Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

Doncram NHRP stubs

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.

This sprawling mess of a discussion may illustrate why sometimes things never gets sorted out at ANI. Despite the length of the whole discussion, however, I find the four specific subsections are relatively straightforward, so I'll keep the summary short. Having read the whole thing through, I find the consensus to be as follows:

There is no consensus for Roux's specific proposed restrictions on Doncram (#Proposal). This is not to be taken as consensus against any restrictions on Doncram.
There is a consensus that Doncram's creation of the stubs at issue, and similar stubs, is disruptive (#Consensus). These creations have been characterized as error-prone, vague, and generally impart little usable information.
There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates WP:NFC (#Another question regarding consensus on article quality).
Although the question is slightly closer, due to the relative fewer number of participants, there is a consensus for Orlady's proposed resolution (#Where do we go from here? (Proposed resolution)), which I will quote below:

Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring.

The remainder of the discussion consists primarily of various tangents with little relevance to the topic of this thread, and so I have excluded them from this summary. I'll add that I find no obviously discernible consensus in any of them, or any concerns that require immediate admin action.

In closing, I should note that while no editor-specific sanction is imposed on Doncram at this time, given the conclusion reached in this thread concerning the acceptability of these stubs, if Doncram continues to create similarly styled stubs after their block ends, they would be liable to be blocked for disruptive editing. T. Canens (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last month, we had a very long discussion regarding the NRHP stubs created by User:Doncram: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223#Topic ban proposal re NRHP stubs. It didn't really end with any firm conclusion, due in part to the promise by doncram to no longer create such stubs (template-like stubs with statements like "It was built or has other significance in c.1817 and c.1855.". However, it appears that no change in actual behaviour has happened, with again many articles being created with the same annoying words and structure, e.g. Joseph Elliston House, Douglass-Reams House, Dortch Stove Works, Jacob Critz House and Robert Hodge House. Perhaps it's time to revisit the previous proposal and/or work out some other means of putting a stop to this? One can also wonder whether a supporting article like Central hall plan architecture isn't awfully close to a copyright violation, when 90% of the article is an attributed quote to a copyrighted text, and the rest is filled with meaningless stuff like "[...]as opposed to having another layout." But that is a different discussion. Fram (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this. Editors are more willing to edit an article once its created than they are of creating the whole article from scratch. Additionally, many of these link to lists that cannot be built up or submitted to FL until all or at least most of the red links have articles created on them. I admit that he could probably make them a little longer and add some more detail but I don't see the problem here. --Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the "first create it, then people will edit" song many times, but in reality many such articles lay around for years and years. And creating poor stubs because some list has to become a FL is a very poor reason. But the main problem is that he already promised to improve them, but that he hasn't done this (or reverted back to his old system). Fram (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I don't like the wording or shortness of them either however I am of the school of thought that if we have a small amount of information on a subject its better than nothing. Your also right that many lay around for years, many do not however and some eventually get to FA. We have to have faith in the system. These stubs Doncram is creating at least have some structure with an an infobox, a template and inline citations which is more than I can say for a lot of the geographical ones that are one line of less than ten words. As for the comment about the FL argument being a poor reason. That may be your opinion and your entitled to that however the rules clearly state that red links on FL's should be minimal if there are any at all. Additionally, the Wikipedia rules clearly allow the creation of stubs. So if people have problems with folks creating stubby articles then they should first change the rules allowing them to be created in the first place. I am not trying to play devils advocate here but after reading the very lengthy string you linked to above from last month I didn't see anyone post anything resembling a policy violation other than comments like "articles like this damage wikipedias reputation", "I don't like them", etc. --Kumioko (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read the Archive223 discussion recently. The major commitment that I made there in response to one editor's specific request was that I would, in a future NRHP article drive, set up a /batch system that would support editors editing in Talk-space draft articles, before copying them over to mainspace. That would provide facilitation for local or otherwise interested editors to develop articles in non-mainspace, while giving them many of the considerable benefits of my first batch drafts. I look forward to doing that.

In the Archive223 discussion, several editors were concerned about specific new articles linked from National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota. Some took combative-seeming-to-me steps of moving mainspace articles to userspace unnecessarily, or opening AFDs. All the AFDs closed Keep. All the articles specifically discussed were moved back to mainspace and were improved, in either order.

I don't think there is any problem requiring ANI attention here. There will be future discussion at the NRHP wikiproject, I am sure, which I will open myself, when I do open a new article drive using a batch supporting system as discussed. --do ncr am 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is and was horribly inappropriate to seriously consider banning statements like "It was designed and/or built by" a person, when the statement is sourced and accurate. I have been developing a system that suggests accurate statements like that, which is better than the most commonly used NRHP article generation system supported off-line by another editor, which provides flat assertions that the person was an architect and designed the building. The other system's assertions are false about 5-10% of the time, and are often not questioned by editors relying upon them. That's the scandal, if there is one. The accurately ambiguous statements, on the other hand, obviously do provide a prompt to an editor to find out the facts more specifically, which is good. By the way, towards providing a further significant refinement to my system, I have been doing the work to identify what is the actual status of the most frequently named architects or builders of NRHP-listed places. Namely by creating articles about the most frequently named ones, and sorting out whether they are a covered bridge builder in Indiana or a "master builder" or what, rather than being an architect. I plan to use this more specific information in the generation of future batches of /draft articles. --do ncr am 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find Nathan Vaught particularly interesting. Why is it you have to dump random assertions into mainspace and then clean up your mess later? Why not just do the research and get it right the first time? Then there's the "Possibly related" section... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, posting link to a first-draft article, which in this case already clearly established notability, that was subsequently improved. You can cause a lot of misunderstanding and unnecessary concern that way. I also take minor offense at your unnecessarily inflammatory language. --do ncr am 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You're not properly seeing the merit of getting the articles created, and sorting out correct information. The problem can be viewed as being the fact we didn't start all these articles long ago, and get all the imprecise information sorted out by now. Consider the Elm Springs (Tennessee) article, which since 2007 has included infobox assertion that Nathan Vaught was the architect of that building. That assertion appears now to be false. I should be clear: that article and the articles generated by the main provider of draft NRHP articles, does not contain a text statement. The assertion is in the infobox description of the person as "architect", which is bad enough. In many articles, further, editors have stated the person was an architect based upon the infobox assertion. --do ncr am 17:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if what an article contains can be listed in {{Infobox building}} and an embeded {{infobox NRHP}} do we also need to repeat that in the article? Should that article exist if everything can be in infoboxes? I'll note that this is not the only user creating short stubs or area where we have short stubs. The geography stubs have similar problems, but they are being created by more editors. Is there a perfect solution? No. Is there a solution? I don't know. If anyone wants to look at the other end of the spectrum, cleaning up some of the long stubs might be a nice break. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are meant to include more information than is included in an infobox. Any one can be considerably developed if an editor collects the NRHP nomination document (as I have for some sites in the county). Fram picked out ones where I could not easily find any online sources to use immediately in the article. Roper's Knob Fortifications is another recent Williamson County article i started on the same basis, where i found an online Tennessee Archaeology journal article, which provides a lot more. Andrew C. Vaughn House is another without a lot more information, but happens to be a bit more satisfying I think, for connecting to the other similar houses in the same county. For one of the ones Fram picks to comment upon, I had noticed substantial coverage in The Tennesseean newspaper about the place, but could not access it behind a paywall, so the current article is indeed minimal. I left a note at Talk:Robert Hodge House, hoping for a local with access to Tennesseean archives will be able to develop the article. That's how it is supposed to work. Before starting an article, it is not clear what is going to be found. It's great if an editor starting an article does find additional sources and develops it right away. But if additional sources are not easily findable, it is still a contribution to give basic facts about the historic site, and to connect to appropriate architecture articles and categories and so on, and to facilitate other editors developing it more later (or not, which is not a tragedy either). --do ncr am 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of clarity, here is a summary:

Doncram was doing something many editors found objectionable
Doncram promised to stop doing this thing
Donram is doing the same thing again

We are humouring this because..? → ROUX ₪ 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are being glib for effect. But in the previous discussion I agreed to do something which I still agree to do. There are no promises broken. What Fram picks up upon is that I created several more articles in an already ongoing article drive, for Williamson County, Tennessee articles. I happen to have taken some more care to avoid "stilted" language or whatever in these, which was a concern for some editors previously. I don't think i am in violation of anything and I am not "doing the same thing" exactly, either, though I don't suppose you'd actually care to really look at the details to see that. --do ncr am 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does not belong to the Alpha Command structure? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an Alpha Command structure? Is the Cabal aware of this? -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because he knows he can get away with it, being that he isn't strictly violating any Wikipedia policies. Also, because anyone who criticizes Doncram's work more than a few times will eventually be labeled as a stalker and a harasser. Doncram will never change the way he operates, so we're going to be stuck with hundreds or thousands of crappy stubs that are just barely informative for the actual reader of Wikipedia. Debating this is just becoming useless, so my reaction is to simply give up and avoid participating in the project. Luckily, nobody gives a flying flip if I write articles about historic places in Minnesota or not. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is, he promised something and failed to abide by it. That usually results in sanctions. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely did he promise to do, and how has he failed at that? I think I agreed to set up a future article drive differently, and I plan to do that. --do ncr am 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

User:Doncram is banned from creating these or similar stubs in the mainspace.
He may create as many as he likes in his userspace
Before moving them to mainspace, must gain consensus for each one at WP:NRHP, and may nominate batches of no more than ten at a time in order to minimise the project being bombarded. One batch may be nominated at a time
In six months, should a supermajority (70%+) of these stubs have been approved for use in the mainspace, these restrictions are lifted.

Support - as proposer → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, requirement to get consensus at NRHP is not reasonable, in my opinion, and neither is requiring 70%+ "approval". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP are the subject matter experts here. 70% seems completely reasonable to me; either doncram will learn to make articles which are useful or he won't. → ROUX ₪ 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. --do ncr am 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there's a problem with these articles as a general rule, start an RfC on the notability of things listed on the NRHP. But making what should be a policy discussion into a referendum on an editor is never a good idea. -- ۩ Mask 23:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since, ironically, the NRHP project's genesis was due to me creating a bunch of crappy stubs for Florida in the first place. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebyabe, you may think your stubs were "crappy," but your creations (example) did not contain blanks to be filled in later (such as the date "19__"), embroideries on the lack of information like "was designed and/or built by", or meaningless statements like "the listing is for less than one acre and, when listed, included one contributing site." --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I forget to mention unforgettable items like "Dinnie Block is or was a property in Grand Forks, North Dakota." --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Ebyabe, it wasn't the "crappy stubs" that got WP:NRHP started -- it was the classification of NRHP sites as being Protected areas, when they weren't officially protected. That situation led to Wikipedia's recognition that stuff on the National Register needed its own categories and infoboxes, instead of being lumped in with protected areas, and that was a good thing. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I agree that these "articles" are irritating and little more than transposition of the NRIS database, but I also agree that the consensus requirements are unreasonable. Something should be done, but it shouldn't be this. PhantomPlugger (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I know that Doncram is fully capable of writing decent stubs that are not padded with empty blanks waiting to be filled in, placeholder language, non-information (like saying that the article topic "is described in" a cited reference), or deliberately vague language like "is or was a building", "designed and/or built by", and "has some significance in c.1880, c.1910, and 1952". However, he is continuing to create this kind of noncontent, and until he voluntarily stops putting his rough-draft articles in article space, some sort of ban is needed. His reaction to the admonitory note I put on his talk page 5 days ago clearly indicates that he fully intends to continue doing things his way, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone not aware, Orlady has stalked my edits for years and it amounts to wp:wikihounding. In these diffs which i accumulated and posted in the last AN discussion, it is documented that Orlady states she personally dislikes me, and I repeatedly requested she stop posting to my Talk page and engaging in other harassment.
She has also repeatedly expressed scorn and dislike for historic sites, for NRHP, for architecture, and in the last AN discussion she explained she maintains membership in WikiProject NRHP in order to have standing as a critic. Orlady has repeatedly refused mediation or other dispute resolution. I do object to her posting anything at my Talk page, to her using Administrative tools to insult me by userifying pages she does not like and block their return to mainspace, and in general to her inflammatory, nasty-spirited participation among what is largely a community of history-interested writers in NRHP. Some, including Elkman further above, have accused me of accusing any critic of wikistalking. No, I only accuse her. I will say that at times I have been frustrated by different others following my edits, who at times seeming to me to be interfering unproductively. But in general I do welcome others following, in general I do learn from others' edits and comments. For no other editor in Wikipedia have I ever sensed anything like pure nastiness and evil in their motivations. I think Orlady's hatred of me overrides her probably-usually-good judgement, and then she comes up with obtuse and totally unproductive positions. I have pointed out her outright lying on multiple occasions (and if I recall correctly she never disagreed that she was lying), and at this point I do not respect her opinions. If she says X, i expect it is motivated towards causing contention and causing discomfort for me, and is counter to the purposes and values of Wikipedia, while I am sure I would interpret someone else saying the same X quite differently. I tend to believe what Orlady states is not even her true belief, what she would say about another's editing. So, yes, I deleted her latest threat at my Talk page. I think it is not a matter for wp:AN, but it is probably a matter for Arbitration to address the personal conflict, personal insults, and vast, poisonous negativity. That's all for now. --do ncr am 22:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Guerillero | My Talk 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is inappropriate as a referendum on an editor. The proper venue is multiple-related article nomination on AfD or the Arbitration Committee, not an ad hoc group of editors here at the noticeboard. Also, surely some of the less notable NRHP sites can be merged/redirected into state or topical lists, right? Neutrality^talk 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need to think of our readers. This sort of template-driven stub is a plague. Creating rafts of essentially blank pages like this is not helpful to our readers. They would get more out of a consolidated table. TCO (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a number of editors have stated above, this is neither the right method nor the right place for this sort of thing. My suggestion: merge the stubs into the lists by state, redirect each stub accordingly, and then pp-protect each redirect. If an editor wants to make one of them an article with actual content, he/she can request unprotection. Rennell435 (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe doncram's work is entirely beneficial to the Encyclopedia, as it relates to what is being discussed here. I will relate my personal experience: I stumbled upon several NRHP stubs that had been created in National Register of Historic Places listings in southern Puerto Rico, a listing that was created by doncram HERE. As I was familiar with the area, I filled in as many of the stubs as I could, approximately 33. See HERE to see how the Ponce, Puerto Rico, listing looked when I first got to it, and HERE to see how it looks today. I also ended up either expanding the individual stub articles out of their stub class or creating them altogether if they did not exist at that point. Had doncram not done his initial stub work that some here find objectionable, I wouldn't have had the basis for continuing his work, and the southern Puerto Rico NRHP stubs would not be where they are today. BTW, at least one of those articles (this one HERE) even made it to GA status. Regards. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Oppose. Feedback and support from doncram, often for work building off his stubs, was a big part of what got me involved in editing NRHP articles. His stubs are an invitation to contribute more information. I'm always suspicious about motives that prioritize removing constructive content over adding additional constructive content. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

goals

There was a comment by editor Choess in the previous discussion, that "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." I don't think ANI is the best place to discuss it, but Choess was right, there must be different implicit goals between camps of various NRHP editors and various outside critics. I don't understand what Elkman's bigger goals are, at all. My goals include sharing out information in accessible form to readers around the U.S., who would like to have a clue about their local historic sites, and to provide useful links between them (via geographic list-articles, via categories, via informative architect/builder articles that list the places the architect/builder's works). Some info, within a good structure of these lists and all that, is a good start. Then a local person might have a chance to add further context from old clippings and such available at a local library. Some editors would withhold any info, and not develop the supporting structure, to "save" the topic for themselves to develop in some future year and to grab DYK glory, perhaps, I dunno? Or is it a goal to "protect" readers from imprecise, not super-detailed information? Or to keep readers from becoming editors, because they might not be qualified in some way? --do ncr am 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on one point you make above: "Some editors would withhold any info, and not develop the supporting structure, to "save" the topic for themselves to develop in some future year and to grab DYK glory, perhaps, I dunno?" I used to create short stubs, but was not really satisfied with them and noticed that they weren't being developed by others as much as I thought they would be (to be fair, that might be due to other reasons, such as not filling in back-links from other articles). I now try and create longer stubs, tending more towards start-level articles, and do a fair amount of research before creating a new article. Certainly that satisfies DYK criteria, but more importantly I think it provides the reader with a better article. And one of the points made above was that some of these stubs are being created to fill out red-links in various list articles. I strongly disagree with this, ever since a list I had been carefully nurturing and making plans to create the articles to fill in the red-links, got taken to featured article status and I watched in horror as the nominator rattled off about 20 stubs (some were sub-stubs and only 1 or 2 lines) in one evening to "fill in the red-links" and satisfy the featured list (FL) criteria. So your comment about 'DYK glory' should probably be balanced by 'FL glory'. I also feel strongly that when you create an article, you have a duty to at least try and eventually raise it to C-class or B-class level, if not further, but that is more a personal view. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was into doing DYKs for a while, but it was too predictable, that anything long enough would automatically qualify.

Many NRHP articles should stay short. Take Robert Lindemann House, which "is locally significant as the best preserved Queen Anne style property in the area", long owned by one family, now abandoned. If a reader is seriously interested in more details, they can consult the online NRHP nomination document linked to that one. Some editors, on the other hand, have stated that they believe every shred of info in an NRHP nom document should be put into an article, before it is allowable in mainspace. I think less is more. And readers everywhere else around the U.S. deserve some info. If an NRHP editor chooses to spend a week or whatever developing a too-long-for-the-topic B or C article, they're misspending their effort, honestly, I believe. --do ncr am 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wondering what my goals are? I'll tell you: I believe that every new NRHP article should give the reader enough context to identify the property, why it's significant, and what made the place historic. For example, let's say that someone was browsing Google Maps in Chisago County, Minnesota, and finds out that the Moody Barn is a historic building. They might click on the Wikipedia link and find that it's the last remaining round barn in the county, built in an era when farming was diversifying. That's the sort of thing that gets me interested in historic places, and the sort of interest that I want to encourage in readers. On the other hand, suppose I'm looking at a map of Brentwood, Tennessee, and I find there's a placemark for Joseph Elliston House. I might check it out (assuming I'm an end reader of Wikipedia, not an editor or an "insider"), and I find out that it may have been built in 1817 or 1855, depending. It has a central hall plan (which may or may not hold a staircase), and... what else? Is the house a notable piece of architecture? Who was Joseph Elliston? I guess I'd have to look for some more information on Joseph Elliston. Ah, never mind, I'm going to give up and find something else.

I switched to my Wikipedia editor hat and tried to find something about the Joseph Elliston House, and read through the 52-page MPS document, but I still couldn't find anything substantial. It shouldn't be my job to have to support the articles you create, though. If you create a bunch of thin stubs, then it just means that someone else has to go back and fix what you've created. It's like deferred maintenance. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not like that, IMO. The Elliston House article is a good start, and actually conveys a lot more than you give it credit. It shows the state of information available, not quite satisfying yet, certainly. It conveys to the next editor that maybe it is not so easy to find online references to improve it. (Heh, heh, not like some other articles in North Dakota where you have pointed out it would be easy to add more info from the NRHP document that I had linked. Which was true, but missed the point that the starter article did provide a good link to the further information.) The existence of this Elliston House article might enlist the interest of a local historical society, or anyone else actually holding relevant information, to improve it. Its existence already provides something to local readers, and vastly increases the chances that next year there will be a lot more there. --do ncr am 18:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot extra to add to this discussion but perhaps some context is useful. I dealt with doncram about a year ago with regards to disambiguation pages and NRHP pages. There are a number of discussions you can browse here. The NRHP project always seemed to be given carte blanche to create stubs for any of the NRHP sites so long as they met a very low threshold for stub notability, because the assumption was the underlying topic is notable. Or at least from the disambiguation page perspective it seemed like that. This is part of a wider debate about kitten-esque articles in general though. There's an awful lot of them that go on, but yet there's no consistent or quick way to deal with them. It's quicker for me to write a script to create them than it is for me to amalgamate them together, write an AfD about it, and then deal with the impending discussions. It was hard enough to even get a relatively softly written policy about it under the BOT approval group (see this and the subsequent outcome here and also here).

I'm not saying there's not value to creating these kinds of articles... and early in my wiki career I did some of this myself. I've since proded some of the worst of these, and expanded others to be useful articles. But the central problem is that we tend to split off into inclusions versus deletionist corners and nobody has any serious debate about this kind of specific issue. At least not debate that doesn't have the same usual suspects popping up with predictable opinions.

