state his view)", objectively enough given the situation. SarekOfVulcan did not respond once to me, but then he immediately reverts my statement by this edit with summary "Undid revision 426619279 by Doncram (talk) 'No further edits should be made to this section'". I find that objectionable. The closer had "closed", and then had specifically edited the close regarding the vote count after having posted "No further edits should be made", then so did I. If wp:IAR does not apply, and if it is imperative that a clarifying note like that cannot be left standing, then it surely should not be SarekOfVulcan removing the evidence of his not taking a stand in his own proposal.

He has still not deigned to respond to the question of whether the deletion nomination is false, in the current version of the deletion nomination.

SarekOfVulcan also has followed my edits (or Station1's) to some side dispute about disambiguation. (Station1 is one of those disambiguation-focused editors, and he attempted to remove appropriate disambiguation for three Grand Forks articles, relatedly deleting disambiguation set up at Midway Bridge and Lyons Garage dab pages. SarekOfVulcan intervened by speedy-deleting an article that I created within that side dispute. I don't particularly mind about that new article being lost, as I was in fact not interested in its topic and was just creating it to defend against the unreasonable attack on the disambiguation page, and I created another better alternative article or two that seemed to defuse the attacks. But, my point is that SarekOfVulcan is following me and taking unduly strong actions on small items and repeatedly opening big proceedings like this AN.

My questions here, to SarekOfVulcan:

1. do you believe it is okay/good to open an AFD or AN or other proceeding with a proposal that you pose as a possibility, not your personal, serious recommendation? (What I am terming a false proposal)
2. was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Ross such a false proposal?
3. was Jonesborough Historic District#Requested move such a false proposal?

Answer these questions, please. --doncram 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Talk:Temple of Free Masonry#Sort-of-requested move is another proposal, self-labelled by SarekOfVulcan as "sort of requested", which I find from a bot-generated list of rename proposals at wp:NRHP. Seems like another "false proposal". I think these hurt rather than help development of wikipedia. SarekOfVulcan, although my use of "false proposal" is a loaded term, does this example verify that you feel proposals that you don't really mean, are good to make? --doncram 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you consider edits that others make to be "attacks"? Why do you call me a "disambiguation-focussed editor" when you have edited far more dab pages than I? Can you accept that there are others who simply disagree with some of your edits? An Us-vs-Them outlook will not help in getting past this issue I'm afraid. Station1 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NRHP stub resolution

This thread has grown to such a length that I doubt we will get any further informed comments by the uninvolved. Rather than letting people repeat what they've said already, let's just stop here. In fact, as an uninvolved administrator, I am going to exercise my duty to read the consensus here as "Doncram needs to watch what he's doing." Fait accompli is not a good editing tactic. If disputed edits are made in such volume that it is a practical impossibility to reverse or fix them, there are good grounds to block the editor making such edits. Rather than a formal ban on creating new articles, which could be gamed by either side of this dispute, I say that Doncram is hereby on notice not to do anything seriously clueless, such as mass creating stubs that multiple good faith editors object to. When others object to editing, stop and talk to them and work out a consensus. Don't just bull your way forward trampling over objections. If Doncram is willing to listen to this advice, no further steps are needed. If not, then leave me a talk page message with diffs. Thank you. Have a great weekend. Jehochman ^Talk 03:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What admin action is being requested here?

The only relevant admin action connected to this thread would have been to impose the topic ban that Sarek suggested, which I don't believe received consensus approval. If I'm wrong about that, could an uninvolved admin please impose the ban and then close the discussion? The rest of what's here is really not an AN matter at all, since no additional admin action is called for. The topic is much more suited to an RfC/U, which I suggest be opened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See prior subsection which I was typing concurrently with your edit. Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've just seen it. Looks good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for this noticeboard

At the top of this noticeboard there is a big blue box with a lot of text that essentially tells me what this board is not for. It wasn't until I clicked the "edit" button just now that I actually saw a notice telling me what exactly AN is for. Could someone copy that one-sentence statement into that big blue box? Without that clarification, I have no idea what the difference between AN and AN/I is, and I doubt I'm the only one. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done this, as I don't see why not to, and it's fairly useful to have the purpose of the page in the page heading. Although this section should have gone on the talkpage really... ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for this noticeboard

At the top of this noticeboard there is a big blue box with a lot of text that essentially tells me what this board is not for. It wasn't until I clicked the "edit" button just now that I actually saw a notice telling me what exactly AN is for. Could someone copy that one-sentence statement into that big blue box? Without that clarification, I have no idea what the difference between AN and AN/I is, and I doubt I'm the only one. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done this, as I don't see why not to, and it's fairly useful to have the purpose of the page in the page heading. Although this section should have gone on the talkpage really... ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep determination request

Please could an uninvolved administrator take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 29#Recent deaths and either speedy keep it or make a comment explaining why you feel speedy keep is not appropriate. Full disclosure: I am one of the six users who have commented so far, all of whom are requesting a speedy keep. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd support immediate speedy-keeping. To anticipate two obvious questions, (1) I think Thryduulf's bringing this request to this board is an appropriate invocation of IAR, and (2) I'm not closing the RfD myself because I've never closed an RfD, and I'm not up to figuring out the templates at 11:00 p.m. on Friday night. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've closed as snow keep. Would someone please review what I did for technical issues? I almost never close discussions, so I simply copy/pasted formatting from a previous RFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You didn't put the {{oldrfd}} template on the talk page (I've sorted this), but everything else looks to have been done. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Yemeni protests move request pending

I'm one of the main page editors over at 2011 Yemeni protests. I put in a move request on 28 April (UTC) and have since received consensus support. As this is a high-profile article (it has been featured in the News section of the front page multiple times, and recently) and I haven't encountered opposition to my request to move it to 2011 Yemeni uprising, citing verifiable sources and employing WP:COMMON as a guidepost, I was wondering if the move could be expedited rather than waiting several more days. I would certainly appreciate it. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably better to wait a few days, since there's no pressing need to move it. I redirected the "uprising" title to the "protests" title, for the moment, so that both titles are searchable. It should be able to be bowled over just fine if and when someone moves it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Acrimonious Wikiquette alert

Category:Wikipedia backlog. Rd232 talk 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could an admin please look over and close Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Xeworlebi? It's turning quite bitter and has been rambling on for a couple of days, even though its subject commented in the first few minutes and indicated that they took no interest. I tried to close it yesterday but was reverted because there was 'no consensus' – but it's just turning into a meaningless free-for-all and can't have any possible value at this point. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Maybe it's just me, but has anything good come out of Wikiquette alerts? Ever? Anything at all? Because I've yet to see it, and I've seen plenty of things go wrong in that area. Perhaps disbanding that page is in order? Sven Manguard Wha? 08:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Perhaps, but this really isn't the place to discuss it... ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 08:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC) That's precisely why it ought to be kept and celebrated. It attracts all the timewasting busybodies, gives them a place to vent impotently, makes it feel like something has been done to assuage their affronts, and meanwhile the productive segment of the project rumbles on unaffected. Skomorokh 08:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I used to enjoy working over in WQA. Heck, nobody should be granted admin status unless they've gone through both the process, the research, the abuse, and the keeping-calm-while-someone-questions-your-parentage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC) It works as designed maybe 1-5% of the time. (Verbose discussion currently at Wikipedia_talk:Wikiquette_alerts#How_to_help_out.3F) More importantly, if it's shut down, where do you think all the impotent venting and time-wasting busybodies will migrate to? ... ANI, of course. Gerardw (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the chat. Could someone please look over and close Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Xeworlebi? It's turning quite bitter and has been rambling on for a couple of days, even though its subject commented in the first few minutes and indicated that they took no interest. I tried to close it yesterday but was reverted because there was 'no consensus' – but it's just turning into a meaningless free-for-all and can't have any possible value at this point. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 11:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I reverted the closing, not because I disagree with his position, but because metaphorically slamming the door will only escalate the situation. Although TT has indicated there's no point in continuing [[59]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&action=historysubmit&diff=426729798&oldid=426729141, they keep replying. The thread will die without admin intervention when the IP or TT get tired enough to let the other have the last word.Gerardw (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC) If the thread is going to be kept open (which I think is a big mistake for all sorts of reasons), and if the IP-hopping anon who opened it continues to attack my integrity/judgement/suitability/competence/whetever, then I will continue to participate in it = continue to defend myself. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 13:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC) TreasuryTag, your first three comments in the WQA were helpful, and your fourth really should have been the last (though even then it was unnecessary to tone up rhetoric, least of all in this case). The filer's response to that fourth comment, combined with the subject's response, were sufficient to indicate that this is close to resolution. Your comments from 14:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC) onwards have been unhelpful. By the time DeCausa commented, you should have heeded what was being said and backed away. I've now asked the same of you and filer there in the hopes you both will avoid continuing to inflate this molehill into an even bigger mountain. I'm sure it is not your intention, but that is the effect of your participation at this point - it is excessive and has escalated beyond the point of usefulness. That there appears to be a level of unnecessary bickering between you and the involved party does not warrant a closure; others may wish to comment, or better yet, may be able to effect the desired resolution more effectively (in accordance with DR) than you are able to. The thread will die a natural death if everything that needs to be said has been said, and should it reach that point that it is out of control, a few eyes are on it ready for closure (though I seriously doubt it will fall into that category). In essence, you started off with some helpful comments but you need to understand when to walk away/let it go/stop poking; if you don't come to understand that soon, you will only be leading yourself into more strife (and for what, I wonder). You need to take this as a wake up call and really consider..."why are people having concerns with something I've done? I wonder if learning from incidents like this will lead me to less acrimonious situations?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I can only refer you to my comment just above. If that IP-hopper continues to make snarky comment along the lines of, "You clearly don't understand this dispute," then I will not let such material stand unanswered. I'm interested to hear what sort of constructive conclusion you think could possibly emerge, since Xewo clearly stopped reading the discussion days ago. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 13:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Treasury Tag, the only reason that thread has become "acrimonious" is because of your persistent and aggressive participation in it. You appear to be determined to put the filer "right" by insisting that the filer should accept your perception of the situation. In so, doing you ramped it up with the filer in a long slanging match. There is nothing constructive you can add. Let others comment rather than dominating the thread. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I can only refer you to my comment just above. If that IP-hopper continues to make snarky comment along the lines of, "You clearly don't understand this dispute," then I will not let such material stand unanswered. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 13:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I can only refer you to what I said above and suggest you review your history (most notably, your block log). If you don't take this as a wake up call, people will make you learn the hard way, or if that fails, cut their losses altogether. Unless you wish to create more disputes on Wikipedia and make everyone clean up your messes, you must learn to let things go...even if you perceive the occasional comment as being snarky or unanswered. And no, it is not clear that Xewo has stopped reading the discussion...what is clear is that he has stopped participating in a discussion which by your own edits (for the most part) has become unnecessarily lengthy and "acrimonious". Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC) My block-log may be lengthy, but that's primarily because every single entry on it is accompanied by an unblock – and that, for the record, is my response to anyone who looks down their nose at me and says, "Oh, you've such a long block-log, how shocking." ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 13:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I made reference to the block log with full knowledge of the context and the reasons for which those unblocks were enacted. In case the subtlety was missed, I was particularly referring to your most recent block which was 6 months ago and the type of behavior which prompted that block. There is no sign that the block was unjustified; it merely shows that the preventative effect was served after a shorter period of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Why not? DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) How about you take a guess. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Ego? DeCausa (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC) It was a serious guess and not a joke. DeCausa (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I wasn't trying to be snarky, and I am genuinely sorry if any part of my comments came across like that. The thing though is that you demonstrably do not understand what that thread, WQA and mediation in general is about. (Also, what you're trying to insinuate with your continued "IP-hopper" thing (when I've already explained the obvious, that I simply have a dynamic IP address thanks to my provider) escapes me completely, maybe you could elaborate on that or, failing that, cut it out?) Anyway, I won't comment here any further, but that much needed to be said. --87.79.215.57 (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) ...and you're doing it yet again. I do understand the dispute. I do understand what WQA is about. I have been editing Wikipedia for far longer than you (at least on your current IP address) and can assure you of both these facts. At least one editor in the discussion agreed with me, so I know I'm not just being completely delusional. If you choose to reject our viewpoint out of hand, then that's entirely up to you, though I wouldn't have thought it was advisable. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 13:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC) That one editor agreed with your view of the dispute does not mean that he, or DeCausa, or Onorem, or the anon, or I believe you have been helping resolve this dispute; if anything, you have been aggravating a separate dispute. If you fail to understand how that is unhelpful, and continue despite those concerns, then perhaps you should review what you consider advisable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Treasury Tag has just reverted a close of the WQA thread - but the reason he opened this discussion was to get it closed! This is now turning very strange. DeCausa (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC) (ec) I think I'm that one editor.? In the interest of even-handedness, and hopefully deescalation, I think both the IP and TT feel a need to get the last word in and have been somewhat talking past each other. (The IP also replied to my post with what I consider unjustified attacks; a key difference between myself and TT is I feel no need to reply or "defend myself"). I think the WQA itself is an agree to disagree situation and would fade if either TT or the IP was willing to drop the WP:STICK and let the other have the last word. Gerardw (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC) In the case of the IP, he is involved in the initial dispute; it doesn't make him immune, but he was already involved as a filer. More problematic is that we have an established editor who was repeatedly going out of his way to enter the conflict, and has exacerbated further/separate conflict as a result of his excessive participation and unnecessary involvement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC) The point I was trying to get across to TT has been succinctly summarized by another user at WQA. That is the only reason I kept replying to TT, because I can not believe that he just refuses to get that very simple point (ironically, he quoted WP:IDHT to me several times). I have zero interest in keeping this going for the heck or kick of it. My only interest is in facts prevailing. TT's interest is much more self-centered. Please do not equate his and my behavior. --87.79.215.57 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I think persons on both sides of the original issue did things that are wrong or rude. I think that this grew in Wikiquette because folks (led by TT) sort of would not discuss/review Xeworlebi's conduct, only 87's. I don't agree with TT's implied logic (if I read it correctly) in dismissing the IP's complaint which is that "if "A" didn't happen then "B" wouldn't have happened therefore "B" is OK." Sometimes "A" justifies "B" (IMHO not in this case) but "A" merely being in the chain of events that led to "B" IMHO does not. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Hmmm. TT very first response [[60]] was critical of Xeworlebi's behavior. From my perception the thread continued because, the way I'm reading the responses, IP wasn't acknowledging their behavior which partially led to escalation and TT didn't choose to make their point and move on. Xeworlebi's behavior isn't getting much discussion because they are not participating in the WQA. Gerardw (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC) ...I think the thread continued because of this. DeCausa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Since the collection of IPs which opened the thread have now tried to mark it closed can it be closed on the grounds that they consider it resolved? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 18:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC) It was closed by Gerardw and you re-opened it 4.5 hours before posting the above. What changed in those 4.5 hours? DeCausa (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) The opening poster has now marked it closed. Per Ncmvocalist's comment above, should this be regarded as adequate indication that the issue is resolved, and the thread closed accordingly? That was my question. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 19:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC) My question was why didn't you leave it closed? DeCausa (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) And as you have presumably noticed, I ignored your question. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 19:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC) The filer's attempt to close it was reverted by Gerardw because you had demanded that it be kept open. You can ignore my question if you like but until you explain yourself it's difficult to see how that thread can be closed. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I have clearly indicated that I think it should be closed, most recently when I wrote this: The opening poster has now marked it closed. Per Ncmvocalist's comment above, should this be regarded as adequate indication that the issue is resolved, and the thread closed accordingly? I am not obliged to explain myself – to you in particular – and rather than trying to play semantic games, if you've nothing helpful to offer as to the issue of whether or not it should be closed, I suggest that you don't comment here further. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Fortunately, your suggestions carry no weight. Unsurprisingly, the WQA thread is not yet closed in light of your posts. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Well at least you're not smug. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 21:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Glad to see you're still honouring WP:LASTWORD. Fiver says you reply to this post. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC) This has become one of the most absurd ANI threads ever. I estimate that no communication has taken place for at least the past several hours. Those involved should take a few minutes to reread this thread and think of it as an example how not to behave any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete advert

Please delete advert picture File:Black Swan star.jpg, thanks--Musamies (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We do have a whole bunch of deletion templates, such as the general {{db}}, that work better and faster than posting here, for future reference.

For this image in particular, I don't see why it needs to be deleted right now. We can safely wait the seven days until it's deleted for its lack of licensing information. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, deleted per G12. But yes, Musamies, please use CSD next time, instead of posting here. No one will kill you if you mis-tag one or two pages every so often. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't delete this article

I'm trying to delete The Oz Principle: Getting Results Through Individual & Organizational Accountability as part of closing its AFD, but I get an error (ERR_ACCESS_DENIED), every time I click the delete button. I'm not getting the same error on other articles that I tried it with (haven't deleted any, but I don't get this error and just get the usual delete page to add the reason. Could somebody else try please? Thanks TigerShark (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever is automatically adding the reason as an AFD when you click the delete link is broken. It is probably javascript somewhere, that needs to be fixed. Prodego ^talk 15:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that you managed to delete it, thanks. Presumably the software is sufficiently robust by now that it wasn't thrown by the colon or the ampersand. Thanks again. TigerShark (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I typed out the URL. You can also open the history and change 'history' in the URL to 'delete'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodego (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that. Always good to learn from a more experienced admin...even if they are only 46 minutes more experienced! ;) Thanks again TigerShark (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that. :) Prodego ^talk 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27#Last-minute rescue

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 27#Last-minute rescue and speedy delete User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue as a copyright violation? After discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need closure of deletion review, copyvio investigation, the creator was indefinitely blocked for repeated copyright violations. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

See WP:ANI#Protection of Osama bin Laden —DoRD (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think there might be an urgency to put some form of protection on the article. He was announced dead 40 minutes ago on NBC (I found out playing Millionaire on Facebook of all places), and CNN confirmed moments ago. The edit history is already buzzing and it'll be hard to separate fact from fiction. CycloneGU (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Already listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protection_of_Osama_bin_Laden. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regular Show

The same thing happens every time with the Regular Show article: it gets locked, and then the instant it's unlocked, fanboys swarm upon it and add trivia, fancruft and other nonsense. Is there any way to put an end to this, or are we just going to keep playing whack-a-mole forever? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Three ideas:

1. Permanently semi-protect the article
2. Block any IP for adding such miscellany to the article
3. Add an WP:Editnotice advising anyone editing the article that this is a serious encyclopedia and describe the undesired content and warn them that it is forbidden and preventative measures (such as the above) will be taken if they persist.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest #1. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've indefinitely semi-protected the article per this request and placed a note on the talk page reminding editors that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a playground. How much use the latter will be I don't know... Thryduulf (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Isn't the term "fanboy" pretty insulting, and doesn't it fail to assume good faith of editors who care a lot about a certain topic? Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a judgement call. Since we don't want to inhibit free discourse, our standard is not to complain about things that might offend a few people. We will take action if something offends a lot of people. I agree fanboy is not perfectly polite but let's just leave it be. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fanboy is a recognised term for a fan whose obsession for a subject makes them impervious to requests to address the subject in objective terms - if they model the behaviour then the term is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hear!Hear! for LessHeard vanU, let's just call a spade a WP:SPADE Captain Screebo (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts MfD

Nominator has withdrawn nomination in favour of an RFC, which will be much better. Rd232 talk 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (3rd nomination). Hopefully anyone who has any involvement anywhere in conflict resolution on WP can weigh in after thinking about it a little. Essentially I see the page as superfluous and negative and a guide to how not to do conflict resolution. struck, folks should be able to make up their own mind on the issue....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC) How is this not WP:CANVASSing? It's surely not a neutral notification. Basket of Puppies 01:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC) He's simply summarizing his nomination statement. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Which is simply canvassing. Will he be called to task for it? Basket of Puppies 03:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC) OK, I didn't ask anyone to vote one way or the other. I have struck the second part of the note. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC) It's very poor form an admin and former arb to use an administrative notice board to canvass for deletion votes. Your notice did not conform to WP:CANVASS at all. Basket of Puppies 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I don't agree with giving up on WQA, and the notice seemed fine to me. He was just (briefly) expressing his opinion, as part of justifying the MFD, at a neutral venue. It's not like anyone is going to be swayed one way or they other by the expression of that opinion (anybody likely to visit the MFD will already have an opinion about WQA), and nor does it seem likely that it would cause a selection effect (with people agreeing more likely to visit the MFD). Rd232 talk 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC) If his notice was so neutral then why did he strike the part in which he voices his opinion, in firm contradiction to WP:CANVASS? Basket of Puppies 03:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC) He struck it because you complained. And if you would pay attention, I didn't say his notice was neutral, I said it was fine. That's because in this particular instance, as I said, everybody already has an opinion and it didn't matter that the notice wasn't studiously neutral. It's quite different from the usual situation where a notice may be prejudicial and therefore needs to be neutral. Now, how much longer do you think you can continue this discussion before someone complains of a smell of deceased equines? Rd232 talk 04:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Could an uninvolved admin please close this Mfd? The listing section of the Mfd page makes it very clear that "Established (policy, guideline or process) pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive" and this has been noted in the previous debates. Furthermore the debate has no grounding in policy - its just the same arguments which were presented in the last debate (that is; one camp claims it's unfixable and causes more harm than good, whilst the other asserts that it needs fixing but fills a niche). Deletion debates are not really the best place to discuss active changes to DR processes - perhaps an RFC would be more appropriate? Bob House 884 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC) As far as I can tell from my grasp of the English language, should is not a synonym for must. MfD #2 closed with a "Keep and reform" rationale, but it seems that there has been no real reform. if the same problems with WQA are still seen 3 years later, a 3rd MfD is quite appropriate. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 'Should' is about as strong a term as is used in wikipedia policy because there are occassionally going to be exceptions (an example I can think of is if somebody accidentally created a subpage of WQA instead of filing a report normally and some material discussion occurred there - this would be appropriate for Mfd) and because 'must' is a command word and isn't really appropriate for a voluntary project. I don't think theres a very strong case for invoking IAR here since this falls pretty much slap bang in the middle of what the quote I've mentioned is referring to (i.e. a 6 year old process set up by a RFC and regularly posted on = established). 'real reform' is never going to be achieved in an Mfd. Bob House 884 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) This MfD needs to be speedily closed and Casliber cautioned against violating WP:CANVASS and WP:POINT. He nominated the notice board for deletion to prove a point and against policy. He further used this administrative notice board to canvass for !deletion votes. This is very poor form for someone who is both an administrator and former arbitrator. Casliber, I do hope you will apologize for this and refrain from such drama in the future. Basket of Puppies 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC) That's given me the biggest chuckle this morning, yes BoP (makes salute) I promise to make less dramah and be a more productive editor. I promise to spend more time in main space and less time hanging around discussion boards arguing with people. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about recusal in unblock requests

My question really stems from the following comment made by an administrator to me, during an unblock request.

