Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Count Iblis (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 22 July 2011 (→Review of leaked emails: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:10, 22 July 2011 by Count Iblis (talk | contribs) (→Review of leaked emails: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    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


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

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

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

    The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion.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

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

    Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

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

    Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. Ed  08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you, Ed, for closing Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    Still no closure? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

    Some RFCs that could do with closing

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

    The account security one has seen a few additional comments today, so perhaps hold off on closing that one for a couple or days more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    The dash drafting poll says it is supposed to remain open until the 16th. Ed  07:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

    Several more recently archived RfCs:

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

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

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

    Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

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

    S*d MfD, is this deletable under G4 and/or G11? Support ban if this is a recurrent issue. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Nmatavaka is not female. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Ack. I'm used to sussing gender based on name. —Jeremy v^_^v 17:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Strongly support. They had a condescending preface to their last 300-image repository page of anything with exposed genitals, picture painting or woodcut, and now they've moved up to being uncivil and making a thinly veiled attack at the people that argued for the last one's deletion. They obviously do not understand the REASON that their first page was deleted: they are assuming it was homophobia (despite most of the images being of heterosexual sex if I recall) when in fact that had nothing to do with it. If they cannot understand why we deleted it and are recreating it, then they need to be stopped from doing so again before it becomes a drain on our resources. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Deleted the new page under G4. Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Support topic ban, and also blocking user if they continue to act belligerently. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    Support topic ban and shooting any new porn repositories on sight. Danger (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    Sheesh, hasn't this person heard of tumblr yet? -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

    Patient closer wanted

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

    Requesting closure of merging request

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

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

    Proposed community ban of User:Chaosname

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Resolved – I'm calling this one. Consider him banned --Jayron32 13:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

    User:Chaosname
    "Chaosnamepuppet" socks

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

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

    Here's more:

    Other socks

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

    Again, all talk pages... and user talk pages at that. I think that you're falling for the bait here, is all. Still... <shrug> if you want to go this route, I'm certainly not going to stand in your way. Weak Support. This could have been avoided, but it's clear that at this point person behind the username is attempting to make a point. Who am I to stand in the way of displaying the hypocrisy of overbearing members with control issues? Having spent a good period of time on their shoes... I don't know, at this point it's likely too late to turn this around regardless.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    This could have been avoided how? There are many people out there who only desire to vandalize and disrupt Misplaced Pages for the hell of it – that is a (rather unfortunate) side-effect of having an open wiki. I think it is unreasonable for the community to have to passively act like nothing is going on while others shout out childlike gibberish and make puerile death threats at others. And watch who you call a "hypocrite" and "overbearing"; nobody has called you anything close to that here, so I don't know why you have had to now resort to such attacks. I am more than happy to offer second chances to others (and I have a couple of times recently), but there gets to a point where it's simply fruitless to reason with the unreasonable – in my view, this is one of them. –MuZemike 22:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    Another question is, as someone unfamiliar with this editor, what is a community ban going to accomplish? You might as well ask whether Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned. If someone is being this transparently abusive, are they going to be nice and go away now that we banned them? And per Ohm's Law's reference of WP:RBI, one might ask whether anyone needs permission from AN to revert and block for diffs like these. I'm not saying you're doing the wrong thing, but why don't we just revert, block, and move on? --causa sui (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Support. Exhausted the Community's patience for sure. At least in theory, we've done what we could (WMF apparently urges us to develop practices to get rid of and discourage disruptive behavior). The issue arises when there are problems with enforcing our measures (a couple of users have made suggestions along those lines here in my view). A recent suggestion to tackle that is to try therapy (eg; banned Naadapriya's most recent puppet is now on an arb/CU's talk page, while another admin quite foolishly offered it a welcome template) - such therapy is quite pointless in practice. I do hope that WMF, godkings, and others can offer more active assistance than simply sitting at a distance, passing vague "resolutions" (with conflicting objectives) and then expecting everyone else to deliver a positive result. One often ends up questioning whether this website is supposed to contain good quality content, or whether that doesn't matter, given that the latter is so often encouraged by other stated goals of this project (such as openness, being free to edit, and so on)...but I think I am digressing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Support ban No more diffs with look-at-me details please! Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Support. The name definitely speaks for himself. This has to stop. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Support ban as clearly warranted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Ban this Chaotic-Stupid-Shin-Megami-Tensei-Gaian already. Chaos for chaos' sake is inimical to the way Misplaced Pages operates. —Jeremy v^_^v 18:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Support ban. Giggity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request review of my actions

    Resolved

    I closed a move request at Talk:Jakub Petružálek a few weeks ago. Today User:Pmanderson posted to my talk page, saying that it was inappropriate. Therefore, I'm posting here to request review of my actions.