Perhaps a more broad based discussion of stub threshold notability, or at least making authors be thoughtful about their creations, is appropriate. But I have limited expectations that will actually happen. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "It [...] has other significance in c.1880." even mean? (example from John Pope House (Burwood, Tennessee)). Fram (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Register database has fields in it to indicate that a building has "significance" in one or more particular years. For example, the Floyd B. Olson House in Minneapolis has significant years of 1922 and 1936. The database doesn't indicate why 1936 was significant. There's another information source, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, which indicates a period of significance from 1922 through 1936. I'm checking out another book, Larry Millett's AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, which states that the house was built in 1922 and Floyd B. Olson lived there until he died of cancer in 1936. But, the database itself (which is where Doncram is getting this information) doesn't explain why 1936 is a year of significance. My assumption is that the earliest date for "year of significance" is when the structure was built, so that's what I've been putting in the infobox. It takes more research than just looking in the database to determine other years of significance of a property. In fact, one of my frustrations is that Doncram is generating articles based only on the database, without consulting other research materials. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Olson was created by Elkman in 2008. From what you say here, plus informed understanding of how the NRIS database works, it appears the "built=1922" assertion in the article is incorrect. Rather, the house was likely built earlier but is significant for its association during 1922-1936 with notable person Floyd B. Olson. If i were Elkman, I would rant on and on about how terrible it is that an erroneous assertion has been out there in Wikipedia since 2008. --do ncr am 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, it appears it is correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked out the Hennepin County Property Information System. 1914 49th St. W. is listed as being built in 1922. It's also listed as lot 28 in the Harriet Heights Minneapolis addition, with a market value of $646,000. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great, good. I thought Elkman was confessing to having relied upon imprecise information in a mainspace article, as the article then and now shows no other source for the built=1922 interpretation of NRIS, but I stand corrected. Or Elkman lucked out in this case that assuming the NRIS info meant built turns out to be the case (usually a pretty good bet). I thought the info he was providing here suggested a different reason why NRIS included a 1922 date, and the one other source he mentioned here could have been echoing that, but it sounds like the facts are it was built in 1922. Thanks. --do ncr am 22:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(reply before Elkman's separate reply inserted above) I'll explain. Please don't complain about the explanation being long. The statement reflects the fact that the National Register's NRIS database gives two dates of significance for the place, c.1806 and c.1880. This reflects National Register staff doing data entry from the approved NRHP nomination form for the property, soon after approval. They entered the address and basic facts about the property, including significant dates. The NRIS database provides for data entry of up to 4 date fields, plus a corresponding number of "circa" qualifier fields. For an antebellum mansion built in Greek Revival style during 1830-1835, and then greatly remodelled into Colonial Revival style in 1925, that would get entered as three significant dates: 1830, 1835, 1925. In a small percentage of articles, the first date in the series is something different, like the date of founding of a cemetery on the property of a church that was built later.

My system's /draft for the John Pope House, which you can see at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Williamson County, Tennessee/drafts#John Pope House (Burwood, Tennessee) used the NRIS database to report both c. 1806 and c. 1880 in the "built=" field of the infobox, including with the "circa" qualifier, although the dates are not 100% sure to be dates of building. And it includes /draft text clarifying that the dates are "significant" dates, not necessarily built dates, i.e. "It was built or has other significance in C 1806 and C 1880.<ref name=nris/>" For an editor using the /draft system, that obviously provides a prompt to try to find more specific information. For comparison, Elkman's system will simply report the earlier date, with no qualifier, as "built=1806", giving no hint to an editor that the date might not actually be a built date, and providing no prompt.

In the mainspace article that I created from the /draft, I used additional information from a source that I found, to state more precisely that "The original part of the house was built of logs in c.1806." I am pretty sure that the c.1880 date is in fact the date that the house was remodelled from being a "single pen" of logs into being a full, respectable, "Hall-parlor plan" house. I strongly believe that will be borne out in the NRHP nomination document, if/when someone chooses to collect that from the National Register or when the National Register makes the Tennessee documents available online (which it has done for OK, MS, ND, DE, CT, AK, and some other states and territories). What I left in the article was "It was remodelled, expanded, or has other significance in c.1880.", sourced to NRIS, which is an educated, accurate statement interpreting the NRIS database information. It properly begs the question, to a local potential editor, of what specifically happened in 1880. Which is fine and good.

You say that "It was remodelled, expanded, or has other significance in c.1880" is "fine and good." I contend that it's original research. All you know is that the date appears in a cryptic entry in a database, and you have guessed at what it might possibly mean. That's original research. --Orlady (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this is better for the Wikipedia than an overly confident statement with no ambiguity based on the more minimalist article draft system provided by Elkman, and no other sources. It is far better for Williamson County readers to get to know something about the property, rather than nothing. Elkman can say that he prefers for more information to be provided upfront, which no one can argue with, more to a certain degree is certainly better. But I don't understand Elkman's preference that no information be provided, where some good information is available but not enough to answer all questions. I strongly believe that the amount of info provided in the John Pope House article is pretty darn good, way better than nothing at all. I also don't understand why Elkman prefers to give editors less information to start with than I have proven can be feasibly provided in a /draft system, based on the same NRIS database.

About this John Pope House article, I have already done a probably decent job of looking for available information online, both in the Williamson County MRA document that I cite in the article, and in the Google book cited, and otherwise, and I am pretty sure the 1880 question is not immediately resolvable without actually getting the NRHP nomination document (I'd be very happy to be proven wrong, if someone finds a source online right now). I myself have collected the free NRHP documents for several other Williamson County, Tennessee NRHPs, but I am not so interested in this one, so I don't plan to request it. Resolving the 1880 question can wait for any other Wikipedia NRHP editor to get interested, or perhaps for one of the local historical societies to get interested, or for the National Register to get around to posting the Tennessee documents (quite likely within the next couple years).

This was a serious reply to Fram's question. I hope it is helpful also in showing more how I am thinking, that providing a pretty good starter article is valuable. --do ncr am 13:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get that this is what you are trying to convey, but the sentence does't make any sense as it stands. "The John Pope House has other significance in c.1880." is meaningless and incorrect. What you are trying to express is something like "Something significant wrt the John Pope House, perhaps remodelling, an extension, ..., happened in 1880." I am aware that I am not a native English speaker, and that my texts are far from error-free, but I can't imagine that "It has significance in or about ca. 18XX", which you used in many, many articles, would be considered a correct sentence by native English speakers. "It was built or has other significance in c. 1830, c. 1850, and c. 1907" (Mordecai Puryear House, which you revised today): why not change your template to something like "Significant years in the history of the property were ..." or something similar? Expressing ambiguity can be done in a meaningful, correct way and shouldn't be done in some extremely grating format instead. Fram (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks, I will be happy to try that language in my next batch of /drafts. That is the kind of actually helpful suggestion that I have actually been seeking from NRHP editors. I will be reviewing this and other discussions in the process of reprogramming for the next batch, and will necessarily dismiss all the shrill, simplistic complaints that are not about trying to actually help editors. I am sure that others will complain about this language too, but I believe it is better, and I will be happy to blame you for the wording. :) We might call for Elkman to modify his system to provide something better than the incomplete "built = 1806" that appears in his draft article generator, too. To see what his system suggests, go to http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php and enter "Pope, John" and "TN" and then hit "Submit". That provides a cut-and-paste-ready draft article which is better than my /draft in one respect, in that it includes coordinates data. (Elkman is using one version of a National Register coordinates database which I can't find easily in the National Register's systems, and which Elkman has declined to answer about sharing with me. I and Elkman both should use a different National Register database that provides better quality coordinates than that version. I am working at bringing that into my /drafts system). Elkman's draft is worse than my /draft for the same house in that it provides no actual drafted text prompting editors to try to figure out the meaning of the 1806 and 1880 dates, and in some other respects. Depending on the particulars of the NRHP place, my system can provide considerably better information. --do ncr am 15:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant for my infobox generator to generate draft articles. I intended for it to generate the code that goes into {{Infobox NRHP}}, as well as the categories that can easily be surmised from the architectural style data and some of the historic functions listed in there. In fact, every infobox generated through my tool contains the text, "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." If there's a need to add more fields to the infobox or to provide a minimal summary of other information in order to prepare a draft article, I haven't received any major requests for changes from anyone except you. And, I'm wondering if your comments about my infobox generator are your way of deflecting conversation away from criticism of your editing behavior. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Elkman, your disregard for minor requests (such as a multiple-times repeated request for you to remove an inconvenient line-break before the NRIS reference), and general respect for you and what your system does provide, holds off other requests from NRHP editors. I and other NRHP editors do respect what you provide, "on your own dime" as I have put it many times previously. NRHP editors politely ask one another at their Talk pages not to bother you with requests. If you were amenable to requests, on the other hand, you would receive them. In particular, I would be very glad to work with you to improve your generator in substantial ways, such as building in intelligent linking or not to builders and architect articles, and building in usage of the better, available coordinates database. And, as Dudemanfellabra agreed in the past AN discussion, probably the biggest specific help you could provide would be to build in a draft inline reference to the NRHP nomination document for NRHPs in the many states and District of Columbia where that is available online already.

About deflecting, I am kinda seeing this now as a pretty good strategy, maybe, to point out contradictions in what one major critic says, sure. It is maybe worthwhile to educate others at wp:AN who get concerned from time to time, but it is probably better for Wikipedia as a community to shut down these episodes here more quickly. (striking, as I didn't really mean that or say that right).

Are you suggesting you might be amenable to requests if you received them? That is great news, if the case. --do ncr am 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I be amenable to requests like this if you're going to bring them up on an administrators' noticeboard, where I'm presumably in trouble for even being a participant in this discussion? I've got plenty of other things to do in "real life", in my spare time. And if you're going to ask me, under duress, to make updates to the infobox generator as part of an administrative action, that's hardly enough to motivate me to do the extra work. I've got enough projects going on in my real life to keep me busy. I might be amenable to NRHP requests if I had the time to do them. But, since you keep bringing up my conduct over and over and over again, I'm going to open a separate subsection below to ask the other involved admins (and uninvolved admins) exactly what the hell I'm doing wrong around here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I think you're creating a false dichotomy between "overly confident statement with no ambiguity" and your style of phrasing. The third alternative is to simply say nothing at all about, say, the John Pope House in c.1880 until we, as authors, have a less ambiguous idea of what it was. Consider the extreme of the logical tautology: "Leonard Coreman was or was not German." This statement is a completely true fact about Leonard, but it's absolutely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, because even though it's true, it fails to usefully inform the reader. Now consider a less extreme case: "In c.1850, Alfred Sjogren either won the Battle of Mukden, planted a basil patch, or became ill from a surfeit of ice cream." Even if this statement is completely true and verifiable, I think the vast majority of us would agree that it's not appropriate for a biographical article; while in theory it informs the reader about Alfred, in practice it's likely to leave them more confused than they were before about what Alfred's been up to. I think these "Something happened to the building in year..." statements are of the same stamp; either we can say more or less definitively what event made that year important for the building, or we should leave it out until we have the information that explains it. As Wittgenstein would have it, "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." (Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent.) The theory that we should leave these things in the article to "provide a prompt" for or "enlist the interest" of some hypothetical eventualist future editor is a bit like leaving your defunct 1973 Dodge Dart on the lawn in the hopes that someone will eventually show up with its missing piston rings. Yes, it may happen occasionally, but in the meantime, everyone who drives by has to gaze at the rusting hulk on the lawn. Choess (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choess, I appreciate what you are saying and will take it into account, before drafting a new batch of /draft articles. I have indeed listened to and acted on other feedback I have gotten already.

Not to take away from what you say, but I am not sure if you missed that the /draft in non-mainspace, which had several ambiguities, was not what I wrote into mainspace, which was this first draft by me of John Pope House article. That had exactly one inexact statement, that "It was built or has other significance in c.1806 and c.1880." Prior to this AN discussion, if i am reading times correctly, I edited it up to this version, with "The original part of the house was built of logs in c.1806.[3] It was remodelled, expanded, or has other significance in c.1880.[1]" It then included good wikilinks to architecture articles i created, and good categories, and additional interesting info in the article. I don't think either version was a rusting hulk. Then, during this discussion i edited it to implement Fram's wording suggestion. Station1 has since edited it to remove that. I think the article is now somewhat worse for not mentioning the c.1880 date at all. --do ncr am 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don, could you explain why you include the phrase "...or has other significance..."? That strikes me as being exactly the sort of uninformative wishy-washy statement that everyone is complaining about. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fram asked that above, within this #goals section, and I replied and then Fram eventually suggested different wording, which Station1 now removes from the article. Please read the above and ask a further question. --do ncr am 00:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence "Another significant date in the history of the property is c.1880" because it gave no clue as to what happened around 1880, nor, to the best of my knowledge, is there anything in that sentence's citation (which apparentlty requires downloading an executable file to access). Station1 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with getting rid of these sentences alltogether, my concern was that if it was included, it should at least be correct English. "The building has significance in 1880, 1895 and 1920" is just nonsense, "significant events in the history of the building happened in 1880, 1895 and 1920" is easily understandable. It is, however, rather vague, so not much is lost by not including it. Fram (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elkman's conduct, inability to provide information in the generator, etc.

Since Doncram is making issues of my infobox generator, my participation in WP:NRHP, my conduct in general, and anything else, I'd like to know exactly what I'm doing wrong around here. Go ahead, let's discuss my behavior, not Doncram's. Tell me exactly where I've screwed up. And, if there's an admin sanction involved here, go ahead and make some proposals. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've very much screwed up by stating your opinions here and elsewhere, but I don't understand your interest in criticizing the existence of starter articles on historic places in the United States far away from your own area. You've repeatedly stated that you wish for a certain standard in NRHP articles, including that it should include a decent explanation of the historic significance of a site. But, if the significance of a site is not readily identified (usually because the NRHP nomination document is not readily available), why do you oppose that other factual information be made available? What is the harm? And, don't you think that having some information is more likely to lead to local editors developing information, or do you really believe that having no information is more likely to lead to more information? I really don't understand your perspective.

Also, you are the main provider by far of stub articles on NRHP-listed places, which are used by many editors who are either starting a stub article using just the NRIS information you serve up, or they are adding more information from other sources. Given that your generator could provide more drafted information, comparable to what my /drafts provide (such as drafted inline references to the NRHP nomination documents where those are available), are you willing to provide more? Note, I won't say it is easy to provide more, because I think it is a pain to go back and reprogram anything, from my own experience. And to provide a decently worded English language sentence to communicate the number of contributing and non-contributing buildings, sites, structures, etc., is not simple (I developed a fairly decent version of that sentence only in my later /drafts). But, don't you think that providing more, is more likely to lead to articles having more? Or do you sincerely believe that having less, and including a big warning sentence that needs to be deleted, leads to articles getting more? How about including "find sources" searches set up, in the drafted Talk pages, as I have been doing, for the main name and any alternative names of the NRHP-listed place? --do ncr am 23:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm willing to scrub the whole idea altogether. I'm tempted to remove the infobox generator completely just so you will stop bitching about it. I'm really tired of having to waste my time responding to your repeated complaints that my infobox generator (which is designed to populate the fields in {{Infobox NRHP}}, in case you forgot) isn't giving you enough content. I also had to interrupt my workday in the middle of the afternoon to reply to one of your complaints. You aren't even using my infobox generator, so why are you complaining about it? I suppose if you really felt the need, you could go back to your own generator or your own database query tools, look up the number of contributing buildings/structures/objects/whatever, and plug those numbers into someone else's articles.

Maybe some of the admins on this admin noticeboard can tell me whether I should just throw in the towel, get rid of the infobox generator, stop writing NRHP articles in my own state (where I have plenty of reference material handy), and let someone else do this. I'd like to get the opinions of other admins here, since, after all, this is an admin noticeboard. --These two paragraphs were written, typed, and/or have other significance by Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your best to keep maintaining it and making it available — I use it all the time, as it's far superior to anything else, and I've never figured out how you get some types of information from the database. I've used it in two ways: (1) Infoboxes for new or greatly-expanded articles such as Epsilon II Archaeological Site, and (2) Basic information for description pages for photos of NR-listed sites that I upload to Commons. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every previous time that Elkman has threatened to withdraw his off-wikipedia website, one or more NRHP editors has likewise asserted how helpful his site is, and asked him not to withdraw. I have generally been respectful and repeatedly expressed my appreciation about what he provides. However, the negativity that Elkman repeatedly brings to discussions at wp:AN and wt:NRHP is a drag, IMHO. Personally, I have respected his wishes about Minnesota NRHP-listed places. I have asked him above what is his concern about faraway places and he has not replied. Also, I have made suggestions for his NRHP article generation system (he says it is not one, but I don't understand the hairsplitting on that point), which he has sometimes accepted and sometimes not. He has not generally been receptive to suggestions; a main one that he has declined to address is whether he could incorporate a draft inline reference to the NRHP nomination document and its photos document, in new articles. I have asked him to share whatever database of coordinates he has, and he has declined to answer. I have asked him other questions, such as about his use of wp:MPS data and about incorporating better information about MPS studies, and he has declined to answer. There's potential now to improve what his system provides about architects/builders/engineers for about 10,000 out of 85,000 NRHP-listed places, but upfront I am not hopeful he will.

At some point, the benefits of his voluntary participation may not be worth the costs. It would not be the end of the world to accept Elkman's offer to withdraw. I can provide some partial substitute for what Elkman's site provides, and would make more effort to do so if he did withdraw. Several other better programmers have downloaded and used the NRIS database (including Anome, including some German wikipedia programmer who has recently generated disambiguation pages using it, including NrhpBot's programmer years ago), and someone else could provide the equivalent or better to what Elkman provides. In fact one factor in my choosing to program my system as far as I have, has been out of sympathy for Elkman, who seemed to want to get out of the business. Elkman notably has not updated his system to use the NRIS database that has been available since June 2010. His system serves up data only through March, 2009. There are complications in the 2010 version which necessitate some extra programming, in contrast to previous updates, and I myself have used the 2010 version only in some reports, not yet used it in generating /draft articles for any article drive.

I don't want him to withdraw and am not here asking him to do so. But, if Elkman is so personally bothered by regular development of NRHP articles in Wikipedia, and by many people using his article generator system in ways that he disapproves of, I wonder if it would be better for him to just withdraw it. In his repeated threats or offers, is he asking for affirmation or is he actually asking for permission to withdraw?

Elkman asked me at my Talk page for me to comment about his system and his behaviors in this section, rather than anywhere else right now. I don't suppose me commenting this way is going to improve the chances he will actually cooperate, programming-wise, to improve his and my complementary systems, which is what I would most like. But currently I think he is not likely to cooperate anyhow. Or, Elkman, would you in fact be willing to consider some suggestions for your generator, and to share some information to help my complementary one? --do ncr am 21:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let other admins weigh in on whether I should still be contributing my INFOBOX generator (not ARTICLE generator, since articles contain more than infoboxes -- or do they?) I'll also let other admins weigh in on whether my contributions at WT:NRHP and WP:AN are a drag. As far as the 2010 database is concerned, they changed large parts of the schema of that database. I've done most of the work on writing new PHP code to do new queries by city, county, and architect, as well as generating the new infoboxes, and I've been experimenting with it for some of the new articles I've done. But, since my conduct has come into question here, and since my support of the query tools is an issue, I'm not sure it's worthwhile to bring the tools into general availability. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to comment specifically here, so I am not sure if you are now suggesting you only want to hear others / administrators comments, not mine. If you wish to disregard my suggestions because they are from me, that's unfortunate because I am probably the most informed person about the good and the imperfections in your system. It's inefficient to ask administrators not familiar with NRIS to comment, if that is what you are doing.

Anyhow, great to hear you've done some more programming work. If I and other NRHP editors prepared a good list of architects/builders/engineers, comparable to the wp:MPS list about MPS/MRA documents, would you be willing to consider using that to improve what your generator serves up? It could use the (implemented or pending) new NRHP infobox field for builder=, instead of the one for architect=, where we now know, or could soon know, that a given person was primarily a covered bridge builder or whatever. And it could be smart about wikilinking the names, where we know this is an article for the person. And it could correct known typos in NRIS that I have tabulated where I know that an architect/builder/engineer name is spelled wrong and/or should pipelink to a specific differently named article. I would do the same in my complementary system, addressing one complaint about accuracy/ambiguity in NRHP draft articles. --do ncr am 23:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are asking Elkman to improve his generator so you don't have to do any real work. Good articles are not written by bots. Instead of relying on Elkman, you could do some actual research on these people... looking for sources beyond what is available in the NRIS database. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that somebody (and I'm not referring to Elkman) has a massive chip on his shoulder that even causes him to try to prevent productive discussion of these topics. --Orlady (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Though I am new to it, I can see that this issue has been kicking around for a while with little to no progress. It seems that people are jumping to the "solution" without first gaining a consensus on the base action. Clearly, some people don't like what doncram is doing and others don't see a problem. Additionally, there is a lot of disagreement on what should be done about it. It seems a lot of people objected to the Archive 223 proposal and object to the above proposal (myself included), but agree that the behavior should be discouraged (myself included), creating more confusion and more off-topic arguing. I propose that we first reach a consensus on whether or not the practice is undesirable, then work on a solution (if one is needed). It seems that we can get a lot of the arguing out of the way if we first reach a consensus on whether or not the action is a problem. (A support vote indicates that you believe doncram's actions to be sufficiently disruptive as to necessitate some sort of action.)