You do not get to choose which administrator reviews your unblock request, but you are free to make a new one if you do not like my review. -- Sandstein 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've turned to Sandstein in times past, and had a reasonable response, and so when an opportunity arose for him to help diminish a dispute at another article, knowing he was an admin, I asked for his help. The response I got was filled with spite and vitriol, leading to a lot of acrimony from uninvolved editors and generally a big mess. Consensus eventually decided to let it drop, but in light of that incident, I decided that I would not turn to Sandstein for help ever again.

My question is this. If an adminstrator has demonstrated actions that show a personal conflict with an editor, it only seems reasonable that you should be able to ask that they steer clear. To quote the WP:INVOLVED page:

"In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

So is Sandstein right in saying I can't request his recusal for certain things based on past actions, or is this possible? Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He's right that you should be entitled to request another admin, if you think there is a 'conflict' that matters, but I don't think that should stop them reviewing it in the first place if they think the conflict doesn't matter. From your perspective, it's a bit like a free roll of the dice. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm involved (let alone engaged in any sort of conflict) with respect to Avanu. My sole interaction with them (that I remember) was in an administrative capacity: they asked me for administrative assistance in a dispute and I proposed a solution that Avanu did not agree with, that is, topic-banning all editors participating in the dispute.  Sandstein  19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My question is specifically about the ability of an editor to request recusal. The other information is an explanation of reasoning, but really isn't the question here. -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the answer to your question is "No." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't get to choose which of the hundreds of active administrators act on your requests. You make the request, and if you are unsatisfied with the response, you can make another. If you believe that an administrator should be recused based on prior contact with you, you can certainly make that case in your second unblock request; but there's no way that, before any admin responds to your first request, you can demand that only certain admins are "allowed" to respond... --Jayron32 00:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that we do have hundreds, it would seem that the request one of the several hundred -other than a single particular admin do the review should be followed--anything else will tend to exacerbate conflict. I can not imagine that if I were asked by one of the parties or even an onlooker not to let some other admin act on anything , I would not immediately agree. Anything else would to me imply a desire to monopolize process at the least, and possibly egotism that I alone can do things right, or, at the worst, even conceivably prejudice. Any admin who would take action in such a way that such can even be suspected is in my opinion not acting reasonably. . DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. Editors should never be punished for asking that some other, perceived-as-neutral admin handle a request. IMO it is wise for admins to respect such requests. Leveraging an existing dispute into what may well be perceived as 'proof' you have a vendetta against the editor is not helping the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you can "choose" which admin responds to the unblock request if you mean demand to recognize only unblock requests from admin XYZ. I also think it is a little unseemly to ask for a specific admin. Choosing not to have a particular admin review a block is less problematic, but there is the small issue of bargaining power. If I am blocked and I don't want admin XYZ to review the block all I've really done is reduce the pool of admins available to review. I'm not exactly unblocked if the wrong admin reviews my request. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree with DGG on this. You can request anything you want, and in this situation it would be the wise move on the admin's part to avoid pushing themselves into the matter if you've specifically asked them not to, even though they are not specifically obligated to follow your wishes. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

big backlog

The Backlog is much larger than it should be.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• RM always has a ridiculously long backlog. Protonk (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Could some admins check AIV?, thanks. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age

For files, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21#File:Thomas Hines.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21#File:Basil W Duke 2.JPG?

For categories, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike Selinker (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Islamic Golden Age. The other deletion discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. The other deletion discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Od Mishehu (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director. The FfDs remain open. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Nv8200p (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21#File:Thomas Hines.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 21#File:Basil W Duke 2.JPG. Cunard (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So are we done here then? – AJL^talk 06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden merchandising

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I wanted to discuss merchandising at Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden, but this user Rklawton (talk) immediately deleted my addition thus accusing me of adding spam. He now accues me of simply amusing myself at his and other editor's expense. I would like this topic reinstated as it seems to be perfectly valid and has not been suggested by any other contrubutor. Another editor, User talk:N5iln, who mistakenly gave me a warning, has apologised for being over-hasty and has made some useful sugestions. Thank you. 86.172.225.184 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was pointless trolling and a violation of WP:TPG. Go dance on graves elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You also seem to have a rather hasty and unhealthy bias. 81.155.136.86 (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, Stephan? Not your finest moment. Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Your contribution reads like either spam or a WP:NOTFORUM violation (even if it was intended as neither). Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the topic. Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So unless this is a trolling editor, education is perhaps better than WP:ABF. I don't see it yet. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The advice User:N5iln left you was that your suggestion most likely will not fly - a point you seem to gleefully overlook as you pointlessly waste our time with threats and complaints. Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My 2p on the matter was that although this might be a viable commentary at the "Reaction to ObL's death" article (I don't have the link bookmarked right now), there was no way it could be shown as directly relevant in the Death of Osama bin Laden article, and although the original link was to a television news web site that described a particularly opportunistic (and, to my mind, slightly disturbed) entrepreneur, I'd prefer not to send that particular entrepreneur any additional business via Wikipedia, even indirectly. The IP's comments on my User Talk page appeared to indicate they took my suggestions in good faith, so I thought the matter was done. Apparently not. I'm not going to ask for Admin intervention...yet...regarding the additional back-and-forth on my Talk page, but I am keeping a weather eye on the subject. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

When User:86.172.225.184 posted his or her ideas to the "reactions to" article with his merchandising material[61], User:Cambalachero immediately removed it for the same reasons I did. User:86.172.225.184, in spite of several editors telling him or her "no" both politely and otherwise, responded with the dexterity of an experienced editor. At this point, I have no doubt that he or she is an established troll, long blocked from editing Wikipedia. If he or she persists, our best recourse will be to block him or her for disruptive editing and wasting our time. Rklawton (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you have theatened to ban that ip personally, I am guessing that you are an Administrator. If so, then I think you are setting a pretty bad example - jumping to a wrong conclusion very rapidy, then being very rude and accusing that editor of all sorts of things without any kind of evidence. The topic was added to the "reactions to" article, in perfectly good faith, on the advice of another editor. Why do you persist in describing the links added for that topic as "his merchandising material"? Surely they are simply links selected ro demonstrate how offensive that material is. If the editor has added example links to on-line prescription medicines, would you accuse him or her of promoting those too? the occult? assisted suicide? Your conclusion that this editor is "an established troll" seems to just prove your very strong bias. You are being vey unfair. 81.155.136.86 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started a new section at the appropriate article, using an additional source (Reuters): Talk:Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Merchandising. I think we can leave this particular kerfuffle here, and let bygones be bygones (unless anyone turns up genuine evidence of socking). Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overdue AfD needs to be closed

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits is overdue for closure; it was opened on April 21, and the debate has petered out. The reason I'm posting this here is because the AfD slipped out of WP:AFD/O when it was (inappropriately) NAC-closed, an action which was subsequently reversed. Anyway, if an admin who hasn't participated would take a look, I would appreciate it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

FfD needs closing

Resolved

Would an univolved admin please close this? It's been open since April 18, and there have been no additional commentators in the last 10 days. More than enough time has passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia and Arbcom can utterly ruin your life.

Post blanked for reasons of privacy and duplication (also posted to WP:VPM). Rd232 ^talk 03:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, stop spamming this everywhere. Second of all, I don't think you have internalized the advice you got on the Village Pump where you've posted this. Third of all, you seem to be demanding that someone do something about a page we have no control over. I'm sorry you feel that way, but spamming your story everywhere (with links to the site that you have a problem with) probably isn't the best way to deal with it, have you considered that this may be engaging the Streisand effect? SirFozzie (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#PDF_download_of_AfD_discussion

I have raised a serious issue in the above link. Since noone bothered to look at it, I'm coming here. As it is something affecting entire Wikipedia, I think this needs to be solved as soon as possible for the sake of our readers. Thank you. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please describe the events leading up to the problem so that we can recreate the issue? First, what is the AfD discussion that you are trying to download, and second, are you referring to the "Download as PDF" link in the sidebar? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, it is about the "Download as PDF" link. The problem is happening in all AfD discussions. For example see this AfD. The PDF file is completely blank. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this is only affecting archived deletion discussions. Current ones like Tan Haur and other related AfD pages like logs and the AfD mainpage seem to render fine. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be resolved as soon as possible, it is a serious technical fault affecting this site. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've found the problem: it is <div class="metadata"> affecting the appearance of a PDF of the page. Don't know how to resolve it though. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now the question remains, "how do we resolve this problem?" Should we remove it from all Template:<xfd>_top or bug the devs? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

From the testing I did here, it looks like TCNSV beat me to it... Dang you! – AJL^talk 07:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If administrators are going to deliberately tag entire pages with CSS classes saying that they shouldn't be shown in printouts, then they won't be shown in printouts. The correct solution is to decide whether or not you want the pages to appear in printouts, and retain or remove the CSS tag in question appropriately. — Andrew Garrett • talk 07:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this spam?

I believe the question of whether the "study" being done by User:Cooldenny was legit or not came up on one of the noticeboards. Now, I see that the same user is sending out messages such as this:

Hi [username]. I appreciate for completing the survey two weeks ago. I would like to return your favor with a reward of an online gift card with no condition. Please leave your email address in the final version of survey of my project. In addition, you can get chance to win $50 worth of gift card. It takes only 10 minutes to complete the final version because it contains only 35 questions. If you have Wikipedia friends, please introduce this survey to them. Thank you so much.

This seems like spam to me, and the "study" merely a come-on to rope people in. Can I use rollback to delete these edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Delete it and explain the problem to the user. If it reappears, block the user and insta-block all future incarnations immediately for block evasion. Rklawton (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit hasty, the research project does have a meta page at meta:Research/Projects/Motivation to Contribute to Wikipedia, a Collective Work. They have gone through all the right channels to get this setup so jumping on them like a ton of bricks seems a tad harsh. Woody (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been discussing this with the editor, and they have stopped for the moment. I wouldn't say that they have gone through all the right channels, but Sage Ross gave me (and therefore Cooldenny) an email contact at WMF to try and validate the request. Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I also notice that Beyond my ken has not notified Cooldenny of this thread as required in the notice at the top of this page (or he might have seen my discussion with the editor). I am notifying them now. Syrthiss (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: User was notified here.

This was already addressed in the Incident archives. – AJL^talk 15:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, that was an ovcersight on my part. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two different issues here: the legitimacy of the study, which seems to be heaing towards being cleared up, and whether anyone (regardless of who) should be gathering e-mail addressess off of Wikipedia using online gift cards as a come-on. The latter seems like straightforward spamming activity which shouldn't be allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the gift card thing may be a legitimate good faith aspect of the study. My concern remains that without proper vetting, this could be social engineering by a phisher. We don't have any confirmation that I can tell of Cooldenny's credentials. I continue to agf, but want to also provide some protection for users who may not consider privacy aspects in the light of helping someone out with their survey. Syrthiss (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

Please remove "pending changes" protection from all articles, ASAP.

The 2-month trial has now been running for 325 days.

There is no consensus for it.

We've tried RfC - that's been open for 78 days.

There's over 66% against even temp continuation; stop flogging it; get rid of it; get a new proposal together if you want, but for now; for the love of Pete; remove it.  Chzz  ►  03:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting for the RfC to be closed. You could give it another few days, and then post here requesting an uninvolved admin close it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is already closed, and in under evaluation by Newyorkbrad and WJBscribe (as I understand it); it has been closed since 23rd April [62]. I'm sorry if this is presumptive and I should wait longer; I'm just frustrated by the whole thing.  Chzz  ►  13:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what the difficulty is in evaluating a 2:1 margin saying that continuing is unacceptable. This trial seems to be getting dragged on perpetually, and it's hard not believe that there are supporters that are using selective perception of consensus. There never has been a consensus to continue the trial past the original 2 months, and that was a long time ago.—Kww(talk) 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

By way of update, I'll be closing this RfC out tonight (New York time). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:51st Australian Film Institute Awards

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dave Snowden

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Barnstarbob, formerly Vegavairbob

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Esad Mekuli

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ask for admin action to vandal

removed ref http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Qur%27an&diff=next&oldid=426661825
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.42.69.12
--FaktneviM (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the area you want to report the editor to.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. Thx. --FaktneviM (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete duplicate

Resolved

Please delete User:Orionculver whos text are duplicate to page Antonia Lucas--Musamies (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Userpage deleted as copyright violation, article nominated for deletion.  Sandstein  15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

TfD requires editprotected

I wouldn't normally chase an {{editprotected}} request so quickly, but this one is for a TfD. Could someone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Done by Plasticspork. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Ted Leonsis

I've been watching an edit war go on for the past few months at the biography on Ted Leonsis, owner of the Washington Capitals sports team. I'm afraid an edit I made started this last round, but have tried to stay out in general. The issue is the notability of certain critical sentences on this BLP. I, and another user, Lonbam (talk · contribs), feel they don't belong, despite being sourced. Part of the problem I see, is with equating actions taken by a sports franchise, with its owner personally. Bangabandhu (talk · contribs) has retaliated by added yet more critical trivia, again of dubious notability. I'm posting here because today, like over the last month, IP addresses have got involved, and I'm looking for some semi-protection, so users have to be logged in. Today's IP address became active as the two users hit 3RR.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've full-protected the article for a week, hoping that no edits taking place will help y'all to reach a consensus on the talk page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Image naming

Good faith notification to administrators of a thread I started here - Wikipedia_talk:Image_file_names#Explicit.2Fobjectively_defined_naming_conventions

concerning having objective naming criteria for certain sorts of images.

Feedback either way appreciated.

Mentioning it here, as it's typically admins that would have to help implement the naming guidelines, or educate users. Sfan00 IMG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

Tiago Pussy Splitter

 Done

Could someone please move Tiago Pussy Splitter back to the appropriate page and block the user who moved it? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, please revert Sarah Palin back to the version prior to the BLP vandalism committed by Blackwall310 (talk · contribs). 216.93.212.245 (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk · contribs) has fixed these articles and blocked the vandal responsible Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

One of your fellow admins has passed away

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this, but I wanted to make sure that you all knew about it. One of your fellow Wikipedia administrators, User:Vaoverland (Mark D. Fisher), has died. Source: [63] To those of you who knew and liked him, I am deeply sorry for your loss. –BMRR (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this. A few years ago he did a lot of work for WP:USRD. As a side note, I suppose we need to follow Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines - does the desysop need to go through ArbCom? --Rschen7754 00:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears that it's been taken care of. --Rschen7754 00:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Very sad to hear. I've followed the guidelines and protected the page as well as asking for the de-sysop on meta (now granted). The guidelines are already laid out so it is entirely procedural and I didn't see the need to involve Arb-Com. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I protected several of his subpages on his user space to make sure nothing gets changed. What about the talk page archives? Talk page archives are not specifically mentioned in the guideline, but perhaps they should be protected, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Too sad, I think I never interacted with him, but I'm sure Mark won't be forgotten from Wikipedia history. Diego Grez (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with accuracy

Resolved

Hello. I have decided to quit my really short "quit" with a problem I have. The article "Serial ATA" is flat out lying that USB 1.0 transfers at 12 Mb/s. It does not. That is USB 1.1 that transfers that much. The other articles are flat out lying about that too. I need admin attention to help edit these templates. I do not know where they are. This is why I came to AN. Love, Hinata. --Hinata talk 18:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find the text that you speak of. Should not need an admin to do whatever needs doing. If you tell us more (including specifically pointing out the item) we might be able to better give advice. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am seeing an edit button for Serial ATA#Comparison to other buses - you should be able to click that and make your change (preferably with a new reference or verifying the one that is there). Make sure that you are not viewing an old version of the article. Help:Table should explain what all the | characters are about, but for a basic change you can just do a text search for the desired text, replace it, and preview to make sure that the new version looks correct.

Templates are explained at Help:Template. The newer and better ones have a little v • d • e for one-click access to view, discuss, or edit the text included from another page, respectively. For the others, you can open the edit window to find the template name (e.g. {{Infobox Computer Hardware Bus}}), and type Template:Infobox Computer Hardware Bus into the search bar to edit the master copy. Be careful when doing this, as some of them are included on rather a lot of articles.

This sort of question would be better placed at the Help desk. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done as the stated claim that USB 1.0 supports 12 Mb/sec is absolutely correct. This is shown very clearly and unambiguously in e.g. Section 7.1.9 of Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 1.0. Not that a content dispute should have been brought here in the first place. Jeh (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I quit... I am wrong and you are right. Now, please, add a resolved thing to this thread. --Hinata talk 21:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please move to sub-page

Please move to sub-page User:TT673 that user can continue edit there--Musamies (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Um... You want someone to move the user's userpage to a subpage instead? Why? People can develop articles on their userpage if they like, just like elsewhere in their userspace. lifebaka++ 19:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please tweak tomorrow's TFA blurb (urgent!)

I was notified a few days ago that Edward III of England, for which I am mainly responsible, was coming up for TFA on 9 May. It was in a horrible state, so I've been working on it the last few days to get it up to current standards. Now I've left it too late to fix the blurb, and it's protected. I would be very grateful if someone could do this for me before it goes live. It's primarily changing the picture to the current lead picture (the one in the blurb is a bit anachronistic), and change the text to reflect the changes I've made to the lead. Many thanks! Lampman (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you've got any specific requests I'm happy to deal with them. I think the image should stay however as it is much more recognisable at 100x100 pixels. The current lead image wouldn't be recognisable. Leave any word changes WP:ERRORS (which is where Main Page errors should usually go) and I'll get to it. Thanks. Woody (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected generic filenames

"Image.jpg"

Here's a question about an adminning technicality. Some of us occasionally protect overly generic filenames such as "Picture 01.jpg" against re-upload, and the placeholder image File:Image.jpg has evidently been created to serve as a useful notice telling prospective uploaders to go elsewhere. Question: what is the technically preferred way to create such notices?

• do nothing, just protect the filename against creation?
• upload a redundant copy of File:Image.jpg at the position I want to protect?
• create a file redirect from the protected position to File:Image.jpg?
• create an empty description page and insert File:Image.jpg on it?
• use some template for the purpose?

Several of these options have apparently been tried. What's best practice? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but some people who might are admins over at Commons, where this is necessarily a most common issue than here. Perhaps you could try asking at their administrators' noticeboard? Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know either, but I don't think it really makes a big difference which you do. I doubt there's any policy or guideline dictating which is the preferred way to go about this, as it's not really a common occurrence. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought options 3-5 the most helpful, since they're easiest to update (especially #5) if the instructions are changed in future. In addition, #5 would probably allow slightly easier tracking (if associated with ta tracking category) than other options. So I'd vote for #5 (template). Rd232 ^talk 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On Commons, we just use the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Best method IMO. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know how it works on Commons, but here, it would (I think) give you MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-upload as an error message. Not exactly helpful. I suppose it could be edited, but that would surely involve providing more information (and hence potential confusion) than a custom template for generic filenames (due to having to cover a range of blacklist causes). Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see MediaWiki:Titleblacklist allows you to specify custom error messages. So, OK, that would work. And it has the advantage of allowing use of regex (for those as understands it...). Rd232 ^talk 22:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Examining further, it seems (prompted by Fastily's input) that we actually have a definitive answer to Future's original question: Titleblacklist has a generic filename section, and it uses the helpful error message MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-imagename. So any filenames not covered should be added there. PS I've now documented this at Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Filenames (...not that I previously thought to look there, but still). Rd232 ^talk 22:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is good to know. Thanks to all who responded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I've now seen an additional mechanism at Wikipedia:Image file names which mentions placeholder images, and the template {{protected generic image name}}. I suppose this approach would be for cases where regex may be less helpful, so Titleblacklist needn't be used; or maybe it's just duplication. Rd232 ^talk 22:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

Where is the best place to request an interaction ban between myself and another editor? Exxolon (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Here, unless it relates to an arbitration case, in which case one of the sections of WP:RFAR.  Sandstein  19:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I assume this pertains to me, it is not clear why Exxolon chose not to notify me of this thread (indeed, he is apparently very much in favour of editorial notifications) and disappointed that he has chosen to pursue further his extended efforts to falsely accuse me of harassment. So not the best behaviour I've ever seen on-wiki. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason I hadn't notified you is blindingly simple - this is a course of action I was considering but I hadn't made a decision - this enquiry was just to find out where to do it if I chose to go ahead. Since you seem incapable of leaving me alone (otherwise how did you even know about this enquiry?) consider it activated, see below. Exxolon (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How did I find out about this enquiry? The answer is blindingly simple: I have WP:AN on my watchlist. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note - this thread was moved (without my consent) to WP:ANI by another editor - please note that Sandstein's comment refers to WP:AN where this thread was originally located. Exxolon (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Preceding comment was left at ANI. In my revert, I placed it here as well. – AJL^talk 00:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: I reverted myself, my apologies, I missed that. – AJL^talk 00:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for community and/or adminstrator endorsed/enforced interaction ban

After repeatedly butting heads with User:TreasuryTag and the utter failure of dispute resolution due to wikilawyering, WP:POINT problems and WP:OWN issues I wish to have a formal interaction ban placed. To whit :-

• Both TT and myself are banned from nominating each others uploads, articles or miscellany for deletion.
• Both TT and myself are barred from posting on each others talkpages, except for mandatory notifications required by policy - in this case an effort should be made for a neutral 3rd party to be found to make the post first.
• Both TT and myself are barred from commentating in the same talk page thread.

