Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Merge related template TFDs[edit]

Resolved: TfDs merged. --RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_28#Template:Time_100s_2000s there are two nearly identical templates in separate discussions. Can these be mreged properly so that all the links from the notices work correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has actually once merged 2 CfD discussions, I think that this case is different - TonyTheTiger expressed a support for one of these discussions which has no expression in the other. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't support the other expressly because I thought they should be merged. The nominator said on his talk page that he did not know who to do a multiple nom merge. I have done multiple noms, but have forgotten (If I ever knew) how to merge noms once created. I'll support the other if that formality makes the merger more proper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Since they cover the same three templates under two different headers, I've merged the discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Drnhawkins[edit]

Resolved: Community ban proposal opposed, case proceeded to user conduct request for comment. HeyMid (contribs) 15:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support ban - I hate to see it come to this, but I agree that the time has come. I have been one of the editors who have over and over discussed the concepts of WP:NOR and WP:RS with Drnhawkins. The amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is incredible. As Dougweller says, things have escalated recently, and patience has run out. LadyofShalott 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I'm seeing discussion, but no formal attempts at lesser enforcement. No blocks, and more to the point Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins is a red link. I'd suggest that an attempt at wider discussion at RFC/U should be attempted before we jump straight to site ban.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Have you read his comments at the AfD and MfD pages? If so, why do you think an RfC/U would be effective, or do you suggest it for some other reason? Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
An RFC/U allows an individual to see that it's not just individual editors that have issue with their edits, that the general community agrees that they're not meeting WP policy. It also puts them on formal notice that they must bring themselves into compliance or sanctions will follow. I believe some formal DR is appropriate in a situation like this. If they then still chose to act counter to policy then further steps can be taken knowing that we've made that formal attempt to educate the user.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If I've counted right, 7 editors have !voted to delete on the current MfDs and he still argues that he is right and Wikipedia is wrong. I understand your point, but this seems to only prolong the agony and waste more time. AfDs and MfDs should also be educational in my opinion, and the issues are clearly put forward and his response is likewise clear. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Full community bans are serious enough that they should not be handed out too quickly or when other options are available. If after formal DR he still fails to learn, would a topic ban serve the puropse, allowing him to perhaps come to learn policy if he so chose? Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's the sort of thing that could be discussed outside of an MFD, inside the DR process before we lay down the wiki death penalty. This isn't a vandal, this isn't an abusive sockpupeteer, this isn't someone making threats of violence, this is someone who after a pair of MFD's in 2 weeks of editing after a 2 year break hasn't accepted WP:OR. We can take the time to do this right IMHO.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You meant should not be, I take it... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I did miss a 'not' in there. Thanks, I've added it in so that first sentence makes sense.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Cube Lurker. It is unacceptable that bans be enacted by ad-hoc mobs on a noticeboard before even a whiff of dispute resolution is in the air. causa sui (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose'I support the position of User:Cube lurker. I've read enough to sympathize with those who must be frustrated trying to converse with User:Drnhawkins. However, I see no blocks, no examples of discussion at ANI, no Rfcs, and one warning, issued over two years ago. We have a process for escalation of disputes, While there might be some examples where process should be ignored, I see no reason that this should be one of the exceptions. Has the community ever imposed a ban on someone with a clean block log, no ArbCom involvement and no warnings in over two years?SPhilbrickT 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds that there are other dispute resolution methods still available. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The next step would appear to be WP:Mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly be open to mediation. LadyofShalott 02:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


OK, I'll withdraw the request. I would however like help from those who opposed it wording the RfC/U as it is the editor's difficulty in understanding our policies and guidelines which drew me here, and asking him to abide by something he doesn't understand is not likely to work. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Now created at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So what is an acceptable solution[edit]

What solution can you offer that allows some discussion (in main space) about who was the Pharaoh contemporary with Abraham, Joseph, Moses (and also the Isralites who were in Egypt for 430 years and grew from 70 to 2 million in that time). I understand about what you say about original research and reliable sources but your policies put Christianity at a disadvantage because you do not accept the Bible as a reliable source of Historical information.--Drnhawkins (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor do we accept the Torah, the Qur’an, or any other religious text as a reliable source of historical information. – ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact is the solution may not be 'acceptable'. I understand the disadvantage, but without having the information published outside the bible in some sort of secondary reliable source, It may very well be that Wikipedia is not the right place for this to be presented.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no solution which simultaneously meets our standards and yours, since you insist on rejecting our non-waivable requirements. After all your time here, this should have become clear by now. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a solution. If you have adequate evidence to support your views, arrange to have them published in a Reliable Source. If you can get them published, they can be reported here. If you cannot get them published, we cannot use them here.SPhilbrickT 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, write about notable opinions on this topic. Find modern sources that describe the debate. Don't engage in it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that I can recommend this either. Editors working on natural science and history articles are usually familiar with the Wedge strategy, which is what that would look like. causa sui (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
See Creation–evolution controversy. "Teach the controversy" still presents both sides in of the debate, it does not go to the meta-level (which would be a sociological, not a biology topic). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to echo what others have said here. Wikipedia content follows the opinion of the professional researchers doing history: therefore, if you want Biblical accounts to be included in Wikipedia, you will need to start by getting them included in peer reviewed literature. causa sui (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
However, there is a perfectly good section, not long enough to be an article, on the Pharaoh of the Exodus; as there ought to be. Modern interpretation of ancient texts is perfectly encyclopedic; we should discuss a primary source from Ezra's time under Egyptology when the Egyptologists do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review backlog[edit]

Wikipedia:Non-free content review is rather backlogged, and there are at present a number of files that have been under discussion for weeks if not months (e.g. this one). In the interest of closing some of the longer-term discussions, the page could probably benefit from fresh administrator attention. I may see about performing some of the simpler closures myself. SuperMarioMan 23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I have a vested interest in one of the discussions, but administrators should take care to ensure fairness in their closures. If a discussion has been open for months without discussion or movement then consider the possibility of closing it as stale rather than surprising the uploader with a deletion of their file based substantively on remarks left months ago. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

New Era Building[edit]