Support I find his pattern of "stub" creation to be disruptive because it typically derives its information solely from NRIS database fields and presents it in such a manner that renders the article unusable. Stubs can be very valuable and should be used to stimulate further editing and expansion. However, I believe doncram's style discourages further editing because it is so difficult to make sense of the information and/or find a jumping-off point. An example of this is his newly created article Rubush & Hunter. I created this redlink recently with the intent of eventually creating an, at minimum, Start-class article on the firm and hoping that in the meantime someone would come along with some additional info or a good starting point. However, the article that doncram created accomplishes little more than clicking "What links here?" Any attempt to create a decent article on the subject would require blanking the article as it fails to offer any useful information in a usable format. PhantomPlugger (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the stray bits of text like "coord_parameters region:US_type:landmark | locmapin Indiana | built 1927 | architect Rubush and Hunter ; William P. Jungelaus Company, Inc. | ..." and other copy/paste remnants make the article look more like rubbish than Rubush. (And don't forget to complain about my "rubbish" smart remark in the section immediately above.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those were stray bits, yes, now incorporated/removed. Note the Under Construction tag on the article; it really was under construction.

I'm sorry, PhantomPlugger, I would have been glad not to start the Rubush & Hunter article 2 days ago if I had any idea it was on your or anyone else's radar screen to start it. I don't know what redlink list you are speaking of. I created it off a different list of redlinks, namely of architects and builders and engineers associated with many NRHP places. As you might or might not have gathered, the usage of NRIS information by Elkman to assert that these persons are architects is objected to by me, and the usage by me to state they are architects or builders or engineers, is objected to by some others. It seems best to me to figure out what these people are, so that articles on the NRHP places can state accurate information immediately, and this is best done by beginning to develop articles about them. Any builder or architect with more than 10 NRHP places listed for their architecture is pretty surely Wikipedia notable. I guess it is good we agree that there should be an article for the topic. I am happy for you to develop the article in any reasonable way. By DYKCheck, it shows as a 280 character stub (the list is not included for DYK-eligibility), so if garnering DYK is your concern you should have no trouble, you'd only have to develop the minimum 1500 character DYK threshold, to achieve DYK eligibilty under its 5X expansion option instead of as a brand new article, if you're not ready to develop it right now.

I don't think you have to say that blanking the article is necessary to improve it. If you wish to create a different list or table of the works of this firm, by all means go ahead, anyhow. But aren't the individually notable places which I listed out, worth mentioning in the article? I should think you should at least check whatever different list you have, to compare its completeness vs. this starter list of works based on NRIS information. --do ncr am 23:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PhantomPlugger, with the removal of the stray bits, do you have any objection to the article in this current version? I don't understand what you mean about it being "difficult to make sense of the information and/or find a jumping-off point"? Couldn't it be easily developed by expanding the lede text, like was done by me and others for Alfredo S.G. Taylor, another architect article that i created today, and which garnered newly uploaded photos and moved from this early version to this current version today? --do ncr am 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about DYK or anything like that and your familiarity (well beyond my own) with the database can certainly be useful. I hope to expand the article well beyond 1500 characters if someone else doesn't beat me to it, but even so, my primary goal is expanding the information on Wikipedia in a certain sector that I find to be important.

The current version is certainly better, but the only piece of information in that article that didn't exist on Wikipedia before that article was created is the first names of the partners. If one were to type Rubush & Hunter into the search box before the article existed, one would get a list of their works, with links to those articles. The only difference now is that the list is in article form instead of in search results form. I'm not opposed to you creating stubs, in fact, I would have appreciated a good-quality stub on Rubush & Hunter as it would have helped me organize the general outline of the article. When stubs like this are created, at best, they add nothing to Wikipedia; at worst, they confuse, obscure and discourage.

I hope you don't see me (or anyone else for that matter) as just another lemming pile-on because I do think you have the capability to contribute positively. I just think we should set a good example to avoid WP:FAIL. PhantomPlugger (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate what you are saying. But the Rubush & Hunter article provides more than you say, it includes what is likely to be a nearly complete list of works of the firm that are NRHP-listed and hence already known to be individually notable (15 in number) and it details them out, including 6 redlinks. You could not search for and find the firms' association with those non-article places in Wikipedia before. For an interested editor, i.e. you, it suggests that you can probably start articles on those (you may use tools and tips given at wp:NRHPhelp). The Rubush & Hunter article provides a place that the existing and future NRHP and other articles on their works can now explicitly link to. For a reader using "What links here" to navigate, it already provides means for reader to navigate among the existing 9 articles on their works. It clarifies that these are architects, not builders or engineers, which Elkman's NRHP article generator or my system can use to suggest more precise and accurate draft infoboxes/articles, and clarifies that the 9 articles are not likely to include incorrect infobox assertions (as Elkman's generator would have assumed correctly that the firm was an architect). Of course it will be better if you improve it. But I think Wikipedia is better for having the article now, rather than not having it, don't you? --do ncr am 19:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, of course. The Rubush&Hunter article isn't even particularly bad, when compared with the universe of potential examples. The list I compiled at User:Orlady/List includes many gems like Valley Falls Cotton Mill Site, created 6 months ago (current version) -- "is a property" (what kind? who knows?), "The property is also known as Site No. 146-04" (what does that signify? who knows? anyway, who cares? -- surely it's not encyclopedic information), "was built or has other significance in 1849" (since we don't even know for sure if it's a building, I guess it's not surprising that we have no clue what happened in 1849), "when listed the property included one contributing structure and one contributing site" (the only salient information here is that whatever it is, there is only one of it). If it were any other contributor, I would move that page out of article space with a suggestion that the contributor keep it in user space until there was enough there to justify an article. (I've tried that with Doncram, but it only leads to endless wikidrama.) --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC) While we're on the subject of content that shouldn't be added to article space, let's not forget the one-sentence paragraphs in the bodies of articles that describe database codes in ALL CAPS, such as "Its listing status is DR, which means DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION." When newbies generate that kind of thing, it usually is corrected with a gentle level-one warning message, but when an experienced user like Doncram creates that sort of thing -- and leaves it untouched for weeks and months -- it conveys the message that Wikipedia is utterly uninterested in quality. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Orlady fully well knows, that Valley Falls Cotton Mill Site article was created in an article drive for the 49 NRHPs in Tolland County, CT, supported by a batch of /drafts here which included drafted inline references to NRHP nomination documents. That one is alone, or among few, of NRHPs in that county for which it turns out the NRHP nomination document which would answer all those questions, is not available online. In the other articles, there is some further development using the NRHP nom document. In at least one improved (not started) during that drive, Orlady actually helped. In the larger context, I and others think it makes sense to have a starter article at the Valley Falls article's level, which some term a "sub-stub", rather than having no article at all. To anyone else, please do review the articles of that county. I think it is obvious that readers are better served by having these articles than not having them. --do ncr am 22:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "fully well know" what you were doing in creating that stub, as (your beliefs to the contrary) I don't follow you around. As it happens, with minimal research I have learned that the Valley Falls mill site is a small part of a large public park that is extensively documented (including the history of the mill) online. I would not be surprised if the stub you created will deter local residents from developing an article about the park, as a newbie likely would find it daunting to try to force content about the park into the current sub-stub article about a small part of the park.
As for Mansfield Training School and Hospital, I don't think you should point to your involvement there with pride. The article was created as a stub, with good content and sources, by another user. In February 2010 you visited the page, adding an NRHP infobox and some text about the NRIS database entry, complete with one of your "fill-in-the-blank" reference citations (including "date=, 19", "author=____", and "Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___"). Ten months after that, you came back to fix some of the problems with your edits and add some more of those non-informational sentences that you use to describe NRIS database entries ("It was built or has other significance in 1917" and "The listing is described in its NRHP nomination document."). Largely because you had shoehorned those sentences in between other parts of an article that had actual content about the actual history of the establishment, when I stumbled upon the article, I saw it as an article in serious need of editing attention. I confess I kind of enjoyed the research I did to expand the article and sort out the disconnected statements I found there, but I consider that my expansion of the article was more in spite of you than because of you. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is a bald-faced lie, that you don't follow me around. Evidence of hundreds of cases where you edited shortly after I first edited at an article can be shown. If I compiled a list of say 200 clear cases of you following me around in the last 2 years, would you agree to stop following me around for a future 2 years, with some severe penalty if you do? In the last AN discussion, you said that you do! Anyhow, you lie! Liar liar liar liar liar!!!!!!!!! I am just astonished at that. --do ncr am 03:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at a few of the Tolland County ones, I see there do remain examples of the accurately ambiguous statements, but these are easily cleared up as here I amend the Mansfield Center Cemetery article by use of the fully developed inline references to the NRHP documents. In the last AN discussion, editor Polaron offered to visit the Connecticut NRHP articles and develop them out further from their linked NRHP documents. I repeat, that the Tolland articles are better to have than not. It happens many of them can be easily improved using the good sourcing already developed for them. --do ncr am 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to know that you thought the Mansfield Center Cemetery article was "easily cleaned up," since your "It was founded or has other significance in 1693" sentence remained in the article for 5-1/2 months after you put it there. I gagged, however, when I saw that you had "cleaned it up" by inserting a very short direct quotation from the National Register nomination form. After seeing that, I took the time to edit the article with some information from the source (not quoted, but in my own words). It is unfortunately true that most of the meaningless verbiage you have inserted into article space could be relatively easily cleaned up. Similarly, the dog droppings that are left in in public parks by the pets of thoughtless dog owners could be "relatively easily cleaned up," but the world is not full of people who want to devote themselves to selflessly cleaning up after other people's dogs. Similarly, when meaningless verbiage is added bot-style to hundreds (if not thousands) of pages in article space, there is no army of selfless volunteers waiting around for the opportunity to research the topics and replace that verbiage with worthwhile prose. I would prefer to delete it and insist that it not be recreated in article space. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of wp:civility do you understand? That's obviously offensive, and your edit summary in this edit was also offensive to me. I think you are completely wrong, if you think that is plagiarism or copyvio or "obnoxious" in any way. It is an unusual situation, where the cemetery is not clearly identified as having been founded that year; the best way I saw to explain the significant date was to include the short quote, which very nicely resolved the implicit question. --do ncr am 21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In the statement above, I don't know what is meant by "this issue". I think in this discussion and others, there are many issues, which some would identify as basic questions about Wikipedia values, or about concerns about editor Elkman's article generator, or about many other matters. In the label of this new subsection, it seems to suggest PhantomHugger sees a consensus. I'm sorry what is the asserted consensus here? I think this is suggested as a vote, which could lead to a consensus? I don't agree that the above statement is a new consensus. --do ncr am 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Something has to be done here. The entire situation is a mess and consensus is as valid as policy as any of those which Doncram has used to support his position in past debates. I may be wrong, but promised change in how things will be done always has the appearance of being some time in the future. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not interested in devoting the time it would take (reading archives, etc.) to make a well-reasoned !vote regarding this matter (should this not be a WP:RFC, however?), nor do I wish to spark a tl;dr debate about our past interactions, but let me just add that I find Doncram's incomplete, sometimes incorrect, and vaguely worded NRHP stubs aggravating, especially those that could be improved with less than 10 minutes of online research, and am glad to see that it's not just me who has that opinion. I've learned to preserve my low blood pressure by discovering it's easier to just avoid/unwatchlist/ignore most of these stubs for a suitable interval, while acknowledging that although the work is imperfect and ends up making a lot of work for other people, people like Doncram do get a lot of work done that might not otherwise. This is not an endorsement of his approach, just the way I choose to handle it. I'm not optimistic things will change. YMMV. Valfontis (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This matter has gone on too long. There's a good reason that NrhpBot was stopped after doing just a small portion of Ohio — that bot did basically what Doncram is doing, mining the database to create substubs such as Richard H. Mitchell House, except that it presented the statements factually without all the "It might..." statements. And guess what — the large majority of its stubs have never been improved, and I'm responsible for most of the ones that have been. Given the history of these articles, there's no reason to believe that people will improve Doncram's stubs either. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create that Richard H. Mitchell House article and never edited it. I am not responsible for what the NrhpBot did years ago; I would have objected to its running back then as it could have done better. I have so far created /draft batches of articles, not in mainspace, only for a few counties, none in Ohio, and only in counties where NRHP nomination forms or a good MPS/MRA document was available on-line. I have created scattered articles in Ohio relating to List of Masonic buildings or other list-articles that I deemed worth completing out, or for reasons of stopping contention about disambiguation pages. In Ohio, I also probably developed NRHP list-tables and I may have created multiply-sourced articles for NRHPs that are on List of NHLs in OH. I'm not likely to create more than an occasional Ohio NRHP article because the NRHP nomination documents are not generally available on-line, and also because you Nyttend (and I think some others) are informed and working on NRHP articles in the state. I don't think there's a general problem with articles I have created or will create in Ohio. Does this address your concern? --do ncr am 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have missed the point of this comment. I won't speak for Nyttend, but my understanding is that he is making an analogy. Just like NrhpBot created poor stubs by simply taking bits of info out of a data base, so are you. And because NrhpBot was creating poor stubs, it was stopped. And because very few of NrhpBot's stubs have been improved after creation by anyone other than Nyttend, it's likely most of yours will remain as you create them for a very long time. Nyttend did not say or imply that you had anything to do with NrhpBot nor that you created Richard H. Mitchell House, nor does this have anything to do with Ohio per se. The first two sentences, especially, of your reply make it appear as if you are either purposely creating a red herring or simply do not comprehend the objections to some of your work. I wouldn't mention this if this was an isolated case, but in my experience these types of diversionary responses are very much a pattern. Station1 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My first two sentences are deliberate, to head off misunderstanding of other readers like in the last wp:AN discussion where a British editor complained about something else completely unrelated to me, and one or more others incorrectly thought that i was responsible. These analogies are a bit dangerous. I think it is probably good also to address Nyttend's possible concern about Ohio articles, like Valfontis has concern about Oregon ones. I asked Nyttend to clarify if that addressed his concern or not, that is not avoiding his comment at all. I actually would appreciate if editors would be honest about what they are concerned about, like for whom. If you've got some intention to start architect articles in your area, and you're afraid you might not get first author "credit", or if you are honestly trying to build up NRHP articles in your area and you just want to do it your way. P.S. Actually I don't know what happened to NrhpBot and am not sure it was "stopped" by any discussion or action anywhere, maybe just the programmer lost interest. The programmer did not reply to my inquiry when I came upon its work later. Nyttend and/or Station1, do you actually know what happened, can you point to some past discussion? --do ncr am 22:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know what happened to NrhpBot, but since we all agree "it could have done better", it doesn't really matter. This seems like another red herring, intentional or not, whose scent I'd rather not follow. But I must say I really doubt any editor on this page is not being honest about their concerns, or would be satisfied if you left just 'their' state alone. Station1 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doncram should not be creating stubs where he can't answer basic questions about the information he puts in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Different editors are speaking of different things. I can answer basic questions about any information I put into any article. I am pretty scrupulous about ensuring every statement I make is sourced. There may be cases where I am using informed judgment to interprete a source in a way that is not obvious to another reader of the same source. I would be very happy to be questioned and to answer why I did what I did in any such case. Here, SarekOfVulcan is referring to, I think, what he proposed in the last AN discussion, where he wished to ban specific accurately ambiguous phrases, such as a sourced statement that a person was an architect and/or builder. Again, SarekOfVulcan would seem to prefer a confidently stated inaccurate statement, like Elkman's generator provides, that a person is an architect when that is not true. Again there are many thousands of articles with Elkman-generated infoboxes asserting that persons are architects when that has not been verified, and many of those also contain text statements echoing the infobox assertion. I think SarekOfVulcan has also said he does not mean that, that he would prefer nothing be said. I just happen to disagree, that if you have a sourced factual statement to make which is not as precise as one might wish, you can still just say it, and that provides a good implicit request to readers with expertise to refine the statement. That's a subjective preference of mine vs. his. Anyhow, there's some momentum now I hope to improve the quality of information available about the builder vs. architect question, in part by my having recently figured out what is the status for about 100 of the most prolific of these persons (by starting articles for them and developing information about them). And there was a further discussion at wt:NRHP which my articles since have taken account of (SarekOfVulcan, please note I have actually not used a couple phrases you objected to there). And I agreed to something in the last AN discussion which I still do agree to. --do ncr am 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I swear, if you mention my name and your quibble about the "architect" versus "builder" versus "engineer" business, I am going to blow a fucking gasket. Would you like for me to go back to each and every one of those articles generated by the infobox generator and put in a bunch of weasel words, saying, "This person may be a builder, architect, engineer, or someone whose name got written in the wrong line of the form?" Would you like those articles deleted entirely? You say you're "making an implicit request to readers with expertise to refine the statement". I interpret that as saying, "Here's the most minimal article I can get away with on the topic. I'm not going to read any sources or do any research because that's someone else's job." You're putting a huge deferred maintenance burden out there, and that's a whole lot worse than someone using my infobox generator to say that someone was an architect when in fact someone was a builder. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elkman, indeed I do think it would be reasonable to go back to every article having the architect= assertion, and call those into question. I suggested we might have to use a bot to do so, at Template talk:Infobox NRHP#Built information, and follow that by a long cleanup campaign to fix them. I am not particularly blaming you, because you served up what you did in good faith, but you facilitated the introduction of a lot of unverified/sometimes inaccurate information into Wikipedia. Note, the private website www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, while it has other errors of interpretation of NRIS, gets this right, correctly labelling persons "architect, builder, or engineer". Indeed it causes a lot of what you term "deferred maintenance" now. You don't yourself have to go back and fix all the articles; it can be done by others in a slow cleanup drive. But it would be nice if you would cooperate in improving your generator to help prevent extension of that particular problem, which indeed you are partially responsible for, IMO. And it would be nice if you would not repeatedly blow a gasket whenever you consider a new article that is not as complete as you would like. --do ncr am 21:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd like to tell you off in the sort of language I think you deserve right now, I'm going to spare it, because I'd only get warnings for breaching civility. Also, it would look bad in the Request for Arbitration that will no doubt be submitted soon. You are alone in assuming that I'm the only person introducing unverified or inaccurate information into Wikipedia. Nobody else has made that allegation. In fact, nobody other than yourself has used my name in this discussion, other than Nyttend saying he's using my infobox generator and finds it useful. To address the particular situation: You and I both know that the "architect" field in the National Register database can refer to either the architect, the builder, or the engineer. It is NOT POSSIBLE to extract any information from the database that isn't there. You can't classify someone as only an architect, or only a builder, or only an engineer, and then assume that's the way to route that information in the infobox and the article. Take the Peavey–Haglin Experimental Concrete Grain Elevator, for example. The National Register database lists "Haglin,Charles F." and "Peavy,Frank H." (sic) as the architect, builder, and/or engineer. Do you personally know what Frank H. Peavey's occupation was? The NHL summary says that he owned a grain company (Peavey, which later merged into ConAgra Foods.) It doesn't sound to me like he spent a lifetime designing, building, or engineering structures -- he just wanted to try a cylindrical concrete grain elevator. Now, how about Charles F. Haglin? You could assume, from the NHL description, that he was an architect by trade. But, from other sources I've read (like this), he and his firm were chiefly builders, not architects or engineers. His firm built Minneapolis City Hall, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, and many other buildings in Minneapolis. Let's also consider Rand Tower, which lists "Holabird & Root" and "Haglin,C.F., & Sons" in the architect/builder/engineer field. It turns out that Holabird and Root were the architects, at least according to Larry Millett's book AIA Guide to the Twin Cities. Apparently, C.F. Haglin and Sons were the builders. Given that example -- and I'm sure there are others -- how do you possibly expect that I could apply any sort of a database script or a classification system to determine that someone is an architect, a builder, or an engineer, and to be able to say that with 100% truth for every article that someone uses my infobox generator to create? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are angry and have been angry for years; i don't see why you should be, really. I was thinking we could build a table of architects/builders/engineers like the wp:MPS one that I joined into building, and which I believe you used to improve your generator (to include proper links to MPS documents). Elkman, did you or did you not use the wp:MPS table in that way, or did you find your info somewhere else? I've asked before and you have never deigned to answer; it's a bit frustrating trying to collaborate with you. About 90% or more of the time, a person in that NRIS field is an architect. About 8,000 - 10,000 NRHPs are associated with the 907 persons having 5 or more hits in the 2010 NRIS database; with recent work we are well on our way to knowing whether each of those are usually a covered bridge builder or a stone mason or a construction firm, unlikely also to be architect of an NRHP-listed place. This would permit better, not perfect, guesses than your 90% accurate guess is. It would permit 8-10,000 wikilinks to be set up. Another option would be to put nothing into an architect= field, but rather put some text note that the person (hopefully with wikilink to an article on the person) is an architect or builder or engineer, and ask the editor to verify. Some discussion at template talk:infobox nrhp and/or at wt:NRHP could probably build out some better options, enlist others, if you'd actually be willing to discuss. --do ncr am 02:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what the hell your problem is. People talk about your stubs, and then you deflect the question by saying I don't know the difference between a builder and an architect. Someone mentions your fill-in-the-blank approach, like, "date=, 19", "author=____", and "Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___", and you go completely berserk and assert that the person has no right to be complaining about you because she's been following you around all over the place. Well, guess what? Other people can also read your fill-in-the-blank-later approach. You've been operating for two or three years now with this approach: every time someone suggests that you should change your style, you absolutely refuse to cooperate. I honestly don't think you're going to change your behavior without a Request for Arbitration. I'm getting more and more ready to file one, except that would take many, many hours of my time. I'd rather be doing something more productive and personally rewarding than drawing up an RFAR. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still going on -- see here where he lists Robinson as "an architect, builder, or engineer of NRHP-listed St. Joseph Park and Parkway System".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a quick 30 second google search, I find that a more appropriate term for Robinson's involvement in that park and parkway system would be "designer"... which Doncram could have easily discovered had he actually looked for sources beyond Elkman's bot and the NRHP database. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched too, and I'm not even sure if "designer" applies -- looked more like he wrote the plan, and someone else designed the system building on his report. Changed the article per the listing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! --do ncr am 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppot. Stop the madness...TCO (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has gone on long enough. Consensus got reached at WikiProject NRHP on how to deal with articles in the scope of the WikiProject and Doncram don't appear to follow to it. Doncram is certainly capable of writing a non-stub article with minimal research (like the other veteran NRHP contributors do in most articles). As Elkman pointed out, we can have a bot write generic stubs. That's not our goal. I don't dislike Doncram. Royalbroil 04:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per my input HERE, I do not agree that doncram's practice is undesirable, nor do I agree his actions are a problem. No, they are not sufficiently disruptive as to necessitate any sort of action. Regards. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Another question regarding consensus on article quality

As long as this is being turned into an RFC on editing style, one practice that Doncram has embraced to deflect criticism over his articles is the use of lengthy quotations to populate articles. These are not quotations from authorities on a topic, statements of opinion, or quotations used to convey the flavor of a source, but verbatim replication of objective statements from sources. For example (reference citations omitted for reasons of space):

From Andrew Crockett House

It's nomination included:

"The Andrew Crockett House is a notable example of an ante-bellum central passage plan frame residence with Greek Revival detailing. The house is also notab1e through its association with early settler Andrew Crockett. Crockett received a 640 acre land grant from North Carolina and was one of the earliest settlers in the Brentwood area. His log residence which forms the nucleus of the house is the oldest structure in this section of the county."