    Pmanderson says that I'm involved in the issue, and I'm not sure what he means exactly. For the record, I've closed very, very many move requests, and I've sometimes added diacritics and sometimes removed them, as I've gauged the consensus will of the community. Thanks. -GTBacchus 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    I can see Pmanderson's point re the "wave of the future" comment, although I have no doubt that you intended it as more of an observation about a trend you noticed than an endorsement of it. That said, I don't see any reason presented by Pmanderson that you shouldn't have closed it, and a "no consensus" close was certainly appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    Partly my fault. Sorry.
    I wasn't expecting GTBacchus to take this here; as we both know, he has been to some extent involved with the current discussion whether to use diacritics. On reviewing the discussions, he has been more invoked than directly involved, so I would be satisfied if he agreed to tone down the rhetoric, and to take care not to close an undue proportion of the diacritic requests. (It looked like he was doing so; the same close has been discussed several times, without connection, and so I thought there were more than there have been.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    Every time someone questions a close of mine, I bring it here. I don't know what you're talking about when you say I've been involved (or invoked) in the current discussion over whether to use diacritics. If you think I'm involved, tell me which side you imagine I'm on, and I'll provide 20 diffs to prove the opposite. Do you think I'm pro-diacritic, or anti-diacritic? Either way, you're wrong.

    I close as many moves as I do, and no more. If I have a stance in the diacritic debate, I'd like to know what it is before I recuse myself from closing requests in that area. Am I for them, or against them? As far as I know, there is no rhetoric to tone down. I have no opinion on diacritics, full stop. -GTBacchus 04:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    I see nothing wrong with the close nor with continued closing. I think PMA means by you being "invoked" that your closes are being referenced, in particular in support of keeping diacritics, though I don't know exactly where this has occurred. I suspect PMA is concerned that the comments on changes to the broader community consensus and the words "this has been a long time coming" suggest that you are 1) ruling on the broader community consensus having actually changed and 2) possibly relieved we've "finally gotten there". I don't see this myself and I may be completely off on what PMA means; hopefully clarification will be forthcoming.--Doug. 06:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    By invocation, I mean the reliance on Bacchus' authority as an admin evidenced, for example, in this section of a current RfC. An opinion is clearly being read into his words, which is why I think them unfortunate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    Yes. I agree with this. Thank you, Pmanderson. -GTBacchus 19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    I'm going to join in here in insisting that something be changed. "No consensus" is acceptable, but the rational given in the closure is clearly inappropriate. For example, "the practice of removing diacritics does not seem to enjoy the consensus support that it once did" is a controversial, and basically incorrect, statement, on multiple levels. Additionally, "support for diacritics has grown steadily" clearly demonstrates "involvement" here, as this is the central question of the debate.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    Wow, people are "insisting." That usually doesn't work, at least in my experience. GTBacchus' close seems fairly no-nonsense to me. Don't go changin'... to try and please me... - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    Hey, he's the one asking for opinions. My only point is that his closure rational in this particular case stakes out a position on the issue at hand rather than detailing a neutral interpretation of the issues. For "no consensus" closures, saying nothing is often better than trying to push editor opinions in one direction or another. I've seen this sort of supposedly neutral "no consensus" closure tactic used before, and it's kind of an asshole move to make.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    Huh. I didn't mean to push anyone in any direction. Saying that support has been steadily growing is an observation, not involvement. I didn't say I'm happy about it, or sad about it. I just noticed that it's grown. When I close move requests, I see more support for diacritics than I used to. How does that make me "involved"? I truly don't get it. Do you have any idea how many moves I've carried out removing diacritics? -GTBacchus 17:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    Hey man, I remember ya! I know how many of these things you've closed. My only point is that the rational, as stated, leaves you open to this criticism. The statement "use of diacritics is more acceptable now" (to paraphrase slightly) is the dispute. I don't blame you, since you're main involvement with all of this has been somewhat limited to closing the RM's, but there's a political process occurring here which you've (apparently inadvertently) inserted yourself into the middle of. Increased awareness of the issue is what's really going on, and several parties are digging their heels in and polarizing the (so to speak) "electorate". Your closure here is being used as justification, in and of itself, for a proposed change in policy to make using diacritics wherever possible mandatory. Is that what you intended?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    I never intend to feed the superstition around here that what's written on policy pages somehow determines rules for our behavior. Misplaced Pages is bottom-up, not top-down, our policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and the lawyers are wrong. Policy is determined in the field, and not on pages in the "Talk:Misplaced Pages:" namespace.