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

Do you also have drafts for the other articles in userspace? Barring that, it's a disambiguation that leads to one article. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like some feedback on what our normal approach is in this situation. When there are two actual articles, it makes sense to use a hatnote, but if one or both are redlinks, hatnotes do not appear to make sense. That's why there was a dab with two redlinks. I'm not all that big a fan of redlinks, but that's not my call to make. If redlinks are allowed for plausible articles, (and an NRHP location qualifies as a plausible article), how should it be handled? I do not think it is reasonable to expect the editor creating the dab to have draft articles in progress. That would be nice, but I don't see it as required. I'm inclined to make the move (as requested here), but I'd like to see what others think, in case there are rules I'm missing, or a better solution.--SPhilbrickT 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It is disambiguation policy and practice that disambiguation pages differentiate among topics and can contain redlink items, as long as each one provides a supporting bluelink to an article that shows the same redlink in context. More specifics at MOS:DABRL. From time to time it seems surprising to an editor, but it is further acceptable for a dab page to consist entirely of such redlinks (with supporting bluelinks), as has been determined in discussions among disambiguation-focussed editors at WikiProject Disambiguation talk. This dab page existed properly in mainspace for a long time. Recently it was deleted once by Sphilbrick, was recreated by me, was moved to current userspace location twice by SarekOfVulcan, and then a new page (which I moved to New Era Building (New York City)) was created in the mainspace location by Station1. The disambiguation page is needed, appropriate. It now takes an administrator to move it back. I suppose it would further be appropriate to have the previous edit history of the article restored. --doncram 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I've now asked at Wikiproject talk Disambiguation for comment here. --doncram 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
See, now I'm cranky. When there is history to an action, and that history can reasonably interpreted as contentious, it's a bit uncool to drop a one-line "please do this." It sure makes it look like you were trying to slip something in under the radar. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have thought that making the request on one of the most trafficed noticeboards on WP, rather than using {{Db-move}} (where it would hide along with the rest of the speedy deletion requests), is the antithesis of trying to slip something in under the radar. BencherliteTalk 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A non-controversial move of a disambiguation usually gets done in thirty seconds when you put in on this page. The relevant facts weren't given by the requester, and there was clearly a good reason to give that background, see above and below. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my asking here was meant to convey there exists some issue, but I was hoping for simple resolution. It should indeed be non-controversial, and would not be except for SarekOfVulcan's determined and uninformed-in-my-view intervention on the article. I asked here rather than at wp:RM as some editors here are familiar with SarekOfVulcan's involvement with my editing, which is adding up towards repeated instances of pretty apparent edit-warring mentality (tho 3RR not reached this time). The last time SarekOfVulcan tangled with me here, regarding a page where he reached 4RR, he was blocked 40 hours and i was blocked 3 weeks. I don't want to have to go into all of that. I simply asked and do ask for the dab page to be restored, and hoped that someone informed about previous history would just make a sensible judgment on this situation alone and fix this situation. In effect I was/am asking for a simple override SarekOfVulcan's judgment that it is not a valid dab page, because it is a valid dab page. Is it possible to ask for a simple fix, without going into a big discussion about other stuff? --doncram 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Note that userfying the article was not what was originally asked for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That is an misleading statement by SarekOfVulcan, to link to a non-compliant version. As i explained to SarekOfVulcan, i was seeking restoration of the original article, not that version. The original article, as in copy provided by Sphilbrick at his Talk upon my request, included MOSDAB-compliant supporting bluelinks, and also a cross-wiki link to the German wikipedia version of this dab page. --doncram 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It is clear that OP's posting has the effect of ratcheting up the cranky meter, even if not intended. However, I take the point that asking here is not really slipping it under the radar, but the exact opposite. I also suggest that edit summaries using the word "attack" or "pressure" do not help, even if they were valid (and I don't think they are valid in this case). Can we concentrate on settling whether the dab is warranted?--SPhilbrickT 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No arguments against the dab being presented here, and positive ones having been presented (i.e. that the dab is valid and compliant with all policies) could an administrator please make the move and restore the dab? --doncram 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Sigh. Over years, I have dealt with wave after wave of editors newly arriving at disambiguation pages and being unaware of policy or not accepting consensus. Consensus on exactly the no-redlinks-being-okay issue has been established previously, Station1's assertion to the contrary, and I refreshed Station1 about that already. Sphilbrick's deletion was wrong because all-redlink dab pages are in fact okay. However, now there is a bluelink article, the new one created by Station1, and there are three items on the dab page, getting by Sphilbrick's preference (not policy) for hatnotes only when just 2 items have the same name. Station1's assertion that the article name is "needed" by the new one is not valid; it obviously can be at New Era Building (New York City). Station1, could you please clarify that a) you would now agree that the disambiguation page should exist (albeit i think you think it should exist at New Era Building (disambiguation). Sphilbrick could you please clarify that you think the disambiguation page should exist, now that there are 3 anyhow. The only new issue is whether the New York City one should be wp:PRIMARYUSAGE or not a question properly settled in a Requested Move on the disambiguation page, after it is restored. I happen to think the non-nrhp NYC one is not primaryusage as the 2 NRHP-listed ones are definitely notable and as notable it their areas as the New York City one is in its area, and there is no world-wide primaryusage--face it no one has ever heard of any "New Era Building"; Station1 happens to think it does meet primaryusage. That subquestion should not require wp:AN attention, IMO. I suggest that the original request, to move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building be implemented. That would provide the necessary reversal of SarekOfVulcan's incorrect userfying of the valid dab page (important enough for wp:AN, and most properly covered here). Then let Station1 open a Requested Move at the Talk page of that, relating to his new article, created only after all this was already going on, if he wishes. --doncram 21:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If wave after wave of editors don't accept your notion of consensus, is it possible it's not the consensus at all? To answer your request for clarification, I've already said at your talk page, I think clearly, that no dab page need exist unless and until three articles exist, at which time New Era Building (disambiguation) could be created or a hatnote could be used per WP:TWODABS. Station1 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No, they all have different, conflicting, uninformed views. 99% agree with reasonable treatment, once explained. Now, that is a whopper of an assertion, that you agree a dab page is warranted, but not until the other articles are created, i.e. you defy disambiguation policy that redlink items are okay. That is completely unreasonable. Other editors observing here might say, well why not just create the other 2 articles. I could do that for this one case, but am balancing concerns of many NRHP editors and others who strongly dislike the creation of short stub articles. I myself would not mind having a bot run to create all the 50,000 missing NRHP articles, to end this kind of repetitive discussion with Station1 (informed) and with uninformed other new editors arriving. It is simply unreasonable to acknowledge that "New Era Building" is a valid dab topic, but assert it cannot exist. Just re-create the damn dab by moving it back into place. --doncram 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

A disambiguation page appears to be the right way to go here. Even if the structure in NYC is the most notable, there are multiple examples, and hatnotes are less desirable in such cases. See Disambiguation pages with only two entries. In addition to the three "New Era Buildings" listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, there are other uses of "New Era Building" that may or may not be sufficiently notable to warrant articles. E.g., buildings called the "New Era Building" in Chicago (on Blue Island Avenue dating at least to the 1890s), Johannesburg (12 De Villiers St.), and San Francisco, as well as the New Era Building & Loan Association in Philadelphia and the modular home builder New Era Building Systems. A disambiguation page services the 3 existing articles and leaves room to accommodate additional uses. Cbl62 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Cbl62. Would an administrator please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to New Era Building (New York City) (which now redirects to the main topic). Station1 can open a wp:RM to move the dab to "New Era Building (Disambiguation)" if he sincerely believes the New York one meets wp:PRIMARYUSAGE, which I believe it does not. Station1, thank you for commenting promptly above, responding to my request. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course I'm not going to open a RM. WP needs less disruption, not more. When this discussion is over, an admin will move things around or leave them as they are, mark this section resolved, and we'll all (hopefully including doncram) gladly move on to more productive endeavors. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like that. --doncram 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Would an administrator please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to New Era Building (New York City) (which now redirects to the main topic). This in effect would override administrator SarekOfVulcan's twice moving the dab page to my userspace, and now it can only be moved back by an administrator. --doncram 11:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