According to a 1988 study of Williamson County historical resources:

"Also receiving a 640 acre grant for Revolutionary War services was Andrew Crockett. Crockett settled southeast of Brentwood and constructed a log residence by 1799. This residence was later enlarged ca. 1850 but the original log pen of the Crockett House remains (WM-86). His son, Samuel Crockett later began the construction of a two-story brick residence he completed ca. 1808 and named 'Forge Seat' (WM-82). In addition to the house Crockett also constructed a log building containing a forge where he made iron implements and specialized in rifle making. Crockett's guns were in great demand and Andrew Jackson purchased several on his way to New Orleans. The log building containing the forge still stands adjacent to Forge Seat."

From Sherwood Green House:

According to a 1988 study:

"Sherwood Green settled east of Nolensville in the early 1800s and constructed a two-story log residence (WM-194). Green was a surveyor and he accepted land as payment for his services. By the 1820s Green owned over one thousand acres in this section of the county. Numerous log residences were also built in the valleys west and south of Nolensville. The most notable of these which remain are the Lamb-Stephens House (WM-1066), John Winstead House (WM-108) and Abram Glenn House (WM-204). These residences were all originally single pen log residences... that were later expanded."

From George A. Berlinghof: They designed "many important structures in Lincoln and established a position of prominence. Among the buildings designed by Berlinghof and Davis were the Lincoln High School, Bancroft School, the Security Mutual Building, and Miller and Paine. They also designed a large number of schools and courthouses in Nebraska."

Note: The examples given above are just examples, not intended to be an exhaustive list of articles where I consider the use of quotations to be excessive. Other examples exist, including Fargo City Detention Hospital, Mordecai Puryear House, Moolah Temple, Northwood Bridge, John W. Ross (Iowa architect), and Charles L. Thompson. --Orlady (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this practice to be inappropriate, as excessive quotation of copyrighted text. IMO, it's contrary to the spirit, if not also the letter, of WP:Plagiarism and it is certainly contrary to much of the advice in the essay Wikipedia:Quotations. If my interpretation is consistent with the community's interpretation regarding the use of quotations, Doncram needs to be informed that his use of quotations is inappropriate and will not be sanctioned. (Suffice it to say that he will not give me the time of day, much less credit any interpretation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines that I might offer.)

Please comment below. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (as proposer) with this interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines on use of quotations. The examples given are excessive use of quotations from copyrighted material. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think those were copyright violations, then your quote here, without citation, is a further copyright violation plus wp:plagiarism, because you did not give credit to the original authors. --do ncr am 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There's no good reason to have such large quotations from documents simply to keep the article from being absurdly short, especially since the presence of the nomination form means that Doncram has plenty of information about the place. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination forms are not available for most places in Tennessee; there is not plenty of information available for these. Two of the four quotes above are from the Williamson County MRA document, which I believe was written under contract for the Tennessee Historical Association using state or federal money. The document is published by the U.S. National Park Service. It may be in the public domain, in which case copying the whole darn document in full would be fully acceptable. They are longish quotes, but I don't know if they are too long for copyright purposes. Supposing the copyright is believed held by the Tennessee Historical Society, i give pretty negligible chance to the idea that the copyright holder objects to the usage in these articles. This doesn't seem to be a matter for wp:AN though. --do ncr am 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue at hand is your copying significant amounts of text from nomination forms when you have them, either online or in articles such as The Wilson, which you told me you requested from the NPS by mail. Do we need to quote from the forms in order to understand their subjects? No: you could easily rewrite the original text and have it come out equally well. For that reason, and because objections or lack thereof from copyright holders isn't really the determining factor, this is an improper use of copyrighted material, and thus an issue worthy of administrative action. I would be inclined to block for copyright violations if I weren't obviously involved. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  About Orlady's accusation that these sourced, explicit quotations represent wp:plagiarism, that is absolutely 100% false and shows a complete lack of understanding by Orlady of what plagiarism is, and/or reckless disregard for truth and for my reputation. In the context of a long pattern of her seeking fault on any random matter that she can contrive regarding me, this is yet another, adding to my perception of her activity as wp:wikihounding. It is an insult, I think perhaps technically qualifying as a personal attack, for her to make that accusation here. --do ncr am 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Hey, Nyttend, I take copyright and plagiarism issues very seriously, and sincerely do not want others to get any impression that I do not. About The Wilson, this is the first mention of any concern about copyright. You apparently now object to this edit in March 2010 by me adding one sentence from its nom form. That was in response to Orlady having nominated the article for deletion, which you and I opposed, and in response to her immediately preceding edits in that article. Then and in several recent Williamson County, Tennessee articles, honestly I think I have used explicit quotations emphatically, more than I would otherwise, specifically to head off further potential interaction with Orlady. Orlady is a Tennessee-focused editor and follower of my edits who is likely to scrutinize and raise issues about Tennessee NRHP articles, about the notability of those articles. My only involvement ever with wikipedia copyvio noticeboards has been to raise issues and to help in addressing mistaken claims that all NRHP nomination documents are public domain. Since you and editor Fram, far above, have just now expressed some concern, I would be happy to reconsider these examples and what is actual policy or best practice. I will myself seek copyright-focused editors' views at an appropriate noticeboard. --do ncr am 13:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  P.S. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 June 2. --do ncr am 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Doncram has been using quotations excessively to pad out stubs that he doesn't have sufficient information to write otherwise.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is an issue the editor in discussion has that we can address without making the larger policy discussion the issue. Quotes fall under NFC, and their use here is clearly not minimal. -- ۩ Mask 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Copyrighted text can be used to some extent, but filling a significant part of an article with non-free text is clearly excessive. Jafeluv (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well. I think brief quotes are acceptable, particularly why the NRHP or another organization found it significant enough to list. These long quotes can be rewritten in original thought. If the source is public domain, it should be attributed as such in the article as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Some numbers for context and to give an idea of the likely, or potential, scale of this:

From National Register of Historic Places: "Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually. The remainder are contributing resources within historic districts. Each year approximately 30,000 properties are added to the National Register as part of districts or by individual listings."
From National Historic Landmark: "2,442 or so current [National Historic Landmark]s".
From National Historic Sites (United States): "There are currently 90 National Historic Sites".

If you look at the closest equivalent in the UK, you have Grade I listed buildings in West Midlands (as one example of a list). There are "over 6000 Grade I listed buildings in England". But you don't see people trying to generate stub farms for those buildings (though there are more when you include Grade II* and II - around half a million). Anyway, my point here is that given the numbers involved, something probably does need to be done. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a drive concluding on July 4, 2008, to create articles for any missing National Historic Landmarks and to include at least a good reference to a corresponding National Park Service webpage for each one. We did a great job, I think. I am sure there are articles for all the National Historic Sites already. There are about 30,000 articles for the 85,000 NRHPs. It's my general understanding that U.S. NRHPs are equivalent to Grade II* or higher English listed buildings. For each individually listed NRHP, there is a generally good nomination document, which is a reliable source written by architectural historians and equivalents, including numerous references. U.S. contributing buildings don't have reliable sources like that, generally, and there's no interest in creating articles for them (which i think i was told may be equivalent to Grade II buildings). There's really no controversy about whether NRHP places are notable.

All the NRHPs have had articles created in Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, almost all of Connecticut and New York, all of Detroit and its surrounding county, and in many other areas. I think there are no general problems, no general complaints from readers in those areas. I think readers in those areas are pleased to be able to learn a bit about the NRHP-listed places in their areas. --do ncr am 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've been creating substubs for so many places when you have plenty of information. It's bad enough that we have substubs for much of New England and southwestern Ohio, but when we have the documents online, you should do better. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to the running of a User:NrhpBot(?) years ago which generated stub articles in Ohio, at a standard below what Elkman's or my /drafts provide for. I don't agree that it's "bad enough" to have articles for these areas. But, I do agree that where NRHP nomination documents are available on-line, they should be included upfront in new articles. I do that. Elkman's article generator does not. --do ncr am 03:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike your pages, the bot didn't add meaningless fluff such as "built or had other significance". When are you going to learn that Elkman does not provide drafts? More importantly, when are you going to learn that repeated AN threads just might mean that there's a problem with your actions? Your pages provide virtually nothing of significance to the reader: if you want to help readers and build an encyclopedia, stop creating these pages and instead produce fewer-but-better pages such as the Maryland articles you cite. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Nyttend, I am really taken aback by wikipedia administrator Orlady's outright lie, above, that she does not follow me. I do believe that the cumulative effect of her as one consistently hateful commentator in multiple forums does build up to contribute to a negative situation here, and contributes significantly to there being several successive AN-type discussions. Many followers at wp:AN do tend to believe that where there is smoke there is fire, whether or not various views are contradictory or not, whether or not a major negative voice is outright lying here and repeatedly elsewhere. Some commenters here, at least Sitush for one, only know me from having followed Orlady's previous attacks.

You ask about "my pages". I don't know what you are referring to. Which pages do you think that I "own" and also that do not contribute to Wikipedia? I have created a lot of articles in concentrated drives in counties in New York, in Virginia, in Connecticut, in North Dakota, in California. I have created a lot of list-articles, and developed articles in those topic areas. Relatively recently, I have developed about 100 architect/builder/engineer articles, of the most prolific NRHP-associated persons. I have created many pages which solve particular problems, about disambiguation-focused editors or other situations. Many, many have been further developed by me and by many other editors. Which would you wish removed from Wikipedia? I have not heard anything here about the notability of any topics that I have correctly identified as important. --do ncr am 05:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Some commenters here, at least Sitush for one, only know me from having followed Orlady's previous attacks." - Doncram, that is just your perception. For example, I see Sarek's page & others. I do in fact look at some of your articles, and fixed one that was just dreadful IMO (but over which you then sought to assert ownership by reverting in the face of the work of three other editors). Also, I did not pile on with the initial proposal above, and still haev not even though I saw it within minutes of its being posted. So, your point is? - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at this myself. The combination of apparent sincerely and unselfaware obliviousness - e.g. the LIAR LIAR LIAR!!!!! stuff up above, the inability to draft an article before creating it, as if there was some kind of time limit - intrigues me. It reminds me of the issue with Playboy Playmates, from a couple of months ago. In brief, until recently there were articles on every Playboy Playmate, which generally consisted of "X was Playmate of the Month for January 1975. Her centrefold was photographed by Y" plus some vital statistics. They were subsequently folded into e.g. List of Playboy Playmates of the 1970s, which will at some point be folded into List of Playboy Playmates. By which time the magazine will be as relevant to modern audiences as the Pall Mall Gazette; and then List of Playboy Playmates will be reduced to "each month the magazine featured a nude centrefold" in the main article. I digress.

This situation is even worse, though; the articles have less information and are in fact actively user-hostile. After stumbling on one accidentally I assumed it was part of a machine-generated project; one of many robotic initiatives no doubt sanctioned by a higher power, accorded the same holy air as the articles on North American primary schools. Articles created by scripts that will only ever be edited by scripts. They will - hopefully sooner rather than later - be redirected to List of Historical Buildings in Michigan and so forth, and reduced to a photograph, a name, and a reference to a directory of listings. A handful will merit more than a paragraph.

And so, ultimately, Don, if your goal is to create something of lasting worth that you can be proud of, you're wasting your time on this. This "article drive" you talk about will be a complete waste of time. If your goal isn't to create something of lasting worth then you're just one of the many process-orientated editors that infest Wikipedia as they do the real world. Except that if your goal is to bump up your edit count, you're also going about it the wrong way. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Ashley Pomeroy, I am sorry that you get the impression you state. I am indeed reeling about Orlady's lie in this forum about her following me or not, in conjunction with her opening new issues regarding articles, and where I have already provided multiple links further above to her Talk page archives about her following me to multiple articles. And I am reeling about her suggestion of plagiarism "in spirit" for use of longish explicit quotations in several articles. I don't know how to talk to such a person. About articles I have created, I absolutely do wish and strive to create articles of worth and I absolutely do not want them to be "user hostile". --do ncr am 14:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, you should know by now that calling other editors liars, despite the veracity of their statements, is a violation of WP:No personal attacks. Please stop. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lying itself is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. If an editor is lying, and especially if that is part of a pattern of behavior, however, I think it has to be noted, and it cannot be ignored. I understand that back-and-forth accusations of various things, like Orlady suggesting that I have been plagiarizing (which she suggests, above, and which is false), and me calling her behavior lying (which I believe is the simplest interpretation of her statements here and in other cases), is not productive. Honestly i don't know how to handle this situation properly. But it cannot be right to rule out statements that another editor is lying, when they do seem to be lying. Lying has to be a worse sin than noting that lying is going on. --do ncr am 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to Doncram over a year ago, "I believe if I told you what day of week it was you would claim that I was lying." --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In last month's version of this debate, Orlady said "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." In this month's version she said "I don't "fully well know" what you were doing in creating that stub, as (your beliefs to the contrary) I don't follow you around." I believe this contradiction is the lie Doncram is referring to. They certainly are not statements that are consistent with each other. Lvklock (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, as long as you're throwing around accusations of lying, I might note that according to Wikipedia policy, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That last clause seems to pretty well describe Orlady's recent activity with regards to you, and describing it as "Wikihounding" might also be considered an untruth.

But none of this addresses the real problem, which would still be here if Orlady were dragged away by the Lie Police tomorrow. The long threads about your conduct that keep popping up on admin noticeboards are not occurring because everyone reads Orlady's prose and says "Wow! Doncram is awful!" They are occurring because people read the stubs that you write and say "You know, this isn't really suitable for article space". And every time this blows up onto the admin noticeboards, a few more previously uninvolved people concur. At some point, you are going to have to make a fundamental shift in your editing patterns (rather than a little tweaking around the edges); I proposed trying to outline our collective goals for writing these articles in part because I thought it would give you a clearer sense of where your philosophy diverges from the community's.

Ultimately, all of us need to respect consensus. Most experienced Wikipedians can probably think of at least one thing they'd do things differently from the way almost everyone else does it. That's perfectly OK. What's not OK is refusing to acknowledge and work with the consensus, even if we don't personally agree with it; that's disruption. You've been cut a lot of slack as far as formal sanctions, in part because most contributors here have a principled reluctance to sanction someone who's contributing content in good, if misguided, faith. But you need a better answer to the question "Why are so many people hostile to the articles I've created?" than "Because Orlady lies about me!" because people's patience is going to run pretty thin soon. Choess (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to above — by "your pages", I mean the ones of the type you produce, which Choess also accurately calls "the stubs you write". They're obviously "yours" in the sense that nobody else writes them the way you do. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that Orlady lies, it's also that she makes up charges repeatedly on random new topics and repeats them, until someone else might reasonably become concerned. She badgers. She has accused me of being a Republican, of being a plagiarist, of being racist and/or racially insensitive, among other things. She has criticized my focus on disambiguation and other thankless efforts. She has come up with innovative ways to insult and denigrate me. She challenges anything and everything, including being so petty as to actually argue with me whether I am working on an article that I have just edited and confirm that I am working on (about one such discussion, another observing editor termed commented that "of all the angry bitter venom-filled arguments I've seen on talk pages, this one is just so petty and color-of-the-bikeshed, it disgusts me."). The repetition of false, simplistic, and overstated negative charges is a cumulative drag on me and editors of various forums (such as the Talk page of WikiProject NRHP) to which she posts. It seems to me that she is determined to find any kind of fault, and perhaps to drive me from Wikipedia, and that she engages in sadistic and/or hounding and/or otherwise negative behaviors because she enjoys it or otherwise serves her personal needs in some way. As has been agreed by many editors in many discussions, including in her RFA which I and a good number of others opposed, she can be sarcastic and snarky. I feel sorry for any editor that she focusses upon. It does not seem to me to serve Wikipedia, for her to follow me (which she denies, above, absurdly). As Orlady notes above and as I also state above, at this point I do not give credence to her remarks. In my view she has cried wolf about false issues, and lied, and otherwise contributed negatively too many times. In every case there would be a positive alternative which an editor intending to be constructive could pursue instead. In my view, over the years she has striven harder to find new criticisms and to find new ways to insult and to cause trouble. She is fully aware that I have repeatedly requested her not to post to my Talk page and, when she disregards that, I delete what she posts there.

There are indeed editors who have noticed pages that I started and had concerns, independent of poisoning by Orlady. I'll comment about some examples in one or more subsections below. --do ncr am 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)ou[reply]

You know, Doncram, there are shorter ways to say "Oh, please block me now"... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan, when I read your comment above "despite the veracity of their statements", I read it as meaning you objected to calling lying what it is, whatever the truth status of given statement. I could agree that in a civil community, naming a bad behavior can be unhelpful and maybe should generally be avoided. I could have a discussion about how to deal with stuff with that better. I have had discussions with others, about the Christian meaning of "turning the other cheek", and otherwise dealing with bullying in wikipedia by Orlady and others. The Christian perspective is not, by the way, simply to allow bullying behavior to continue unopposed, unnamed. I am deeply concerned, and I don't say any of this lightly.

But, you actually mean to suggest you think Orlady does not follow my edits? If so, that is completely absurd. I offered, off-the-cuff, above to come up with 200 instances where it's clear Orlady followed me, if she would agree to stop. Although 200 is a huge number to document, she did not reply, and will likely not accept that offer, because...why? --do ncr am 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages and linked NRHP articles for example

Many editors have come across disambiguation pages which include NRHP entries and have had concerns; also, many have come across scattered NRHP articles scattered across the U.S. which I created to resolve or avoid contention by disambiguation-focused editors. I have created more than 2,000 disambiguation pages and I have developed developed a system of 3,686 articles in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles overall. I manage Category:NRHP dab needing cleanup which currently contains 0 article.

Orlady has repeatedly criticised me, absurdly, for having done "too much" disambiguation. This is wrong and reflects ignorance on Orlady's part, or just obfuscation/negativity in pandering to what less informed editors might be concerned about.

Years ago, there were regular AFDs about disambiguation pages amongst same-named NRHP places, which rallied NRHP editors to defend them. That's rare now, as new notes of concern by newly arriving editors are usually addressed quickly, mostly by my educating them about disambiguation policies and practices. I consulted disambiguation-focussed editors in this extended past discussion "What is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation" at WikiProject Disambiguation and other discussions. I took on the role of mediating between hard-line disambiguation editors who did not like NRHP redlinks, and hard-line NRHP editors who do not like short stub articles. The upshot then was a compromise that two, then later one, NRHP article must be created in at least stub form, for disambiguation editors to back off. I eventually achieved negotiation that no NRHP stub article need be created, so there are currently one or two hundred short NRHP dab pages of all redlinks. During a long time, anyhow, I started many short NRHP articles as needed to support disambiguation, and gradually adapted practice of explaining that in my initial edit summaries. This probably resulted in more than 500 scattered new short NRHP articles nation-wide. I informed local editors including Elkman who I knew were interested in developing them, when I created an article for that purpose.

I identified that the slow process of creating NRHP dab pages was itself a problem, allowing for continued arrivals of disambiguation-focused editors to become unnecessarily concerned, and allowing contentions to build up when editors in one state would create an article at an ambiguous basename, unaware there were other usages of the same name. Creating the missing dab pages would avoid article name conflicts and avoid contentions and article move discussions being needed in such situations. So, with announcement to disambiguation and NRHP editors, I drove to create all the needed disambiguation pages, and did so, working from this NRIS-derived checklist of NRHP name duplicates. During that time, Orlady opposed their being created, nonsensically IMO, and raised contention about the ones in progress in the Category:NRHP dabs needing cleanup, despite rapid progress on my part to finish them all, which I completed pretty promptly.