I'm sorry it's come to this, but I cannot deal with this editor any longer on any level due to his persistent attempts to bait me into conflict. Exxolon (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is forcing you do interact with TT. To whit, you can just stop nominating his uploads &c. for deletion, posting on his talk page, and commenting on the same talk page thread he does. You don't need formal consensus to avoid him. --Jayron32 04:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32. The community does not normally impose bans unless it's clear that there's no other way to resolve the problem. In this case, you've not really made clear why this extraordinary step is needed, and I don't think it would help if you were to try. Instead I recommend that both of you voluntarily stay out of each other's way if you don't get along with each other.  Sandstein  06:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose interaction ban (obviously)—This is basically Exxolon's plan to gain complete immunity with regard to the numerous cruddy images he uploads, some of which don't even make a token effort to string together a coherent fair-use rationale (eg. "Purpose of use: infobox" - seriously?) He first suggested that I was harassing him by nominating his decorative non-free pix for deletion just under a year ago and apparently he still hasn't twigged that if he simply stuck to Wikipedia's non-free content policy then there would, by definition, be no grounds to complain about his uploads. On a slightly separate point, I've linked him to WP:AOHA on many occasions, yet he still persists with his allegations of stalking, and doesn't seem to have read the very salient sentence, "Tracking a user's contributions for policy violations is not harassment; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight," which is a pity. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 08:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Someone whos gotten himself blocked ELEVEN times is trying to lecture me? That's rich. Exxolon (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Exxolon, please could you do one or both of the following for me: a count how many times I've been unblocked, and/or b explain how my block-log (which includes, in your figure, two completely mistaken blocks made due to the admin clicking on the wrong username, which were overturned within 30 seconds, so nice use of statistics there!) has any relevance here? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The real problem appears to be TT nominating NFCC files uploaded by Exxolon for deletion. I am curious how often the deletion debate ended in delete and how often the image was kept. Yoenit (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well, see f'rinstance: File:Doctor3.png, File:Amy Pond3.png, File:Amy seducing doctor.jpg, File:Doctor saves venice.jpg, File:Rory disintegrates.jpg, File:Vampires of venice.jpg, File:Eknodine.png. It is also worth looking at the sheer proportion of Exxolon's images which have ended up in deletion, the vast majority due to non-free content concerns. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 09:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Please note it took TT TWO attempts to get the Eknodine image deleted whereas I did not contest the deletions of the other images once they'd happened - unlike him I have no problem with the first outcome of the deletion debates - also see my comment below about a triple nomination and a DRV on the same image. Exxolon (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  It took TT TWO attempts to get the Eknodine image deleted – how is this relevant? There was a consensus to delete it. I did not contest the deletions of the other images – so how is that relevant? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just a comment about the details above - Both TT and myself are barred from commentating in the same talk page thread. - this is not a correct possibility and could easily result in editors rushing to get the first comment in and thereby restricting the other user from commenting in talkpage discussions. Also "Both TT and myself are barred from posting on each others talkpages" - this is anyways something you can request of each other. Leaving just this, "Both TT and myself are banned from nominating each others uploads, articles or miscellany for deletion." - and as I notice you are not nominating TT's uploads for deletion (as I can see) - then this boils down to - you are requesting that TT be restricted from nominating your files for deletion, which I couln't support as TT does seem to have correctly nominated some of them and through his nominations some of those files have correctly been deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - please explain TT how nominating a single upload I made THREE times for deletion under the same general rationale plus initiating a DRV on the image - all I might add without notifying me - doesnt' demonstrate you have a personal axe to grind here. Exxolon (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps (and I'm just conjecturing here) it might demonstrate that I feel the image is not compliant with our non-free content policy and therefore attempted to get it deleted. But I wouldn't really know. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Just to let you know: regarding the "11 blocks" issue, TreasuryTag has asked me to confirm that my one block of their account was made in error, and quickly reverted by me when I realized my mistake. I'm happy to do so. -- The Anome (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to protect all commons pictures shadow-pages

Is it possible to protect all commons pictures shadow-pages, example File:Rectangle example.svg with [create=sysop] (indefinite) with some bot, after then we will have more less of pages waiting to deleted.--Musamies (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if we really wanted to, I'm sure we could find a way to do that, but it's neither desirable nor necessary. While mistaken or malicious creation of these pages is an issue, it's not a really big deal and there are (a small number of) legitimate reasons to create and edit these pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Second example File:Turdus merula male song at dawn(20s).ogg--Musamies (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Among these reason is the placement of templates related to DYK and the featured pictures process; we don't want people to require administrative help for such routine issues. I've deleted the rectangle's description page; you can always tag these images with {{db-f2}}. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I could envision a useful edit-filter that would tag "creation of image-page that shadows one on commons". The edit might be vandalism (or at least useless commentary), might be misplaced content for the commons page, or it might be valid, but 2/3 of those warrant further attention. However, I don't know if the filters can detect "is shadowing". DMacks (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Great seal of the state of New Mexico.png Deleted

The file commons:File:Great seal of the state of New Mexico.png, which is used on a very large number of pages (links), has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Great seal of the state of New Mexico.png. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.

What to do

• Check for the type of usage in articles and templates (usually infoboxes)
• If the deletion of the image will cause a problem, try to fix it:
  • Using a local redirect
  • By using a different image (i.e. in an infobox)
  • Contact someone at commons to delay deletion or work out a plan to overcome issues with the deletion

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

side note: this bot o'mine is currently under a trial, this is the first time it has posted a "central notice". If you've got comments feel free to leave them at the BRFA :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• My solution, if the image rationale is correct (image is not PD) then the simplest thing is to find an appropriate, low-resolution copy of the image and upload it locally at en.wikipedia with the appropriate fair use rationale for each article, under the identical name. Using the same exact file name locally will remove the need to fix each usage, though if the image licensing concerns are real, then we should also consider whether each usage is appropriate, and if so, include the proper FU-rationale for each article. Doable, if a tad bit inconvenient, but certainly doable. --Jayron32 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Almost all of the uses are in this case come via Template:Governors_of_New_Mexico on biographies and in a few infoboxes (which is the thing that usually flags this notification). So NFCC might be a little bit of a problem. However as this is a state seal I think it should be possible to find a free replacement (as per our other states) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, it probably should be undeleted over on commons. According to Seal of New Mexico, the image was created in 1913, so should be free of copyright under Template:PD-US. There's no reason to consider this a fair use image, given that it appears to be in the public domain. --Jayron32 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      • There was an updated version of it, which was deleted. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean that the image at Commons was a different seal, that was created more recently, and thus was inelligible for PD-US? --Jayron32 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• If it was an updated version, it wouldn't have been official. The New Mexico Secretary of State's website says that the 1913 seal is still used. lifebaka++ 17:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Then why don't we head over to commons and re-upload the 1913 version under the same file name and be done with it? --Jayron32 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Old merge discussion needs closing

At Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Clarified requested move / merger proposal, a merger proposal needs closing - it has been ongoing since 5 April but ground to a halt weeks ago with a perfectly even split of opinion (6 for, 6 against). It clearly isn't going anywhere. I'd close it myself but as a participant in the discussion that probably wouldn't be appropriate, so I'd be grateful if someone else could do it. Prioryman (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've closed it with "(non-admin closure) The result of this discussion was no consensus, with no prejudice against proposing another merge with a notice on WP:WPAFRICA for more wider community input." – AJL^talk 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a Kiss

Can an admin please delete the redirect Just a Kiss so I can move someone else's userspace draft to that title? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

et voila :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump

More experienced eyes needed. He's been in the news constantly the past month with his political statements, and consensus has not yet formed on how to properly cover these events. Please come and lend a hand. --Tangledorange (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new DR process

On and off in my spare time I've been attempting to draft a new "lightweight" dispute resolution process for contentious topic areas designed in part to help relieve the burden on AE admins and on DR processes in general. Right now, almost every process we have is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with endless reams of discussion being generated for what is often no more than a disputed diff or two. I think the project is in desperate need of a simpler method of dealing with day-to-day problems that arise in contentious topic areas.

Because it's obviously difficult to see possible flaws in one's own ideas, I am at this point inviting comment on my draft proposal in hopes of getting some useful feedback. I'm particularly interested in feedback from admins or from people experienced in policy development, but anyone is welcome to leave a comment.

The draft process can be read here, and comments can be left at the associated talk page, here. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are all fantastic!

This is quite possibly the incorrect forum, but after a brief glance at the overwhelming amount of forum choices available to me, I honestly just picked the first one that I was vaguely familiar with and went with it.

I've been editing Wikipedia for years now, but nothing that really merited getting a user name to take the credit. I'm constantly on the road and can't make myself care for the wikipolitics, any of its user-spaces, or frankly having any sort of discussion with anyone else.

That being said, I very much appreciate all of the folks that do manage all of this. I realize this is the admin notice board and not the general user notice board (if there is such a thing), but I wanted to send warm wishes specifically your all's way. I certainly couldn't stomach having to put up with the random crap on the day-to-day basis that you all handle, but the wiki wouldn't exist if no one did. Your hard work shows, and I'm sure the thanks you get is as large as your paychecks for it. If heartfelt kudos sent byte-by-byte mean anything at all, I'm sending hundreds your way.

Good luck, and a friendly good bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.8.89.2 (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Prodego ^talk 15:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Always nice to read something like this :) Thanks to you too! NW (Talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading this made my day.. thanks :) -- œ^™ 09:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Forces (ChuckleVision)

Resolved

This AfD has now been open for three weeks for want of comments. Please could a few people argue either way and then we can get the thing closed? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 08:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was about to vote redirect, but I editconflicted with future perfect who closed it as merge/redirect. Yoenit (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia complying with super-injunctions?

See here:

Several celebrities alleged to be those subject to super-injunctions have been named on Twitter and Wikipedia, but the media's inability to name the public figures involved has meant innocent celebrities being named.

Count Iblis (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, a U.S. Based entity, has no obligation to or intention of complying with the UK's super-injunction. Rklawton (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAIK, only incidentally. That is, superinjunctions do not apply to Wikipedia specifically, since they do not apply to the press in the U.S., and Wikipedia's physical servers are in the U.S. Superinjunctions may apply to U.K. residents editing Wikipedia from the U.K., but IANAL, so I don't know the implications of that. Sometimes, material about a celebrity which may be covered by a superinjunction may be removed from Wikipedia for unrelated reasons (such as WP:BLP violations, or being irrelevent to the article, or being poorly sourced, or just being inappropriate per WP:UNDUE, or any of a number of other reasons), but that is merely a coincidence, and that doesn't mean that the material was removed to comply with such a superinjunction, if the removed material would have been removed anyways. --Jayron32 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't this been on AN/ANI several times now already? NW (Talk) 17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen such discussions here (but then, I don't closely follow all disucssions on AN/I and AN). here, it was mentioned that people could be found in contempt of court, although prosecutions are unlikely. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223#Super-injunctions and unnecessary censorship of Wikipedia. There were also two somewhat related threads on ani. Just search for "superinjunction" on admin noticeboards. Hans Adler 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation have expressed any interest in adknowledging or complying with the poxy so-called 'laws' of the 'United Kingdom' and due to jurisdictional differences, that is their privilege (only Americans have any entitlement to privacy on the 'pedia). Still if you are a UK editor, you should probably stay well away from the the relevant areas as you may be personally liable for any edits you make. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote: "A spokesman for Wikipedia confirmed the website will continue to do all it can to prevent super injunctions being breached by British users."[64] Not sure what that means, but it sounds good. There is also a current thread about this at WT:BLP#Super-injunctions, BTW. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that would suggest that the British authorities would be able to get IP addresses of editors here upon request. Count Iblis (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd be one fishing expedition after another, though, I can't see the WMF responding to that. What if I went to Imogen Thomas' page now and posted the name of the soccer player she's alleged to be connected to? (it is easy to find, btw) Are they going to try to get my IP info to see if I'm British or not? There's nothing identifying in my user page. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia spokesperson was User:David Gerard and he explains it in this comment. Basically, he was misquoted. Woody (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Tarc, 'they' could certainly ask WMF for your details who will be totally within their rights to release the information should they consider it 'reasonably neccessary' so it depends on whether you think thats a risk worth taking. [65] You don't need probable cause or anything to just ask somebody. Still it's more of a concern to users (like myself) who clearly identify themselves as Brits or whos contributions make it very obvious that they are a Brit. Bob House 884 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is hard for Wikipedia to "comply with super-injunctions" when it does not know what is in them. Only the mainstream media in the UK are shown these documents, Wikipedia is guessing like everyone else. The real threat is still libel if blog-sourced nonsense gets into an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has long been violating a super-injunction, so the answer to the original question is clearly 'no'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lib Dem MP John Hemming (politician) revealed the existence of the Fred Goodwin super-injunction using Parliamentary privilege, leading to coverage like this in The Sun. The term "super-injunction" is somewhat loosely defined, and usually refers to an injunction where the plaintiff is anonymous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My question would be a content one. If a court has ruled that some recent material is private, damaging, not widely published, and that there's no public interest in disclosure, does that material belong on an encyclopedia? While there's no legal reasons for Wikipedia to exclude it, perhaps there should be a presumption in favour of exclusion in such cases. We are an encyclopedia, we don't do breaking news (or don't in theory) and we have a principal of erring on the "do no harm" side. Sure, there may be instances where it is quite clear that a court order is unreasonable, and we'd be grossly self-censoring legitimate content by exclusion, but I suspect that usualy that will not be the case. There may be the danger that we distort our content, and ignore our own principals, by deliberately inclucing material to demonstrate our independence from UK courts and our instinctive resistance to censorship, that would be most unfortunate. Wikipedia is not a political or legal weapon for free-speech campaigns.--Scott Mac 09:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's most probably correct in the vast majority of cases—marital affairs and the like almost certainly don't need to be included no matter if a court injunction is taken out on it or not. But it's unlikely that the courts will be correct all the time. It's something to judge on a case-by-case basis. NW (Talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott, would you say the same about a similar move by some other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, or the PRC? Why should we automatically assume the UK has fair judicial practices in such matters? Certainly a number of people in that country think otherwise. We have stringent standards regarding sourcing for damaging BLP, and we should abide by them. Normally, our standards are stricter and result in our not publishing material which would be perfectly legal to publish, even in the UK. Sometimes, it's otherwise. I see no reason why we should care in the least about their judgment in deciding what to include, as we are not subject to their jurisdiction. As a particular complication, regardless of the underlying matter, the act of suppression is in my opinion very likely to be notable, and will often have reliable sources. . How we can write about it without violating BLP may be a little tricky, but it is our BLP standards that are in question (I think we might have to write about it without mentioning the allegations, if there are reliable sources for the suppression but not the allegations). The only reason we should ever comply with a court order for supression is on the advice on the WMF councsel--anything else is a violation of NPOV and NOT CENSORED. To the extent we follow those two policies, Wikipedia is indeed committed to free speech in the more general sense. DGG ( talk ) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of writing about celebrities taking out super-injunctions, without saying what the allegations are that the super-injunctions are intended to suppress. After all, the allegations will usually be the sort of material we would not choose to include anyway, but the existence of a super-injunction (if reliably sourced) can't really be seen that way. We could have a Category:People who have taken out a super-injunction, which would serve a useful encyclopedic purpose to people like tabloid journalists. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

RevisionDelete policy

It's come to my attention that an admin has been using RevisionDelete to systematically delete page revisions some banned users are responsible for, citing an WP:SPI case in the RevisionDelete log summary. This has been going on for over 6 months, and sometimes involves dozens of revisions together. This seems to me to be a clear breach of (current) RevisionDelete policy, and an email discussion with the admin didn't alleviate those concerns. The admin's name will probably crop up soon enough, but I'm omitting it for the moment, as I want to initially focus on the policy.

1. Is this in principle an acceptable use of RevisionDelete already (under current policy)?
2. Should it be?
3. Should the policy be amended to clearly include/exclude it?

Rd232 ^talk 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• It certainly doesn't meet the letter of WP:REVDEL, as the standard there requires that the material not only be material that there is "little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal", but that it also be "grossly offensive". There's not substantial dissent about removing edits by banned editors, but they aren't necessarily grossly offensive. Should the policy be amended to include it? I certainly think so, and feel like it's covered by WP:IAR today. Banned users are banned users. Some banned users use a brute force approach: sock after sock after sock after sock, in the hopes that people will fail to revert the edits or accidentally build on them. When a sockpuppeteer gets too active and persistent, I begin to semi-protect his targets after reverting his edits. If the annoyance that causes doesn't do the trick, revision deletion is the next logical step.—Kww(talk) 22:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think the desire to cause annoyance to a sockpuppeteer justifies use of revdel. I also fail to see the harm of allowing a banned user's contributions to remain in history once they have been reverted, absent a normal revdel reason to hide them. Monty₈₄₅ 23:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  On the contrary, there is no feasible way to comment on Rd232's exertions since a) He has a specific case in mind and b) he does not tell us what that specific situation is, so we have no way to meaningfully comment if it is within policy. It is possible that it is within policy, and it is also possible that it is NOT, but we cannot have a meaningful conversation in the general when there subject is in the specific. Rd232 looks to be fishing for a response which will justify his opinion that a specific use of RevDel is the in the wrong; however we have no way to know if it is in the wrong based only on HIS characterization of it, without being able to review the specifics ourselves. It is irresponsible for us to give him a false sense of righteousness by confirming his notions over specific usage of RevDel, when we have not been presented with that usage itself. There are instances I can come up with which would be good uses of RevDel which exactly match all of the vagueries he has provided, and I can come up with similar hypothetical instances which would be poor uses of RevDel, and because of that we have no way we should be making blanket statements on "rightness" or "wrongness" based on a lack of specific details. --Jayron32 23:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  @Monty845More easily re-inserted, for one thing. Also, restoring the identical text of a deleted revision is an absolute giveaway of yet-another-sock. "Desire to cause annoyance" also minimizes things a bit: the goal is to enforce the ban, and get the banned user to stop attempting to edit.

  @Jayron:I have the advantage of knowing that Rd232 is discussing me. I routinely use revision deletion on sockpuppets of Brexx, Wiki-11233, ItHysteria (when he gets too active), and any other sockpuppeteer that simply refuses to give up. I'm being discussed on Wikipedia review as we speak: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33655 .—Kww(talk) 23:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  In that case, do you have some specific examples of articles which you have used RevDel under these justifications, along with an explanation as to why RevDel was necessary (for example, where leaving the edit in the page history was inadequate in dealing with the socker). If you have a set of examples, along with specific justifications, we could move this discussion along nicely. --Jayron32 23:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  I generally don't pay any attention at all to the content of the edit beyond making sure that I'm not inadvertently reverting vandalism back into an article. The one that caused the fuss was here. That one was part of a science experiment by Abd, who is intentionally violating his ban, self-reverting, and then placing off-wiki links to the edit. Revision deletion is the only way to defeat the off-wiki link. Self-reversion is intended to be an out for someone that has accidentally violated a topic-ban or a 3RR threshold, not a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" method for a banned editor to participate in Wikipedia. A more typical case is in Dana Delaney, where I revision deleted edits by Brexx on Jan 6 2011 and Dec 10 2010. Nothing exciting about the edits, just making sure that they weren't easily reinserted by Brexx, who tends to edit-war my removals of his content. The only screwups I'm aware of were the edits of Gtommy17, whom I believed to be a sock of G.M.-Cupertino, where I deleted all of his revisions, and restored them when it became apparent that my block was incorrect; and those of Wecantdoanythingaboutit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I believed to be a sock of Wiki-11233. The latter edits were not restored, as they turned out to be the edits of another block evader.