. --doncram 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Pretty please. --doncram 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
At this point the disambiguation page is ready for mainspace. However, it's clear that moving New Era Building to New Era Building (New York City) is not an uncontroversial move, so I'm not willing to do that without a proper RM. I'm willing to move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building (disambiguation) if you're willing to accept that for now and open an RM for any additional changes you want. Thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
28bytes, thanks for replying. If you put the dab page at the alternative name, then that gives the new NYC article the status quo, incorrectly, in a RM process. IMO, the dab should be put at the New Era Building name, undoing the effect of administrative actions that should not have been taken. I opened this wp:AN to ask for remedy of incorrect administrative actions. Review: The New York City page was only created after this started, upon Station1 noticing disagreement ensuing on the topic and investigating. There was long a dab page. Then first there was a void at the topic name only because administrator Sphilbrick deleted it without notice I believe, and without AFD. Then I put in a replacement dab page while asking Sphilbrick to restore original. Then Station1 commented about topic at my Talk page which SarekOfVulcan noticed, and SarekOfVulcan again deleted the dab, i think twice, by userfying. Then Station1 created NYC page at the main topic name, and moved it back after I once moved it away. It is the move of the New York City one to the general topic name that should be considered a controversial move, relative to the previous status. IMO, the administrative actions that removed the dab page were the mistakes, which should be undone by administrative action.
28bytes, Station1 already indicated that he would tend to abide by an administrator's decision about whether NYC one is primaryusage or not. I suggest if you actually judge it is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE (which you have not stated) then you make the move to the alternative name. If you judge the NYC one is not primary usage, or if you do not want to judge on that, then you should restore the previous status pre any moves, by implementing my request. --doncram 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think AN is a poor venue for determining whether the New York location is the primary topic. Moving your userspace DAB to mainspace while not disturbing the existing articles – without prejudice against a subsequent move request to settle the primary topic issue – is the best I can offer. If that's not acceptable, that's fine, perhaps another admin will be willing to make the specific moves you are requesting. 28bytes (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the first sentence. Would another administrator, then, please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building. To do so, please move the new article currently occupying the place to New Era Building (New York City) (which now redirects to the main topic). This would undo the effect of previous administrative actions. Then anyone can propose a normal RM if primaryusage on the new article is asserted. I would hope that administrators as a group would hope a) to do no harm, and b) to undo harm from administrative actions where possible. This is a straightforward request to get back to something like the status quo before. --doncram 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Isn't this what Wikipedia:Requested moves is for, and don't the regular admins there have more experiance in this than us random blow-ins? Why is this best dealt with here, or am I missing something? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Doncram -- how many editors need to explain a) that the move you want is not uncontroversial; b) that this is not the forum for discussing or a requesting move? olderwiser 14:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I was asking the "regular admins" to undo the action taken by one of them, to restore a needed, valid dab page. A normal RM could be started, or not, about the controversial potential move of the dab page in favor of a new article started after this began. The new article does not change the fact that the original administrative action was wrong. And that administrative action to move the dab would be the best way to fix the current situation.
However, I will take it that no administrator wants pass any judgment about the other administrator, and to fix the situation. I'll move the article myself to the alternative name and open a RM. Thanks for nothing really. :) --doncram 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram attacks[edit]

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

The New Era Building situation is yet another where SarekOfVulcan seemed to me to be edit warring, by nature of rapid, undiscussed too-strong edits, with terse edit summaries at best. I requested nicely enough that SarekOfVulcan read up on the subject and fix the situation by moving the dab page back. He did not, so eventually i ask here for others to fix this. It's an example of SarekOfVulcan edit warring, IMHO. See edit history and discussion, such as it was. Countering by trying to raise a new issue seems off-track. Just move the dab page back, please. --doncram 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
'add to article created to support architect article, which is under some "pressure"' is not an improvement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
In this AN discussion, I ask for simple resolution of one dab page issue. --doncram 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's nice. Stop making insinuations in your edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
As (what I assume to be) an uninvolved editor, Doncram your commentary in this thread is pushing the borders of civility and tone. I know you've been warned previously about this so take this viewpoint as a friendly suggestion that you take a few minutes and consider your tone. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Some prefer less, some prefer more clarification of the actual context here. I am somewhat cranky, too. --doncram 21:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