In my continued maintenance of the NRHP disambiguation pages, I am going through and checking all of them, and in some cases coming across new contention. I occasionally, pretty rarely, choose to create a new short NRHP article and/or other articles to settle or head off contention. For example, when an editor recently contended to eliminate the Midway Bridge disambiguation page by redirecting the name to the article for an extremely obscure, not-worldwide-important rural bridge in North Dakota, and by deleting mention of other Midway Bridges in the world, I tried adding MOSDAB-compliant entries with supporting bluelinks to List of bridges in the United States, and actually had to contend with the editor going to that list and removing the entries there and their supporting footnotes (which a bridges-focused editor restored). The issue was only finally settled it by my creating another Midway Bridge article. SarekOfVulcan watched that little contention -- and I think deleted one other Midway Bridge article which i started to try to settle the issue first but which turned out not to be as easily documented as the later one-- by the way, and might comment.

There have been many temporarily determined editors who have arrived and dismantled good disambiguation. Another example is a White House-focussed editor insisting upon removal of all redlinks at White House (disambiguation), addressed by my creating articles for the NRHP-listed ones.

I don't think anyone has ever given me a barnstar or otherwise appreciated all this work, but I am proud of it. I believe there is zero, zip, nada reason for wikipedia editors to be concerned about my development of disambiguation pages, and my tactical creation of short stub NRHP articles on occasion to defuse contention and preserve good structure. --do ncr am 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomplete, to be developed." That describes a lot of things you do around here, and the very reason why people are complaining about the kind of articles you write. Yet now you've managed to deflect this discussion into criticisms of my INFOBOX generator and complaints about Orlady following you around. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completed what I was writing above. Please feel free to comment about disambiguation and related, tactical creation of short NRHP articles in this section. --do ncr am 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a lovely new technique -- pasting one of his database dumps onto a talk page and going "Hmmm, I wonder if any of these are in the article." Guess actually reading the article to answer that question is too much work for him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not about disambiguation. Weird on your part, S, to go out of your way to delete a posting from a Talk page. I restored it. It did tally up notable, NRHP-listed places not yet mentioned in the article. Seemed like one or two times owners of architect pages have objected to additions of differently formatted or ordered items; here I merely provided some info at the Talk page; your objecting to that, and your bragging about it here, seems petty, not lovely. --do ncr am 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the buildings mentioned in your list were already in the article. Besides that one, you mentioned a couple of historic districts -- but didn't identify which buildings in the district he actually worked on. So, not terribly helpful, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't realize that the checklist identified two other individual NRHP-listed places that provided prompt for Elkman to add them to the article. Currently there is one more un-added individual place yet to be added. And there remain 4 historic district items that apparently each include one or more contributing buildings designed by the architect. More specifics for each of those 4 can surely be found by an interested editor getting the corresponding NRHP nom docs for those districts. Seems the checklist was already very helpful. --do ncr am 20:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't see those edits to the main page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon NRHPs for example

This to respond to Valfontis's specific concern about an Oregon NRHP article mentioned far above, and to comments by Choess and Nyttend in "Context" section. Oregon is different than any other state because it has the most active Wikipedia editor community. It has a highly productive Collaboration Of The Week (COTW) which I have participated in occasionally. It has multiple editors knowledgeable about NRHP information and sources and who occasionally develop NRHP articles. The state-wide list and at least one county NRHP list-article have been COTWs. What I know about Oregon-specific NRHP sources, and reflected in wp:NRHPhelp, is from them.

In 2009, I developed out the majority of Oregon's NRHP county list-articles (adding to Portland area ones already tableized), bringing them into table format and performing a painstaking reconciliation between competing sources of Oregon NRHP information. I may have then started some NRHP articles to capture complicated information. See really long Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon#Developing and see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon#Reconciliation of wikipedia tables vs. Oregon PDF, in which i worked cooperatively and painstakingly to address Oregon editor concerns and get the wikipedia coverage all corrected.

I have since occasionally created an NRHP article in Oregon, but would not start on any Oregon county-specific drive as there is no need. I created a couple articles in one county, one which I brought to DYK, hoping to encourage a local who was uploading pics of all the NRHPs in two counties (my nomination for other articles in those counties to be created shows on Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Collaboration#the COTW nominations page). When engaging in drives on List of Masonic buildings and List of Elks buildings and some others, I created short articles for the Oregon ones. These drives achieved other things, such as development of the list-articles themselves and of new relevant categories about their architectural styles and other aspects.

I recently identified that two Oregon architects were among the top 200 NRHP architects/builders/engineers, and created articles for them. I notified Oregon editors by suggesting these two at the COTW nominations page. I am amazed just now to notice that Valfontis, without explanation, immediately deleted that suggestion!??! Aren't they valid, good COTW topics? Valfontis, could you please comment?

Another Oregon-specific issue is hyphenation vs. en-dashes or em-dashes in article titles. I don't care about the issue, but some Oregon editors do, and they edited all NRHP list-articles to use dashes, including in redlinks, which causes some overhead, explained at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon#NRHPs with ndash in title. Related to the intersection of that issue and to disambiguation page cleanup at Jones House, I recently created short article Jones–Sherman House. I would be happy to notify Oregon editors if/when i ever created a new article there, but I have seen that Valfontis and others already do monitor Recent changes to WikiProject Oregon articles. Valfontis further developed that Jones–Sherman House article within 24 hours.

I think there is zero, zip, nada reason for Wikipedia editors to be concerned about my past and rare-but-occasional starting of NRHP-related articles in Oregon. --do ncr am 22:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all tl;dr, and the topic at hand is Doncram's behavior, not mine. Doncram is not a member of WP:ORE, so I routinely delete his suggestions for WP:ORE COTW (which, incidentally, isn't as much of a going concern as it once was), and I'll note that it is not the place for notifying the project of new articles. The architect articles in question were on my watchlist as redlinks, and I was actually dismayed to see them appear on my watchlist as new articles when I saw who had created them. I, like several others in this discussion, would rather see no article on a topic rather than a bad article. Here's an example of Doncram's work on an existing article, with its "whoever may be editing here" in his edit summary. I occasionally do "data dumps" such as this for articles, but I think it's far better for our readers to do this sort of thing on the talk page, or on a personal subpage rather than clutter up mainspace. Here is a lengthy discussion, in which I recuse myself from the sausage making, which was indeed "painful to watch". (Under my former username, which starts with "K".) In a nutshell, the only reason for concern about Doncram editing Oregon-related articles besides the general problem being discussed (his editing style, which I agreed is problematic), is that I do not enjoy working with him and tend to stay away from the articles he edits. This is mostly my problem, but it's sad when a highly productive and accurate editor with excellent research skills who is rarely uncivil such as myself feels she needs to stay away from the project because we have an inability to deal with problematic but not-quite-disruptive editors who appear to lack collaboration/social skills. Valfontis (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for explaining to me who you are. I now can understand you were being deliberately rude, or politely dismissive, or something like that, unfathomable to me otherwise, about what I thought was a good suggestion of the new architect articles at the COTW.

I also did not understand your recent abrupt, immediate reversion at the Walter D. Pugh architect article, to which I believed i was contributing something substantial by adding new works. In my followup edits after yours, I did not take offense but rather just made small improvement to the article (wikilinking one and providing slightly better referencing) and soon acknowledged in my edit summary that in fact "all NRHP ones were already there"; my additions were not in fact substantial, I agree. I note, however, that the Wade Hampton Pipes article as i started it], one of two that I suggested for COTW, was very much equivalent to the Walter D. Pugh article before I visited there.

So what you're saying, I now interpret, is that in 2009 you didn't like my style in developing the NRHP list-articles in Oregon. It was indeed tedious doing the reconciliation between sources there, addressing your then-strong-preference for the Oregon state source which turned out to have many errors (as also did the nation-wide NRIS), and it was a bit unpleasant, but the development got done. I recall also that you also didn't like my application of disambiguation page MOSDAB guidelines in another discussion around that time, where I asked disambiguation-focused editors to consider an issue and the consensus was with me, as i recall. That's okay. I would hope that would eventually be water under the bridge.

At wp:ORE I don't see any alternative way to notify Oregon editors of new articles; please advise if wp:ORE would actually like to receive an announcement of new articles like the two architect ones. --do ncr am 05:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured lists

I admit I've only read a fraction of the very long thread above, but if the problem is that uninformative stubs are being created just to create a featured list, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to change the FL criteria, to either make redlinks acceptable, or else to require that all links in the list are "Start" class? Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Doncram is motivated by the desire to create featured lists. As it happens, I think my first interaction with him (possibly when he formed the idea that I have some sort of personal vendetta against him) was over his nomination for featured list status of a National Register list article, back in August 2008. He didn't like the review, so he pretty much packed up and left. He did participate later (December 2008) in the review for another FL candidate that succeeded, but I have the impression that he was (and still is) deeply resentful the fact that another contributor made changes to that list to meet FL criteria. I expect that he will make a long statement here on the subject of FLs. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Doncram does not seem to be motivated by a desire to create featured lists... but he does seem to be motivated by a desire to create lists (and then rework them into sub-lists lists, and list-like dab pages, etc). As long as there is a minimal stub with just enough information to justify inclusion of the property in one of his lists (and to have the list entry blue-linked) his interest in researching the property further and improving the stub essentially dies. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the notion that this is not about lists, much less featured lists: Many of Doncram's comments about the stubs, disambiguation pages, and list articles that he creates support the view that his principal goal is to have an article about every one of the tens of thousands of properties listed in the National Register. Related to this has been his strongly held position that historic districts on the Register should be documented in articles separate from the articles about the neighborhoods/communities associated with those districts. This position of Doncram's has resulted in lengthy contention and a few megabytes of discussion, and is illustrated by article pairs such as Wauregan Historic District and Wauregan, Connecticut, Hazardville Historic District and Hazardville, Connecticut, Wilder Village Historic District and Wilder, Vermont, and Peace Dale Historic District and Peace Dale, Rhode Island. --Orlady (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mischaracterizations in that statement by Orlady, relating to outcomes of a long mediated process. Not true about the "principal goal...every one" characterization. Orlady was a huge factor in length of contention to which she refers. Add this to long list of misstatements by Orlady, seemingly towards causing/extending contention here, too. --do ncr am 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a #goals discussion further above. Back in 2008, i do recall that Orlady's insinuation into the New York State NHL list-article peer review and then FLC nomination was unpleasant and seemed to derail what I thought was a good nomination, but it wasn't the first interaction. I recall being appalled then that she extended use of nasty language that had really damaged good momentum in WikiProject NRHP, earlier, and I recall realizing that her involvement was likely to be an oppressive vendetta that I would likely never get away from. That certainly contributed to me not pursuing other list-article FL nominations, where I perceived that one determined opponent could have an undue negative effect. --do ncr am 15:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are correct. I find that we had some NRHP Wikiproject interactions before that FL nomination. As I have told you repeatedly, you were convinced that I was engaged in a personal vendetta against you before I had noticed that I had interacted with you in multiple situations. This pretty well demonstrates what I mean when I say that.
As for that FL discussion, I thought that the list was an excellent candidate for FL, but there were some basic issues related to how the scope of the list was defined. I was expecting to have some back-and-forth discussion and collaboration that would lead to the list being acceptable for FL, as had happened with other FL nominations that I had commented on. Your interpretation of my comments was surprising to me at the time, but re-reading it now, I see now that it was in many ways consistent with other interactions over a "relationship" that has continued for almost 3 years. That is, you somewhat condescendingly informed me that the list article was practically perfect and that my failure to discern its perfection was a shortcoming in me. That interaction was far more civil than many of the interactions that have succeeded it, but the theme is the same: you are convinced that your work is practically perfect, and any flaws that others see in your work are due either to (1) others' inability to perceive your perfection or (2) bad things that other people have somehow forced you to do. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to have a relationship with you, Orlady, that's the problem. --do ncr am 16:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I surrounded the word with quotation marks. I would prefer that my interactions with other users focus on content and not on personalities, but you have persistently tried to personalize all interactions. Furthermore, your propensity to create drama around topics that I am predictably engaged with (such as the drama you created over Norris District, documented at Talk:Norris District) leads me to wonder whether you truly want to avoid me. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I want you to stop following me. I think you should be ashamed of how you participated in that July 2009 discussion about Norris District; that is nothing to be proud. You have to be kidding to think that is an invitation now in 2011. I most emphatically tried to break the relationship with you in multiple requests during 2010, and the relationship has only gone downhill since. It is distressing to some others, and bad for Wikipedia in general for this to go on. It is tedious for me to respond to new misinformation you suggest in wp:AN proceedings and elsewhere. In general I feel experience shows that it works badly to allow you to suggest misinformation and not reply, so I feel I often have to answer. In this wp:AN discussion you have used offensive language about dog shit, you have accused me of plagiarism and copyvio, you have absurdly claimed not to follow me and have not responded to my calling that a bald-faced lie. You have not responded to my related offer that would end this relationship. You have been following me, not the other way around. --do ncr am 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Color me totally mystified as to why I should be ashamed of the discussion of Norris District. To summarize the situation, Norris is a small town up the road from where I live. I had contributed to the article Norris, Tennessee, which was and is heavily focused on the town's unique history as a planned community, which was recognized in 1975 (well before the town had reached 50 years of age) by historic district designation. You showed up and created a separate stub article about the historic district (based solely on the NRIS database entry), then informed me that you had done so and that you fully expected me to dispute the need for a separate article. Your principal reason for asserting the need for a separate article was the correct observation that the reported area of the historic district (given in the article as 40,000 acres) greatly exceeded the area of the town (given in the article as 6.9 square miles). As you predicted, I did object to the creation of the new stub, saying: "Please refrain from starting articles about topics you don't actually know anything about (and don't have sources for) just because you can (and because it's an opportunity to get under the skin of other Wikipedians who know and care about those topics and will have to divert their attention from productive activity in order to engage in arguments with you). I see your actions related to Norris, Tennessee and Norris District purely as attempts to create wikidrama." Active (and contentious) discussion ensued, focused in large part on the fact that the 40,000-acre number didn't accord with anything else that was documented (or known to us locals) about the Norris historic district. As I recall, after a couple of days, you came to the discovery that nationalregisterhistoricplaces.com, which was the immediate source of the acreage value, was misreporting all historic district acreages -- all values were too large by a factor of 10. When that was resolved, it was clarified that the historic district area was only 4,000 acres, which pretty nearly matches the area of the town. Consistent with your usual modus operandi, you didn't trust the various published reliable sources (such as books) that were cited in the article, as you only seem to trust National Register nomination forms, so it took another month before you allowed the discussion to be closed -- with your Norris District stub being converted to a redirect. I have absolutely no shame about my participation in that discussion. --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram is probably going to blame me for the acreage in the infoboxes being off by a factor of 10. And, actually, that was an error on my part, since I didn't notice the note in the database schema saying that the published number was multiplied by 10. (It's probably because someone didn't want to program a floating-point number in the database many years ago, when they really just wanted one decimal place.) I fixed that error as soon as I was aware of it, and I regret that it happened, but I'm just giving the rest of you guys advance warning of the next shot to be fired in this volley. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that both Doncram and Orlady are active members of the same WikiProject, I don't think we can say that either of them is "following" the other. It is only natural that they would frequently cross paths in editing the same articles. That said, given that Doncram's edits are so often problematic, I think it would actually be appropriate if Orlady (and other members of the NRHP project) did follow him around... someone has to clean up after him. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's 100% observable that Orlady follows me around, has done so for years, there should be no doubt about that. Other NRHP editors privately or publicly agree; it can clearly be documented. Why does Orlady not answer my question about if 200 clear instances are documented. E.g. following can be seen in instances of me editing for the first time in a new article on any subject, and Orlady editing immediately afterwards. There is no suggestion of the reverse and that can easily be objectively shown. Blueboar, I am afraid you are unquestioningly being duped by Orlady's lie that she does not follow me; that is an absurd lie. The extent of following is extreme, that is an incontrovertible fact.

I do welcome feedback on my edits from others' follow-on edits, whether they are following me or otherwise arriving at articles, and I actively ask for feedback from time to time in various explicit ways. I completely buy into how Wikipedia can work properly in providing feedback implicitly and explicitly to editors. I can get mildly frustrated at some following edits that seem tendentious to me, for some bursts of attention from some following editors, but overall I accept and value them. My purpose is in fact to see to development of Wikipedia on topics of interest to me.

What I object is to the personally-toned, hatefully-motivated, oppressive, negative, snarky wikihounding that Orlady pursues (I can support every one of those adjectives with diffs in a forum that would resolve this.) She has provided helpful improvements and useful implicit or explicit feedback to me at times. She seems to me to be hatefully seeking out new criticism, and is often 100% wrong to my knowledge. Others are welcome to follow my edits from time to time; she should not be allowed to continue this, IMO. There has to be a point where a bullying editor's malicious and intellectually dishonest behavior has consequences; there has to be a point where a victim of bullying can get relief. I am asking for relief. Since I have now stated this request to her and otherwise publicly several times, it just gets worse. It seems to me Orlady tries harder and harder to come up with new criticisms to prove the value of her following and criticizing me. She invests considerable time into coming up with creative new ways to insult, denigrate, use administrative powers, etc., all dancing around the margin of obvious blockable/bannable behavior on her part. She can't hide the long-running pattern though. She's stated her dislike; others can objectively discern the hatred. There's direct and collateral damage from all this going on. It destroys good momentum; it drives away active and potential editors; there is no good purpose served by her behavior. --do ncr am 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's all someone else's fault, and never your own ... sorry, I don't buy it. In case you haven'tt noticed... Orlady isn't the only one complaining about your editing here. And this isn't the first time you have been the topic of complaints. You say you welcome feedback... unfortunately, my own experience with you is that you actually highly resent feedback... at least when it is critical. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is posted here are complaints, yes, and yes there have been complaints before, about different matters. I also have many rewarding interactions with new and experienced editors elsewhere. I have been extremely patient and polite with many editors newly coming into contact and having concerns of various kinds. Including I believe I was with you Blueboar and other Masonic-interested editors, for quite a while at beginning of a long phase of AFDs and ANI and RSN and other proceedings you were a big part of, during a long period in which you and others extremely opposed there being disambiguation, list-articles, and individual articles on Wikipedia-notable historic places associated with Masonry. It took a long time to work through that, and now I perceive you happily contributing to further development of the list-articles and many individual articles. I was exasperated at your stubbornness at times during that; you no doubt perceived me as being stubborn too. But while that went on for a long time, it did not run for many years.

Whatever, I am not seeing a lot of point of discussing much here, so i am going to try to wind down my commenting here. Thanks. --do ncr am 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram's personal attacks

Regardless of the outcomes of the discussion items here, Doncram's personal attacks on me and Elkman during this discussion warrant some sort of sanction.

In the course of this discussion, Doncram has made a number of very negative allegations about me. I also have made a number of comments about Doncram and his work, but I' have generally refrained from responding to his accusations against me. There are several reasons for my reticence: I've become very accustomed to his throwing this stuff in my direction, I hope that my actual record speaks for itself, and I would like to be able to subscribe the principle that on the Internet it is wisest to ignore trolls. However, early this evening I went through a little exercise of copying down the various words and phrases that he and I have used in this discussion to characterize one other and/or one another's work. I was somewhat random but fairly inclusive in what I copied down -- in particular, I included some statements I had made (notably the one about droppings from dogs whose owners don't clean up after them) that were not specifically used to describe Doncram, but that he interpreted that way. When I finished the list, I was horrified at the results, which are compiled at User:Orlady/words. The best way to summarize the unsubstantiated statements that Doncram has made here about me is to borrow some of the less offensive words and phrases he has used to describe me: "pure nastiness" and "reckless disregard for truth and for my reputation."

I hereby declare myself "over" my practice of sitting back and tolerating this stuff, but I don't have any very good ideas on what measures would be effective in curtailing this behavior by this particular user. --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could start enforcing WP:NPA and imposing a condition of "no more claims of lies or other personal attacks, or you get blocked"? Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that he has at times been a bit out of line with his comments but the comments directed at him have not been very nice either so I can't blame him for not sitting there and just taking it. Personally I don't see anything wrong with creating a stub of an article, I realize others do have a problem with it. But we are not going to fix the problem by arguing about one user when he is not the only one doing it. If the community decides that an article can no longer be created as a stub (I doubt that will ever happen) then fine. But as long as we allow stubs to be created then really the arguments presented at the beginning of this dicussion have no merit. --Kumioko (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, the issue being discussed is not the fact that Doncram creates stubs (I think most of us would agree that there is nothing wrong with doing that). The issue is how he creates his stubs... and especially the uninformative, whishy-washy material that he insists on sticking into his stubs. Saying things like: "Another significant date in the building was 1920" (with no indication as to why 1920 was a significant date) is simply uninformative and isn't acceptable. Saying things like: "Joe Blow was either an architect, a builder, or had some other significance" (without bothering to do even a quick google search to find out what Blow's significance actually was) is uninformative and unacceptable. Add on the fact that he quickly gets defensive and argumentative (to the point of edit-warring in articles and ignoring consensus on talk pages) when his uninformative information is challenged... and we have a chronic problem that needs some sort of admin action.