  As I said, the content is not the motivation: it's simply a matter of throwing up bigger and bigger roadblocks against the sockpuppeteer. By the time I'm doing this, I have already been reverting each an every edit of the sockpuppeteer, and escalated to semi-protecting every article the sockpuppeteer edits. Range-blocks have already been ineffective or deemed impossible. The only other possible escalation would be full-protection, and that would be unacceptable. This just makes it clear that they will not succeed, makes it more difficult for them to reinsert content, and, in the few cases that they have been stupid enough to save their change to a local disk, makes restoration 100% certain to be that of the sockpuppeteer.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Those seem to me to be OK within the spirit of RevDel. Specifically, if a user is trying to WP:GAME the system by posting links to his edits off-wiki, or using old revisions to maintain disruption, it seems like a reasonable solution to RevDel those revisions. We regularly RevDel problematic revisions, for example, when off-wiki links are used by the 4-chan /b/tards to perform a sort of distributed vandalism attack using an old, reverted vandalism deletion. This seems within the spirit of that usage. I personally see no problem with these specific usages, as they clearly actively protect Wikipedia from attacks by banned users, and clearly help enforce the ban on them. That the edits themselves may or may not be vandalism, if they had been committed by a non-banned user, is irrelevent to me. The fact that these are banned users attempting to game the system to circumvent their ban, either by using old un-RevDeled revisions to find their own previous edits, or by using proxy editors to edit for them, I am quite fine with this usage of RevDel. Of course, I am 1/120,786 of the active users at Wikipedia, so my opinion counts exactly that much. We'll see what others have to say on the issue, but for me these uses seem fine. If Rd232 has additional uses of RevDel he would like reviewed, I will offer my (admittedly meaningless, percentage wise) opinion on those as well. --Jayron32 00:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • My own opinion is that they might stretch the policy a little bit, but they are very clearly intended to prevent disruption and thus quite justified. If nothing else, that's a textbook application of IAR and likely a good reason to sit down and see if it would be valuable to work this scenario explicitly into written policy. — Coren ^(talk) 01:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that based on Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples, any deletion which is deletable under deletion policy is eligible. All of this material would have been permitted by CSD:G5 if they had been standalone article, which is what I think this clause is getting at. For an example that was supposed to make things clearer, that one certainly didn't help me much. Whether my edits fall under that one or not, something needs cleaned up in that wording.—Kww(talk) 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with the user whose post at Wikipedia Review brought this to my attention, then for example the case of the 40-odd RevisionDeletes on the evening of 10 April [66], all referencing WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233. The deleted edits appear harmless, in many cases (I haven't time to check all) the articles weren't even previously semiprotected (Kww did add semi-protection in some cases at the same time), and in a number there was just a single incident of reversion. I'm struggling to see how this sort of thing meets RevDel policy. At any rate, it's a bloody long way from the sentiments that permitted admins to have the tool in the first place, namely, use with extreme caution and risk desysopping for just one instance of breaking the strict rules. Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't review the contents of the edits except for making sure that I don't revert in vandalism. The deleted edits would have been harmless if they hadn't been block evasion. Take a look at my protection log and search for Wiki-11233 ... you'll see that I systematically semi-protect articles that he edits. I'm not a robot, don't use scripts, and you will find some exceptional cases where I see that the article has substantial activity with valid contributions by anonymous editors and I err on the side of not semi-protecting. On that day, I protected every article that was edited that the protection had either lapsed or had never been installed (it's not like every time I discover a new sock, he's been courteous enough not to edit any new articles, after all). I'm working against the sockpuppeteer, not individual edits to individual articles.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"The deleted edits would have been harmless if they hadn't been block evasion." - they're still harmless. Your logic seems to be that because WP:CSD#G5 exists to speedily delete articles created by banned users (though it isn't normally applied where the article's been around a while, edited substantively by others, and is useful), RevDel can be used to delete individual revisions from banned users, even though the RevDel policy says nothing of the sort. You want to sneak it in by the backdoor of "anything deletable under Deletion policy", but that doesn't really wash. To get back to the policy question (which is why I didn't bring up your name originally) - should this specifically be permitted? Because allowing it under a vague heading of combating disruption or even WP:IAR opens the door to RevDeleting almost anything. Rd232 ^talk 02:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Years ago Kww would have simply used "deletion and partial undelete" and nobody would have protested; for me, this falls under "#5 Valid deletion under Deletion Policy, executed using RevisionDelete". (Also, when a sockmaster has a history of editwarring over reverts of his material you don't wait every time until he reverts a few times, you directly take measures to prevent the predictable editwarring.) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that would have been really appropriate using deletion and partial undelete either; but at any rate, if there is a consensus that it's supposed to be acceptable, it should be mentioned in the policy explicitly, probably as an additional criterion. Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, this is going to be almost as long as one of Abd's screeds, but hopefully folks read it anyway...

  First, I don't really think Kww's use of RevDel can/should be justified under WP:IAR. While I was not involved in the hashing-out of the WP:REVDEL policy, I think there's a clear similarity between that policy and WP:CSD. Both speedy deletion and RevDel are supposed to be used only in the obvious, uncontroversial cases. (From CSD: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." From REVDEL: "The tool should only be used within strict guidelines. ... Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed.") We allow administrators to ignore the rules and summarily delete pages, but only in those unusual circumstances where the page meets none of the criteria but the need for a quick deletion is plain. Similarly, ignoring the rules and using RevDel in a way which is not laid out by the criteria should be unusual. Kww's use of RevDel over the past several months has gone beyond occasionally invoking IAR and almost amounts to a unilateral establishment of a new criterion for redaction. In addition, IAR should be invoked in situations where the encyclopedia will clearly benefit from the action. I don't think using RevDel here is any more beneficial to the encyclopedia than simple reversion is.

  Second, I don't really think this use of RevDel can be justified under WP:REVDEL. RD5 applies to "valid deletions under Deletion Policy, executed using RevisionDelete." Above, Kww said that because CSD G5 allows for the speedy deletion of "pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others," redaction of banned users' edits may fall under RD5. I think that idea meets neither the letter nor the spirit of the policy. Rd232 already commented above on why the letter is not met. Why not the spirit, you ask? Well, the RevDel policy was drafted primarily by Fl and FT2 in 2009. FT2 added to the draft the criterion we now know as RD5 on May 25, 2009 (1, 2). This criterion would remain essentially the same between then and the consensus adoption of RevDel in October 2009. I don't see any indication that this criterion was intended, even by FT2, for the deletion of harmless edits by banned users. Indeed, after adding this criterion to the draft, FT2 proposed a separate criterion that would allow admins to RevDel banned users' edits; it garnered no support.

  I think the real issue here is that RD5 really needs to be clarified. In October 2009, an admin commented that the criterion was too vague in that it was unclear "in what situations the new tool would actually be helpful," and no one addressed the point. I'm pretty familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion; however, I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of a situation where one of those criteria could be applied to an edit but RD1-3 could not, and RevDel would be necessary. The only exception that comes to mind is blatant hoax material of the sort NuclearWarfare RevDel'd per this thread. Other than that, can anyone provide any clarification about this criterion's purpose?

  Finally, I find it hard to square Kww's ideas with WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, which says: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. ... This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. ... Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Not all banned editors try to insert misinformation into articles. Editors who are not banned should be able to look at edits made in defiance of a ban and see if they were "helpful edits." Non-admins like me cannot do that if the edits are not only reverted but also RevDel'd. That's a bad thing, and that's why I would strongly oppose permitting the automatic redaction of banned users' edits under policy. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• A Stop at Willoughby is entirely correct in the interpretation of the policy. In response to Enric Naval, "years ago" is just about a year ago, and in fact adminstrators were told by developers not to do that unless the vandalism was a problem for other reasons because (particularly with large articles) it caused serious lags and occasional errors in the database. Realistically, the same issues still apply: now instead of causing database lag, it is having a serious effect on the history of articles. If there is another reason to revision delete, such as a BLP violation or personal attack or other form of harassment, please do use revision deletion; however, if it is just routine and has no serious effect other than to add a wasted edit, please use the standard RBI response. Deletion should always be a last option, not the preferred one, even when it comes to edits of banned or blocked editors. The section in the deletion policy referring to the acceptability of deleting edits by banned users was put into place to deal with extraordinary circumstances, not every edit. I'm also going to note that, unless every edit subsequent to that of a banned user is revision deleted, there can be attribution issues as well, particularly if someone else builds upon the edit made by the banned user. That is the other reason that deletion in any form needs to be carefully and selectively done, instead of being a routine response. Risker (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  @Risker and ASAW: I think part of the situation here is that banned users are specifically gaming the system with the overt purpose of finding ways to circumvent their ban. ABD in particular seems quite explicit about his purpose here; this is merely an attempt to circumvent the ban, by using Wikipedia's own tools and rules against us. Wikipedia is not a game, Abd doesn't get to "win" if he figures out a way to break the rules in such a manner as to be unstopable, or to devise a plan to allow others to do the same. So far, we've only been presented with a few diffs and explanation from KWW over some specific uses, and so far the ones he's presented as good uses of RevDel, I would concur that they are narrowly defined and targeted specifically at users who are attempting to game the system by using their own saved and reverted edits in the database to continue disruption. Certainly, this narrowly defined usage seems reasonable. No one has presented diffs or examples to support the argument that he's RevDeleting every single edit from every single confirmed sock; just those who have found a way to use old revisions to circumvent their ban or otherwise be disruptive. I agree that if KWW were being as cavalier about RevDel as you guys make it out to be, that may be a problem. SO far, however, I have only seen evidence of justifiable (if unorthodox) use of RevDel to stop specific problems. I issued the request to RD232 above, and I restate it again: Does anyone have any other situations where KWW has used RevDel in a way which is impossible to justify given the behavior or obvious intent of the banned user in question? --Jayron32 05:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, actually I do see a problem: Kww reinstated an error into the Dana Delaney article on both occasions, and the Brexx socks were correct in their edits. Risker (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's kinda my point; Brexx is banned from editing. Does that mean he's really banned, or does that mean he's only banned from getting edits in the front door, as long as he finds a loophole that lets him in the back door there is nothing anyone can do to stop him? What does banned mean if users are given a clear loophole that they can exploit with impunity? We regularly revert edits from banned users even if they are good edits. While RevDeleting them would be an extraordinary step in every case, we shouldn't tie our hands when a user has found a method to be disruptive where RevDeletion could hinder their disruption. The fact that Brexx's edits were "good" doesn't mean he gets to ignore his ban to make them. --Jayron32 06:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm no. Adversely affecting the content of the project to deal with what is essentially a social problem is the opposite of what we are supposed to be doing here. When the response to a banned editor results in greater disruption to the project than does the banned user, the response is inappropriate. It also becomes somewhat circular: if banned editor XX inserts appropriate information Y and is reverted, then another new editor ZZ inserts appropriate information Y again, new editor ZZ winds up being called a sock of XX and we still don't get the appropriate/correct information. Time to stop this cycle, and part of it is not using revision deletion unless it is an edit that would otherwise meet the narrow deletion criteria. Just because sockmasters may game the system doesn't mean we have to play the MMORPG too. Risker (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I truly and deeply resent the accusation there, Risker. Reverting banned editors does not cause disruption to the project in any reasonable sense of the word. After I've been there, the state of the project is effectively identical to the state it would have been in had the banned editor not edited at all. Since I don't have checkuser access, I do make occasional mistakes, but I generally request checkuser unless I am extremely certain. When checkuser is performed, my accuracy rate is unmatched: I'll compare it to any other editor on the project. In the cases that I have been shown to be wrong, I apologize, undo my work, and set things right. Not much more can be asked.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes reverting edits by banned users makes articles worse. Often this isn't obvious, and if reverting a lot of edits, maybe it's a price worth paying (though there is some disagreement about that). But this is a red herring - the issue is not reversion, it's revision deletion. Rd232 ^talk 16:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, banned from editing, and as such we have a long standing policy of reverting edits of banned users on sight, regardless of the merits. On the other hand some of the RevDel's raised above do seem problematic because we do not have a long standing policy of RevDel'ing the edits of banned users. On the one hand there is sensible argument for some of the deletions above being useful to stop disruption. I share Rd232's concern over the 10 April RevDel's of innocuous content. This is IMO going a step too far. At a recent RFC the usefulness of RevDel in responding to vandals/banned users was discussed, and the feeling was that with reasonable discretion it could be used, in this case RevDel all edits of a banned user seems a step too far. Revert, Block, Ignore - but no need to delete unless it addresses disruption. At the same RFC there was strong support for admin discretion when it comes to these matters, but also that admin's were expected to show caution and use the tool in a restrained manner I will find a link to the discussion, it was a little while ago --Errant ^(chat!) 11:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

One issue that has come up above needs to be put to bed: I do not blindly delete revisisons and cause licensing problems. I delete revisions only when I can keep the licensing straight. Usually it's a matter of simply reverting and deleting the interim revisions. Sometimes I have to examine intermingled edits and determine that they are only to material that is being deleted. On very rara occasions, I will delete a section and restore some text with an edit summary crediting the user. Generally if there's an intermingling problem, I don't do any deletion. It's the same case as an article created by a banned user and subsequently edited by others: preservation of the valid edits and keeping licensing straight takes priority over removing the banned user's edits. This is one of the reasons that I edit manually, without bots or scripts. I'd be the first to oppose doing this automatically, because it's just too complex of a task to do without human decision making.—Kww(talk) 11:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A few additional data points: people are referring to sock edits as "innocuous": I find the idea of innocuous block evasion to be generally problematic, but think of the case of Wiki-11233: how far does it have to go before extreme measures are warranted?

• Suspected socks:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wiki-11233
• Confirmed socks:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wiki-11233
• History:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233/Archive

—Kww(talk) 12:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BANNED is banned. They do not have the right to make any edits. If we let them slip by with "oh, it's a correction," the ban is no longer being enforced. People get banned for a reason; if they want to continue editing, they have recourse to do so by emailing unblock-en-l(at)lists.wikimedia.org . — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about letting edits stand (i.e. contributions allowed to stand in the current version of an article). We're talking about deleting old page revisions from the page history (where the edits have already been reverted). Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But those revisions consist solely of edits by banned users, so the distinction is really whether you leave the contributions of banned editors readily available or not. No one has provided a solid argument for leaving the contributions of banned editors readily available when simply reverting their edits has already proven to be inadequate as a deterrent. That's a part of this debate that the people opposed to the deletion haven't addressed: when a sockpuppeteer has already persevered through having all of his edits reverted, and having all of his targets semi-protected, why isn't revision deletion the next logical deterrent step? What would you recommend in its place, aside from simply not bothering to enforce blocks and bans?—Kww(talk) 17:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Deterrent? You can never really prevent them from editing, because Wikipedia can in principle be edited by anyone. All you can do is ban editors, which means that they cannot participate in the Wiki-community like other editors here. We should not try to aim for more. Count Iblis (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bans are to prevent editors from editing wikipedia.... WP:BAN is quite clear on that. Your definition of "ban" is at odds with what bans actually are. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, but the real reason why editors are banned is to prevent disruption; the formal procedures as written up in WP:BAN taken literally may not always work well in practice, given that Wikipedia at the end of the day is editable by everyone. It's a bit like banning the use of drugs, which is motivated by the dangerous effects of drugs combined with the fact that good judgement can be impaired when taking drugs. But the obvious tension between such a ban and the nature of a free democratic society, makes such a ban difficult to enforce. Count Iblis (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No one argues that bans aren't difficult to enforce: they most certainly are. The question at hand is whether this is a reasonable step in terms of ban enforcement for editors that continue to violate their bans in the face of lesser impediments. You haven't directly addressed that.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not "a free democratic society," rendering your analogy moot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kww, you wrote above that "no one has provided a solid argument for leaving the contributions of banned editors readily available when simply reverting their edits has already proven to be inadequate as a deterrent." I believe I already did in the last paragraph of my previous post. However, I will explain the argument more fully. We can all agree that banned users are banned and are not supposed to make edits, period, even helpful edits. That's policy. We can all agree that, according to the policy, any user can revert any edit made in defiance of a ban. We can further agree that, under this policy, editors who independently verify the validity/helpfulness of the edits, and are willing to take responsibility for them, may restore them. I think we can agree that not all banned editors try to insert misinformation into articles, and that some try to evade their ban by making helpful edits. Surely, then, it follows that editors who are interested in the article in question and who are not banned should be able to look at the banned users' edits and determine whether they were helpful. If the edits were helpful, the article is improved; if not, oh well. Now, given the large number of non-admin editors relative to the number of admins, the interested, non-banned editors I mentioned are more likely to be non-admins than admins. If a revert-block-ignore process had been followed, no problem arises. But if a revert-RevDel-block-ignore process had been used, non-admin editors are completely incapable of viewing and judging the edits in question. That is where problems arise. Kww, you wrote that you "don't review the contents of the edits except for making sure that I don't revert in vandalism. The deleted edits would have been harmless if they hadn't been block evasion." In these situations, I think nothing is gained (in terms of deterring banned users) and something is lost (in terms of improving article accuracy). RBI should suffice when the edits are innocuous except for the block/ban evasion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What you describe doesn't include the "I", but is the basic reason that I don't do this for most socks that I detect. Most of the time, I simply revert edits. But what should be done when the editor just keeps going, and going, and going, in the hopes that some percentage of his changes will be adopted? That's why I do this as the final escalation, to deprive the sockpuppeteer of all hope of having his edits retained. I'd say that, on average, about 5% of the sock edits I revert wind up incorporated into articles. Most sockpuppeteers give up when only one edit in twenty gets incorporated into an article, and simply reverting them is enough. Add in the next layer, when I start semi-protecting targets, and most of the rest quit. Revision deletion seems to be the final straw to get the remainder. What would you suggest as an alternative with someone like Brexx? 131 socks confirmed by checkuser. 31 more suspected. I'd estimate that I've reverted him over 5000 times since he was banned. How much longer should I have kept up with RBI? Why should I have expected RBI number 4000 to work when RBI 1-3999 had not?—Kww(talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very fair question, and I'm afraid I cannot give it a particularly good answer. All I can say is that I would not expect someone like Brexx to stop evading his ban after his edits are RevDel'd any more than I would expect him to do so after 4000 RBIs. Also, I will note that deleting Abd's edits only seemed to embolden him (if the WR thread to which you linked is any indication). I don't buy into the idea of RevDel as a ban evasion deterrent. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Abd's disruption is badly hampered by these deletions. But he is sophisticated enough to claim that he is emboldened by the deletions, in order to trick people into letting his edits stand. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What really emboldens Abd is getting people tricked into supporting his unbanning, making them believe that Abd is willing to make only useful edits. As soon as he gets unbanned he will just revert to his old disruptive behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Proof's in the pudding, as they say: there's only been one confirmed Brexx sock this year. He either gave up, or got very, very good. In terms of achieving the net effect, if he got so good that no one can tell it's him, that's as good as going away in my book. One way or the other, I think the shift to using semi-protection and revision deletion caused the shift. No way to prove it, though.

What I wish you would concede is that is may be effective in some cases, and should be permitted as a final resort. No one is arguing that revdelete should be routinely applied. I opposed making it routine in the RFC, and I mean it: it's too difficult and error prone to make general practice.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your position would be more convincing if you had more consistently tried semi-protection (a standard anti-sock measure) before moving to RevDeletion (a very non-standard one). Rd232 ^talk 03:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm very consistent. On April 10, I semi-protected 33 articles due to Wiki-11233, some of them for the third, fourth, and fifth time, because of edits by Wecantdoanythingaboutit. I think there was one article edited by him that wasn't semi-protected at the end of that round. March 27, I semi-protected 5 articles because of edits by Mark-Sinto-Vinto. That's a small enough set to look at closely: look at the logs of the pages he edited that day: Shift 2 Unleashed Infamous 2 Drake's Deception Ratchet and Clank 4 Play Station Move HeroesShift 2 Unleashed Tekken Tag Tournament LittleBigPlanet 2L.A. NoireTest Drive Unlimited 2Motorstorm: Apocalypse. In all of them you see revdelete and semiprotection being applied. Several of them were on their third bout of semi-protection. In general, I apply semi-protection in escalating periods (one month, three months, then six months) as the socks persist. I've never claimed that I only use revdelete on articles that have already been semi-protected first, only that I initially respond by semi-protecting targets, and only start revdeleting after the puppeteer has become excessively persistent. If he edits an article that he hasn't edited before, you will see semi-protection and reversion deletion being applied on the same day. If he makes one edit to an article that is being actively edited by other anonymous editors, you may see me skip protection on that article, even though I delete his revision. March 21, it was 4 articles. Feb 17, it was one: Areyoudown became autoconfirmed and then edited semi-protected articles. I'm not a bot: I exercise judgment and I make mistakes. Look over my protection log. Look over my editing log. Look over my deletion log. Truly erasing a sock is a tedious and slow job. I'm sorry if the hours of work I put in on this issue haven't met your standards of perfection sufficiently to be persuasive.—Kww(talk) 04:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What I would expect to see, given ordinary disruption, would be the ordinary approach of 1. RBI and 2. semi-protection if that doesn't work on that article. Looking at individual articles, in too many cases I can't even see justification for going beyond step 1. What you've not done yet is explain how you reached the conclusion that produced a step 3. RevDel, and generally applied all three steps without (seemingly) much regard to individual article edit history (just going on involvement of a specific sock puppeteer). What is the exceptional pattern of disruption of these sock puppeteers that made you reach the conclusion that this exceptional approach was (a) effective and (b) necessary? Rd232 ^talk 14:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. If one sockpuppeteer's disruption on article A necessitated revdeling plus semi, then when he moves to article B you don't just revert and hope somehow that the pattern of the disruption would be different. You revert, semi, and start revdeling. Suppose we normally move-protect an article after 3 vandalistic moves (random number pulled out of a hat). Do we need to wait for 3 moves on every single article even if we know that Grawp is after them? T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said. The actions I take are to protect Wikipedia against people, not to protect individual articles against individual edits. As for whether these sockpuppeteers are exceptional or not, look at the sheer duration and volume of their efforts.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A pattern of a sock puppeteer moving between articles in a predictable way might justify lowering standards for imposing semi-protection, yes. But looking at the 10 April cases I was focussing on, I don't see a pattern of moving (just a bunch of edits being reverted). And the question remains - how does the justification for RevDel come about? PS Move-protection is a red herring, because moves are so much less common, it's much less of an issue to impose it. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The justification from the persistence of the socking, and the desire to make the message Go away, your edits cannot and will not ever be incorporated into any articles as clear as possible. I don't know how to say that to a sockpuppeteer more loudly than deleting each and every contribution he makes. RBI certainly wasn't effective with any of these editors: I did it for years. The only alternative you are offering (RBI) is one that has been demonstrated not to work in this case. It works in many cases, but not in some. How mahy more years would you have me try before you conceded that it failed? Or would you have me simply stop bothering to try?—Kww(talk) 15:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