another dab removed by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

I agree that explicit discussion at Talk pages is far better than carrying on with edit-war style reversions and insinuations or assertions in edit summaries. Such as this, this and the series of edits by which SarekOfVulcan kept removing the page, and did not properly discuss. Edit summaries just invoked an irrelevant essay Wikipedia:Write the article first, not convincing and not relevant to the development of disambiguation as here. I am again troubled by S's attention, but simultaneous unwillingness to actually discuss things, as in my comments in S's recent re-RFA, which I opposed.
Reviewing SarekOfVulcan's contributions now, I further see this edit, in which SarekOfVulcan removes another disambiguation page by redirecting it. The edit summary suggests that he now believes that a dab page having just one main bluelink should be removed, until a second one is created. That is contrary to policy and practice and even further contrary to reason than deleting dab pages that have valid topics but no main bluelink. I will restore that disambiguation page once now. I imagine SarekOfVulcan or another editor will now choose to redirect it. Please do discuss here. --doncram 23:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
In reviewing the Downtown Main Street Historic District history it is interesting to note that you created it Feb 23, 2010. It was redirected 2 days later. It stayed that way until July 20, 2011 when you reverted as "incorrectly redirected". And then the back and forth today.
Bluntly: As per WP:TWODABS ad dab page is not needed. Station1 and SarekOfVulcan were correct to redirect it. Pointed reversals of that are not needed. MOS:DABRL is sound, but only if a dab page is needed. A single potential "other" article does not a dab page need. Nor a hatnote at this point.
- J Greb (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Not so. Removal of a dab page is not called for. The dab page, and others like it, have served purpose of helping clear name conflicts in NRHP list-articles which used to separately point to the dab topic. Putting the first-to-be-created article at the general name, rather than at the more specific, proper, final name including (City, State) disambiguation, often causes error and more future work resolving conflict between the future article creators and the first article creator who will tend to have ownership and in effect assert primaryusage. When only one of two known-to-be-valid and pretty-clearly-neither-primaryusage topics have an article already, it is not possible to set up hatnotes (I am sure that if you set up a hatnote from the one existing article to a redlink, that many editors would object and remove it). What is possible and makes sense is to create the dab, which is not disallowed by any policy and which obviously serves the need. This has been done for many hundreds of cases, and there is no problem with it. It would defy logic in developing the wikipedia to prohibit just creating the known-to-be-needed dab, which serves readers and editors right away who could be looking for either item and want to know whether or not articles exist, and if not, would like to see the redlink suggesting the topic is valid for them to go ahead and start the article. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it is also worth noting that TWODABS as written points to the hatnote currently on New Era Building as sufficient unless consensus shows that none of the 3 building is the "primary" topic. - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that none of the 3 buildings is the primary topic, but "TWODABS" does not state the disambiguation page should not exist, it just at best suggests the dab page might not be absolutely necessary, if all of two or three articles exist and one is primary. Since there are likely further entries to be added in the future, and since cluttering all three current New Era Building pages with hatnotes pointing to the other seems excessive, the best thing editorially is to have the dab page. It is not prohibited, and it is best. --doncram 18:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
MOS on "Disambiguation pages with only two entries" is slightly more explicit. To quote Disambiguation pages with only two entries: "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. The {{for}} and {{redirect}} templates are useful. If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name."
And, obviously if only one of two valid topics has an article, hatnotes won't work, so the dab page is in fact strictly necessary. Knock on wood, there has been no change on the restored dab page Downtown Main Street Historic District, so i am thinking this part of the discussion is resolved well enough. --doncram 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
First, I did not state TWODABS states a dab page should not exist, just that a hatnote is sufficient.
Second, yes, if there are likely to be more articles using the same name then a dab page becomes plausible. But that is an if, as in guessing about future content.
Next, you are arguing to put the cart in front of the horse. TWODABS should be looked at first. then, if a dab page is needed, the MoS on dab pages comes into play.
Arguing that the dab page is "harmless" in such cases rings hollow - an unneeded page is an unneeded page. If you prefer it can be posted to AfD and redirected consensus, but that smack of being obstructive rather than constructive. That is unless you care to produce the article for the redlink.
Last, I wouldn't call Downtown Main Street Historic District resolved at this point, not by a long chalk. The existence of the page is questionable, at best and this is a discussion in an attempt to avoid escalating an edit war that could look like a bad case of WP:OWN.
- J Greb (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, better to discuss than edit war I agree. J Greb, FYI, I adapt following passage from a previous discussion, to explain more context about why there are many NRHP dab pages that have redlinks. It basically has to do with conflict between some NRHP editors vs. some disambiguation-focused editors; i have tried to mediate between. Some NRHP editors criticize short articles and don't want stubs created; some dab-focused editors try to remove all redlinks or prevent dab pages from existing. This is all about clearly wikipedia-notable topics of NRHP-listed places, for which articles will be created eventually (in fact they could all be created within a few weeks by running a bot to create them). Anyhow here is an adapted passage from previous explanation here (in "small"):

Upon encountering a mostly-redlink or all-redlink dab page, many editors have first reaction that disambiguation is to distinguish among existing articles only. So all redlink entries should be deleted? In the past 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 3,756 articles with one or more NRHP entries in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles now.

Hope this helps some. Would it help to get some NRHP editors to testify that they don't like short stub articles created? What else might help you see that the present dab is helpful, stable, best. --doncram 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: the "conflict" between the NRHP editors who "criticize short articles and don't want stubs created" and the dab-focused editors who "try to remove all redlinks or prevent dab pages from existing." A very practical solution to this supposed conflict has been suggested before... but I will suggest it again now: Work on both articles and related dab pages in User space until they can satisfy both parties. You can still notify other editors from the project so they can help you out. Wait until the ambiguous group (or at least most it) are more than a "short stub-of-a-stub"... then copy them over into Article space, along with the relevant dab page. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
In theory a 'nice' suggestion, but in reality contra-productive. Red-links are there to point to articles that should exist. It does not matter if that is in an article or on a dabpage (even a hatnote). All too often looking at actors playing in films of my era (at least the era I like watching) I find links pointing to totally wrong entries. If you find a redlink dab at the target pages you at least can point the link in question to its correct target. Funny, there are even pages that sort such redlinks my the number of incoming links - to identfy important subjects. Agathoclea (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Agathoclea. To Blueboar, about dabs your suggestion "develop dabs in Userspace" was one made by one or two others previously, back in Fall 2009 or 2010 i dunno which, when the system of dabs covering non-unique NRHP-listed placenames was being completed. That system was completed out then: all the missing dabs were then created, with approving consensus of those who were involved then. There was explicit discussion then about the principles covered in wp:TWODABS, and there was general agreement the system of dabs should be completed out. For a while there were a couple hundred dab pages in draft form included in a cleanup category. You could have argued then that the draft dab pages should have been in userspace until cleaned up. But all the new dabs were promptly brought up to MOSDAB standards, i.e. to have a properly compliant supporting bluelink for every redlink item, so it is moot. The system of dabs has been serving extremely well, if I do say so myself. It has allowedUser:dispenser's Dablinks tool to be applied to all or most of the NRHP list-articles, so now there are very few remaining links to ambiguous topics from the NRHP list system. It allows me and others who create new articles on architects and builders, to quickly fix up lists of their works. And so on.
What this subsection is about, is that I recently discovered the redirection/removal of the Downtown dab, a rare exception to the general completion of needed dabs, and I restored it. SarekOfVulcan removed it by redirecting it again, and i restored it and opened this discussion here. SarekOfVulcan has not further asserted the dab should not exist. We're all done in this subsection, IMO, but i am willing to explain this further if there are further questions. The only remaining thing needed is, in above first section, for an admin to restore the deleted New Era Building dab. --doncram 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus that dab pages that disambiguate fewer than two articles should exist. Station1 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, based on previous explicit discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation's Talk page. I invited you to open a new discussion there if you wish to challenge the previous consensus; it is not a matter for wp:AN to change that. However, there do exist hundreds or thousands of current dab pages having only one or even zero primary bluelinks, while disambiguating among multiple valid wikipedia article topics that each have proper support (i.e. each primary redlink having a proper supporting bluelink). --doncram 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a TWODABS situation, why not make a hatnote on the existing page to point to the list of NRHP places by county that lists the second page? I thought we had those lists for every county that has NRHP places. bd2412 T 20:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are referring to supporting bluelinks in a dab page. For NRHP items in a dab page where the main item is a redlink, yes it is appropriate to include a supporting bluelink to the corresponding NRHP county or city list that shows the same item in context. That is practice, that is done systematically. Thanks for commenting. --doncram 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Should users be allowed to remove current block notices? and Require all new articles to contain at least one source[edit]

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices? and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Require all new articles to contain at least one source? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Spent a lot of time reading, but closed the first (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the first discussion, which was a difficult debate. Also, thank you, HJ Mitchell, for reviewing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's a thought: quit it! Why in the world you guys want to stifle discussion I don't know, but I wish that you'd just leave these things alone. Very, very few discussions on the Village Pump require "closing". Why (at least two of) you think they do is beyond me. If you're not interested in participating in the discussion than do something else.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Your condescension on this board, from the comment here to the comment to Gwen Gale below, is unhelpful.