    I'm glad someone pointed me to that discussion you mention, and I'll be contributing there. I would have preferred being told about it in some words other than "you're wrong, and I disagree with the barnstar someone just gave you", but whatever. You can't please 'em all.

    Just for the record, I don't give half a drop of stale bugshit whether we use diacritics or not. I simply don't care. I do care about accurately reading and following consensus determinations on Misplaced Pages. Anyone who thinks I've got a personal agenda in this, or in any issue that I touch on Misplaced Pages, they're sorely mistaken. Things that I care about on a personal level, I stay away from here, because my neutrality would be compromised. I wish everyone would do the same. -GTBacchus 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    There's no issues with the close result itself (and I think Pmanderson intended for his concern to be as general feedback for proceeding in the future rather than as pursuing this further). I think the moral of the story here is to take care when making observations in such closures, as they can sometimes be unnecessary, and can sometimes carry unintended (counterproductive) implications. In this case, I think the prediction in the second sentence of the close isn't quite right because the close result itself was not the controversial or disputed part; rather, it was the way in which was done. This was just a simple case where there was room for improvement in how it was closed (be it as a one-off, or generally). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I actually thought the "This has been a long time coming" was probably the part that would cause more concern than the other parts. 18:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    Yeah. Apparently that phrase makes it sound like I've been eagerly awaiting its arrival, and that I'm all happy to see it or something. I just meant I've been watching the wind gradually change direction, and it seems to be blowing from the diacritic side now. That was simply intended as an observation, but I can see how and why it appears inappropriate. I agree that it is better to avoid such language when closing discussions.

    All of that said, I'm glad the issue is coming to a head now in a central location, and I hope to see you all there. There's nothing more to talk about here on AN, I think. Thanks all for weighing in. -GTBacchus 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    Exactly
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    Merging "New Super Mario Bros. Mii"

    Resolved

    New Super Mario Bros. Mii has passed a unanimous merging discussion. Can an admin go ahead and merge it with New Super Mario Bros. Wii? --Nathan2055 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Admins don't merge pages. Editors do because it requires absolutely no administrative tools.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    I've merged it, noting {{copied}} etc. on talks of both. Marking 'resolved'.  Chzz  ►  02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, I know editors can do it, but I actually don't know how. --Nathan2055 16:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    You move the content off of one page and put it on another.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    See WP:Merging. You can ask me directly if you have any questions. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

    TFD backlog

    Since some of the main TFD closers are on vacation, there appears to be a backlog at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion. Not only are 12 July discussions not closed, but nor are 11 July, 10 July and some even earlier Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_names

    Resolved – User:Fastily closed the other one--Doug. 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    Could an uninvolved administrator please close the two open RFC's? They have been open for almost a month each and have both had plenty of discussion.--v/r - TP 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    • Well, I closed the easy one. That's the closest I recall ever having gotten to actually citing IAR! I tried really hard to close the second one Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Cranialsodomy but the comments of 22 experienced editors were of no help and they were evenly split. The closest any got to referencing policy was to say that it was or was not obscene. I was going to be left with my own interpretation of policy, so I ended up commenting. I highly encourage others to comment to; hopefully with what you think the actual language in the policy means and why the username should or should not be allowed rather than the "I don't like it" and "It doesn't bother me" comments that I found.--Doug. 19:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • And actually, this one has been open for 34 days now.--Doug. 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    "CranialSodomy" is editing an encyclopedia of knowledge; his mother must be proud. And, we've now thrown -bot ending usernames to the wind. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