T Canens' interjection was a distraction, but I actually asked you a clear question, and RBI was not the only alternative I mentioned. In addition, I'm not wholly opposed to employing RevDel to prevent disruption by banned users (I've used it myself to RevDel edit summaries from a persistent socker using edit summaries as a soapbox). The issue is that using RevDel in the way that you have (frequency of use, and volume of use in specific instances) really ought to be (a) covered clearly by policy and (b) not be a decision made by individual admins. Which is to say, once a collective decision is made that a particular socker justifies it, then any admin can do it, but there needs to be an initial discussion that it's justified. Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't a distraction. You desire an article-by-article response to a problem that isn't an article-by-article problem. T. Canens's response was quite to the point: once the sockpuppeteer becomes a problem, there's no need at all to have the problem be redemonstrated on an article-by-article basis. I could accept the argument that it could be decided by a group at AN or SPI, although I think it would be simpler to have a bright-line where it could be done without the need for the discussion, something like persisting for over 3 months past the original ban or block, with community discussion required only if someone thought it needed to be done earlier than that.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

" You desire an article-by-article response " - not in the slightest. I outlined that the usual response is article-by-article and does not extend to RevDel. I asked you for a clear explanation how you reached a conclusion that (a) article-by-article RBI+semi wasn't working and (b) RevDel was going to be both helpful and necessary. Incidentally I'm not clear that either conclusion is compatible with policy; WP:SEMI doesn't foresee your application of it any more than RevDel foresees your application of that. Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've answered the first part multiple times: "how did I conclude that article-by-article RBI+semi wasn't working?" The sockpuppeteers continued to edit. In the case of Wiki-11233, I've been reverting each and every one of his edits since July, 2009. I've been semi-protecting his targets since May 15, 2010. I started revdeleting his edits Dec 11, 2010. With Brexx, I've been reverting every one of his edits since Jan 22, 2009, and began semi-protecting his targets in Aug, 2010. I started revdeleting his edits in Dec, 2010. For Wiki-11233, that was 8 months of RBI and 7 months of RBI+semi-protect. For Brexx, that was 16 months of RBI and and 4 months of RBI+semi-protection. How did I decided it was effective? Brexx problems dropped precipitously. We aren't talkin a process that I started after a few weeks: I don't think anyone could look at those time periods and think that RBI was working. As for why I chose revdelete — I couldn't think of anything else to try. Can you?—Kww(talk) 20:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, now we're getting somewhere - that's the sort of explanation I wanted all along, and that's the sort of explanation (perhaps with more detail) which I could imagine being used to justify activating a future RD7 for a particular socker. As I suggested in the RFC, RD7 should involve a consensus decision first, which anyone can then act on. It's not like these situations are so frequent, and especially not so urgent, as to preclude some prior discussion about whether to go down that route. Rd232 ^talk 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC

OK, this discussion has had a certain usefulness, but at this point the issue is best served, I think, but focussing on whether or not to actually amend the policy, so I've started an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Revision_deletion#Proposed_changes. Rd232 ^talk 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

whether or not we amend it, KWW's use was invalid under the existing policy, and we must deal with that also. I think the least we can ask is that Kww promise to not use RevDel in such cases until the RfC concludes, and only if it concludes in the position he supports. Otherwise it's a matter on the ongoing deliberate violation of policy, and I think it plain enough that I hope arb com would decide it by motion. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't a consensus as to whether it falls under D5 or not, and many that think it doesn't clearly fall there think that my particular application was acceptable under IAR justification. I'll hold off while the RFC is in progress. Once that's over, I'll evaluate the result.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to old discussion needed

A few years ago, a few thousand biology-related articles, created by a bot or script, were mass deleted after a discussion (AfD, RfC, VPP, whatever). Can anyone provide me with the link to that discussion please? I'm working on a somewhat similar situation now, and want to check if they are really similar, and how the earlier one was handled. Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Anybot and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles? T. Canens (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the one that I meant. Fram (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was I who called Fram's attention to this set of articles in the discussion about Dr. Blofield's Afghanistan place articles. As you'll see from the discussion there, this set -- apparently about 1000--wee done by a poorly programmed bot, apparently being run by an ed. who did not realize that the taxonomy of this group was not straightforward, that older sources were no longer applicable, & that there was no comprehensive up-to-date source. They contained sufficient errors in multiple aspects that they would all need rewriting by a specialist, slowly, from the disperse original literature, none of the few suitable people here were prepared to do it, and those who knew most agreed the fixing was impractical. This is very different from fixing the names of provinces & =checking for typos in a list for which there's an authoritative source that should have been used, but wasn't, with many people here experienced in geographical articles. Even so, I note it's been two years and the algae articles have not been re-created and our coverage remains deplorable. I think the wrong decision was made: we should have made greater efforts to quarantine them and fix them. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographic.org

Everyone is invited to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographic.org, a discussion about over 2,500 articles. Due to the unusual character and the potential impact of the discussion, I believe that more participation than usual would be beneficial to get a true sense of the community's opinion on this. Fram (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation/falsification of scholalry source

Moved

Of course quotations should not be altered, but if the editor thought he was following a consensus agreement this could just be an honest slip-up. It's not as though the quotation hhad been changed to mean something different. It looks like a mechanical process of name changing that was just wrongly applied. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved the notification to proper place.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have courtesy copied Paul Barlow's comment to AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is pretty backed up

Resolved

 – It's mostly cleared out now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? There are quite a few names there. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would, but the last time I did a UAA block I got yelled at, so I won't. --Rschen7754 06:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FfD backlog

Resolved

Please could someone take five minutes to close the FfD discussions which were due to finish yesterday? Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 08:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT all are now closed (not by me). Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by 216.73.65.77 at North West Company article.

Resolved

 – Redirected user to AIV. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Same IP (216.73.65.77) has vandalized the same article ( North West Company ) 4 times in 24 hours. Warned each time, each warning seems to make them do it again. No profanity etc., just messing it up. At first glance looks like them might have done a similar binge 2 months ago. No big deal at the article, but I think that such "in your face" persistent vandalism may need some response. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:AIV instead after sufficient warnings are given. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Never noticed that. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Cuidatuinfo

Out of scope ?--Musamies (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanked. User pages are not to contain excessive unrelated content. It was about a non-profit organization that they are promoting. — Moe ε 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Improving edit summary use? The related discussions have been open since 20 March 2011 and 21 March 2011, respectively. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default.

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Improving edit summary use has not been closed yet. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. 23:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, ErrantX (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Improving edit summary use. This can now be archived. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Old Images (without sourcing )

Can an administrator please provide some guidance on what to do about older images without a source?

At present I've been leaving image authorship requests on user talk pages, with the good faith intention of reducing the number of obvious cases. A number of the images ARE 'useful' , in use and would but for the missing source be valuable for Commons, and it seems a shame that they will eventually get deleted due to policy-zombies (For the record I've been accussed of being a bit of a policy zombie myself at times, see the archives at WP:ANI for example... )

Perhaps it's time to consider putting a sunrise date on when CSD's can be applied, and which could be applied in the appropriate automated tools?

On a more practical level, perhaps admins or experienced contributors would like to look over the images I've been slowly trying to add information too, with a view to reducing the numbers of 'technically' un-sourced images still further?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

By older, do you mean like pre-1923 old, or like uploaded before 2006 old? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of the disscussion - I meant stuff uploaded prior to Jan 1st 2010.

If you want to include pre 1923 uploaded after Jan St 2010, feel free... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it's a balance between good faith and policy. Because the policy was not as strict back then, I'm inclined to AGF on images that are almost certainly correctly and acceptably licensed, but I know that's not going to stand up in a policy discussion. My personal way of doing it is to turn a blind eye to most old (pre-2007 or 2008?) files that are probably OK, FfD/tag those that could be copyvios or have ambiguous licensing situations, etc. I think files uploaded in 2009 should have properly marked sources, because the policy would have been better enforced by that time and users should have known the policy. From what I've observed, many users will also turn a blind eye to the files uploaded several years ago, although again, this isn't really supported by any policy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of my action on Talk:Scott Disick

After receiving a good deal of blp-related vandalism, Scott Disick was semi-protected, but it only caused the attacks on him to be moved to the talk page. I have, therefore, decided to semi-protect the talk page for three days, to stop these abuses. As I'm aware that an article and its talk page should not be semi-protected at the same time, I'm asking for feedback here; feel free to revert my actions, if you feel they were inappropriate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the vandalism and its persistence, this was clearly the appropriate thing to do. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

✓. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA Reform

See WP:RFA2011. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to point out there Mjroots. — Ched :  ?  18:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that the discussion is going on. I'm sure that we admins are allowed to be involved in the discussion should we wish to do so, aren't we? Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User Geo Swan continues violation of BLP

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:93.97.194.200

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sanction warranted?

Several weeks ago, I have been the only user to get sanctioned by the admin, User:Fainites, after a conflict between myself and User:Timbouctou. This is after I have taken great pains to carefully demonstrate, with diffs, that 1) the conflict had been provoked by the other party, after considerable effort in that direction, 2) that I have been WP:HOUNDed and insulted, and 3) that the other party was substantially more aggressive and insulting in communication (see the diffs here). As I said, well after the admin was shown the relevant diffs, I was the only user to be placed under any kind of sanction, and that was a broad topic ban on the only topic I edit (effectively a month-long block).

I have currently been placed under a "Complete Topic Ban" (capitalized) by User:Fainites [67] for my having posted the following on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic [68]

"You do not understand the history of the country and are not equipped to write about it. This you have blatantly demonstrated on several occasions. What knowlege you do posess was acquired through bias-tinged spectacles. Consequently you may expect my full attention in any of your edits."

Is this sanction warranted?
To be perfectly honest I feel I have even not actually insulted anyone and I resent User:Fainites' imposing such rigorous, arbitrary scrutiny, particularly since its being placed upon me and me alone. To say to someone he/she is not knowledgable in some obscure Balkans subject should certainly not be treated as a personal affront. Indeed if the above warrants sanctions in the form of a "Complete Topic Ban", then User:Fainites ought to get to work blocking and banning virtually every single editor on the Balkans articles, and beyond. It seems that since the admin has taken-up the mantle of my own personal "parole officer" I am to be subjected to special standards and sanctioned severely for virtually no reason whatosoever - such as using an overly "owning tone" of voice (whatever that is).

Over the period of the last five years I have posted some 32,000 edits on Wikipedia's (extremely difficult) Balkans articles. After five years in the "trenches" I admit: I am not a polite guy. I am easily provoked. And I did make personal comments of my own in these issues, no question, but at all times I do my utmost to evade any serious infractions of WP:NPA. I did not expect to be singled out, and if sanctions are empoyed I expected that the fact I was provoked will be taken into consideration. Least of all did I expect to be the only person to get essentially blocked for a month. This was not fair admin treatment. And while I did not want to cause a fuss back then (having been busy in real life anyway), this sort of thing now seems bound to continue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment - you say, a "topic ban on the only topic I edit" (effectively a month-long block). - and that you have a lot of experience 32,000 edits over five years - why don't you take this opportunity to work in some others areas of the project, there is a lot of beneficial stuff you could be doing whilst you take this little break from your topic focus. It must be difficult for you editing only in this area which you clearly hold strong views, why not just enjoy some time here and branch out working in new areas. Even consider dropping that sector altogether - let it go, relax the wheels won't drop off, when we become involved in a sector its easy to start thinking wikipedia is massively important and every word must be correct when the readers of the project don't expect complete correctness Off2riorob (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the sanction with Fainites before taking it here would have been good form. Your response on your talk page was rather high handed and not very helpful. The same could be said for your responses to Sunray's comments on your rude post in the request for mediation (for instance, accusing them of "tampering" with your post, when he or she actually removed it for good reasons and very correctly notified you of this action). These comments and your above comments here reflect a very unproductive battleground mentality. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I had already been discussing the issue with Fainites before, and he is aware of all of the above. He has also made his position clear to me regarding the matter (see the first posts of the "ANI" section, here).

With regard to Sunray. I feel he has very likely removed a (politely-worded) post of a mediation participant, addressed to all other participants, before they can notice it, because he does not wish his perpetual mediation (by far the longest mediation in Wikipedia history) to finally die after months and years of effectively freezing the issue and the article in place. In all objectivity, this is very likely the case. I also had not "accused" him of anything, and I even accepted that it is likely he may be in the right - but I did simply request that he just presents a policy/guideline which he interprets as allowing him to move away posts by other users at his own perrogative. There may be such a thing, I merely do not know of it. I feel any user has the right to be presented with the policy by which an admin user has taken action against him, and I do not like this sort of "sheriff" mentality that I've been seeing lately.

Look, as always I am the first to admit I am not a particularly pleasant, polite, or even likeable person - but neither are the editors I am regularly engaged with. I admit its more than I can manage to remain perfectly calm and collected in the face of constant and continuous abuse by all manner of Balkans POV-pushers - but I am doing my best. And yes, I am annoyed no end with having wasted a year and more filling out mediation pages with sources, only to see them ignored and aggressive POV-pushers re-emerge out of hibernation to inevitably restart the conflict.

But the point of this thread is (and lets not digress I beg you), the question of whether a relatively severe sanction was incorrectly applied only to myself, as opposed to the party that went to great lengths to provoke and fan the conflict, and with far more deplorable conduct (as can, and has imo, been easily demonstrated). The second question is whether a Complete Topic Ban is indeed warranted for a post whereby a user is essentially told he/she is not knowledgable in some obscure Balkans squabble. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the situation has come down to this. DIREKTOR has an extensively long record of productively editing in this shithole of Wikipedia that is the Balkans. This is an absolutely unwarranted ban given the hostility of the environment in which he edits in and the users he must deal with. It is baffling that he has been singled out in this manner and given a "leash" handicapping his capability of contributing to Wikipedia. His opinion on the mediation was requested and, when given, was immediately removed and DIREKTOR effectively shunned. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My original decision to topic ban DIREKTOR was based on WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT, not directly because of conflict with Timbouctou. Although DIREKTOR is habitually rude, aggressive and condescending towards other editors I have not and generally do not impose sanctions for WP:CIV or WP:NPA. I have been watching and endeavouring to bring some order to various Yugoslav pages since January and have in that time issued various warnings and blocks. DIREKTORs 1 month ban expires on 9th May 2011. I extended the limit of the ban to a complete topic ban because of his behaviour on the mediation. The mediator is attempting to complete and close the mediation. I asked DIREKTOR on the 13th April if he wanted to continue to take part in the mediation and said I was prepared to lift the ban for that purpose. See also. I did not want the mediation to fail because of the topic ban. DIREKTOR prevaricated and then decided he would. The mediator asked him to sign the ground rules. DIREKTOR did not do so but posted extensively on the mediation page which was removed by the mediator. There was further argument on the mediators talkpage here. DIREKTOR then decided not participate with this post. He made a number of aggressive and offensive posts on the mediation page even though he was not a participant, attacking the conduct of the mediation, encouraging the others not to participate and making it plain that he effectively intended to ignore the results. These were removed by the mediator but DIREKTOR continued to make posts.

DIREKTOR's behaviour is not remotely justified by the "hostility of the environment" in which he edits. This is mainly about his interaction with the mediator and other mediation participants, not the random nationalist IPs who infest Balkans pages. They are a nuisance but not an issue here. The mediation has apparently produced a draft article with the intention of replacing the existing article.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That is demonstrably false. In both cases you have implemented sanctions in response to my involvement in Balkans disputes - with Balkans articles' editors. As for the mediator himself, I affirm that you will find that, while I have criticized his handling of the mediation, I have never posted anything that could be construed as blatant incivility (much less a personal attack) of any sort.

The draft present in the mediation: it is good, high-quality editing - unfortunately it does not address any of the disputed points in any way shape or form, which was (incredibly) an intentional policy of the mediator, "to avoid conflict" apparently. The conflict that was "avoided" happens the one that should have been, and still is not, resolved.

Furthermore, your liberal use of the words "attack" and "agressive" do not change the fact that my comments on the mediation talkpage were not personal, but criticism of the mediation itself and its handling by the mediator. In fact I've actually explained several times that I have absolutely nothing against Sunray, but that he has botched here and badly. Indeed, I doubt anyone here would assert that a perpetual RfM, the longest ever, lasting for years and months is going perfectly smoothly. Or that any one user who has spent months and written volumes of text and source quotes would not at all be annoyed at the realization that this is all completely wasted effort. The mediation is actually "leaning" more to my side than the other, but it is completely incapable of drawing this matter to a close. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a few important facts are being missed here:

• 1st, Direktor has excluded himself from the mediation a long time now, and Sunray, the mediator, has all the right to remove all comments that are disruptive for the mediation process done by non-participants, including former participants.
• 2nd, this user, direktor, has some need to repetitively excuse his disruption by saying that he acknolledges that he is not polite. He does this for years now. If he can´t modify his behavior despite acknolledging it, and knowing the policies, perhaps a stronger sanction could impose a change of that behavior. Thinking: "I am this way and I just can´t change" is no excuse.
• 3th, this user, DIREKTOR, just as this other user, PRODUCER, have some prejuditial manner of naming Yugoslavia related articles as obscure (direktor) and shithole (producer). As an experienced editor in this field, I wouldn´t be exagerating to say that the same users are basically to blame for the fact that they feel and treat the articles from Yugoslav area the way they describe.

The "longest mediation of wiki history" seems finally to be ongoing, and the only difference is that one user, direktor, is no longer present, obvious conclusions? People that treat historical sensitive subjects as obscure shitholes shouldn´t simply participate in an encyclopedia. Fainites has basically put an end to a longstanding disruption by this user that has been forgiven and had assumed good-faith for too long time. FkpCascais (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, we both know this hostility is not limited to the "random nationalist IPs", but includes many users who frequent this part of Wikipedia and indeed the mediation. He should not have been treated in the manner that you have.

Fkp, my opinion of Balkan Wikipedia is not a "prejudice", but is based on the poor quality of the articles in the field and on the necessity of ARBMAC to "tame" Balkan editors. Your observation is dead wrong considering the high quality information that both I and DIREKTOR have contributed to this area of Wikipedia over the years in an effort to improve it. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(Just in case anybody is choosing to spend their weekend looking through all this - one of DIREKTORS archives has not linked properly on his page and is here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

Yes thank you, Fainites, my mistake. As for "not spending the weekend on all this", I must say it sounds like the second time I've heard Fainites openly express his reliance on sheer neglect of this issue on the part of his fellow admins. In his opinion, such threads like this one are "pretty much ignored" [69]; and that is indeed the rule. I'm hoping this might be an exception. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not relying on it. I just know how the heart sinks sometimes when faced with long, complex disputes in less well known subject areas. I also know conscientious admins do this - but not on the spot. You will note that I provided diffs to the relevent exchanges.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In my view, Fainites' rationale for applying this ban is sound. The diffs he or she provided and DIREKTOR's aggressive and high-handed conduct since the sanction was imposed demonstrate that their behavior is out of line and the ban is justified. In particular, DIREKTOR's "but other people were doing it as well"-type excuses don't cut it in my view, and basically constitute an example of WP:NOTTHEM. If an editor is working in a hostile environment, they should seek to contribute to cooling tensions rather than using other people's (alleged) misconduct as an excuse for their own poor behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually not using it as an "excuse" as such. What I'm saying is that I was the only person to receive sanctions in this dispute - for no particular reason - and listing that as an example of unequal treatment. I'm saying I feel I'm being singled out as some sort of perceived "troublemker" and sanctioned severly at every turn, while others get away scott-free. I'm saying I'm being held to a much higher standard than seems to apply to others.

What excuse did the other participant(s) use? 'Cause theirs is obviously working. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This may seem like pointy-haired bureacraticness on my part, but I'm pretty sure that the WP:Banning policy does not empower individual admins to issue a topic ban. It might be a good idea, but I believe that it is not actually authorized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A single admin may issue a ban is as part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, but that's the only case so far as I'm aware. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about a case under WP:ARBMAC, if I'm not mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We are indeed.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Thank you for explaining. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. My fault. Should've mentioned that before.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In the past I've been fairly supportive of DIREKTOR's efforts on Wikipedia, because he edits in controversial topic areas where he is frequently attacked, mercilessly, by other editors who are opposed to his POV. I haven't often seen so much vitriol from so many directions being aimed at non-administrators. For the most part, DIREKTOR tended to respond to such attacks in a way that wasn't quite passive, but was still fairly restrained, especially in relation to the attacks placed upon him. I disagree with any indication that DIREKTOR has gotten away with long-term disruption for an extended period of time. However, if DIREKTOR's recent actions interfere with what seems to be a so-far successful attempt at mediating a particularly difficult content dispute, a mediation he doesn't even choose to take part in, and if he proclaims the intent to hound another editor, I reluctantly have to support sanctions at this time. I hope that DIREKTOR might be able to take some time to evaluate how he can possibly return to the area he edited before without causing such conflict, or perhaps turn his attention to the rest of the encyclopedia that might benefit from his participation. -- Atama頭 17:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Change "User: Patrick (Bischoff) Brown" to "#REDIRECT Patrick_(Bischoff)_Brown"

Resolved

 – Page histories merged by Lifebaka. 28bytes (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to redirect User:Patrick_(Bischoff)_Brown/Patrick_bischoff_brown to Patrick_(Bischoff)_Brown.