I ask admins to close RfCs listed at Template:Centralized discussion so that the participants will understand the consensuses in their discussions. Some of the closes result in guideline or policy changes. Some result in no consensus being achieved. The closes are necessary to ensure that the proposals and discussions are not wasted because no one has assessed the consensus.

I generally ask for an RfC closure after at least 30 days of discussion or if discussion has stalled and the RfC has been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Nothing about either of these discussions that you've linked to here requires "closure". Removal from CENT is fine, but attempting to shut down further discussion on the issues is wrongheaded, and slightly disruptive, in my opinion. I find it troubling that you seem to believe it necessary to force "participants [to] understand the consensuses". You clearly fail to understand the concept of consensus, based on this comment. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We're not a court, nor are we legislators. If you feel stung by my comments, I suggest that it is probably due to the fact that you're slightly out of touch with the culture here (not that I'm an expert myself, but at least I don't run around trying to force others to accept my views with a rational that it is "consensus").
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment but will disengage from further discussion with you. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Whilst WP is not, among very many other things, a democracy or a court or a debating society it may well be borne in mind that you are the only editor who is complaining about (a) discussion(s) being closed with a overview of the apparent consensus at that time. One thing WP is not, is a soapbox. If it seems that most people have accepted the outcome, then please accept it for the time being and perhaps raise the issue(s) at some later date. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're looking for other people to speak up, I'll do so. I have serious reservations about this close. Upon reading the discussion, it seems clear to me that there is either no consensus, or consensus in the other direction. To claim a consensus exists for this result, and to use it to change a guideline, seems unfair. I would not have closed it myself, because I have an opinion, and because I'm not sure a definitive closure was needed. If I thought it was just a matter of consensus being against me, I'd suck it up and move on, but I really don't think it was. I also note that others have objected to the close on BMW's talk page, and there's been some edit warring on the policy page in the last couple of days, also indicating it isn't just Ohm's Law stirring up trouble. I also find it irksome that HJM's {{closing}} template was over-ridden. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
He'd probably begun closing before I put the template there, but I had intended to close it with the opposite result. I've made my issues with the close known on BW's talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I reverted the change to Wikipedia:User pages (twice now) and started a section on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices. Since I've already been accused of soapboxing here I'll withdraw from any further editing of the policy page, but I'd hope that several of you who are interested in this (many of you who are administrators) will be willing to abide to our expectations with respect to edit warring and discuss this on the talk page.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything it would be a no-consensus close, definitely not a consensus to allow. And since the discussion was to remove where it said to not allow the removal of the block notices that would default to pretty much the same decision that he closed to so is there really a need to argue about it? -DJSasso (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that about two thirds of administrators (the people who will have to clean up when somebody starts an edit war by having the nerve to remove a message for them form their own talk page) were in favour of allowing users to remove block notices. Once you eliminate the people who clearly don't know what the purpose of a block notice is, the consensus is clealry in agreement with those admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
But that isn't a valid way to close a discussion ranking admin and non-admin. Ohms law made a good suggestion in the discussion he links to that maybe we should word it in a way that says there are some instances that it is appropriate to make them stay. Instead of a blanket yes or no situation. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It's perfectly valid. I'm the last person who would ever suggest that admins have some kind of special status, but it makes sense to give greater weight to the opinions of the people this is going to affect. This will affect blocked users (who don't have the right or the ability to edit) and admins, so giving extra weight to admins makes sense here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Or, as consensus shows at another similar discussion at VPP, we don't say anything and treat things on a case-by-case basis. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the "say nothing" approach, but there seems to be sufficient interest, which is apparently motivated by a desire to define and understand this aspect of our "culture" here, to justify saying something. I'd hope that said something is more along the lines of "it depends on the situation" than saying either "don't ever do this" or "it's always allowed", but that's what talk pages are for.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not it is better to say something, the RfC does not appear to have produced a consensus on what to say. I've posted on BWilkins' talk page to encourage them to change the close to "no consensus" and restore the language of the section to this version that was in place prior to the changes that triggered the RfC. The old language does not address block notices specifically, which is probably how it should stay until consensus is forged for some other wording. --RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that version does actually mention block notices by saying "sanctions currently in effect" which are clearly blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You might infer that, but it doesn't say 'block notices', which was the reasoning behind this edit that helped trigger the RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus there. As an aside, I don't think blocked users should have to carry that badge in their talk space if they don't want to, a block note comes up when one looks at a blocked user's contribs either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, no; it is that sort of reasoning and mentality (of trying to give extra weight to admins) which led to some of the foolishness at AE, ANI, etc. which led to two arbitrations within this year alone. In fact, in a way, editors are often in a better position to see how easily some admins can miss things, when things are being done as intended and when those things are going too far, and how desysops have so far worked in practice when things aren't up to scratch. Tools are given by the Community and the rules governing those tools are also set by the Community - extra weight is not (and will not be) given to admins opinions, and for as long as my watch is ticking, that will not change.
If there is disagreement over whether it should be allowed or not, more thought is needed. There can be some compromise between the concept that users have maximum freedom in their userspace, while addressing the concerns about how single-purpose-disruptive-users are treating the gap in policy (and how editors needed to adopt special measures to force admins to do something). DJSasso has echoed (above) a good suggestion which is capable of putting the issue to rest by considering both perspectives; hopefully that sort of thing can bring some resolution. Some users have refused to look for a middle ground, or to acknowledge the alternative proposals which have been raised, and I think it's a shame that those users are potentially going to force more escalation in lieu of resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Recalling previous discussions on the matter of removing any notices -- for blocks, warnings, etc. -- over the last :::mummble::: years, ISTR that the consensus was something along the lines of "people shouldn't do it, but making them not do it leads to more WikiDrama than it's worth." Yes, these notices should stay permanently on some people's user pages, but anyone who is persistent enough & sufficiently civil enough can talk their way to getting rid of them. -- llywrch (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You know, the best solution would be to turn the block log into a pseudo-talk page. In other words, make the block log a regular page, with controlled edit access (fully protected by default?)... then administrators could add notes, and adjust the record of blocks and unblocks. It'd be cool to build in a "request unblock" thing that the user who's page it is could use at any time, of course (or that could just stay on the talk page as is, but whatever). If that were implemented then it could be used for all sorts of other notes as well (checkuser stuff springs immediately to mind). We'd have to develop some community standards for it's use of course, but getting the technical ability done is the first step.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Find a sympathetic dev to get that written up, but for now, let's all stop arguing over something so petty as a block notice and get back to building an encyclopedia, shall we? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I didn't think we were arguing. And, the dev would be me (if I can ever manage to find the time...), but there are also plenty of administrators here who know PHP and could work on it. I just wanted to put the idea out there, in a place where it was topical. No need to get snippy about it.
        — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In the spirit of transparency and allowing the rest of the Community to put in their input please can we bring the discussion back to the original talk page. Plus, if for whatever reason it does ever need to be closed, I suggest an editor who doesnt have a COI by virtue of being one that goes to an inordinate number of blocks and seems to say "no" to 99% of all reviews.Camelbinky (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban: Thepoliticalmaster (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: Community ban enacted. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This user I initially ran into because of an incident where they were given rollback, but it was revoked, and as a result they started to cause widespread disruption, including misusing Twinkle and bothering people on their talk pages, as well as on IRC. They were indef blocked by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for disruption, and after extensive discussion they were unblocked under conditions which I proposed. It seemed to me they were a new user that had misstepped. Since then, while they completed some of the adoption lessons, they still have been causing issues with other users, including Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs), as well as a countless number of users on IRC, which resulted in his bans on IRC being extended, and his restrictions on enwp being tightened. Just today, it has come to my attention that this is not the first account this user has had, and they have basically been wasting everyone's time over the past few months, including mine. They are an indef blocked user from the past, with over 30 previous accounts dating back to 2006. A list of some of the old accounts are below:

Two were uncovered today, one being an announced account, the other is a  Likely sock which has not edited, as advised by a check user.

I feel that he has exhausted the community's patience. I assumed at first he was a new user who made mistakes and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he continued to annoy people on IRC and other Wikimedia wikis, but enough is enough. I propose his indef block be formally made a community ban. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How unfortunate, you worked really hard and put a lot of time into trying to salvage an editor only to have him admit to you that he's a blocked sock. Thanks for trying so hard and for notifying the community when you found out.--Doug.(talk contribs) 10:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. User is clearly, clearly not here to be productive, in any of his incarnations, and plays the "but, but" game too well to give him any more rope. His IRC behavior, while not sanctionable on-wiki, gives clear indication that he enjoys playing the ends against the middle and will weasel through any openings left to him both on-wiki and off. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Bounced around between a stack of projects, causing problems wherever they find themselves. (I'll notify the sister projects: simplewiki, enwiktionary, ensource and commons of this thread). —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support No other viable or sensible option. Pesky (talkstalk!) 13:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously obvious. - Burpelson AFB 15:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously it's obviously obvious. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community topic ban on John Foxe[edit]

John Foxe user has become disruptive enough under the following "Sings of disruptive editing" to merit a topic ban.

  • 1. Is tendentious:
    • ie. continues editing an article pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposing consensus from other editors.
  • 2. Does not engage in consensus building:
  • ie. repeatedly disregards other editors input, biased solely on his personal prejudices.
  • ie. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

3.* Rejects or ignores community input

  • ie. resists his own requests for comment, and continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors, biased on his personal prejudices.

Foxe's has a desire to push the POV that any "Mormon" who dose legitimate scientific research done, any news story written, or any Wikipedia edit made by a "Mormons" must be biased and therefore must be suspect, flawed and removed. Foxe also is using flawed (since not all the editors are Mormon) and prejudice view that any Mormons editor must be working together to build consensus against him, in order to ignore any consensus he dosn't like. This is flawed since one editor, Gandydancer, is not "Mormon" nor I am not LDS (the brand of Mormonism he is referring to when he says "Mormon", which is irrelevant anyway. However, the real issue is Foxe's edits are in fact POV pushing and he refuses to see that an consensus has been reached. For example the following statements and edit have been made Repeatedly:

  • Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried.--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a patient guy, and until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

At first I assumed he was willing to listen to the community and gave him the benefit of the doubt for quite a while, even though he continued to attack people biased strictly on religious prejudices, but enough is enough. Foxe has ignore and will continue to ignore the current consensus opposed to including his POV statements. Numberous statments made by Foxe on Talk:No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith shows his. I feel that Foxe has exhausted the community's patience.
I therefore propose a one month topic ban be formally implement on John Foxe under Wikipedia:Banning_policy of the following:

--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of the page:

You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.

I've done it for you. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I was actually working posting it as you posted here. I was taken away from my computer for a moment, which caused the delay. It was not my intention to not notify him and I sincerely apologize for the delay.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, sorry; I'd figured that you would have done it as soon as you finished writing what's above section if you'd remembered. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
You are 100% correct that I should have one it as "as soon as you finished writing" which is why I am sincerely apologize for the delay. It was unintentional, but I see that it looked bad. Next time I will make sure nothing prevents me from posting the notice immediately.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs)
  • Why aren't you following the course of action given under WP:DR? tedder (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought we did:
  • We can't "Ask for a third opinion", since there are a total of 5 editors in this dispute.
  • We Ask about the subject, which is actually how I got involved. I was uninvolved "Ask about the subject" editor that was requested.
  • We Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard here (which he ironically opened) which was completely ignored even though the comments made by a "Non-Mormon" were in response the the ANI, as he demanded.
As to mediation it say "Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part." I will admit I am not willing to "take part" since I feel this issue is strictly an editor trying to push the POV that any Wikipedia edit made by a "Mormons" must be biased and therefore must be suspect, flawed. Additionally I believe that he would not be willing to "take part", in any real way, since he already refused to except the results of the ANI and the "Non-Mormon" said exactly what all other editor are. He has repeatedly said, in so many word, that any edit he doesn't like is going to be undone, no matter what. I therefore see no point.
Therefore the next step is Arbitration or this, and I choose this since I'm sure a Arbitration request would be "declined".
If I'm wrong about this I will immediately withdraw this, but after several months of this I'm just tired of it happening. This is a case of an edit who has personal prejudices who is unwiling to work with anyone who as an opposing viewpoint.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of steps of dispute resolution that haven't been tried, such as request for comments and informal and formal mediation. I think ARTEST4ECHO is attempting to ban me because in my last post on the article talk page I wrote, "I'm a patient guy, and until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise." Banning me from the page is the only way he can avoid having the question resolved through the normal dispute resolution process. In other words, he's afraid he'll lose.--John Foxe (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have listed my reason above, fear has nothing to do with it. You are an editor who has a personal prejudices who is unwilling to work with anyone who as an opposing viewpoint. This is no different then if the four editor who have come to a consensus were black and you posted "I'm a patient guy, and until [white people] agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue...". Your are using your personal prejudices to demand your way.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to seek compromise through the normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Why aren't you?--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
You say that but you are unwilling to compromise yet
  • You refuse to except the results of your "normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process", ie your own Noticeboard post.
  • You wont even even except Non-Mormon disagreeing with you. You fail to realize I AM NO MORMON in the way your refer it. Two Non-Mormon and three Mormons Make a consensus.
  • You say you are willing to compromise, yet I see that you undid the page again not only adding back his religion, you added back the statements already agreed on to remove in the past.
You say you are willing to compromise by your actions prove otherwise. I have chosen this route becuse of it and you religious intolerance.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to seek compromise through the normal Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Why aren't you?--John Foxe (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It is clear than not all DR avenues have been exhausted. I don't think anyone is about to consider a band until that has been demonstrated.--SPhilbrickT 21:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