Doncram is a very prolific editor... and much of his material is a great benefit to Wikipedia... but he does not take criticism at all well. He is quick to adopt a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT attitude when others challenge material he has added, and he also has a bad habit of "attacking the critic"... trying to turn any complaint about his behavior and editing into a discussion about everyone else's behavior. That's why his name keeps being raised here on ANI. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] I think you may have misconstrued the thrust of the posts that began this discussion, Kumioko (easy to do when there are so many words to wade through). This is not about stubs, per se. The objection is to production -- indeed mass-production -- of stubs that are rough drafts, possibly created before there was enough information to create a solid stub, so that they contain deliberately vague or speculative statements ("is or was a property", "has other significance in 1800 and 1822", "designed and/or built by"), or explicit blanks to be filled later (such as reference citations with the date "19__"). I am aware of no other user who does this.
I will freely agree that some things have been said to Doncram that were "not very nice," but I see a huge difference between my statements about "noncontent," "rough-draft articles," deliberate vagueness, "excessive quotation of copyrighted text", "doing things his way", "deeply resentful," and "persistently tried to personalize all interactions", etc., and Doncram's assertions that I am a "liar," "sadistic," "hatefully-motivated," "malicious and intellectually dishonest", "consistently hateful," "obviously offensive," contributing "vast, poisonous negativity," etc. Furthermore, it was hardly a "threat," but rather a reminder of reality, when I posted on his talk page to say "After all of the recent travail related to your newly created articles containing 'could be this, could be that' statements, I'm surprised to see that you have resumed creating that sort of content in article space. .... I can't imagine that anyone (least of all you) wants to go through further wikidrama about this sort of thing, but I predict that more wikidrama will ensue if you do not curtail your practice of putting this kind of vague content into article space." --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes Orlady provides from Doncram are what I'm talking about, plus Doncram's willingness to characterise others' words (e.g. "your objecting to that, and your bragging about it here, seems petty, not lovely" up above) — neither of these are acceptable under WP:NPA, and if I were to have come across them for the first time in normal text (i.e. neither an involved administrator nor with the comment-maker being under discussion at a noticeboard), I'd be inclined to issue a uw-npa4im warning and to block upon any future violations. I second Elkman's comment above about an RFAR, since I'm getting to the point of wondering if anything short of that will work, but I'm a grad student who doesn't generally have time for that kind of thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go from here? (Proposed resolution)

This discussion has gone on for 1-1/2 weeks. There were !votes on 3 specific items. I hope that an uninvolved administrator will determine what consensus was reached (if any) on each of the specific items. Two of the three items related to acceptability of certain forms of content created by Doncram. If the consensus is that some or all of those forms of content are unacceptable, then we may need additional discussion on what measures are appropriate in dealing with that sort of content in article space.

Currently, Doncram is blocked for three weeks and SarekOfVulcan is blocked for a short time for edit warring over a couple of articles in which Doncram had included lists created in an automated fashion from the NRIS database (example). One reason why contention over Doncram's stubs has persisted as long as it has is that other editors' efforts to address perceived problems with those stubs have had a tendency to lead to edit wars. That needs to change, IMO. It is a bit awkward to address this in Doncram's "absence," but if there is found to be consensus that certain kinds of content are unacceptable in user space, I propose the following:

Proposed enforcement. Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Orlady's solution. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sounds like a good idea. Sounds like you're proposing this as kind of a Gdansk vote situation? Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking in terms of precedents, but that Gdansk vote situation is a relevant precedent. :-) --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - might work and although more work for the community its a lesser restriction on the user than other possibilities. Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone sum up what has been "defined in this discussion as unacceptable"? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been "defined as unacceptable" yet, as we need an uninvolved administrator to make that determination. This is anticipatory. However, there are two !votes regarding content that appear (to me) to be pointing to consensus on content: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Consensus and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another question regarding consensus on article quality. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess from reading this thread, & looking at a few sample stubs Doncram created, is that the "unacceptable" material is that the stubs provide little or no information to the reader. This material includes -- but is not limited to -- language like "It was built or has other significance in" (insert one or more years here), "It served historically as a ___" (underscored blank), & an inventory of contributing buildings, contributing structures, non-contributing buildings, and non-contributing structures. (Honestly, I have no idea why some of this is included; these words convey no information to me.) Reading a couple of the examples, my honest opinion is that they would be better stubs if this language were removed. But if removing this language results in a stub an editor believes is not worth keeping, & decides it should be speedily deleted, that is understandable. And if the group discussing this matter believes I got it right, then I'll let you all decide I'm "an uninvolved administrator" & use my guess as the basis for the directive. -- llywrch (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can't decide if you've gotten it "right" or not, that's the point of the "uninvolved admin". :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yebbut, it takes a consensus to make any decision right. Or in other words, I may be, in objective terms, 100% correct, but if no one thinks I'm right, then I might as well be wrong. Or have kept my mouth shut. (As a further caveat, I suspect that I may have missed an important point or two in this discussion.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of venues this discussion has spread over, and the number of times we've had it, I wouldn't be surprised. Feel free to ask for clarification on anything that doesn't make sense -- I can probably find you a diff for where it's been discussed before. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a point implied in this thread, which I am reluctant to mention because I am an admitted inclusionist, & this point would give a tool to deletionists to further their crusade against stubs. However having thought about it overnight, I feel it should be mentioned. That point is simple: buildings are not ipso facto notable, unlike population centers or species -- two topics where devoted content creators experience resistance, if not outright hostility to their work, yet are notable. Even the designation of being listed on the National Register of Historic Places itself is not proof of notability: many of these buildings are listed primarily as a tax break to the owner or a developer. Yet the reason why a building is so listed can be proof of notability; in other words, there is a story why the building was listed. And Doncram's stubs usually fail to provide any information about this story.

(Now deletion is not the only solution for this problem. The material in these stubs could be amalgamated into a list article, so it can be kept in Wikipedia until someone is able to research & provide that story. Just a thought before someone starts shovelling these into the jaws of WP:AfD.)

So, to summarize, I find there are three points in this discussion which define the concerns numerous people have with Doncram's stubs: (1) lack of material that would be meaningful to a user; (2) language which only confuses the reader (I cited some examples above); & (3) the unspoken assumption that unless a building has a rationale for its notability, even if it is listed in the NRHL it is not notable. That's all I have to say on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hoping to see clear closure on the !votes under the headings "Proposal", "Consensus", and "Another question regarding consensus on article quality," as well this section (above). For example, if another user finds a Doncram-created article whose text consists entirely of "Podunk Block is or was a building in Podunk, Anystate, that was was built or has some other significance in 1891, c. 1902, and 1937 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1984," I would like to know whether that user is (a) engaged in justifiable defense of the Wiki or (b) at risk of being sanctioned for edit-warring if they move the page out of article space or redirect the page to an existing list-article. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram NHRP stubs again

Would an uninvolved admin please close the Doncram NHRP stubs threads that are occupying the majority of this noticeboard? Discussion seems to have stalled, and I'm definitely involved. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues there that had support (like the overuse of quotes from copyrighted sources), but considering that Doncram is now blocked for a few weeks for edit warring, it may be best to close the above thread and to start an RfC if the same or similar problems continue after his return. Fram (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Doncram can escape sanctions from this discussion simply by getting himself blocked? We've tried RFC and everything else short of arbitration; there's no good reason for nothing to result from this extended discussion, unless of course the closing admin believes that no consensus has arisen. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think for a minute that Doncram got himself blocked for three weeks solely in order to evade sanctions, but I agree with Nyttend that this discussion should not be allowed to fizzle over a technicality. The block is not irrelevant to this discussion, since the edit-warring that he was blocked for was over whether the kind of content that is the focus of this discussion can be placed in article space. --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that he'll come back in three weeks having learned his lesson, and that maybe he'll calm down and start developing articles a little more. Then again, I'd like to win the Minnesota State Lottery. In reality, I'm pretty sure he's going to come back in three weeks arguing over the same things as before, creating the same thin stubs as before, pasting the same unformatted gunk into articles as before, and accusing me of lying, withholding information, and not knowing the difference between architects, builders, and engineers. (I'm still rather annoyed about being accused of lying about the build date of the Floyd B. Olson House.) I'm sure he didn't get himself blocked in an attempt to evade sanctions, but his block is a result of the same edit-warring and ownership of articles that got himself into trouble in the first place. The behavior problems are already covered by Wikipedia policy. The whole issue of what makes an acceptable NRHP stub, however, is still open. I don't know if that section really needs to be discussed on an admin noticeboard. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elkman makes some excellent points, but I disagree regarding the last two sentences. What makes an acceptable NRHP stub should be no different from what makes an acceptable Wikipedia stub on any topic. To a significant extent, the contention over Doncram's edits flows from the notion of NRHP exceptionalism and the corollary notion that the NRHP WikiProject can make its own rules that supersede other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's extinguish the theory that the NRHP is somehow holy and unique -- and entitled to have its own rules. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC) PS - I've posted a proposed path forward above at Where do we go from here? --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between saying that every NHRP-listed building is notable -- which I think is and should be the case -- and saying that there is sufficient information available about every NHRP-listed building to support an article about it. Being notable is necessary, but it's not sufficient, notability has to go hand-in-hand with access to enough information to make up an article. Anything less than that should be in a list, perhaps one in which every list entry can contain all that is known about the building. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Orlady's first sentence — sorry for being unclear in my words, but I don't believe that Doncram got himself blocked to avoid sanctions here. You're right in implying that such an idea would be absurd. To reply to the last comment: there's a reason that there are just 2 redlinks at National Register of Historic Places listings in Allen County, Ohio and 2 at National Register of Historic Places listings in Darke County, Ohio, out of 30 and 25 entries respectively: I can't find much information about the four sites that don't have their own articles. Moreover, there are several round barns on northwestern Ohio lists, including one in Allen County; I'm planning eventually to write an article on the group, since I've requested all the information that the National Park Service will provide, and it's still not enough to have a decent article. My article will be about the group of barns, including a list of them, but putting much of its discussion into the barns as a group. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beyond My Ken - I faced a similar problem with ST Empire Darby. The tug meets WP:SHIPS criteria of 100 tons / 100 ft long, and a stand-alone article would be justified - but I was unable to find sufficient material to substantially expand on what was already in the relevant list. Therefore I decided not to create the article. Such a course of action will not prevent future creation should further sources come to light (e.g book sources) that will enable a decent article to be written. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken and Mjroots make a couple interesting points here. There are plenty of places where there isn't a lot of information available to start an article, or at least not a very good one. Even though a subject's listing on the National Register pretty much infers a subject is notable, that doesn't mean there's enough information to start an article. I've pretty much avoided starting any articles on NRHP topics unless there's source material other than the National Register database. Maybe we at WP:NRHP should start filling in the summary descriptions on all those state and county lists, as a bare minimum starting point to provide context to the reader, and then work on building the individual articles if enough information on each structure becomes available. Or, we could do as Nyttend suggests, and write articles on places as a group when there's not enough information on the individual structures. For example, in Crow Wing County, there are five metal water towers listed on the National Register, built at a time when towns were flush with cash from mining revenue. (Pardon the pun of "flush".) The five are all listed on the same Multiple Property Submission. Instead of creating five watered-down articles about the separate water towers, I created one article, Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks. It's not exactly a flood of information, but an article on the five water towers as a group actually seems to indicate the history behind these improvements better than just five individual articles would do. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 06:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I would agree that the NRHP WikiProject needs to re-examine what makes for an acceptable stand-alone article, and set some "minimum information" standards for what needs to go into their stubs. This is being discussed at the WikiProject talk page, and a consensus is (slowly) growing. That isn't an issue for ANI, however. What is an issue for Admins is the conduct and behavior of specific members of the project (in this case, Doncram). The issues facing the Admins are ... Should Doncram's edits and interactions with fellow editors be classified as disruptive? and, if so, how do we correct the disruption? Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a discussion about NRHP-Project standards wouldn't normally be AN or ANI subject matter, but since it came here as a behavioral issue and arose naturally from the discussion, the Project should take note of the input from people who might not normally participate in discussions held there. In general, Projects can become pretty insular and opinions from outside the fold can be helpful.

As for Doncram's behavior, as a completely uninvolved outsider, it appears to me that Doncram's behavior is indeed problematic, but it does not (generally) rise to the level that an admin is likely to do anything about it directly, beyond what's already been done. The imposition of a community sanction on Doncram to not create sub-stubs seems justified to me, but if there is a consensus to do so it's only a weak one, and it's been my experience that admins are reluctant to certify an editing sanction under those conditions that they'll have to enforce. I don't, therefore, see much value in continuing to push the point here. Instead, participants might want to focus on getting the NRHP Project to institute a "no sub-stub" standard, and see if Doncram, when he returns from his block, is willing to follow it. If he does not, and edits against project consensus. that adds weight to the complaints about his behavior.

Just my take on things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read most of the Doncram discussion page, I feel I must put in my two cents. Years ago I used to be involved with WP:NRHP but eventually I just gave it up. WHy? Because of Doncram. Here he was creating one sentence articles, but would write what seemed like dissertations telling me what I should and should not do in articles, and went out of his way to try to prevent several of my articles from reaching DYK approval. When I left WP:NHRP his actions were such that I thought he was the coordinator if the group because of how he acted. (I'm sure Gatoclass if he wanted to could testify to a lot of this). I think this block was a long time in coming. As for stubby articles, if you can't write 500 characters on it, it shouldn't be an article, and many NRHP buildings would be better if they were just in a single historic district article instead of a bunch of one or two sentence articles of their own. --King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of what User:Lvklock had to say about doncram at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Comment on Straw Polls, "decisions" and consensus. I am a fan of doncram's work, and also a fan of Elkman and Orlady's work by the way. Back in 2008 and 2009, I spent a lot of time on articles relating to WikiProject National Register of Historic Places -- creating 100 or more articles on California historic sites. I worked closely with doncram on many of those articles, received valuable input and advice from him, and even took a trek with him to the Pico Canyon Oilfield as a joint effort on that one. I have found him to be a bright, hard-working Wikipedian who is devoted to this project and to ensuring accuracy of its content. I have not been active in the project in the last couple years, and on occasion I've considered re-engaging. But having kept this talk page on my watchlist, I've noted the sharp criticisms of doncram and have been much chagrined by it. I can see that doncram may become defensive and combative at times, but from what I've seen, he has always appeared to be driven by improving the project. Anyone who has come under the firestorm of criticism heaped on doncram might well react similarly. In reviewing his work (e.g., Baird Law Office, Prudence Crandall House, Doris, Sachs Covered Bridge, Charles M. Robinson, Locust Grove, Carter Hall, List of octagon houses), I'm a bit puzzled by the volume of criticism and absence of praise given to his work. I hope he will return to the project and continue to be an active contributor. When he does, perhaps giving him space to do his thing would prove mutually beneficial to all. Cbl62 (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take Charles M. Robinson, for example. When he created it, he put a list of works by Charles Robinson in the article, without checking to be sure that all of them were the Charles Robinson he was writing the article on. An hour later, he deleted 3 items by a Wisconsin-based Robinson. Two days later, I found another one that wasn't by the Robinson in question, and removed it. When I found that there was still at least one invalid item on the list, I removed the whole thing, copied it to talk, and struck out the invalid item. Doncram restored it three times without removing the item which was clearly marked on the talk page and without sourcing the items any better than to the NRIS database. Now, cbl, you've done an amazing job expanding that article, and my hat's off to you -- but very little of the article Doncram started seems to remain at this point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*pings again for uninvolved admin to close and summarize*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*pings again for uninvolved admin to close and summarize*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Summation and Close Statement

Stub articles have a place in Wikipedia as a starting point for involved editors. They are not intended to be created by an editor who then immediately moves on to other articles. Given current limitations on the automated technology, please follow the advice given by other editors with regard to copyright and article quality, and limit number of stub articles to a manageable level for human editors to review.

Automated stub articles will be created with 'batch numbers' in the article text indicating which group they were created.

Stub articles older than one month that another editor finds lacking in encyclopedic merit that have not been touched or improved since their creation may be speedy deleted. If a substantial portion of a batch is found to be lacking, the entire batch may be speedy deleted.

In addition, please follow guidelines derived from consensus at WikiProject NRHP.

The end. -- Avanu (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial parts of this are in conflict with WP:STUB and WP:DELETION. That's why we've been asking for an uninvolved ADMIN to summarize and close this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was an effort. That's why I wrote 'proposed'. Apparently this editor has caused somewhat of a fuss, so time for unusual or interesting solutions maybe. Good luck though. -- Avanu (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sections above in which !votes were provided, specifically "Proposal", "Consensus", "Another question regarding consensus on article quality," and "Where do we go from here? (Proposed resolution)". It would be particularly helpful to us involved editors if a closing administrator could determine the results of those four discussions/!votes. --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer

Would an uninvolved editor close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer? Over 30 days have passed since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer was initiated. Two participants believe that someone uninvolved should close the RfC. Please take into consideration Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer#Proposed solutions and the other threads on the RfC talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this one. It's not a quick close, as there's been a lot of reading to do! --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Orlady, for taking on this difficult RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's closed now. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, thank you for the time you've spent reading the discussion and writing a detailed closure. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very old rangeblocks

It appears that we have about 800 rangeblocks currently. All of the rangeblocks from 2005 and 2006 are indefs that will never expire and most from 2007 are too. A quick count of the ranges shows that it's several million IP addresses in total, which is much more than I thought. Many of these are blocked as open proxies. Zzuuzz mentioned recently that many of the blocked proxies are most likely not proxies any longer. Our blocking policy also says that open proxies usually shouldn't be indeffed without careful thought. I'm wondering if some of the admins that set these blocks may have forgotten about them. Does anybody think it would be worth while to review some of the really old ones? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let us know when you are finished. :) Prodego ^talk 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, but I agree. Indef blocking a range is usually a dumb thing to do, since even the most static IPs change after a few years. With single IPs that have been heavily abused it doesn't hurt us to keep them indef blocked until it prevents a good user from editing, but ranges, some of which with upwards of 1,000 IPs? No thanks. I am more than willing to help evaluate the IPs for proxies as well by doing port checks and testing them out (mwahahahah... er...) Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what prompted this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a toolserver Admin at ACC I support. The re-evaluation of potentially millions of IP's could save our processes a lot of time and help new users receive their accounts quicker. All request for new accounts submitted to account creations that have a range block, is usually required to be deferred to a CheckUser for clearance, checked for known vandals and sockpuppet IP's ranges, before the account can be created. This could take up to a couple days to clear. If stagnate range blocks could be removed, no doubt this would speed up these processes at ACC. Mlpearc powwow 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did a full count and it's even more than I thought. This is a table with the ranges, the size of each range, the count of how many in that range and the totals.