At the top of the article I added: #REDIRECT [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_(Bischoff)_Brown]]

But, I was stopped by the local/global block list. I am hoping that someone can make this redirect permanent to reduce the redundancy of this article. Neilcline (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a history merge is needed. 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Proper links: User:Patrick (Bischoff) Brown/Patrick bischoff brown and Patrick (Bischoff) Brown. We don't redirect user pages to article space. Both articles appear to be the same so the user page should just be deleted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But this appears to be a copy-and-paste move from User:Patrick (Bischoff) Brown/Patrick bischoff brown to Patrick (Bischoff) Brown, unless I'm misreading the page histories. Wouldn't we want to preserve the contribution history? 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we do. Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Warn 1 editor of discretionary sanctions

User_talk:Otheus is arguing that Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell could be a working perpetual motion machine and edit-warring. I need an uninvolved admin to warn him about pseudoscience's discretionary sanctions. Use {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=ps}}. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone forgot to drop the AN-notice template... I fixed that for you. Hasteur (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This matter is almost two days old, and the editor in question has indicated that his/her editing has probably been in error. He/she hasn't edit the article since, so I don't really see a problem that requires further action. Rklawton (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"I need an uninvolved admin to warn him ..." - For the record, Enric Naval appears to have made an attempt at bullying me off an article, by (1) substantially distorting my edits, (2) ganging up with 3 or 4 other editors who all suddenly seemed very interested in an article that has had few edits in the past year, (3) not taking the time to read or respond to my voluminous posts on the article's talk page (until long after this notice was posted). --Otheus (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"...about pseudoscience's discretionary sanctions." I would like to know what this warning is. --Otheus (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits to the article in question have been limited to keeping scammers from promoting their fraudulent products. Your edits very clearly show that you were trying to whitewash the article and trying to synthesize a connection between current MIT research on photovoltaics and an electrolysis apparatus used by a con artist to bilk investors. (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC) [interrupted]

No, no, no and no! Ok, you might be right on the bilk investors part. --Otheus (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The two are simply unrelated in time, space, and physics. And what you term "ganging up" is what Wikipedia calls "collaborative activity". That's what we do here to keep cranks from single-handedly rendering our articles useless. When a bunch of editors all say "you're wrong" and "stop" you should probably listen. Rklawton (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Collaborative activity" where one incorrectly posts a 3R, two others revert, another posts an ANI here, all within the span of a few hours, and after 18 hours, none of you have seriously consider the arguments set forth on the talk page. You've been very decent about this, and I appreciate it. --Otheus (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell treats a relatively obscure topic relatively well, which probably explains the relative infrequency of edits. Periodically, some free energy proponent will drop by with an attempt to whitewash the article; I am not saying that that is what is happening here (though having reviewed your edits and comments, I side with the current consensus at the talkpage), but it may help you understand the other editors' perspective. Currently, 123 people have the page on their watchlist, which is all that is necessary to explain the pattern of collaboration you are seeing. The pseudoscience discretionary sanctions mentioned above are described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions; I present this purely as a courtesy link, which explicitly does not fulfill the conditions of warning and advice from an uninvolved admin (I am quite obviously involved here). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I seriously considered your comments on the article's talk page, and as per my reply to them, I found them without merit. To say I did otherwise, is not appropriate. At present, you've got a hand full of editors who think your off on the wrong track and no editors who support you. The appropriate thing to do is stop. Physics simply isn't on your side. Rklawton (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-Running for Adminship

In the last week, we've had two admins (HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)) relinquish their tools and run for Adminship again. HJM's RFA was pretty clear cut and he regained the bit. Sarek's less so. As I'm writing this, Sarek's RFA is pending closure at 72% support (Update: Also closed as successful).

Although I supported both candidates, I feel that such re-RFAs are unnecessary. As has been shown, it give those editors who have been in conflict with an admin a chance to stick a knife in. There are better things for the community to do than keep re-electing admins who have not seriously abused the position. If there are concerns over an admin's conduct, mechanisms are in place to deal with them. So please, no more re-RFA's, eh? Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that this is under the Donald Trump section... :P --Rschen7754 06:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed a waste of time since anyone would be re-instated anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess you forgot about Herostratus' recall fiasco; didn't and don't think it was the right outcome, but he was recalled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus's recall was a different matter. Per his stated terms, a request was made that he be recalled, which he agreed to. Any admin is free to put themselves up to recall under whatever terms they wish to set. Having done so, if recalled, they should have the guts to stand again rather than try to wriggle out of being recalled. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Basically agree with MJroots. If an admin screws up hit them with a trout. If that doesn't work try RFC/U (like any other user) and if taht doesn't work recall them (through the admin recall, if they've agreed to it, or ArbCom). We don't need to give more time to divise personal drama like RFA is in general, but more especially once you've been an admin your actions are not designed to make friends. We don't need reconfirmation RFAs--Cailil ^talk 12:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think all of you admins need to try to look at this a bit more from the perspective of the average user. I agree that these RfAs are counterproductive, but not for the exact reasons Mjroots has laid out. Just like all users, admins need to be able to abide by basic policies, and to deal with specific problems that arise as they arise. Refusing to deal with a problem and instead deciding to ask the community if you're still a swell guy overall sends the message that unlike the rest of us admins don't have to confront specific problems if enough people have their back, generally speaking (i.e. Sarek's RfA). Of course a non-admin like myself wont miss the fact that the proportion of admins to non-admins voting in this and other reconfirmation RfAs is undoubtedly grossly out of whack with the proportion of admins to non-admins in the general population of the encyclopedia. There are other examples that are disquieting form the non-admin perspective as well. A number of commentators at Sarek's RfA noted that if a non-admin running for adminship for the first time were to answer a question like Sarek did to his quest #6 there is no way that individual would ever pass. That, again sends the wrong message. At the end of the day these RfAs are divisive when it comes to the admin/non-admin relationship and not just because it allows people who have been blocked by an admin in the past to "stick knives in," but because inevitably they will engender an atmosphere where non-admins feel even more powerless to confront the reconfirmed admins when those admins do run afoul of policy or etiquette. I think the perspectives above are legitimate, but I wanted to present the other side of this coin. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the "Admin for Life" thing is absurd and that recall should be a part of regular policy. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To me, adminship is like having a driving licence. I've earned it, and feel that I should retain it until such time that it can be proved that I should no longer have it. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, there's no policy-based process to discuss whether or not someone is still capable or trustworthy and every time someone tries to create a policy, it's shouted down by people who think any potential vehicle for the community to remove admins is "unfair" and "punishes admins". Most people who receive a driving license have to renew it every so often. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the indefinete block of Sarah777 it was correct to take his driving license away. He should never got it back! An English admin banning an Irish nationalist for attacking the English is 100% improper and looks like a POV-revenge. Eddylandzaat (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody took it away from him. You could at least get your facts straight if you want to start spreading smears about him on this pathetic basis. If you can give me the name of an Irish admin, I'll gladly ask them to review whether these smears of yours have violated any policy, and we can test what your reaction would be if the unthinkable happened, and you as an Irish editor were to be blocked by an Irish admin. I'd be interested to see whether you'd explain it away in the same way Sarah did - all the Irish admins/editors who don't support her, are not true Irishmen. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, but I am Dutch. Get your facts straight... Eddylandzaat (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Then get me a Dutch admin. It makes no difference, your view is that you do not get treated fairly by admins on Wikipedia unless they share your nationality, or come from a 'neutral' country. Well, the Dutch are pretty neutral people no? So get me a Dutch admin. MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ik ben eén nederlands sprekende admin, misschien moet ik hem te blokkeren?? Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Basicly admins should stay away from interfering in cases that might be regarded as a conflict of interest. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots, just to play along with the driving license analogy. Where I come from, driving licenses do automatically get revoked on chronological grounds. Now, admittedly that's more like after seventy years than after two years. But certainly what is expected of an admin on Wikipedia has changed about as much in the ten years Wikipedia has existed, as the laws of the road have changed here in the last seventy. (Or to put it another way, internet time moves faster.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an age where the license is revoked on chronological grounds in my state, but I do have to prove that my eyesight is still good every four years. You only have to pass the driving and written test once to get the license, but you have to prove that you understand what you're looking at every so often to keep it. --Onorem♠Dil 17:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin commentary Let's keep playing a bit. Not only do I have to prove my eyesight is still good every four years, I also have to undergo a full physical examination every two years in order to exercise the full privileges of my driver's license. Why? Because I hold a Commercial Driver's License, and that's what this state requires for me to keep it. If something were to be discovered on the physical that disqualified me from operating a Big Rig, the state has the legal right to require me to surrender that license in exchange for a regular Operator's license. Now, if we're going to hold with the premise that having the admin bit set is WP:NOBIGDEAL, is there any real reason to make an admin go through the hoops at some arbitrary chronological point? Or, like my CDL, should mop-holders be subject to a review every so often? Personally, I don't think my CDL is any great shakes, although I did have to jump through some (rather expensive) hoops to acquire it. But it does mean I'm held to a higher standard when I'm behind the wheel, just as the "typical" user holds admins to a higher standard...whether they should or not. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• As a non-admin comment, I appreciate the fact that both of them chose to do this. It was, in my opinion, an honorable attempt to be responsive to the will of the community, despite the objections that many users raised. But I'd rather see more administrators make use of administrator review, instead of going through all the fuss of an RfA that no one else asked for. And I also get the feeling that the overall mood of the community is evolving, to be more and more receptive to instituting a substantive policy for administrator recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It was also completely pointless, as the outcome was never in doubt. And unless the same standards are applied to admin and regular RfAs then it will continue to be a pointless exercise. Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree with Tryptofish on both counts. Yes Admin Review is a far better process. And an actual policy for de-sysoping would be fine. Unfortunately of the few desysopings (under the current system or lack of system) that I've seen many that have ended up being unfair and divisive (and some of those were carried out by ArbCom).
      As a sysop about 50% of the time it feels like we have a bullseye painted on our backs for drive-by 'wikipedia adminz r evilz' from block evaders; the other 50% of the time we're left dealing with editors who respond to civility warnings by saying they "weren't f$%&ing being abusive".
      Overall there is a misconception that being an admin is somehow a higher rank (I even saw somebody referring to HJM being "promoted") than a normal editor - it's not. It's just a bunch of buttons whose use are strictly defined by policies. Rollback is not for fun, neither is protection, blocking or deletion. Any sysop who is actually abusing their powers are easily identifed and dealt with. Those who in the line of duty have annoyed users is a totally different matter--Cailil ^talk 17:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
      • When I did Wikipedia:Administrator review/SarekOfVulcan, most of the negative feedback came from people I had run up against in the course of using the tools. This time around, there were a lot of names I didn't recognize on the oppose side, plus a few names I _hadn't_ expected to see. The feedback this time was a lot more effective, for that reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• There is nothing else that comes close to a Reconfirmation RfA; Admin Review does not have the "gravitas" to enforce the communities viewpoint if an admin is found to be acting inappropriately, and yet ArbCom requires a level of misconduct so apparent as the sysop to be also under threat of a ban or other restrictions. I know, because I also looked at the alternatives when I ran under a reconfirmation RfA a couple of years back. I know it is an imperfect system, with the potential for accusations of grandstanding and fishing for compliments (and that is consistent with my experience) and the opportunity for some revenge taking, but it is the best an admin can offer without being able to ignore/nullify the result. Indeed, kudos to HJ and SoV for resigning the bits upon launching their requests - something in my naivety I did not do. For all those who complain both that reconfirmation RfA's are a inappropriate method of auditing a sysops performance and also admins are largely unaccountable for poor behaviours or regular instances of improper conduct, for fuck's sake find something better - there are less than 1000 active admins; any consensus from the community would not be able to be derailed by such a minority self interest group. There are admins who would welcome such a procedure, because having such a method of desysopping underperforming sysops would result in less pressure in the allowing of permissions to other RfA candidates and thus likely more successful (and less stressful) applications resulting in more administrators lessening the workload for the present lot and less requirement for sub standard admins to be allowed to keep the tools. Whatever the very many faults inherent with reconfirmation RfA's, do not move to stop it when there is no other option available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  ...there are less than 1000 active admins; any consensus from the community would not be able to be derailed by such a minority self interest group. I beg to differ. If the statistics below show anything it is exactly that admins are quite capable of steering "community decisions" such as those at reconfirmation RfAs. Perhaps you missed the fact that non-admins came in only at 66% support, while admins came in at 86%. The massive relative volume of admins voting produced a 72.5% support for Sarek. What else do you call that?Griswaldo (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Also, generally speaking, almost all "community decisions" are in reality based on the comments of a very small percentage of the community. Ideally that small group is representative of the community at large. However, this means that if any one group shows up in disproportionate numbers they always have the ability to skew the results. I surely hope we're not turning a blind eye to that fact in general.Griswaldo (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  And what would those numbers look like if a majority of non-admins opposed SoV instead of 66% approval? What would it look like if more non-admins joined the discussion? I'm trying not to misinterpret your claims but you are making it hard. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'm not entirely sure what it would look like if more non-admins joined the discussion, but if the non-admins voting in the RfA are representative of the entirely population of non-admins and if the RfA reflected a proportion of admins to non-admins similar to the entire Wikipedia community then I can say for sure that the percentage support would have dropped well below 70%. I'm not trying to be argumentative here Protonk, but I have to admit that I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Please clarify.Griswaldo (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  I was referring to creating a process for the desysopping of problematic admins, not SoV's RecFA... As for the rest of your concerns; why not agree to blame the 'Crats? Since no decision they could have made would have been acceptable to everyone, surely the blame must be laid at their door!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good ol' boys and girls club?

I did a very rough count based on information found on user pages to determine how the votes in Sarek's RfA stacked up on the based on someone's status as an admin or a non-admin. If anything the admin numbers may be low since not every admin tags their user page with admin categories or banners. Here's what I found.

• Support: A-72, N-94
• Oppose: A-12, N-51
• Neutral: A-2, N-8

There is a pretty big difference between the admin vote and the non-admin vote ... in fact close to a 20% difference - 86% support from admins, and only 66% support from non-admins. Looked at another way admins comprised 43% of support voters but only 19% of oppose voters. At least 36% of all voters were admins. Does anyone know how that stacks up to an average RfA? I'm not entirely sure what I think about these numbers personally but Jimbo Wales made a comment recently on his talkpage comparing the admin core to the House of Lords, while suggesting that "Lords are seldom in favor of Lords reform." I wonder if reconfirmation RfA's are this heavily attended by admins what it means in the end. How much of this is a community decision and how much it becomes specifically an admin community decision? Are you still in the club or not? Again I am not suggesting that this is the case, but I think the high involvement of other admins is meaningful here and people might want to reflect on this fact. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do with this data. Do you want use to run RfAs or recall proceedings without admins? Is the non-admin vote the "right" result? Is the admin vote the "right" result? How do those breakdowns compare to regular RfAs? More broadly, I think attempts to bleed the politics out of adminship from this end are fruitless. We can impose some arbitrary restriction on admin reconformation or recall processes but that doesn't change the incentives--what motivates admins to protect each other from recall proceedings won't change. The right answer is to depoliticize the bit, remove or restructure processes which deem adminship a "social" right and fight against responsibility creep. Otherwise we are just engaged in a rearguard action vis a vis politicking. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• So, create (or allow) a format that is similar to ArbCom proceedings - where there is a division between "involved parties" (in this case Admins) and "non involved parties". Let there be some degree of "Due Weight" between the two, where comments by admins who are familiar with the pressures and difficulties of the role are considered against how the "outside" observers and recipients of admin actions and practice perceive the issues. If this is too much WP:CREEP, why not strongly suggest ReconRfA's candidates request that commenting admins clarify their status? These are not insurmountable issues, if there is a real appetite to have admins made accountable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• There's going to be some percentage of revenge voting from editors that have reprimanded or blocked, and some amount of "he's my buddy" voting from admins. I have no idea how you would adjust for either factor. How could you begin to estimate it?—Kww(talk) 21:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I got two "he's my buddy" supports on the grounds that I had blocked them. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You can get he's my buddy, or he's my enemy voting from admins and non-admins alike. I wouldn't worry about that part. The larger question is if admins on a whole might be a bit biased when it comes to something like this, since they are themselves admins. It certainly seems like in this example they were much more prone to offer support. It would be interesting if someone with the programing skills could figure out an easy way to measure RfAs in this manner, and especially the reconfirmation RfAs. It is natural, by the way, for people to be biased towards/protective of others they identify with. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Considering that the whole basis of this discussion is that admins aren't actually part of the community, I'm not sure we have to go much further in discussing it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Where do you get that from? Admins are surely part of the community, but they are also part of a smaller subset - admins. If an RfA reflected the relative numbers of admins in the entire Wikipedia community the % of admins voting in the RfA would be much, much lower. The fact is that an amount of admins disproportionate to their number in the community at large, involved themselves in your reconfirmation RfA, and I bet this is true in other reconfirmation RfAs. You don't find that significant? You don't have to of course, but please do not misrepresent what I'm saying.Griswaldo (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  But is it disproportionate? How many admins vote in RfAs generally? Do they vote to support candidates disproportionately? Protonk (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  That's a question I would be very curious to see answered. I do not have the programming knowledge to find an easy solution, but I bet someone out there does. My gut says that admins vote disproportionately in all RFAs, but even more so in these reconfirmation RFAs.Griswaldo (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  then I'm going to out and say that you probably should walk back your claims that admin representation in SoV's RfA is disproportionate if you don't know what the standard of comparison is. We can certainly say "more admins voted to support SoV than regular editors", but that data point alone doesn't inform any broader inference. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Then you misunderstood what I meant by disproportionate (and I did say that I assumed his was similar to other reconfirmation RfAs already). I have clarified. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  I can believe that admins are more likely than non-admins to support re-confirmation. I wouldn't call it a "good old boys' club" mentality, though. I think it's more that admins are quicker to sympathize with some of the challenges faced by other admins, and perhaps are more forgiving because they can see themselves falling short in the same ways. Certainly, when it comes to the line between involvement and administrative action, I've walked a mile in those shoes and so I'm more likely to empathise with Sarek or cut him some slack. If I were a non-admin, I'd probably view it more harshly (or more objectively, if you like).

  As a digression, physicians (for instance) are often criticized for professional solidarity when it comes to dealing with medical errors. I think the driving factor isn't collusion, but rather empathy: many physicians, called upon to judge a colleague, can conceive of a set of circumstances where they themselves might make a similar error. As a result, they're slower to condemn their colleagues when they see a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God scenario. I think a similar dynamic is at work here, with reconfirmation RfA's. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only human to do so, even if such a thought process is not in place. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The section heading was meant to be attention grabbing more than anything - perhaps that was a bad idea. Mastcell I think your comments might be right on the money. I actually never thought it had anything to do with collusion, but some sort of natural bias (as I tried to point out in another response above). Your comment is the best explanation I've heard yet about why there might be a natural bias. What I wonder is, if there is this propensity, what is the utility of reconfirmations, as a community process. Perhaps it should only be an admin process, like I'm assuming a review of medical errors would usually be conducted by peers, short of a malpractice suit that forces a judge or a jury to weigh in. What I don't like is the idea that an admin can volunteer for reconfirmation, benefit from some natural bias like this (if it exists), and then turn around and act as if the community as a whole has reconfirmed him/her. I think if that is the message htey get from the process it's a net negative to the project to have these reconfirmation RfAs as they accomplish nothing more than giving admins an inflated sense of community support.Griswaldo (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To go off of what MastCell said, let me quote a passage from Atul Gawande's Better (pg. 102-103, ISBN 0312427654): "In a recent national survey, physicians and nonphysicians were given the following case: A surgeon orders an antibiotic for a sixty-seven-year-old man undergoing surgery, failing to notice that the patients chart says he is allergic to the drug. The mistake is not caught until after the antibiotic is given, and, despite every effort, the patient dies as a result. What should be done? Unlike 50 percent of the lay public, almost none of the physicians believed the surgeon should lose his license. But 55 percent of the physicians said that they would sue the surgeon for malpractice." The analogies to this situation are clear. But one part of the above example has no appropriate analogy, and that is the issue of malpractice. I think one thing that gnaws at editors in situations like this is that there really is no intermediate step between "desysopping" and "reconfirming", and that's something that should be remedied if we can do so. I can't think of how to do so though, so I'll leave it up to you. NW (Talk) 01:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think one thing that gnaws at editors in situations like this is that there really is no intermediate step between "desysopping" and "reconfirming", and that's something that should be remedied if we can do so. Yes, I believe that is a very significant factor and a telling point. There needs to be some method by which accountability can be enforced, with appropriate safeguards to prevent both payback and in-group support. I think that points to some kind of dedicated committee or council with appropriately selected representatives, both admin and non-admin, to hear the evidence, pro and con, filter out the remarks of the obvious bad players and cronies, and make the final decision concerning temporary or permanent de-sysoping, with the latter reviewable by ArbCom. I know that will stick in the craw of people who see WP:BURO as the apotheosis of Wikiphilosophy, but having a administrative functionary whose tenure is effectively infinite unless there's a major screw-up just seems like (and is) a recipe for abuse of power. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Attempts to exclude admins from community functions is doing just that – excluding admins from the community and hence saying that admins are no longer part of the community. –MuZemike 02:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  MuZemike I don't understand who you think has suggested excluding admins from any processes or from the community. Can you explain that? At Talk:Jimbo Wales you asked a question about this and I for one explicitly answered that admins are part of the community and should not be excluded so I really have a hard time understanding your comment here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO It's a pretty blatant and serious offense to use the tools in a tussle or dispute that you are a party to, and one that is quite easy to avoid. But the more common "infraction" is inadvertent......using their half-immunity from the rules when acting as editors. Other editors are less prone to challenge them, other admins are less prone to find against them, and it is taken for granted in the community that the above two items are the case. The answer might be a dicotomy....encourage a high standard for behavior, while at the same time more firmly establish that admins are not overlords, they (as I've seen Gadget850 say [I think] several times) are fellow editors who have been given some extra tools to do some specific things for Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• There once was a local news channel during sweeps week (when The Nielsen Ratings Company measures who is watching what) that announced that they were going to do a week-long news exposé about Nielsen viewers (the select few who are randomly chosen and carefully monitored as to their viewing habits) and how these select few influence the programming everyone else sees. The series of news stories skipped the part about how the Nielsen ratings that a given channel and program receives determines how much that station can charge their advertisers (“Oh, pay no attention to that detail behind the curtain!”) Well, guess what? What few Nielsen viewers there were in that broadcast area tuned into that station’s 6:00 news that week in droves to see a series of stories about them. The Nielsen Company had to later correct their numbers when the stunt was revealed.