It is clear that John Foxe and I disagree with who is willing to compromise and weather his demands are appropriate and correct, or bigoted religiously motivated discrimination. I will therefore give John Foxe the "last word" above and ask those in the community to decide.

  • Strongly Oppose: 1) John seems agreeable to methods of WP:DR 2) This is not even close to being ripe enough for such a discussion. 3) I'm actually seeing a bit of WP:BOOMERANG in this. — Ched :  ?  21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


I will withdraw this request. HOWEVER, I only ask for a chance to point out that I do not view this as a "Content" dispute, and my intent is not to win a content dispute. I view this as a Personal attack. According to [[WP:NPA#WHATIS|What is considered to be a personal attack?] # 2 "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." or his religiously motivated discrimination biased on allowing only "Non-Mormons" to decide Mormon topic is a 'personal attack. This is why I opened this which is why I didn't think they were needed here they are below, not that it matters. I also admit that I asking for the 'right' version to be protected, but as I pointed out I didn't know that was wrong and I will NEVER do it again.

I only ask that you assume good faith that I am telling the truth here about this. How would you feel if I told you that because you where "Black" you couldn't reach a consensus on "Black subject". That is what he is doing. That is why I considered this a "a personal attack and disruptive editing.

That is what I see here I am just sick and tired of the Personal attacks he posts. However, I will eat my crow and withdraw this request.

However, if you are willing I would appropriate some help stopping this. It's absolutely not fair to demand that NON-Mormons "make the call".--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

These are examples where John Foxe re-added his POV religiously bias viewpoint going against the consensus that against adding them is POV pushing.

-- Above list is also by ARTEST4ECHO.

I'm not seeing any personal attacks. I am seeing a slow burning edit war, which would get both of you into trouble, but nothing else out of the ordinary. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, According to [[WP:NPA#WHATIS|What is considered to be a personal attack?] # 2 "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". How is saying only NON-Mormons input valid not a personal attack? --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs)
It's an indication that editors with no POV, COI, or axes to grind are necessary, not an attack when it's on a page about that religion. If I worked for IBM and was discussing something IBM had done, my current or former status with IBM would be relevant to the discussion. tedder (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
But I'm not Mormon, nor is at least one other editor, and his edit are blatantly POVish against the Mormons. Evey edit is being dismisses a "Mormons" or supporters of Mormons.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs)
However, are you willing to at minimum agree that comments like the one below are inappropriate
  • It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried. We need to move to a different forum where we can get non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Since I have withdrawn my request, and I admit would have lost, I am going to take a self imposed break to cool off, so I will not be reading this or anything else for the weekend. I only ask that you take the time to consider how you would feel if your comments were immediately dismissed and all our edit reverts just because you are a Catholic, Muslim, etc, or whatever your religon is, before you decided to reply to my post.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I am more than slightly concerned that an editor declares "undisclosed COI" upon any account that does not agree with them, and then uses that supposed tainting to ignore or refute any comment that they do not care for. Even if made in good faith or even correct, it does call into question whether the "open editing environment" that WP espouses is being subverted. I would suggest that the best option would be to open an RfC on the issues relating to the article and whether the supposed relationship between the subject and some editors is being used inappropriately to influence the determination of NPOV. Simply, it is not disallowed for editors with a potential COI to edit an article - provided that they follow WP editing policies and preferably acknowledge any relationship - but it is wrong to discriminate against holders of a certain viewpoint in their editing of an article. None of the above is to say that there is not or is COI editing by those connected with an articles subject, but only that there are processes that can be used to determine how best to neutrally portray that subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The usual thing to do with an editor who is being disruptive and unable to believe that other people legitimately disagree with him is to have a discussion about the editor's behavior (e.g., declaring that anyone who disagrees with him is a Mormon and that Mormons' opinions don't count the same as anyone else's) through WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


There are currently 32 requests at CAT:PER. The backlog threshold is 8. I have never seen the category so full. Could some friendly admins please fulfil these requests? — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did one. Will try to do some more if possible. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
All the rest are edits to templates, except one which seems to be a request to edit the WikEd js. Man, I could screw those up so badly. I suspect this is why it's backlogged - needs a techie admin to do the edits. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


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.
Mick's talk and user pages are protected, nothing further to see here. Resolute 02:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Arbcom case about MickMacNee (talk · contribs) looks like it will be closed soon, with MMN leaving the project for at least a year. I can see that many editors might take the opportunity to "stab the corpse" on his talk page. To pre-empt that, would it be a good idea to add a warning by means of a page notice so that editors who edit his talk page are left in no doubt that such activities will not be tolerated. Mick should be quietly shown out of the door with as little fuss and drama as possible. It's not as though the door is being nailed shut behind him, he may be able to return in time if he wants to do so, but that will be up to him. In accordance with IAR, I won't be notifying MMN of this discussion, as it is more an admin matter than as issue concerning him. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This also seems to be happening elsewhere, for example.[13] Mathsci (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, with the caveat that someone might consider moving MMN's farewell message from the talk page, where it is not particularly appropriate, to his user page, where it is more so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, it seems I'm behind the times, and the material has been removed already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
And now overtaken by successive blocks. Oh well ... Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) deleted and protected both his user page and his talk page. His user page history is gone, but at least his talk page history is still around. Apparently there was something he put on his user page that pissed ScottMac off (something panning admins in general, from what I understand). I think that's a pretty crappy reason to delete a user page (what possible real harm can allowing someone who is departing the project to leave a message do? Are we really that sensitive? Apparently he hit a nerve, or something. That's what it looks like at least.) but, whatever.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    The user page was deleted at MMN's own request. Favonian (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I'm willing to believe that, but please keep in mind that there's absolutely no evidence of that being true other than your statement here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    I saw it as well - it was deleted on user request. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    There's a {{db-user}} request in the deleted page history. Any admin can verify this. Rd232 talk 00:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    Right, any admin can verify this. How does that help, really? Like I said, I'm willing to believe it, I'm simply pointing out that there's a good reason for suspicion due to events such as this ("oh look, a user who was banned by arbcom for, among other things, criticizing administrators and governance has had his user page summarily deleted and protected with no apparent explanation! I guess he was right all along..."). Would you all rather nobody bring these sorts of things up and instead allow the suspicion and mistrust to fester?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, please, enough with the conspiracy theories. Three editors have now told you what happened, please AGF and accept what they have said; this stance does not become you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please yourself. Hey, I'm trying to tell y'all what others are saying about this and these actions. If you guys don't want to hear it, that's fine by me. If you honestly think that I believe in conspiracies myself then there's nothing I can really do to disabuse you of that notion anyway. I'm trying to help you guys out, so if I'm just going to get grief for that then fine, whatever, do what you want and deal with the shit all on your own. You're all perfectly free to bury your heads in the sand, it doesn't affect me one bit.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • So what would be an acceptable response? I can also verify that Mick did, in fact, request deletion of his user page himself. But it seems you won't trust that response, no matter how many people admins say so, so what's the point? I would also note that Mick's rant is still freely available in the edit history of his talk page. And personally, I think there is some merit in what Mick was saying in that long text wall. I rather wish that his arguments could have been the focus, rather than his attitude, but he was among those most responsible for that misplaced focus. Resolute 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    All I'm doing is pointing out that non-admins can't see what's going on. Some explanation somewhere on his user page to prevent things from appearing as though administrators are running people off the project and simultaneously silencing them would go a long way towards giving others something to hang their hats on in terms of good faith. As I've said repeatedly, I'm perfectly willing (and I do) believe what's said here, but I deal with all of you fairly regularly and I tend to have faith in what's going on here. But, again, whatever. Apparently I'm the bad guy here, for some crazy ass reason.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Well,, to satisfy your curiosity on that point, maybe because you seem to be stuck in a repeating loop of "Why is his page deleted?" Because he requested to delete it. So why can't I see the request to delete the page, then? Because it's deleted. The rest is your apparent innate distrust of any one with a mop. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. <throws hand's up> Whatever.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
As a non-admin I can confirm and I have proof that it was tagged for deletion. (see a snapshot if CATCSD [at 2011 07 28 23:00:03 UTC) I can also confirm that Mick edited his user page at 2011 07 28 22:57 and it had a length of 12 bytes (I cannot verify contents though). So please eliminate the conspiracy. ΔT The only constant 02:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Fozzie. Mick requested the page be deleted, it was. Are you suggesting that Fozzie, Favonian, Rd323, Eraserhead, and Resolute would lie to you? And if so, to what possible end? Admins get a lot of shit, and not all of it is unfair, but suggesting we're all in a conspiracy definitely is unfair. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohms law, Fozzie, Favonian, Rd232, Resolute, and HJ Mitchell are all lying to you. But more seriously, there is a deletion log summary for a reason. NW (Talk) 01:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion issue from a different angle - why was Mick's request granted? Wikipedia:Userpages#Deleting_your_user_page_or_user_talk_page would suggest the request should have been declined. Rd232 talk 01:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you somehow miss the fact that his user talk page was not deleted? talk is italicized for a reason. NW (Talk) 01:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you somehow miss, in the policy link I gave,

Unless they meet the criteria for speedy deletion (copyright violations, attack pages, unambiguous promotion, no other significant contributor, etc.) or you are permanently leaving Wikipedia, it is unlikely that your main user page or user talk page will actually be deleted.

(emphasis added)? Note "permanently leaving" links to WP:RTV. This somewhat contradicts Wikipedia:CSD#User_pages, which in effect says that userpages will be deleted on request unless there are reasons not to: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page." At CSD "on request" isn't linked to RTV. Rd232 talk 10:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification sought at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#WP:CSD_v_WP:UP. Rd232 talk 12:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Morning, everyone. Letting sleeping dogs lie is in the front of my mind right now, but considering the fact that at least one user left a message on my talk page about this last night I figured that I should say something. I don't quite understand how right now, but I obviously miscommunicated here somehow, which is something that always bothers me since one of the few things that I take a little pride in is an ability to communicate clearly. Skimming back over things above, I see that mixing unnecessary and really unrelated stuff about a certain specific administrator probably muddled what I was trying to say to the point that the message was lost. Still, from my perspective I see a hyper-defensive reaction here, which is a bit of a different topic but may be worth thinking about. I certainly don't buy in to any conspiracy theories about this, personally, but the willingness (eagerness?) to assign a conspiracy theory motive here makes me wonder. Anyway, I'm sorry for so obviously failing to communicate well here. Happy editing. Face-smile.svg
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to note: I believe that I was the first to use the expression "conspiracy theory" in this discussion, and since I am not an admin, that cannot have been a "hyper-defensive reaction." It was, in point of fact, a response from a rank-and-file editor to your posting, which indicated an (apparent?) unwillingness to accept a straightforward explanation of the situation. As I said at the time, such a stance didn't become you, and I'm glad to hear that it was not your personal belief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with tendentious editing?[edit]


- moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong and Thisthat2011 are two contributors who have been arguing tendentiously across numerous India-related articles, at the India project, at the Article Titles project, here at ANI, at NPOVN ... and probably in other forums also. A third contributor in this loose group is Yogesh Khandke but s/he is currently on a one week block.

How do we deal with a situation as ridiculous as, say, the goings-on at:

In their attempts to either censor Wikipedia (by, for example, objecting to inclusion of shudra in the Kurmi article per the above thread), or push an India-centric POV over Wikipedia's NPOV ethos (as in threads regarding article renamings for Ganges and Gandhi), they are raising the same issues time and time again but rarely have a policy-based argument to substantiate their positions. Indeed, they appear often to misunderstand policy but are fluent in the systemic bias argument. I acknowledge that there is such bias, by the way, but that is a wider problem & will not be resolved by going round in circles on a few articles here and there.

Edits such as this one demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of policy and guidelines, seemingly in an attempt to wriggle out of having to acknowledge the list of 15 sources presented to support a statement that MangoWong objected to.

There have also been examples of rather poor advice such as this being given to relatively new contributors, and various instances of undermining the integrity of the project.

This is occurring on a daily basis and it is wearing people out. Well, it is certainly wearing me out. There are surely far better things to do than run round in circles dealing with people who rarely present sources to support their opinions, wikilawyer to an extreme but in a way that totally misrepresents policy, and simply will not drop the bone, How does one deal with this situation? The list of examples of the tendentious repetitive disruption would be truly massive & the idea that I would have to compile the thing is daunting.

I've gotten so confused and hassled dealing with these contributors that I've been making errors of my own, btw. Eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_comments_on_Hindu_Jatis_related_discussion. Keeping track of all the repetition etc is a nightmare, but feel free to boomerang me. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This issue is still being