Range	Size of range	Count	Total
/16	65,536	63	4,128,768
/17	32,768	34	1,114,112
/18	16,384	52	851,968
/19	8,192	81	663,552
/20	4,096	89	364,544
/21	2,048	42	86,016
/22	1,024	41	41,984
/23	512	35	17,920
/24	256	199	50,944
/25	128	23	2,944
/26	64	20	1,280
/27	32	34	1,088
/28	16	32	512
/29	8	44	352
/30	4	5	20
/31	2	3	6
Totals		797	7,326,010

I have to say I like the idea of running port scans on 7.3 million computers. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I ever mentioned how port scans are not an accurate method of checking for open proxies? My comment mentioned above was specifically about the individual IPs in CAT:OP, many of which are not even blocked, many are no longer open, around a third are known to be in dynamic ranges. Probably the best way to initially deal with those is with a bot checking whether they are blocked, and whether they are in dynamic ranges. The range blocks are a different kettle of fish, and I agree that they should be reviewed. However as someone who uses the proxies occasionally to confirm them, I can confirm that many of the older range blocks are still valid. Seeing a block notice from Freakofnurture or Ryūlóng is not uncommon, in fact Ryūlóng's blocks are notably still common. I wouldn't do anything rash to unblock them. Range blocks are best dealt with the same way they are blocked - check who they belong to and whether a sample are used for hosting. If they belong to a hosting company they are often fair game for a continuing block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocks are also most often placed in response to abusive sockpuppetry, often by checkusers. In many of these cases there won't be any publicly viewable reason for why a range was blocked; the reason is instead checkuser data linking a bunch of accounts to a single range. When reviewing these, the blocking admin should always be consulted before taking any action, and failing that, at least one checkuser. (Edit dated 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC): Ok, I hadn't actually looked at the list yet, and so somewhat stand corrected. A lot more of these than I'd expected are directed towards proxies and Scientology ranges. My bad. Either way, my advice still holds; if you're looking at something and it looks perfectly fine to you, still have someone take a look to confirm that.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the CoS IPs and ranges already be tagged as such? –MuZemike 15:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the bulk of my rangeblocks in the above listed page are based on the fact that an IP being dealt with at the time was being utilized by a either a long-term abusive editor and the WHOIS on the IP revealed that the range belonged to a web host rather than an internet service provider. If the range is no longer owned by this web host, then it should be unblocked. But it clearly helps keep these unwanted editors at bay because this individual somehow bounced off of a Beijing rail station wifi signal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just unblocked the AOL rangeblocks as they are no longer open proxy, since AOL has given us XFF headers since 2007. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I volunteer to go through and check the existing long term and indefinite blocks, to see if WHOIS tells us anything useful about them and whom they are registered to currently. It will be slow going right now since I am at work, but I can definitely check a lot of them when I return home. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alison C. for stepping up, now all that is needed is a/some CheckUser(s) to team up with. Mlpearc powwow 14:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] I see that a lot of these are web hosting / dedicated server / VPS ranges; do we have an official policy on blocking these. Maybe this is high time to come up with an official policy; I know that I often ssh through my VPSes to circumvent censorware at public terminals and I assume that several users and maybe anons do the same. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move this to it's own project page ? I f this is whats normally done. I'm kinda new to noticeboards Mlpearc powwow 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's only done when we want to quell useful input ;) Alison, the policy at WP:PROXY is fairly clear about these hosting ranges: "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked". They generally get blocked after they've been abused, but some providers also have a considerable reputation for hosting open proxies and spewing out crap. If you find any questionable open proxy range blocks you can list them at WP:OP for review. I wouldn't bother with the recent ones, and the ones I've blocked I'll be happy to review myself when I get back from wikibreak next month, if you like. These types of blocks are usually self-clearing, if admins patrolling CAT:UNBLOCK get them reviewed when they turn up. Almost all the requests I've seen have been from people using avoidable anonymising proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave the hosting range blocks since they're dealt with at RFU, a category which I'm not really familiar with. 204.232.90.150 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Signing after login ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individual blocks

This section will be updated as I review more blocks, anyone else is welcome to post blocks here too ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4.247.128.128/25 Blocked as CoS IP, but rDNS suggests it's dialup addreses in tampa. Notified blocking admin ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12.146.202.16/28 Blocked as CoS IP, but WHOIS shows nothing more specific than the AT&T 12.0.0.0/8 block. rDNS fails with SERVFAIL. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12.149.223.160/28

12.153.64.80/28
64.60.234.160/29 blocked as CoS, but WHOIS shows "R S Vasan MD R-S-VASAN-MD (NET-64-60-234-160-1) 64.60.234.160 - 64.60.234.167" an oncologist in California. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take the WHOIS information all that seriously; often they give only very narrow or limited information. For CoS rangeblocks, please have a checkuser verify each of them. Those that are webhosts or VPS ranges, please do not unblock without a checkuser to verify; these are almost invariably used by banned editors and other sockmasters. Don't undo checkuser blocks, please refer them back to the checkuser who applied them or to an active checkuser if the blocking CU has retired; consultation with the checkuser before unblocking is standard practice. Risker (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay,I wasnt going to mess with blocks without notifying the blocking admin first anyway.I forgot to do this with AOL range blocks; I'll go back and do this now, mea culpa. And no way was I going to mess with checkuser blocks. 204.232.90.150 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Signing after login ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AOL ones are probably just fine, I don't think any of them were checkuser blocks, and they dated back to the days before AOL provided XFF headers. I forgot to say the most important thing: Thanks, Alison C., for pitching in on this task. Your work to limit the number that have to be reviewed by checkusers is really helpful. Risker (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Risker, thanks for reviewing the rangeblocks, Alison. I've been looking through some of them myself and have found that many are still hosting sites and the like. When I run across one that isn't, I'll bring it up. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arghness. I'm busier than I thought I would be this weekend, so I might not get to review these until Sunday night or Monday. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 02:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting brave admin to close contentious RfC

We could use an uninvolved admin to close a contentious RfC at September 11 attacks about whether there's consensus to re-add a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories to the article. The discussion is in two places. It begins here[1] and then resumes in a new thread here.[2] I know we don't need an admin to close an RfC but considering how contentious the issue is, I think it's best that an admin do it. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a closeable RfC here. There's no {{rfctag}} and (at least in the second part) no real structure, just the usual pointless tangled thread of people not listening to each other and digressing at length. There's also no obvious consensus. I recommend starting over with a standard RfC tag and some structure to help find consensus. Sandstein 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: there is something resembling structured discussion here, but it hasn't run for 30 days yet. Maybe put an RfC tag on that, improve the header to make it more understable to people who are new to the discussion, and wait 30 days? Sandstein 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a {rfctag} but a bot removed it after the RfC expired.[3] I'm sorry about the tangled web of text. Like I said, the issue is contentious. I'd rather not open another RfC because that would make it our third one on the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realized that this page get archived every 2 days. I am re-adding this because the RfC hasn't been closed yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the more easily read discussion at Talk:September 11 attacks#Moving on to a general consensus, I'm inclined to close the RfC with a consensus for option 1, but it may be better to wait until opinions stop being added, so as not to cut an active discussion short. Sandstein 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that option 1 is clearly what the general consensus is at this time. I don't see that anything will change because of the amount of people involed thus far. Moxy (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban proposal for two times indefinitely blocked user Stubes99 (Celebration1981)

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.

Stubes99 is banned by community consensus. Courcelles 15:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening this proposal to seek a community ban of Stubes99

Some arguments:

Long term sock-puppetry (2006? - June 2011)

The account Stubes99 was indefinitely blocked for "POV-pushing, vandalism and block evasion" and was followed by tens of underground accounts

However, a recent testimony revealed that the account User:Celebration1981 (also indefinitely blocked for "numerous copyright violations and harassment of other editors" and followed by other socks: [4] [5]) was also his, thus giving a total of two independent indefinite blocks. In other message, he declared that he is editing wikipedia since 2006 (!) so most probably Celebration1981 is not the original account either.

He uses his socks for vandalism, addition of un-sourced paragraphs (e.g. [6]) and forum-like posts on talk pages [7][8][9][10]

He continually creates additional accounts, the last two being blocked on 16 June 2011

Upload and insertion into article of tens of images with copyright violation

He used for this several accounts - see for example [11] [12] [13]

Totally uncivil behaviour

Personal attacks and racist/xenophobic remarks attacks against editors (including administrators): [14][15][16][17][18] He often uses the words romani or romani-an instead of Romanian, as a direct referring to Romani people (gypsies)

I think the above reasons are more than enough for a site ban (Daccono (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Support ban. I've seen this guy's socks in action a few times and I am surprised that he has not been banned sooner. The socks from 16 June are the final nail in the coffin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban - Let's make a de facto ban an official one. I have little regard for prolific sockpuppeteers, but in this case the copyvios and attacks go well beyond that. No reason not to ban this person. -- Atama頭 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban. Per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban per nom and per Atama - this seems pretty straight forward. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obnoxious time sink. Full community siteban. Night Ranger (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Shadowboxers

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the right place; but I wanted to ask for administrator help. I tagged the article with WP:CSD#A7 last night. It's an unsigned band, just out of college, with an upcoming release. It's bread and butter {{db-band}}. The talk page is attracting a lot of attention from single purpose accounts. The justification for keeping the article is that they have a growing fan base, they are really good, and that this page will help the band become recognised. It's driving me up the wall having to repeat myself over and over, quote the same policy pages over and over. Could someone take a look and put me out of my misery. Please. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely the band will soon be notable, but they do not yet meet WP:BAND. Delete, but do not salt the article; allow for recreation. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about userfication with a fully protected redirect? Would that work? Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a redirect from mainspace to userspace? That's not allowed, for a number of good reasons. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD was declined, the article is now PRODded with a PROD2 in place as well. Still seeing SPA/IP commentary to the same effect as noted above, but the PROD headers are still in place. If the PROD headers go away, the next logical step is to AfD the article. I don't see any admin action needed here, other than perhaps keeping a weather eye on the Talk page for socks. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several instances of banned editors making seemingly good deletion nominations, guidance please?

I was just wondering if an administrator could advise about what to do about deletion nominations that appear to be good faith nominations but were made by socks of banned users? The issue is basically that taking these on their own merits they're not bad noms, some even have an emerging deletion consensus, but there are people nonetheless saying speedy keep based on WP:RBI policy of not acknowledging contributions from banned editors, be they good-faith, bad-faith or ugly-faith. My concern is that these might be some kind of back-door disruption too, by poisoning the nomination of an article worthy of deletion any subsequent nomination is less likely to succeed because of a not insubstantial contingent of editors that believe repeat nominations are inappropriate (myself normally included). My goal bringing this here is twofold: first is to notify administrators that might end up closing these nominations that this appears to be a pattern, and two, to ask what I as an editor can do especially when before the nominator was revealed as a sock I was already engaged in a good-faith discussion on the article's merits. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC) anything that can be done?[reply]

WP:BAN and WP:SOCK are likely the pages you would be best served by. In short however, a project banned user is not allowed to contribute in any fashion to the project. A "topic" banned user is allowed to contribute to areas not related to the topic he or she is banned from. In general, if you suspect a specific violation, perhaps a note at WP:ANI or WP:SPI would be the place you would want to place your concerns. Best of luck. — Ched : ? 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:KEEP#Applicability, item 3: "If subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." Speedy keep is not the correct option in cases such as you describe in your second sentence, no matter what people may say. In cases where the AfD has been closed by an admin and you think the article worthy of deletion, you can renominate it yourself. Few reasonable editors will oppose such a renomination (though you might mention the circumstance to clarify why the second nomination is appearing so soon). Deor (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I treat this like I do any contribution by a banned user: if it's been followed up by substantive contributions, it gets kept. In the case of an AFD, I treat "substantive" as meaning that a good-faith editor that doesn't appear to have been canvassed or improperly influenced in any way by the banned user has also voted to delete. If all that is sitting out there is "keep" or really suspicious looking deletes, I close it as a procedural close. If it hasn't been followed up on at all, G5 can be applied.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kww - this is the approach I use when responding to contributions by block/ban evaders and I think (and hope!) that it's pretty standard. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Banning policy is a policy and the specific response to your question appears to be Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. WP:BAN goes on to say, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." There is a technical problem in that the first edit on a new page of an AfD (the nomination) cannot be reverted, so it must be blanked or stricken instead. Of course, if it is the only edit on the page, an administrator can delete the page. WP:KEEP#Applicability point 3 is a guideline. It was added by one editor without talk page discussion at the time that it was added, and is sometimes interpreted, especially by those seeking to protect delete !votes, to mean that AfDs do not require a nomination to proceed. However, once a deletion discussion has begun, an applicable guideline to support policy at WP:BAN is Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure, which is "a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed" where it should be made clear that such a closure is without prejudice to an immediate AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation was rebutted (by others and myself) at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 21 and rejected by the DRV closer. Please discuss at a relevant Wikipedia talk: page such as WT:Deletion process. I'll draft an RfC if you'd like. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not the place for discussion, how about you give your "guidance" as requested by the author of this section? Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deor, and Kww's approach seems reasonable. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing to remember about this is that you are always responsible for any edits you make, even if you are reverting an edit made by a banned user (or reinstating it). To take a simple example, if a banned user (socking to evade their ban) reverts a piece of vandalism, that is not something that should itself be automatically re-reverted, as you would then be restoring vandalism. In other words, you always need to look at what you are reverting, not just who you are reverting. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My experience in this matter is that if you appear to support a banned or blocked user, you find yourself being discussed behind your back as a probable sockpuppet of that user. So my advice, is don't touch it with a bargepole. Do I sound bitter? I hope not, but I am definitely miffed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unban of Christianrocker90

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.

After a little over 24 hours of informed discussion, there is unanimous support for an unblock/unban. That looks like a consensus to me, so let's give him another chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianrocker90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Hornetman16 (talk · contribs)) asked me to file an appeal on his behalf for his ban from August 2007 (ban discussion). He was banned for disruption and pushing POV after exhausting the community's patience. Here is his statement that he e-mailed to me:

"Hello, enWP editors, this is Christianrocker90, formerly Hornetman16. I was banned by the community in August of 2007 for disruptiveness and sockpuppetry, not to mention POV Pushing. I was 16 at the time and while that's not an excuse it's the only reason I have to explain my immaturity and arrogance at the time. It is now 2011, I am now 20 and have matured quite a bit and had more life experience. and feel I can help the English Wikipedia community again. In my time banned I have been editing on the Simple English Wikipedia, where I am viewed by most as a respected member of the community. Though I do still have a short temper and it can sometimes get the best of me I think I am a better person then I was before. I do have to own up to being banned twice on the Simple English Wikipedia for similar reasons twice. One in March 2009 and was banned til November that year and again in March 2010 and was banned til March 2011. I know what you're gonna say, if I can get banned there I don't deserve another chance here. But I disagree and will explain why. I am young and as such have growing to do and can only do that by making mistakes and learning not to do them again. I know Wikipedia isn't a learning ground for that, but quite honestly I'd rather make such an error where there's an undo button rather than in real life. I know that's probably not gonna help me get unbanned but that is the truth. Here's what I do know. I know that there is no way for me or you to know how I will handle myself on enWP unless I am given a chance. And I promise there will be people watching me like there's no tomorrow. If I make one small mistake I guarantee you I will be right back blocked from editing no harm, no foul. I own up to my past mistakes and beg the community for a chance to correct them. So please, Community of the English Wikipedia. Please give me a chance to clear my name of my past immaturity. Thanks."

I'm a believer in second chances and since Christianrocker90 has not sockpuppeted in two years and has matured as a person, I think he should be unblocked, or at least sanctioned. If he steps out of line again, as he says above, he can be re-banned. If not, then we have a good contributor to Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support unblocking but keeping him on a short leash, say a 6-month probationary period where any shenanigans result in an indef block, i.e. anything which would get anyone blocked, even for a short time, such as edit warring or incivility, would get him an indef block. --Jayron32 05:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my own experience, CR90's ban has been much longer than mine was, I support an unblocking, even though I am not an administrator :) ¡Mi pequeño aporte! Diego Grez (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct is to support a second chance, but I'd like to review the Simple ban discussions first to see what we might be getting into. Anyone have links to those handy? 28bytes (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianrocker90 is getting them now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st ban discussion, 2nd ban discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took a look at those, and at pretty much all of his Simple edits since his return there in March, and I didn't see a recurrence of any of the behavior that caused the ban. Three months of trouble-free editing at Simple is enough for me to support an unblock here, unless there's some smoking gun someplace I somehow missed. 28bytes (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd ban discussion was pretty resounding; but, Even though Eagles is from the wrong side of the state (GO Steelers!), I trust his judgement here. I support allowing a return to see what happens. People change over time, and I like the idea of giving people a chance to contribute here. — Ched : ? 06:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone noticed that this page was only 65% wide and now it isn't, it's because Christianrocker90 pointed out to me that Kudpung here forgot the </div> tag at the end. Just saying. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed it and reported it at VPT. For some reason, part of ANI was also affected by this glitch. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give him a chance. It's a been a long time since he last edited here and I suspect he's grown up rather a lot. However, he should know that if he starts up with the same behaviour that he had before the ban then I'm not going to hesitate to block him again. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support unban, as teenagers can mature a lot in four years. Agree that there probably needs to be a probationary period. Are there any areas where a temporary topic ban/restriction would be beneficial? Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support unban - I was instrumental in his original ban. Times change and people change & after so many years, I'm pretty certain that he has grown and matured significantly. Let's give him a chance :) Also, per Deskana, I'll quickly reblock if he starts up his old ways again - Alison ^❤ 10:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support unban. It's been some 2.5 years since his last unban request, not counting the one that was filed without his consent. That's a pretty long time to wait, most editors here aren't even active that long. I'm sure everyone will keep a close eye on him, so I don't see a need for any edit restriction. Any problems can be swiftly dealt with.--Atlan (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unban; how about some really good work-buddying through some kind of gentle probation period? Agree that youngsters change dramatically at this age - my youngest son is about the same age, and really massively more mature than a few years ago. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unban as well. Having worked/collaborated with CR90 extensively over the past couple years, especially in matters related to simplewiki, I feel he is now willing and able to work with others without stirring up conflict. Juliancolton (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unban - Users can mature a lot at that age. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unban - Looks like a slamdunk to me. Safe to AGF with this one. If the behavior resumes, it's easy to reblock. Night Ranger (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reusing content from another user's sandbox

I want to reuse a lot of the content from user weblogan's sandbox here - User:Weblogan/Sandbox in this article - Singaravelu Chettiar. Weblogan has done a great job in rewriting the article, but he is currently inactive (since june 2010) and has not moved the content to article space. My question is can another editor copy content from a user's userspace and paste it into the article (crediting the original author in the edit summary)? Is it allowed?. If not are there other ways to move the content to article space? I was going to drop a note in the user talk page, as we now have mail notifications enabled, but wanted to ask if it can be done without waiting for the user to come back and do it himself. --Sodabottle (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely fine, yep. Content on Wikipedia is released under a free copyright license, and improving articles is what it's all about! ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest simply moving the page to maintain article history. Do drop him a talk page note though. NW (Talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox contains work for Shaukat Usmani (oldid) and Shripat Amrit Dange (oldid), and possibly more. History splitting and merging may not be worth the trouble. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, List of authors, a credit in the edit summary is sufficient. I like to include a link to the source page for future editors, even when it's not required. Please do contact Weblogan and wait a while (I would wait a month, personally) before proceeding. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested redirect: Anneli Jäätteenmäki's cabinet

Hi, could someone of you admins please redirect the page Anneli Jäätteenmäki's Cabinet to Anneli Jäätteenmäki's cabinet. Rationale provided on the talk page. -- Frous (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6

Resolved

– (though not by me) Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an unclosed DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6. It's a long one with a lot said, and I imagine the reason it's not been closed yet might be because many of the regular DRV closers have already expressed a view there, and it's perhaps a bit of a pig to close. Therefore, I'm offering a barnstar to whoever closes this DRV, irrespective of which way it goes. Thanks!—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self requested block?

I nominated Temple Rodef Shalom (Falls Church, Virginia) for deletion a few minutes ago and got an error that the creator's talk page is fully protected. Crzrussian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the editor in question. The message on his talk page indicated he was indef blocked by self-request. I didn't think we did that? See the block log. Thought I'd make a note of it here if anyone gets upset that I never attempted to notify the editor in question. Basket of Puppies 08:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFBLOCK says that we can, although don't often do. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked, albeit of their own accord, for four and a half years. I think you're probably safe from any assumptions of bad faith for notifying them. There's nothing wrong with self-requested blocks (it's something that come up every now and a gain, and there's a category of admins willing to consider requests), but we're not supposed to fully protect user talk pages if we can help it. Still, there's no point unprotecting it, because after so long, there's next to no chance they'd be keeping track of their talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propper tag

I proposed split of the article Abkhazia on Talk:Abkhazia#Split_article on 10 June 2011. None objected and 3 more agreed. Can i now split this article, as per discussion above my proposal i see that even more people proposed this split, and agreed, and absolutely none disagreed? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP claiming to be both an admin and a vandal

The matter has now been brought before the Arbitration Committee. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thread on the Misc Village Pump here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. I (the said IP) am an admin, and did a couple of "bad-boy edits", and then explained why. No need to go paranoid. - 2.82.178.217 (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: don't take me wrong. The use oh 'here' to link to pages is the complete opposite of the intention of linking. Saying «Claimed at the Misc Village Pump» would be far better. Easier to read and use. - 2.82.178.217 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention the Village Pump rather clearly. When I want editing advice I don't go to abusive adminsocks for it. I had forgotten however that logging out to vandalise is one of the perks of being an admin, and it was quite wrong of me to think that it should be brought to the attention of other admins. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even get to understand the level of paranoia you are displaying. It IS funny to watch. Note that I haven't "logged out to vandalise". I don't log in for a couple of years or so. And I did not vandalised anything important (see the VP, please). Stay cool please, not every user is an abuser - 2.82.178.217 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to declare your admin account (and any other accounts you have)? DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would email the CU list, in case the ip ("hullo, there!") can be linked to any admin account - the reason being that use of the flags can be considerably damaging if ever the temptation to vandalise re-emerges. It may be that there is not sufficient data to make that link, but... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a working email link for them I would, but when I click on it I get taken to a page about creating an account on the list. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have worked it out and emailed them, was a misleading link on the Checkuser page, had to click through twice. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the email has been automatically rejected, I presume then that there is no way of contacting the mailing list?
Was it rejected or is it being held for moderation? –xeno^talk 15:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was rejected on the checkuser list. Got through on ArbCom list though. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, checkuser-l is closed to non-members (as it is mostly for crosswiki stuff, not just enwp); functionaries-en would be a better place to send private requests. If you could post to my talk page and walk me thru how you ended up trying to email checkuser-l - I'd like to be sure that we are directing people to the right list. –xeno^talk 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are paranoid, right? I am/was the IP user. What is your problem? - Nabla (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, there is an issue if you've vandalised Wikipedia while holding the admin tools, regardless of whether you "logged out to vandalise" or otherwise. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can't see why I should object to an admin keeping an admin account when they vandalise as an IP... WP:CIVIL prevents me replying! DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any good reason the IP and the named account should not be immediately and permanently blocked, and sysop flags removed? Even based on recent admin behaviour, this is beyond the pale. → ROUX ₪ 15:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering the very same thing... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded/(edit conflict) thirded. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See the list of "vandalism" at the Village Pump please. What is more important? That I did a couple of bad edits, but then went to talk about them and analyse why I - and supposedly a few more, I am not that unique I presume - why I felt like that (I spent lots of time helping WP, see my logs - why get mad enough to think about vandalising). Or the general reasons why? I have no idea of what "recent" events admins did. - Nabla (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"why get mad enough to think about vandalising"?? There's never justification for vandalism. For an admin, vandalism should result in immediate loss of the tools. You are admitting to vandalism? JoeSperrazza (talk)

You never ever lose your temper? Right... I did the bad edits mentioned at the Village Pump. Label them as you wish, I'd say they were a few extremelly harsh negative comments on a bots page, one bot page blanking (that one is vandalism), one comment out of place. Total I'd say I did one "vandalisation". Unfortunatelly you still seem to miss the point. I came forward and said why, you ignore the important part (and years of dediction) and focus on a couple bad edits. - Nabla (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone loses their temper. But it displays gross immaturity to act out on it as you did. Such puerile behaviour shows that you are not capable of acting responsibly as an admin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the fastest "official" way forward for a desysop, but it would require an arbitrator to initiate action. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Well.. Thank you for proving my point. WP is a mess, more of a battle field and a court of law than a encyclopaedia. I do a couple bad edits, and then instead of going on and really vandalise, I peacefully raise a issue about the encyclopaedia so that anyone may think about it. I then have no problem in disclosing my account, to show good faith. So? I get sued! That IS quite funny. Let's go for it! - Nabla (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you didn't seem too keen on disclosing until checkuser was mentioned. Do you have any other accounts? Also, might checkuser reveal other IP's you have been using? Anyway, ArbCom are aware now. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Woooo... checkuser... Be afraid. Don't be silly and so self-satisfied. I revealed the account because you are correct that using an IP is not nice, better to speak up openly. It was you with the second, and bad, intentions. You wanted to know the account to close it, with no apparent intention of discussing what is important. Don't go over the top, OK? Not every user is bad. I do not have any other accounts, I have used a lot of IP over the years because my ISP has lots of IPs assigned, blocking the IP range would block half of Portugal or so, which I'd say is a bit disproportionate. - Nabla (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, not every user is bad (lots of us manage not to vandalise at all). And what is important is that if an editor vandalises as an IP, their account should not have admin tools. It's a question of trust - your behaviour is not what should be accepted from admins. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really... relax. Nabla's not doing any real damage here, just asking for a rethink on things. Why must these drama boards get things so spectacularly out of perspective? --Epipelagic (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Than you! There is still at least one cool user around. There is hope :-) - Nabla (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is an undignified travesty and had better stop. A witchhunt because an admin who had not logged in for two years admitted to this somewhat POINTy edit and called it semi-vandalism? Seriously? Asking for checkuser and whatnot as retaliation for this provocative but constructive thread?

Let's see who manages to block him first and win a big price for hypocrisy. Hans Adler 16:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy? Hans, if you know of other admins in a similar position you should say so. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't name anyone specifically, but given the average level of maturity among our admins and some of the things that have come up in the past (even from Arbs), I would be very much astonished to learn that less than 50% of our active admins have done things that are considerably worse than leaving an irritated comment in article space. The percentage is probably higher if we restrict attention to those who habitually make strong comments on ANI. Hans Adler 16:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an Admin even involved in this type of behavior ? Mlpearc powwow 17:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why block the account? The edits themselves are nothing more than stuff that gets reverted and maybe a warning - even if latterly known to be a logged out user. Blocking either account achieves nothing, because getting a new ip addy is no issue and the named account is moribund. Desysop the admin account? Absolutely; they are not using the tools and have given a clear indication that they have issues with the editing environment and are willing to inappropriately edit pages to make a point. Admins are people to be trusted with the tools - which of themselves are not status indicators - by the community and there is consensus forming here that there is not sufficient trust to allow this person access to the flags. What, really, is lost by removing those extra buttons other than the potential for greater damage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the stylish thing would be for Nabla to resign his admin status and then, if s/he feels like taking it up again either now or in the future, going for a reconfirmation RFA. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem here. If you read the VP discussion, Nabla/the IP clearly stated, "I'm sorry for the mild vandalism, it will not happen again". And it wasn't nasty vandalism. It was experimenting to point out legitimate issues and start discussion on them. Sort of like WP:NEWT, maybe? Anyway, I think that neither a block nor an involuntary desysop is warranted here—move on, people. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise, an admin who sees nothing wrong with an admin committing vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise really, surely. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this thread. It's a disgrace. Why wasn't the guy de-sysopped a minute after this? 6 hours have gone by and the absolutely obvious hasn't happened. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You know, sometimes I hang out at RfA, (usually support if I can), and I see some folks make judgments due to age; opposing because they question maturity and such. It's times like this that I have to understand their line of thought. Funny thing though ... with less than 8,000 edits since 2004 .. how on earth could someone be that upset and disillusioned with the project. Don't get me wrong - there's been more than enough foolishness since ... well ... since forever here, but wow. I know at this point, taking the tools would be punitive, but considering how active (s)he has been, especially lately .. I have to wonder how much those tools would be missed. Oh well. Another day in the life of As the Wiki Turns I suppose. — Ched : ? 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)*[reply]

There's nothing comment-worthy about the user's conduct. It's the bizarre willingness to say "oh well" by admins and others that's really dis-heartening. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying DeCausa, but fact of the matter is that an "admin." couldn't take his tools to begin with. If someone blocks him, then to be honest he/she could simply unblock. At which point he's made precisely the WP:POINT he/she was trying to make. Honestly .. Fetch was right .. and I'm sorry for posting ... moving on and dropping the whole thing is likely the quickest way out of this. I'm out ... cya all out there somewhere. — Ched : ? 22:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about blocking. I'm talking about de-sysopping. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this thread, and it seems to me that other than hearing from new people, you've presented most of the arguments for what to do or not do. You have three main possibilities (I know there are others): (1) do nothing; (2) desysop him; or (3) desysop and block him. Some editors have taken a clear position, but others have not. Why not just state your positions and end the arguments? FWIW, from a much less experienced editor than most here, I agree with those who would desysop him but not block him. Based on his behavior recently and his comments, he shouldn't be an admin (not sure why he even wants to be an admin anymore), but he hasn't done anything that terrible to justify a block. In my view, those who wish to block him are holding him to a much higher standard because of his adminship, not because of what he's actually done, and I don't see that higher standard being justifiable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support desysopping without a block. A user who has no use for the tools does not get to keep them. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user who is considered to have no need of the tools won't get them in the first place, so why this editor should keep them is somewhat of a mystery. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support desysop. Oppose block at this time, but perhaps he needs to be made aware using a 2nd level vandal template (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a desysop without a block, but that's easier said than done. It's quite simply a farce that administrators are allowed to retain the tools in the face of behaviour that would earn them a sound going-over at RfA. But as I hinted at, it won't happen. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support desysoping without a block also. A block can be self remedied anyway, we spend enough time reverting "real" vandals, now we have to go clean up behind someone we trusted to help manage the project ? Mlpearc powwow 00:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support desysoping and blocking. To those who are given much, much is to be expected in return. As responsibilities are increased, there should be a commensurate increase in expectations about proper behavior, and likewise an increase in penalties when misbehavior occurs. Admins should be expected to be the highest quality people at Wikipedia, and when they are not it should come down hard. --Jayron32 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also support desysoping without a block. Admins are trusted members of the community, and misuse of admin tools as well as incivility or failure to respond to good faith community concerns can eventually lead to desysoping, as is shown with the IP/admin in question engaging in such incivil activity. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysop without block Admins shouldn't be vandalizing -- full stop. Isuppose there might be a possibility of "good vandalism", that exposes the flaws in the system and points the way for needed refroms -- but this weren't it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Desysop only. A block would be unwarranted and unproductive. However, there can be no question that the user has proven himself unfit for duty and should be relieved of his command. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, desysop needed. I don't see what a block would accomplish but clearly, this user should no longer be in possession of the tools. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The community (well, "The AN crowd") has no power to desysop administrators. I have submitted an Arbitration request; interested editors may wish to comment there. NW (Talk) 01:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a need to go through that process? We have a general consensus above, submit a steward request on this consensus and it will be granted I am sure. There is nothing requiring Arbcom to sign off on a de-sysop of this sort. The community can make that decision as well (or should bloody well be able to!) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to agree with Errant - the community has spoken, and if ArbCom declines it might send the wrong message (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - While I tend to agree that the Community ought to be able to effect desysops, to be fair, I think the concern was whether the Community actually can rather than whether the Community ought to be. The last time a proposal of a desysopping kind was considered, a large number of users were opposed to it (and I'm not merely talking about the users who commented over 2 days). And for clarity, I do not yet hold a view whether a desysop is needed or not at this point; just wanted to correct a possible misunderstanding about why the case seems to have been filed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support desysop to say the least. I won't repeat what I have already said at the arbitration request, in which I commented there first. –MuZemike 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose doing anything. Leaving an irritated comment in article space is only somewhat POINTy behaviour and would only result in a quick trouting or similar if done by an active admin. The fact that the user has been editing anonymously only for two years doesn't make it worse at all. Editing anonymously creates a different mindset. The editor realised this after the 'vandalising', started a totally constructive thread about this topic – and now you want to punish him for that? Totally ridiculous. I hope nobody is going to be stupid enough to present this situation to a steward as having consensus for a desysop, based merely on this witchhunt thread. Hans Adler 10:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only somewhat POINTy? I don't know, maybe perhaps I have lost all perspective on Wikipedia, but how is an administrator who attempts to evade detection (and scrutiny) by willfully editing while logged out to engage in what is tantamount to trolling "only somewhat POINTy"? How is this any different from an administrator creating a sock puppet, engaging in the same disruption, and then saying "sorry for using socks to prove my point"? We normally desysop those admins who do. How is this any different? Moreover, I have to question the "constructiveness" of the thread started; there are non-disruptive alternatives, even for admins, to voice the same concerns. Finally, if admins are supposed to be held to high standards, then this is most certainly a significant lowering of them, contrary to what much of the community thinks (and given the rather piss poor attitude towards admins in general, lately). –MuZemike 11:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't punish someone for not anticipating the ridiculous overreactions and bad faith assumptions with which some people with more bits than good sense reacted to that thread. An action on this wiki doesn't become disruptive just because there are editors here stupid enough to turn them into drama. A reasonable editor who assumes good faith of other editors must also be able to foresee the problem. Otherwise only those who overreact are responsible for the disruption.

"an administrator who attempts to evade detection (and scrutiny) by willfully editing while logged out to engage in what is tantamount to trolling" – Could you please refrain from outright lying in this discussion? That's not appropriate behaviour for an admin. Nabla last edited under that account on 28 July 2009 (last admin action was 17 May of the same year). The 'vandalism' edit (and no, it's not actual vandalism – such edits are totally normal and even acceptable on most wikis) happened yesterday, on 19 June 2011. The claim that he stopped editing while logged in 2 years ago so that he could leave an anonymous comment in article space yesterday is so obviously wrong that it's mind-boggling how you could believe you would get away with it. If we go by ErrantX's standard (expressed today at Arbcom) you should be preventatively desysopped to prevent damage to the project. Hans Adler 11:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call be a liar again, Hans; I am calling it as I see things. The fact that there were viable non-disruptive alternatives to all this is the main reason why I am seriously criticizing the actions here. As Fetchcomms mentioned above, this is very much like WP:NEWT, in which dishonest means were being used to make a point, at least that's what I gather from this. (I don't know how else to conclude, but I may be biased as I have not readily condoned what went on at NEWT.) Frankly, given all the concerns about "admin abuse" here, I fail understand why you are so shocked over the reactions. Admins are supposed to act better than this. –MuZemike 12:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Huh? I'm not sure that is compatible with what I said. I do agree with you that the response here has been un-necessarily layered on. However; Nabla has exhibited problematic behaviour and a distinct lack of judgement expected from an sysop. A de-sysop in this situation should be routine, without drama and with no prejudice for a future RFA under current criteria. Nabla is clearly (in his words!) dis-illusioned with the Wikipedia eco-system, and the treatment of IP editors; which is a matter to discuss and consider solutions for. But in the situation the de-sysop of an old account is simply a sensible and logical solution. I am perfectly happy to accept Nabla's explanation that this was a moment of anger/poor judgement and it will not, in good faith, happen again. But as he has demonstrated a capacity for reacting angrily (even if his reaction could well be justified) it strikes me as sensible to remove an un-used sysop bit to lower any future risk. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 2nd level warning should do for this. Or the second size of trout for the admin, Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights the community has the power to remove admin rights, but several editors above claim this is not true. Do we need an RFC to clarify this, or is the help page incorrect? (no opinion on the actual case for now) Yoenit (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All local WMF wiki communities have the power to remove admin. It depends on relevant local or global procedures, however. fr33kman 16:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The community would have the power to remove admin rights if there were any kind of process for doing it. (Ethically it would have to be a FairProcess.) But there isn't; we have traditionally opposed any kind of community desysopping because then the poor admins might be desysopped for doing necessary but unpopular things. Ironically, this means that now that we propose to desysop an admin for doing a necessary but unpopular thing—pointing out a problem!—we can't. I'll tell you what, let's set up a proper community desysopping process and not desysop Nabla.—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Desysop only As I said before, the only loss by removing these tools is the potential for greater damage than with - they are not being used. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Desysop per all the above; tools are granted to those who (a) want them for a legitimate purpose and (b) are judged to be sensible enough to use them for that legitimate purpose. Sadly, neither seems to be the case here. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 12:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did he misuse any of his admin tools? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Desysop - And block as well. Also, this once again brings up the question of why we don't have a properly codified method of desysopping admins who clearly show they have no business with the tools. Not to mention the face that this is the third such admin I've noticed in the past week or so returning after a long absence and getting involved in drama. Something strange is going on. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emergency desysop and indefblock as a compromised admin account. I will be posting on the steward's noticeboard immediately. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand: why do you think the account is compromised? ("compromised" in this context usually means that it is no longer in control of the original account holder) –xeno^talk 15:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: This was filed (too early) but since there is now an ArbCom request going on the stewards will await proper instruction. fr33kman 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban placed upon Biophys (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Russavia-Biophys is lifted, effective immediately. Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 25.3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Hello, fellow Wikipedians

At Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis, I suggested that Second Ivorian Civil War be merged into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis because those articles are the same and it wasn't a civil war. Not all internal conflicts are civil wars. When's the next time I can propose another merger? B-Machine (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and while you're thinking of that, drop by the 5th requested move for Cote d'Ivoire in the past year. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very neutral note, BWilkins (and not correct either, considering there have only been three previous RMs in the article's history...). Jenks24 (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This TFD discussion has been open for 9 days with no new !votes in the past 2 days. At this point, I think it's obvious that the consensus is to deprecate the template — even though Twinkle has been amended to add a "rationale" field by default, this still doesn't fix the long-standing problem of eleventy zillion existing cleanup templates without reasons. Most of the "keep" !votes are WP:ITSUSEFUL or otherwise not based in policy, and many of the arguments for deprecation are very similar to those presented when {{expand}} was deprecated; i.e., that the template is vague and almost exclusively drive-by tagged. Obviously, deprecation will require people with AWB and/or too much time on their hands to remove it, but as the instigator of the TFD I'll help clean up {{cleanup}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Father Kit Cunningham

I just deleted Father Kit Cunningham as an attack page in good faith because of BLP concerns, it was referenced to a fairly normal obituary at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8199757/Father-Kit-Cunningham.html but contained mainly claims of child abuse from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/19/kit-cunningham-child-abuse, can somebody just review it please and revert deletion or endorse as necessary, thanks (also some content at St Etheldreda's Church). MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the uncited comment at the St Etheldreda's Church article, the descriptor as if fact when he appears to never have been found guilty of such a crime or even charged seems undue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the BLP concerns? He's dead. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - its been replaced diff by User:Philadelphia 2009 it seems to be cited to that guardian is free external. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bit more in The Tablet Rosminians sued for abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear I deleted as it appeared to be an attack on Cunningham based on one Guardian opinion piece, I was perhaps hasty hence brought it up here for a sanity check. Although they may be dead they may have relatives. Hence my request to revert my deletion if others thought that appropriate and I would be happy to make an apology to Philadelphia 2009, just looking for other views. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it would as a minimum require a lot of care. Although there seems to have been no legal charges its the subject of a current civil action and three or the people involved are living. It also sounds like all the available details have been leaked by an alleged victim and a party to the civil action. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fr Kit would be charged if he were alive, but agreed about the other three living priests. Also there in a TV prog on the BBC on Tuesday, which may have more info. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is that (as recorded in the Guardian) Fr Kit Cunningham did not deny the abuse allegations and wrote a letter of appology and handed back his OBE. The article was by no means the finished article, and I was planning to include more info re Fr Kit's good work in London. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tablet says that Cunningham wrote a letter admitting the abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philadelphia 2009, He does seem from the obituary to notable-ish (although no one has written an article about him prior to this added issue} perhaps you would like to write a well rounded BLP for the father in your userspace prior to publishing in article space? Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is done - and I suggest caution here, particularly as other living people are involved in the civil suit - please ensure that the page is marked with the NO_INDEX template to reduce the likelihood that it is ranked highly in search engine results. Risker (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding sockpuppetry

This is a general question, not an accusation of sockpuppetry or a request for action.

If a user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, along with his various IPs etc, and he almost immediately reappears with a new account, is he immediately liable for a further block on the new account, or do we wait until his behaviour warrants a block? I'm asking because I've just found a case of this, but the new account hasn't really done anything wrong yet. Do I give him a chance or shop him straight away? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's block evasion and warrants an immediate block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Major League Baseball Draft

Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, and direct me to the right place if this is the wrong place, but I would like some intervention.

At WP:BASEBALL, we have a consensus to list the first round of the amateur drafts (including the compensation round) and no others, because it is an excessive list of 50 rounds and most individuals drafted will never meet GNG. In fact, many first round picks never meet GNG. One editor, User:Carthage44, insists on adding all 50 rounds to 2011 Major League Baseball Draft and refuses to engage in polite discussion, as you can see from his most recent edit summary. He's not quite vandalizing, not quite edit warring, but his editing is disruptive as he is not seeking consensus on talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI question

Has WP:SPI really been cleared of all open cases, or has something gone awry? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, it seems so. And I wasn't around to clear it, either :) –MuZemike 03:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Given Category:Open SPI cases, I think it's a bot problem. T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The bot gone messed up things. –MuZemike 10:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins needed for info-en OTRS queue

The info-en OTRS queue has been chronically backlogged for the last few months. A lot of the former admins that kept an eye on the queue have left, leaving a void. Admins with a focus on BLP article are the most needed but any can help, the permissions and general help queues are also suffering from a lack of attention. You can sign up at meta:OTRS/volunteering. Brandon (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please do. This is an urgent problem. In my personal experience (as User:Moonriddengirl), what you most need to be able to do there is patiently explain to people how Wikipedia works. Sometimes I edit articles directly based on OTRS tickets, but often I just have to tell people how to handle things themselves...or why what they want done can't be done. A useful skill, in my opinion, is the ability to overlook irritation and focus on the heart of the issue. The people who write OTRS have often had bad experiences trying to resolve problems themselves. Sometimes, just talking to them like human beings can help them feel more positively about their experiences here, even if they don't get everything they want. It's really important work, and we need more people helping out with it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check

I'm on my way out the door, but I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the exchange at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Austrian lake substubs and let me know if I've completely lost my marbles. (I'm not seeking any admin action, as I have no intention of wasting any more time improving "articles" that took no time or thought to create; I just need to know if I'm capable of making sense any longer.) Deor (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've told this admin time waster to pursue this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). AN is for situations which require admin intervention. I would be more concerned about this editors responses.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread seems like a good candidate for the newly-minted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. –xeno^talk 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The response that you say you are more concerned about is aggressive but understandable. It's pretty obvious that anyone who thinks they have a reason to post an issue to an admin noticeboard will object to that post being removed by the only other involved editor. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I am still right that this is not the right place to post about this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree, but it's not unreasonable to think that the user wants input on a subject that they consider a matter of general administrator interest. It seems to me that it's not a matter that they want admin intervention on, but a matter that they want admin input on. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeff dean and possible return to edit

Last November, I indefinitely blocked Jeff dean (talk · contribs) and a bunch of others for socking. He just came back as Whoami 24 (talk · contribs), but he has posted a message basically apologizing for his actions here; moreover, he hasn't socked in over 7 months, technically meeting WP:OFFER. Should we allow him to edit and with this current account, given that he has basically owned up to the socking and has not done so in quite a while? –MuZemike 15:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, next time I'll look a little more closely. The account was created on 1 January, with exactly 3 edits between now and then. –MuZemike 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as those three edits in March is the only activity this person (not this account, but this person) has done at Wikipedia, I would think the spirit of WP:OFFER has been met, and would support a probationary unblock, we can always reblock should shenanigans resume. --Jayron32 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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