  I think there is a lesson to be learned about admins here. They are extraordinarily well connected behind the scenes and can have undo influence on Wikipedia policy. My sense is that after the community grants them their special privileges and powers, they lose track of the simple truth that leaders shall govern only with the consent of the governed. Just like the Nielsen ratings can be unduly influenced when subject matter germane to their interests is being broadcast, so to are we seeing admins influencing Wikipedia policy to an extent greater than their numbers when the community is trying to deal with a problem admin.

  Sure, it can be argued that admins are more active than regular wikipedians and therefore deserve greater representation in RfCs and RfAs, etc. But it’s easy enough to compensate for this extra effort they devote to the project: it should be a simple matter to find out what the average number of edits are done by admins and how many are done by regular rank & file wikipedians. Whatever that ratio is, I propose that admin participation in matters pertaining to the rights and privileges of admins be limited to the same ratio of their contributions as a class. It is only fair. Otherwise, they can backchannel, get all excited, and circle the wagons to preserve the status quo of their clubby little world. Such a modification to the rules of participating in matters of gauging consensus would truly enable a proper consensus and help ensure that admins continue to enjoy the confidence of the community that gave them their privileges in the first place.

  Sorry about all the above plain-speak, which is the product of merely communicating precisely what is on my mind; I do that sometimes. Someone please tell me that the phenomenon I just described doesn’t really occur. Greg L (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "circle the wagons"<LOL> You make me feel like one of those injuns riding in a circle around the wagon, hoping to take a scalp. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • To bring up Herostratus' recall again (which was, albeit, under somewhat different circumstances), he initially wanted only non-admins to vote to prevent the Tribe of Sysop from protecting "one of their own". It ended up irredeemably poisoning the atmosphere there beyond what anyone expected; I don't think preventing admins from reconfirmation RfAs is a good idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "it should be a simple matter to find out what the average number of edits are done by admins and how many are done by regular rank & file wikipedians" - in practice the ratio would be vastly in favour of the admins; they tend to do enormous numbers of robotic edits. And of course they edit this very page, and the more dramatic Incidents board, and all of the other policy boards, every day non-stop for years. It's what they do. I wager that the subset of users who are admins account for the majority of edits to the site. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As a point of interest, on the RfA page in question, the words "INVOLVED", "uninvolved", and "involvement" occur:

• once in the self-nomination statement
• four times in the closing statement
• 24 times in the questions to the applicant
• 57 times in the Support section
• 89 times in the Oppose section
• 10 times in the Neutral section.

That's a total of 180 times; jeez, and it was waved through. Tony (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like much ado about nothing. I would have tossed in a support had I known it was going on. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to create redirect for Bāo​zi to Baozi

Bāo​zi is the spelling with diacritics, as per the online Chinese dictionary I use, and it would be nice if it could be used to link to the correct article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Baozi are tasty. I haven't eaten them in a while though. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with POTD

Template:POTD protected/2011-05-14 does not exist and the front page is still showing the POTD from the 13th - for the life of me I can't remember who selects the POTD or where the selected pictures are queued. Template:POTD/2011-05-14 also does not exist so I can't just copy it over into the protected version. Any help would be appreciated. --Trödel 01:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Howcheng is el jefe of POTD for future reference; David Levy looks to be on the case this time. Skomorokh 06:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --Trödel 08:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U regarding User:Sandstein

Resolved

 – Uncertified RFC deleted, and trouts where trouts belong (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have listed the RfC/U created by User:Mindbunny regarding alleged abuse of admin priviliges (specifically blocking) by the administrator User:Sandstein at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The RfC was created at 22:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC) but was not listed at that time by the initial certifier for an unknown reason. Sandstein was informed of the RfC/U by Mindbunny shortly after its creation. I have listed it as a courtesy as both potential certifiers (Mindbunny and User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous) are currently blocked. The RfC/U is not currently certified.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an uncertified RFC, completely without foundation, and there's no possibility it will come to any conclusion other than that Sandstein acted entirely correctly in this instance. (The very fact that "both potential certifiers are currently blocked" and not a single one of Wikipedia's 852 admins is willing to unblock them should be a clue.) There's no requirement that every complaint by a blocked user that their block was unfair be taken seriously, especially in an instance like this. – iridescent 18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm to busy to look into the issue in much detail, but deducing from the fact that an editor is currently blocked (who, BTW, has not yet even requested unblocking) that "not a single one of Wikipedia's 852 admins is willing to unblock" (emphasis mine) is an interesting feat of logic. Indeed, given that the user is a living person and this conflict is about stating unsourced negative opinions on living persons, a malicious admin could interpret it as pointy trolling for a block... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think he was referring to five unblock requests that were refused. See this thread on User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• More correctly - several separate admins have dismissed the requests for unblocking with fairly strong language, and any admin who unblocks will likely find it necessary to get a consensus to overturn the blocks. Collect (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• But he was referring to "both users", one of which has not requested unblock. Not to mention that fact that I and probably a 1000 other admins don't check Category:Requests for unblock with any degree of regularity, or that unilateral unblocking for a short term block is rare anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To put what Iridescent said in the vernacular, what a a joke the RFC is. It's taking a nosedive in the abyss, which is where it belongs. Sandstein is a fine admin. He's not perfect, none of us are, but he's a good admin from what I can tell so far.BarkingMoon (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, a gigantic WP:TROUT for anyone thinking this was worth moving into a live RFC after actually having read it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I was tempted to delete the RfC summarily as being frivolous, but on balance it might be better to let Sandstein derive some moral support (and the blocked users obtain a reality check) from the number of people who will sign onto the outside view agreeing with his actions here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggested an IAR deletion on the talkpage, but that might not be a bad idea either. Don't really care either way; I have no intention of wasting my time there anymore. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It ought to be deleted as uncertified now that 48 hours have passed. The only two users who could have certified it are blocked, and they engaged only in the dispute, not in an attempt to resolve it. On the contrary, they were at pains to keep it going, and within three hours or so of the first one being blocked, the second opened the RfC. That's exactly how RfC ought not to be used, which is why the certification process is set up as it is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the RFCU talkpage, the BLPvios in the RFC (and Mindbunny's pointy additions on the talkpage) are an interestingly ironic side effect, but nevertheless mean that the page(s) has to be deleted, or at least very radically redacted. → ROUX ₪ 00:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

...I guess it's a good thing that I deleted it last night :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featured Sounds Request

Can an admin please look this FS nomination and close it. (Someone only needs to read the consensus, I can do the rest of the complex closing procedure) Due to some personal changes, the are no uninvolved contributers to the FS process that can close it cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the consensus to me reads as an opposition to RTTY, no consensus on Hellschreiber, but a support for all the rest. So I'd say promote all but RTTY and Hellschreiber, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Guerillero | My Talk 21:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

French Republican Calendar

Can someone familiar with the French Republican Calendar help with this, which has been sitting awaiting merging for more than 4 months?

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 5#Template:CURRENTFRCMONTHNAME

— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Request for Discussion concerning the future of AfD

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Request_for_Discussion_concerning_the_future_of_AfD

I would appreciate your thoughts. - jc37 23:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why am I accused of Vandalism?

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Nick-D (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Bots and ipblock-exempt

Since bug 28914 was fixed today I removed all bots (except User:Thehelpfulbot) from 'IP block exempt' usergroup. Bots only need to added to this usergroup if they are caught in torblocks like Thehelpfulbot. Ruslik_Zero 08:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

RfCs needing closure

As thirty days have passed and discussion has died down at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient and Should passing WP:RFA be a prerequisite for being granted CU or OS rights ?, they would seem ripe for closure. A summary of what consensus if any was achieved and what technical or policy changes if any are justified would be helpful. Thanks, Skomorokh 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Happy-melon (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient, and thank you, ErrantX (talk · contribs) for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should passing WP:RFA be a prerequisite for being granted CU or OS rights ?. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Tobiby

Hi.

Tobiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Moved Azerbaijan (Iran) to "Kharbayejan" [70]. Meaning of "Khar" is "donkey". The word that Fars nationalist use for call down Azerbaijani Turk people. Please attention and delete the "Kharbayejan" word. Thanks --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, this was back in January. Acting on this matter now would be, if you pardon the expression, closing the stable door after the beast of burden had gone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This maybe repeat and it is not usefull for wikipedia! --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not much we can do now, but I have move protected the page at admin level, so there won't be a repeat of the offence. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability

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.

Wrong venue. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Hello. Does being notable in Wiki of another language justify notability in all other Wiki languages? For example, there is an article in English Wiki about Rothschild Boulevard, but there is absolutely no news coverage about this Boulevard in Farsi sources. Can I still write the Farsi article on the basis that English Wiki finds this Boulevard notable?Kazemita1 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's for the editors at Farsi wikipedia to decide. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Suppose there is this controversial newsletter named "Ya Letharat" written in Farsi. You can find many articles in independent newspapers talking about it IN FARSI. Can I call it notable in English Wikipedia and write an article about it?Kazemita1 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is not an issue requiring administrator input. Please try asking at the village pump. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Final helpful note

The Wikipedia page on Identifying Reliable Sources makes no mention at all of what languages are required, so I would assume notability would be the same no matter what language it is in. HOWEVER, there is still the issue of Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If no one else can read it, it would be harder to have other editors agree with you that it is in fact a reliable source. Just offering helpful tips. -- Avanu (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's some detailed advice on this is at WP:NONENG. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is still not an issue requiring administrator input, but well done for chit-chatting here anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect

Please delete this unwise redirect on Princely State of Bhopal article to Bhopal State. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done (I have reverted your move, I suppose that was what you wanted?) Fram (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone feeling scholarly?

Resolved

 – lifebaka has obliged. Skomorokh 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Anyone feel like closing an AfD that will probably require more time than is typical to make sense of? Feel free to delete this request if it's in any way improper. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Change conditions of topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=429397010#Topic_ban, I would like to change the restriction of the topic band to "shady" areas of non-frees (ie Doctor Who episodes/TV episodes) while allowing me to upload/update software screenshots (like Norton AntiVirus), which ARE clear cut cases. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Topic ban has literally only just been passed, and he already wants to give the community a big slap in the face by ignoring consensus? This is fast descending into a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am acepting the consensus, but trying to change the conditions a little. If not, eh no big deal. BTW how to request non-free image uploads? I believe that I understand the NFCC enough to know that softwares are clear cut cases. How about just to update EXISTING non-free images ie Norton Internet Security screenshots. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FFU --Errant ^(chat!) 14:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My case: I have been uploading software screenshots for a long time without any cases. I believe those are clearcut "significant" non-frees. As per sven_manguard, I will resize all screenshots to below 400px (largest size) and no longer use the {{own}} tag, cause I understand that the own template is used for images that I own. Also, I am the ONLY one updating the Norton Internet Security article and many of the non-famous software articles. Just requesting to update their screenshots to the latest versions ie NIS11 to NIS12. Also btw, this doesn't restrict free image ie images I took, to commons, does it? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The ban is on non-free images, so you can still upload to Commons. 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And since the ban was enacted on WP:AN/I today, asking for a relaxation of the ban on WP:AN does seem a bit like forum-shopping, especially considering this. May I ask if there are any other venues where you're bringing this up? 28bytes (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to express fusturation somewhere (that was the only one, plus wanted to test out the liquid thread system, and I can't just type in gibberish! Cause if I type here, you guys might pound on me. Also, sorry for the wrong thread. I got confused AN with ANI :/. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Posting here is "my fault" - WP:UNBAN points to WP:AN as the forum to use, and when he asked for clarification on my talk page I pointed him here (on the, possibly flawed, belief that it wouldn't appear here instantly...) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose(ecs) No way, at least wait one hour before you start trying to change the terms of your ban. I don't believe obviously free images, like those in your gallery, are affected. Incidently are attribution boiler plates like the one here [71] permitted by policy? (sorry if thats a stupid question) Bob House 884 (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The CC-BY-SA license allows the author to specify how they are attributed, so they are fine, yes --Errant ^(chat!) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you are talking about trains, I assume yes (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Docklands_Light_Railway_type_B2K). If you are talking about custom template, I think yes cause other users have used it. Also, I have asked time and time again to admins and editors at the #wikipedia-en-help #wikipedia-en-help and the said its ok. In fact, that template, was modified from a previous version as per their suggestion. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well under the terms of the CC/GNU licenses, the author is allowed to require attribution in whatever means they like, but pretty much everywhere on WM you edit it says that "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." so I'm interested to know whether your permitted to impose your own, more restrictive, terms on your contributions (or indeed if images are considered a special case). I expect somebody has a one-word answer. (note, it appears that the question I was answering appears to have been changed while I answered it)Bob House 884 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Also, I have asked time and time again to admins and editors at the #wikipedia-en-help #wikipedia-en-help and the said its ok. In fact, that template, was modified from a previous version as per their suggestion. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the News FYI

Just a pointer to this subsection regarding ITN and possible votestacking. I'm not sure how visible that talk page is, so I'm cross-posting here. TNXMan 19:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow... I've worked with BabbaQ and while we've occasionally disagreed on inclusion criteria he seemed a sound guy :( That's disappointing to see. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrative review has been requested on a set of edits

This is covering a number of general topics at the moment, so it's getting posted here rather than a specific sub-board.

The current issue deals with recent edits to Flash (Barry Allen). The edits in question are: #428656737 - 428668034 (4 total), 428668034, 429318135, 429330125, 429330275.

Ancillary to this are: User talk:CmdrClow#Edit summaries, User talk:J Greb#Re: Edit Summaries which are immediatly related to the edits; Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Final Crisis image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Flash: Rebirth #2 as image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010 (which is a long one) which are a history of the talk page discussion of this issue; and WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE, the relavent project level guide line.

At this point the issues that have been raised amount to:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:CIV
• WP:NPA
• WP:AGF
• Misusing and edit summary
• Editing to provoke or bait

CmdrClow indicated he wanted administrative advice/review so I figure it might as well get kicked over here and take what may come. I've indicated to the other editor that I've done this in my response to them on my talk page. I'll also see the notice template on their talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Page move assistance

Could you please move Template:2000s albums UK over Template:UK best-selling albums (by year) 1990–2009. I accidentally created the latter, but the former should be worked into the system of templates I am creating. I have merged content into the former page which has a more significant page history.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done You can also use {{db-author}} in such cases. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Test page

Why does salting this particular page never seem to work? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it was recreated by an admin, and when they recreated it the protection was automatically lifted. Re-salted. – iridescent 08:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes

In relation to a request for arbitration on 5 May 2011, the Arbitration Committee has passed by motion these interim decisions:

1. Temporary injunction on the article title disputes secondary to hyphen/endash issue:

   There is to be a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange. The only edits allowed will be to create a redirect to the existing article title until the resolution of the debate below.

   All discussions on the subject of En dashes in article titles discussion (interpreted broadly) are subject to civility and 1RR restrictions. Administrators are urged to be proactive in monitoring and assertive in keeping debate civil. Actions requiring clarification can be raised with the Committee on the appropriate subpage.

2. Motion of instruction to editors involved in dispute:

   Interested parties are instructed to spend from now until 30 May 2011 determining the structure of a discussion on En dashes in article titles to obtain consensus. Note that this can be the continuation of a current discussion or commencement anew. From 30 May 2011, a period of six weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. If after two months, a determination isn't realised, a case will be opened and conduct violations will be dealt with severely.

Both provisions were passed 12 to 0 with 1 recusal.

For the Arbitration Committee
AGK [•] 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

I read somewhere on arb pages that this topic has come up before. I guess we can add "hyphens and dashes" to the huge pile of never ending wiki ethnic wars.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh God, yes. My worry is that I'll be editing away innocently one day, I hit save, and - paf - instant one-week ban because I typed Rogi-Panty Complex instead of Rogi—Panty Complex. No doubt there are people who have every single page with a — in it on their watchlist, just waiting for someone to change it to a - so they can ban 'em. That's what I'd do, anyway. It would be useful if there was a central list of these no-go areas, which non-involved editors should avoid completely; a kind of style guide, but in bolded red text. 'Cause at some point there's going to be a holy war between supporters of the good old ', and people who argue that ’ is more appropriate (the latter doesn't coincide with Wikipedia's formatting mark-up, for example), if there hasn't been such a war already. And it's not going to be pretty. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pro-life movement#Move?

Would an admin close Talk:Pro-life movement#Move? The discussion has been open since 24 March 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted a closure of the older discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Old AfD needs closure

Thanks to Snottywong's AfD closure toolserver tool, I was looking through my AfD results and found that this one has yet to close, even though the article in question was merged a long time ago. So, if someone could close it, probably as a merge, since that's what ultimately happened to it. Silverseren^C 10:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Bwilkins (talk).   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I closed it as "other" with a "consensus to merge" reasoning, in part because the merge had already been done ages ago. Hope that wasn't going to cause confusion for anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do I report obvious hoaxes at? Can you ban the user?

There is a hoax article at The Death of Small Wonders created by an editor with no other edits ever. The references mentioned are fake, none of them actually existing. The only mention of the book anywhere is on a forum where the creator says he made it for laughs. Where do I report hoaxes at so you can ban the user before he makes more of them? Or is making a hoax page an offense you can ban someone for? I added the hoax tag to the article already. Does this automatically put it on a page somewhere listing reported hoaxes for an administrator to look over the details and issue out punishments to those who do this? Is there a page somewhere I should post this at? Dream Focus 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A ban, or even a short-term block, seems like overkill here for a first offense. Deleting the article, warning the authors, and moving on seems adequate here. VQuakr (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked both accounts indefinitely, and such an action is not overkill at all in my mind. I have given the author notice that it is an indefinite block and not an infinite one, and told how to go about being unblocked if he should wish to do so. NW (Talk) 05:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange, though the indef tag is on his talk page, Bennett23's block log is empty. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also take a look at User:Yonyonsonwisconsin's contributions to the article. He might have been trying to throw us off the track by vandalizing the article and hoping we would miss that it was complete weapons grade bullshit. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, I actually forgot to block Bennett. Now fixed. Also, who knows, maybe) Yonyonson was merely trying to remove a hoax in the best way he knew how. It sounds unlikely, but it is a possibility. NW (Talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NW; hoaxes are basically vandalism, so an editor whose only contributions are to post hoaxes should be considered a vandalism only account and be blocked accordingly. I've indef blocked several editors for editing only (or mainly) to create hoaxes. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to treat all hoaxes as vandalism of the sort that should be blockable, go try a rfc(policy) for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Err, why? The current policy says the following is a form of vandalism: "Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. Includes blatant advertising pages, personal attack pages (articles written to disparage the subject), blatant POV pushes, hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages." As far back as 2006 there was a clause in the policy that said "Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Mr. Pelican Shit.) A better place for content that is intentionally of a joking or nonsensical nature is the Uncyclopedia." Indeed, five years ago, we already had a content guideline about that very matter that stated "Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism, and perpetrators of a hoax are subject to blocking and banning." That wording is still in the guideline. NW (Talk) 02:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes are vandalism, but we should treat it similar to other vandndalism, ie warn, and escalate warnings, prior to blocking. We should not be blocking on the first edit, unless there is other suggestions of a sock or something in addition to hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good God why? Someone who has gone to the trouble of figuring out how to create an account, and how to create a new article, only to then deliberately perpetrate a hoax is not someone whose long-term goals are for the betterment of the project. Block 'em, let 'em go with the standard offer if you're feeling particularly generous I guess, but the point is if they have demonstrated their only purpose is to fuck around there is no reason why they should retain editing privileges for any longer than it takes an admin to click the block button. → ROUX ₪ 02:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to, sure. But warning has never been a prerequisite for blocking. NW (Talk) 02:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am worried how "Violence begets violence" and a blocked user might "up his game" if challenged. Instead, I wonder if a user could be templated with:

The article you wrote was considered a hoax, to be deleted, because Wikipedia strives to present serious topics. If you prefer to write humorous articles, there are other websites (such as Uncyclopedia) which would welcome a person with your interests and talents. Otherwise, articles written here should focus on simple sourced facts, which might seem boring to someone with your background.