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

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

    User:Asher Heimermann

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

    An unblock seems reasonable. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    After nearly four and a half years a second chance seems reasonable. I will unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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

    I have no problem with a mentor. However, that user ({{user|Asherheimermannissogreat}) was not me. It was a person named Nick on Facebook who was harassing me and asking me repeatedly to accept his friend request, which I did not. As far as the Warriner High School article, there are other charter schools who have an article about the size of Warriner. I am open to ideas. I'm not here to play around anymore, I just want to be a meaningful community member. Any thoughts? Asher Heimermann (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    I unblocked this account, as I indicated above. When I did so, I fully intended to check back from time to time to see what edits were being made, and was ready to block again if I saw anything unacceptable. This is what I always do when I unblock a user with past problems of this kind. I had warned Asher in my unblock notice "If you edit disruptively you may expect to be reblocked immediately", and I subsequently posted a message to his talk page telling him that I had been checking his edits, so that he was aware of the fact. When I looked at Asher's editing I did not see any problems.
    The concerns raised by Mrschimpf (who signs as "Nate") are worth consideration.
    The article for creation produced by Asherheimermannissogreat is strange. It looks like a ridiculous vanity article until the last paragraph, when it suddenly turns into a criticism of Asher for refusing to accept someone as a FaceBook friend. If it was by Asher then that last paragraph was very odd. If it was not by him then it was by someone who seemed to have a strange degree of fascination for him, possibly to the extent of an obsession. However, that last paragraph certainly does fit in with Asher's explanation given above, and there are people who develop just such obsessions.
    I am not at all sure what the significance of the IP edit about the school district radio station is. The same IP address has been used by someone with a dislike of Asher, who has tried to keep a perfectly legitimate link to a web site off Misplaced Pages purely on the grounds that the web site was designed by Asher. (See the removal of the link and the user's comment on it. Is there any evidence that the edit referred to above from the same IP case was made by Asher? If so, what evidence? If not, is it relevant?
    As for George D. Warriner High School for Personalized Learning, my personal view is that very few high schools are notable enough to justify having articles, but there is a very long-established consensus on English Misplaced Pages that all high schools are notable. There is no basis for criticising Asher for creating an article which is fully compliant with accepted standards, whatever I or Mrschimpf or anyone else may personally think about the school.
    Finally we have "has added links to their promotional website for Sheboygan on and off the last couple years through IP's and cleverly named socks". Unfortunately no specific examples are given, so it is impossible to assess that claim at all. The only thing I have seen which could remotely be considered relevant to this is the case I mentioned above of removal of a link to a website purely because Asher was the designer. I hope this is not the sort of thing which was being referred to, as who designed a web site has no bearing whatever to its relevance or appropriateness to the article from which it was linked. Trying to remove it simply on those grounds is unacceptable. What is more, the link was placed in the article by Asher Heimermann on 21 January 2007, just over a month before he was blocked, and so it is not relevant to suggestions of sockpuppetry or other unacceptable editing during the block. The editor who tried to have the link removed used the section heading "Asher's at it again". However, the link in question had been placed nearly four and a half years before, suggesting that the anonymous editor was accusing Asher without taking much care to check their facts. Also "at it again" suggests that the same anonymous editor may have taken similar steps before.
    The conclusion I draw from all this is that no evidence of the supposed sockpuppetry has been presented, nor has any been found by my searches. There is, however, evidence of an unreasonable campaign by at least one editor to suppress content related however indirectly to Asher. (In the case of the removed link I have referred to, the web page linked does not mention Asher. The only indication of a connection is a small note at the bottom of the page saying "Website Designed by Sheboygan Communications", and to make the connection one has to (a) know enough about Asher to know that that is his company, and (b) be searching for such connections, or for some other reason be looking at the small print at the bottoms of web pages.)
    There may be evidence that Asher has been evading his block. However unless and until such evidence is presented we have to assume good faith. I shall keep up my periodic checks on his editing, as I always intended to do. If I find no problems with his editing then that will be fine. If I do find problems I will take whatever action seems necessary, anything from a friendly warning to an immediate indefinite block, as seems appropriate. Anyone else is, of course, free to keep an eye on his editing too. Unless and until problems arise I see no need for any other steps. Asher has said that he would be willing to accept a mentor, but the word "mentor" is very broad in scope, and can mean anything from someone who will generally keep an eye on his editing and give him advice and guidance as and when necessary, to someone who will conduct an organised course of lessons in how to edit. I really do not think that Asher needs the latter: he clearly already knows a good deal about how to edit Misplaced Pages, but if anyone else who disagrees wishes to volunteer to do it and Asher wants to accept then they are of course free to do so. However, as far as the more low-key kind of mentoring is concerned, I have undertaken that role before for an unblocked editor with a controversial history, and I am willing to do it again if Asher wants me to. In that case I would change my informal intention of keeping an eye on his editing for a little while into a commitment to doing so for a specified period (three months is the period I have specified in the past), with feedback, advice, and warnings if and when I think fit, and an offer to be available for Asher to approach for help if and when he wants it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    I agree with the unblock. Asher conduct back 4.5 years ago wasn't heinous, it was irritating to a bunch of editors with his youthful exuberance. He was young and it showed. I didn't have a big problem with him back then and I think it's worth our time to give him another chance because I'm optimistic that we have come across a good editor. He just asked me for help with an article so that's an improvement already. I'm too busy in real life to be a "mentor" but he can ask me questions like he did.
    I would be more comfortable with his agreement to be a better editor if his userpage didn't have links to his websites and social media pages. I don't think they're forbidden but since this was the problem before I think removing them would show good faith to the community. Royalbroil 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