Such a milder response might seem less hateful, as a first option, and by carefully crafting a templated-message, perhaps the "fun" can be taken out of wiki-outlaw behavior. Try to deflect trouble, initially, without instantly escalating the levels of hostility. I am trying to understand why people hate Wikipedia and why many admins are so instantly hostile, and soon burn out in disgust. The world view of WP is the aggregate of hostile experiences, trying to prevent junk articles, while admins are told to defend the Pippapedia of semi-notable cruft topics. Is it really worth being so hostile about this project? --Wikid77 04:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm with Roux on this. Someone who goes to those lengths to vandalize the encyclopedia (and there's no way a hoax which decreases the project's reliability can be seen as anything but vandalism), should be blocked. Then if they have a change of heart and want to participate constructively, we can evaluate that, but the onus is on them. Just because we're the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" doesn't mean we have to open the doors to those who want to abuse us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts are routinely blocked. Hoaxes are a form of vandalism per our policy. Personally, I find hoaxes to be a particularly destructive form of vandalism, because they are sometimes more difficult to spot, and can often take more time and effort to identify than when someone replaces the content of an article with the word "penis". -- Atama頭 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment most hoaxes are playful. The appropriate response is to remove , warn, and redirect the user to more useful things here. Blocking is a last resort to prevent further damage. In some cases, including negative BLP, the possibility of further damage may be so great that a block is warranted--but unless really malicious, to the level of libel, all that is needed is a sufficient block to prevent its re-placement. (Other forms of vandalism also,; most of it is intended to damage only in a rather technical sense, and can be dealt with adequately with a final warning.) Now, in this particular case , the user seemed to be rather persistent about the article, replacing it when stubbified and challenged. That's enough reason for a block, a block long enough to bring the activity to a halt, perhaps a week or two. I can see little reason going to an indefinite block for playing. We want to encourage the user r to come and do something useful. Only those users who show that they never will do so are appropriate for an indefinite block. Even if technically permitted by the current wording, an admin always has a range of remedies, and using this one was poor judgment. what is slowly killing Wikipedia is not a flood of hoaxes. It is failure to replace the people who leave, and all of our actions should be judged primarily on the point of whether they will encourage or discourage new users. No one is saying that permitting hoaxes would encourage useful new users, but warning the perpetrators in a friendly way might do so. What I think we might want to have is some sort of review for all indefinite blocks, with the admin required to specifically state why a short block would not be sufficient, rather than the user needing to appeal. sort of like the Real World mandatory appeal of death sentences. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • When a reader accesses a Wikipedia article and sees "penis", "poop" or "John is gay" style vandalism, most of them are going to understand that it's not there deliberately, and that it's the result of someone vandalising the page. It may be annoying, but it's fairly easily ignored. When the reader accesses a hoax article, especially a well-done one, their ability to tell that it's a hoax will depend on their familiarity with the general subject matter, and some will not realize that they're being hoaxed. This is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than poop/penis/gay vandalism, because it strikes us at one of our most vulnerable weak spots: our reputation for reliability.

    Let's face it, most people don't really think we're all that reliable, they use the encyclopedia because it's convenient and easily accessible, but they take much of what they read with a grain of salt. The only way to overcome that is to make sure that our articles are as accurate and reliable as we can make them, and our basic policies are in place to help make that happen. Anything which works against that goal is dangeorus, and something that is directly aimed at undermining that is serious business.

    Hoaxes can be amusing, those that are well-done can be admired for the craftsmanship that goes into them, but they're not really funny in regard to the damage they do to us, and they need to be dealt with harshly. For a "penis" vandal to be indef-blocked while a hoaxer is patted on the head and urged to play nicer is completely the reverse of what should happen, based on the damage it does to us.

    It ain't 2005 anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hoaxes are a serious problem on wikipedia. And not just hoax pages... the more serious problem is deliberate factual errors inserted into articles, the more subtle the worse. The day to day vandalism patrol squad has 2 roles. First, stop the obvious stuff.... these days a lot of that is caught by the bots. Somebody inserts "penis" into an article and it's caught 90% of the time. The more subtle problem is the change that changes a positive to a negative, shifts a year by 2 or 3... or changes a height. These kinds of changes are rampant, and we simply don't have the manpower to deal with them. Part of this is because our limited group of anti-vandalism patrollers is spread so thin across so many articles... and the other part is because the broader editing base doesn't realize how serious of a problem this is. The vandalism patrolling crowd tends to be quiet... and the broader community doesn't realize the scope of the problem.
  The current guideline system is largely fine... after a final warning a harsh block should be standard. Too many people spend too much time supporting the basic foundation of this encyclopedia to have it destroyed by this kind of bullshit. Internal debates aside, we can all agree that this sort of nonsense is nothing but an impediment to an encyclopedia. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Shadowjams that the kind of vandalism he describes is a serious problem -- especially the changing of numbers. I tried to create a new series of warnings specifically geared to this, but it was redirected into the "unsourced" series. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD closure tool

FYI - I have created a new tool which allows people to track statistics related to an admin's AfD closures. You might be interested to check it out at http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/afdadminstats.html There is also a tool for tracking a user's AfD vote statistics at http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/afdstats.html Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you find any problems, or have any suggestions or concerns. —SW— ^confess 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are pretty cool! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - very nice work. And a reminder of how little I've done on AFD lately. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice! A suggestion (should not be too difficult to implement) - discount votes that are stricken out, i.e. have <s></s> surrounding them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Non adminBookmarking this. Awesome! Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. Can you also report if there is a {{delrevafd}} on the page? T. Canens (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Close needed at WP:RM

I have been doing a good number of the closes at WP:RM. There was one request that I have been involved with so I can not close it. So it will be stuck in the backlog for a while unless some other admin can take the time to read the discussion and determine if there is a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible history merge needed

User:Tyw7 just made a (quite unwanted) copy-and-paste move of Shake It Up (TV series) to Shake It Up, which used to be the article for The Cars album (and should remain so, at least pending an RM discussion). There are now two pages for the TV series (one with a broken history). Can an admin restore these pages to where they were and help clean up the mess in the page histories? Tyw7 has been notified of this discussion. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This right off the back of the section directly above this and a (unrelated) topic ban just being passed at ANI? Can anyone say competence is an issue here? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've sorted it out. Tyw7's edits were just to copy/paste the article so are best just deleted. It doesn't bode well for him, although copy/paste moving is common for inexperience users it is a bit of a Facepalm moment coming straight out of his image problems. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup, Errant. 28bytes (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I moved because I thought that article would be of more relevence to today's readers (the latter is a Disney Channel show). Didn't expect for that much impact. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like my "proceed with caution" suggestion yesterday is not being heeded. So I want to make one last suggestion. Please sign up for the WP:MENTOR program ASAP. Your heart may be in the right place but you careening from problem to problem like a bull in a china shop and a possible block is on the horizon due to the aforementioned competency issues. MarnetteD | Talk 16:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I think a mentor is Tyw7's best hope for avoiding an indef competence block. 28bytes (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How to sign up? Didn't see any "apply" link. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fetchcomms mentioned in the AN/I thread that he'd been interacting with you on and off for the past year, maybe he'd be willing to help out. 28bytes (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No he was not. I have asked Sven regarding the NFCC and the only case I believe I've interacted with Fletchcom is when I've encountered problems with areas he worked with. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your request for instructions on how to complete complex moves: leave that to admins. You need to focus on your basic skills first. Note to everyone: Tyw7 has been warned to not move articles in future and to never do another copy/paste move again. Rklawton (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tyw7, first, my user name is "Fetchcomms"—you've seen it for a year now—second, I don't recall you encountering problems with my work; quite the opposite, actually. Part of solving the problem is recognizing where the problem comes from. Third, I'm more than willing to mentor you, if it means you'll gain some clue. But since that doesn't seem likely, I'm not going to waste my time. You seem to have lost competence over the past year, actually—and I'm adjusting to a new job and don't have time to deal with this silliness. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

2 questions

Hate to drag this out, but tyw7 is claiming copyright of his images on a subpage ("Any use of images uploaded by me, Wikipedia editor Tyw7, must be attributed to me...if you use it outside of Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia. Failure to do so will result in a copyright violation.") Also similar notice here. Also, I left out his real name in his attribution request because he appears to be a minor (~17), according to his userboxen, which is the 2nd issue I wanted to ask. Is the attribution request allowed, and should the real name be oversighted? Thanks. --64.85.220.31 (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I just checked that page, his "license" is a .css file so it's impossible for a non-sysop to edit. Wiki considers it a "setting" so his name can't be redacted outside of a sysop. I've edited out the link that brings that up, and have left him a note on the page stating as much. A sysop may have to step in and either remove that file or redact his name out of it. (It's listed right here KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 11:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That license makes perfect sense. The CC-BY and CC-BY-SA require attribution. Also, it's his choice to use his real name—I'd say 16 is the cutoff, at any rate, as that's when one can volunteer for OTRS. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

General RS question

Is Picasaweb considered a usable source? The article Otto Eppers contains circa-1920s historical images from this Picasaweb page, which may not be generally available elsewhere. I did a "picasaweb" search through the noticeboard, but found nothing applicable. Thanks for any help or guidance. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You may find a better response at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The actual source in this case is the QSL card, images of which are hosted on the Picasaweb website. The QSL cards themselves are primary sources, as they were published by the subject. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring and reopening AN (/ANI) threads

Original discussion from WP:ANI presented here as archived Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to get fellow users' input on whether (and if so, when) a user can refactor and re-open thread at WP:AfD, WP:MfD, WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I left what (in hindsight) was a snappy and pendantic comment about this. I've always seen WP:AN and WP:AN/I as primarily for the use of admins, but also places for all users from all wikis to post incidents, random observations, and notices. Likewise, WP:XfD pages should not be re-opened except for fixing obvious errors and copyediting. However, I think that only admins should refactor or reopen such pages - based in the premise that these are the "collective talk pages" of all the administrators. It would be wrong to edit other users' talk pages. Re-opening debates or threads also encourages users to beat a dead horse with a stick. Are my premises incorrect? Please don't comment on my comment - I know what I did was impertinent and I don't need further abuse during this very tough week off-wiki. The archives of this page are not helpful to my answer. I'd like to find out how others view non-admins re-opening threads and debates, and when it is approriate to re-open a debate or thread. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So - its your opinion and your suggesting to be written in policy or guidelines somewhere that only admins should refactor or reopen threads at WP:AfD, WP:MfD, WP:AN and WP:AN/I - Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can close any discussion anywhere, if it is the right thing to do. ANI, AFD, RFA, all the same. Prodego ^talk 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are IMO two distinct issues here. There is no issue with non-admins archiving or re-opening threads; with the same caveats as non-admin closures, avoid the controversial! The other issue is re-opening contentious disputes, as in this case. The close was sensible, and upheld when reverted. MMN shouldn't have re-opened it, not because he was not an admin, but because he was involved in the thread and it was closed to end the matter. Which is a matter of poor judgement --Errant ^(chat!) 20:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had to sit on my hand to stop myself closing this. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry, I've got to reopen this from WP:ANI. I find it concerning that Bearian continues to maintain that "non-sysops" on "admin threads" should not be refactoring (reopening) such threads. What? "Admin thread"? SERIOUSLY?? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out by admins and non-admins alike, closing or re-opening a thread is not an admin-only privilege. Occasionally someone will propose to make it an admin-only privilege, but as far as I can tell such proposals are always shot down pretty quickly (and rightfully so.) 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone had better inform Bearian, then. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Many have tried. His fingers appear firmly in his ears. – iridescent 08:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bearian can do whatever he wants on his own talk page... but he seems to have a seriously delusional understanding of what admin access gives him. When's the next reelection... oh right... Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on, give him a break. Wrist got slapped, he asked a valid question in order to improve himself. That's a positive learning experience here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If I believed admins would actually learn from things like this then this kind of thing would be less common. Unfortunately there's almost 0 accountability; kudos to the people brave enough to start these threads. And if we keep getting the same bossy admins over and over.... perhaps we have a problem. Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bearian asked this question yesterday at ANI, and received a negative response as seen above to go with the overwhelmingly negative response at the previous closed thread. And yet today he still seems not to get it. Might've been a learning experience, but it doesn't appear he's actually used it well and learned from it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How am I supposed to keep up with this all? I'm still trying to figure this out! Bearian (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pile on. I'm not asking you to relinquish your bit...but if you are feeling overwhelmed, just don't use those extra buttons for a while. Take care of the obvious vandal accounts maybe, but just be a regular editor for a bit again if you feel like you're having trouble keeping up. That plan might also reintroduce the idea that having the extra buttons doesn't necessarily make your opinion unquestionable. There are lots of regular editors who understand policy just as well as those who decided to run the gauntlet. --Onorem♠Dil 14:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that my opinion about re-opening, closing, refactoring, etc. might not be shared by the community. That is why I asked the question in this thread. What I don't need is to be badgered here, WP:AN/I, my talk page, other boards, and article talk pages about my administrative decisions. Off2riorob's early closing of my honest effort to get a sense of the community was not helpful. The consensus seems to have changed around me. It used to be that everyone knew their roles and functions, and remained both focused and civil while doing so. Posting in six places makes it considerably more difficult. I see posts here from Iridescent, Prodego, BWilkins, Off2riorob, Onorem, ErrantX, 28bytes, Shadowjams, and Strange Passerby. ErrantX and Onorem especially have raised good points. Iridescent, I do listen; that's why I am right here. While we're here, I don't think that I'm that far off an outlier from the community, and I have the stats to prove my point that I'm no longer an inclusionist (not that there's another wrong with that). Onorem, I already stated on my talk page that I'm taking a Wikibreak from closing AfDs. I think that's enough to get a sense of the community, if not a consensus. Thank you all. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. Ohiostandard also posted a useful comment on my talk page; thanks, too. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bearian I can assure you that the minute you say something like, "OK I guess I was wrong about that. Sorry, I wont make those kinds of claims again," the bitching you're hearing will stop. Just saying that you're listening doesn't really reassure anyone that you're taking what they are saying seriously. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear what actually happened. I opened an AN thread critical of Bearian's admin actions. BWilkins commented in that thread taking the position that he couldn't see anything wrong, and Bearian was a good admin. After little other input, BWilkins chose to declare that horses were being beaten, the thread was pointless, and archived it, going so far as to characterise my complaint as "whining". I reopened it, BWilkins then chose to reclose it, complete with threats of blocking if I did as he had just done and edit warred over it. Suitably cow-towed, and not adequately armed to make that a fair fight, I of course didn't even bother to contest it for a second time (and as such, no, I don't consider the original closure as having been 'upheld'). Putting aside the subequent poor block which somehow arrived anyway, however BWilkins or Bearian see this sequence of events as far as their own perceived impartiality, judgement, or admin rights go in these situations; imho they are getting ample fair feedback, quite rightly taking a dim view and pointing out that on AN/ANI at least, the only thing that matters is if the decision to refactor is truly impartial, not whether doing so should be the sole domain of admins. Xfd is of course different, as the concept of a 'closing' discussion is different. MickMacNee (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought I was doing the right thing, and explained it fully. Everyone agrees about the closing of the AfD, just not on why I did it. I think it creates a bad precedent to keep explaining every detail of a decision, which needs some finality. Then some editors wouldn't let it go, which led to my assertion about policy - a complete side issue. I was wrong about that side issue, tried to fix the problem, said I was sorry, and kept getting beat up about that error. I never asserted that I have special powers, or that my opinion is worth more than any other. I don't know why I have to say "I'm sorry" on multiple boards and talk pages. I don't know why I have to keep posting (at several places) a promise to take a wikibreak from using my buttons. If I was not truly concerned about other contributors, then I would not have posted the question at WP:AN/I. I said I'm sorry; I said I'm taking a wikibreak. I have shown good faith. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think everyone agrees about the closing of the AfD, but either MickMacNee will take it to DRV or he won't, so there's probably no point in belaboring it any further outside of that venue. You've said "I'm sorry, I was wrong" here on the refactoring issue, which should be enough for anybody. No reason to keep this thread alive, IMO. Enjoy your wikibreak. 28bytes (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You weren't asked to explain every detail (as if). And plenty of admins don't see it as setting a bad precedent. Quite the opposite infact, many see it as the best way of forestalling the inevitable queries from either side when closing hotly contested debates one way or the other. A wikibreak can't fix that anomoly if that's what you really believe Afd is all about. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotional userpage

Promotional userpage, see User:Alanjomar--Musamies (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of notifying the user on your behalf. The process you're looking for is Miscellany for deletion. Please follow the process there. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unambiguously promotional so tagged for G11 speedy.-ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

This page User:CO/Criticism of George Soros seems to be hiding in user space to avoid scrutiny. It claims it must be kept for GDFL attribution. Can any one verify this? Given the BLP right wing nut issues I am bringing it here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

{NAO) actually they may have a point, the userspace draft was worked on by 3 people but CO has just copied and pasted stuff from it unilaterally, which means it's neccessary to provide some attribution to the other two editors. This could take the form of an edit summary saying "worked on by me, user:x and user:y" or a talk page note but this is another way round it (although rather disruptive). You could still just blank the page I suppose. Bob House 884 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and blanked it. My main concern is that I found it by accident through a Google search. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

<noindex> it? I guess a history merge + delete might also work.. Bob House 884 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and added "no index" template. I really wish something more could be done. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Its possible that a history merge could be done so that the edits to both articles were combined, that would probably solve this whole thing for good but you'll need an admin. Done what can be for now I think. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Best option; copy/paste the edit history to Talk:George_Soros/attribution and delete. That maintains attribution & is, I think, current practice. I'm off to bed so you will need to collar another admin to do it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

moved the page to above suggestion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I populated {{Copied}}s based on the custom box. If the BLP issues warrant deletion, the small number of editors means that edit summary attribution is possible. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland

I've placed this article under {{Troubles restriction}} following an editor asking on he talk page whether or not it would fall under such a restriction. The visit is contentious to some, and there have been complaints of bias on the talk page of the article. I'm sure that it will be bashed into shape over the next few days at the visit takes place. A few more sets of eyes on the article probably wouldn't come amiss. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

minor dispute resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As this article is now under a 1RR restriction, I cannot revert this edit which introduced information sourced to an anti-monarchist blog, which so blatantly fails WP:RS. In addition, the edit summary used is completely misleading. Can an admin please warn Lihaas (talk · contribs)?! Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC) For gods sake, were having a high normal WP:Civil discussion on a CURRENT EVENT that obviously yields to WP:EDIT CONFLICTS. (civility viewable on both our talk pages) there is no controverisal content dispute. why the need to complain to ANI about everything. you reverted, i explained, crisis solved. i havent reinserted anything (except apparently for that edit conflict that is easily correctible) see the TIMING of the edits.(Lihaas (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)). Easily correctable by you. Not for me, as I already removed it once and if I remove it again it would break 1RR. The only reason I came here to complain is because of your apparent stubbornness in not removing that by saying "just tag it as I'm looking for other info". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC) AGF. stubborn? i was concurrently ongoingh some edits on the said page. anyhoo...olved?Lihaas (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB access

Could an administrator help with recent requests for AWB access? It's developed a backlog of several days. Thanks. Chester Markel (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new redirect

List of lists redirects to Portal:Contents/Lists, so I propose Category:Wikipedia categories should redirect to Portal:Contents/Categories. Shrug-shrug (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to redirect categories that way. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That redirect actually already existed as "List of categories" but it got deleted in 2007. We've also got CAT:CAT (or just simply CAT:) as a shortcut to Category:Contents and CAT:WP goes to Category:Wikipedia administration. WP:CATS used to go to Portal:Contents/Categories but it got retargeted to Wikipedia:Categorization and WP:WPCATS goes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats, so I made a new shortcut, P:CAT, to Portal:Contents/Categories using the handy P: pseudo-namespace, meanwhile CAT:P redirects to Category:Wikipedia policies and CAT:WPCAT to Category:WikiProject Cats. Is that all clear now? ;P -- œ^™ 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice templates

There are now a few WP:Editnotice templates, and there could surely be more. So I've created a navigational template to help organise them:

Since most of the edinotice templates need to be actively placed in relevant editnotices as required, people need to be aware of their existence; and since currently only admins can edit editnotices, I'm posting here. Hence this message. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

only admins can edit editnotices - That's true of some of them, but not all of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Account creators can edit editnotices too, but it is not intentional. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

They used to be able to, but this ability was removed recently. 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Silly Prodego! :P

Rd232, is there a category for them, too? I thought there was, but I'm not sure if that also includes inactive editnotices (in which case, they'd be blanked, I'm guessing? or deleted?) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

True, it would be helpful to link them from the {{Editnotice templates}} template, and I've now done so. You're probably thinking of {{Active editnotice}}, which should be placed within pages using an editnotice to categorize them within Category:Articles with editnotices or Category:Pages with editnotices. (Actually there's no obvious way to know how underused it is; adding it to pages that have an editnotice might be a job for a bot.) Rd232 ^talk 03:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Didn't hear about that. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Should {{Troubles restriction}} be added to the navbox? Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because it's not an editnotice template. Possibly a navbox for talkpage arbitration templates would be helpful... Rd232 ^talk 19:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

i digress unless there was to be some "background" context. to itws hsitoerical noteLihaas (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Word Sliver reported by User:Cunard (Result: )

Resolved

 – Result: Semied by User:Spartaz --64.85.214.206 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Word Sliver reported by User:Cunard (Result: )? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Spartaz (talk · contribs), for semi-protecting the redirect. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)