    Request for copy of deleted page

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

    Emailed you the content. --Errant 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
    How does emailing effect attribution of the re-write if the article is restored? Or do we typically restore the history when a the re-written article passes deletion review and just make the re-write the most recent edit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    The page was deleted in 2007; my assumption (based on the phrasing of the request) was that this request was not a pre-cursor to getting it undeleted :) otherwise I would have restored it to userspace. --Errant 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

    For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

    Discuss this

    Need check on file moved to Commons

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

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

    Admin Dashboard

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

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

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

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

    'retired' admin userbox?

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

    I know I'm often last last to know things, but: mass retirement? o_O? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm sure someone can find the link. There was a recent RFC which 'Voluntarily retired' any admin who had not edited for some time (12 months I believe). As it is 'voluntary', these admins can reapply for their bit without going through RFA. I am actually asking because I also recently surrendered my admin bit - I'd taken a year long break and since returning I was getting a lot of "You screwed this up" and "you have violated policy" messages, hence I thought taking some time to get thoroughly reacquainted was in order. Manning (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    Ahh, thanks, I was looking for something more like an arbitration outcome, your pointer was enough for me to find it: Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins. With respect to getting flack upon re-appearance, and without looking at you actions yet, my $0.002 is that "you need a refresher" an easy stick with which to whack someone with whom you disagree. Are you intending to ask for it back in a suitable period? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    No immediate intention of asking for it back, but having been an admin for nearly ten years I'd like something as a badge of my period of service. Manning (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    This user is a retired administrator on the English Misplaced Pages.

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

    Probably should have a userbox for this, so {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} (includes Verify link). Rd232 10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    Very nice, but, if the editor (now former admin) is no longer active, when are they going to put the nice little userbox on their page? Nobody else can do it for them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    Maybe it would be better to say "former", since "retired" suggests total inactivity. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    I agree.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    I prefer "retired" because former might be more shocking to them when they return and it doesn't say they have retired from the project, only from being an admin. But that's just me.--Doug. 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    The userbox {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} does say "former". I've added an inactive parameter, which produces "whose administrator rights were suspended due to inactivity" Rd232 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    More or less shocking than seeing they've been forced into retirement? =) I think Rd232's inactive=yes parameter works. –xeno 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    I don't see why nobody else can do it for them. If they have retired, they shouldn't have an admin userbox, but if the retirement was involuntarily implemented via the referenced 1 year inactivity period and they aren't around, then obviously they aren't going to remove their own, now inappropriate, userbox. In such a case, there is no reason that someone can't replace their current userbox with this one. There is not an absolute prohibition on editing someone's userpage and a good faith edit to replace their userbox to reflect their current status would be no more problematic than simply removing the old one.--Doug. 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    Particularly if there's any now-incorrect categorisation, but even if there's merely text or userbox on the userpage which could be misleading, this should be fixed. I've added a note to WP:INACTIVITY. Rd232 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

    Impending deployment of MoodBar extension

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

    New Era Building

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

    Do you also have drafts for the other articles in userspace? Barring that, it's a disambiguation that leads to one article. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    I'd like some feedback on what our normal approach is in this situation. When there are two actual articles, it makes sense to use a hatnote, but if one or both are redlinks, hatnotes do not appear to make sense. That's why there was a dab with two redlinks. I'm not all that big a fan of redlinks, but that's not my call to make. If redlinks are allowed for plausible articles, (and an NRHP location qualifies as a plausible article), how should it be handled? I do not think it is reasonable to expect the editor creating the dab to have draft articles in progress. That would be nice, but I don't see it as required. I'm inclined to make the move (as requested here), but I'd like to see what others think, in case there are rules I'm missing, or a better solution.--SPhilbrickT 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    It is disambiguation policy and practice that disambiguation pages differentiate among topics and can contain redlink items, as long as each one provides a supporting bluelink to an article that shows the same redlink in context. More specifics at MOS:DABRL. From time to time it seems surprising to an editor, but it is further acceptable for a dab page to consist entirely of such redlinks (with supporting bluelinks), as has been determined in discussions among disambiguation-focussed editors at WikiProject Disambiguation talk. This dab page existed properly in mainspace for a long time. Recently it was deleted once by Sphilbrick, was recreated by me, was moved to current userspace location twice by SarekOfVulcan, and then a new page (which I moved to New Era Building (New York City)) was created in the mainspace location by Station1. The disambiguation page is needed, appropriate. It now takes an administrator to move it back. I suppose it would further be appropriate to have the previous edit history of the article restored. --doncram 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    P.S. I've now asked at Wikiproject talk Disambiguation for comment here. --doncram 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    See, now I'm cranky. When there is history to an action, and that history can reasonably interpreted as contentious, it's a bit uncool to drop a one-line "please do this." It sure makes it look like you were trying to slip something in under the radar. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    I would have thought that making the request on one of the most trafficed noticeboards on WP, rather than using {{Db-move}} (where it would hide along with the rest of the speedy deletion requests), is the antithesis of trying to slip something in under the radar. Bencherlite 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    A non-controversial move of a disambiguation usually gets done in thirty seconds when you put in on this page. The relevant facts weren't given by the requester, and there was clearly a good reason to give that background, see above and below. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, my asking here was meant to convey there exists some issue, but I was hoping for simple resolution. It should indeed be non-controversial, and would not be except for SarekOfVulcan's determined and uninformed-in-my-view intervention on the article. I asked here rather than at wp:RM as some editors here are familiar with SarekOfVulcan's involvement with my editing, which is adding up towards repeated instances of pretty apparent edit-warring mentality (tho 3RR not reached this time). The last time SarekOfVulcan tangled with me here, regarding a page where he reached 4RR, he was blocked 40 hours and i was blocked 3 weeks. I don't want to have to go into all of that. I simply asked and do ask for the dab page to be restored, and hoped that someone informed about previous history would just make a sensible judgment on this situation alone and fix this situation. In effect I was/am asking for a simple override SarekOfVulcan's judgment that it is not a valid dab page, because it is a valid dab page. Is it possible to ask for a simple fix, without going into a big discussion about other stuff? --doncram 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

    Doncram attacks

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

    The New Era Building situation is yet another where SarekOfVulcan seemed to me to be edit warring, by nature of rapid, undiscussed too-strong edits, with terse edit summaries at best. I requested nicely enough that SarekOfVulcan read up on the subject and fix the situation by moving the dab page back. He did not, so eventually i ask here for others to fix this. It's an example of SarekOfVulcan edit warring, IMHO. See edit history and discussion, such as it was. Countering by trying to raise a new issue seems off-track. Just move the dab page back, please. --doncram 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    'add to article created to support architect article, which is under some "pressure"' is not an improvement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    In this AN discussion, I ask for simple resolution of one dab page issue. --doncram 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

    Community ban proposal: Vote (X) for Change

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

    Review of leaked emails

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

    Category: