Hey there - can I ask you a favor? I am mediating a dispute at Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin, and I need someone to keep an eye on it while I'm gone until Sept 5. No work should be required; the participants are largely driving the discussion at this point. However, not long ago I had to protect the article because an edit war broke out. When I unprotected, I warned User:Daniel575 and User:Yossiea about edit warring. Daniel575 has also been blocked for 24 hours recently for personal attacks. So, it is a heated topic, but they have kept a lid on it for at least a week. I just need someone to watch out for another edit war breaking out. Let me know :) --Aguerriero (talk)15:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:ORDER has been leaving notes on my talk page, I'm not sure if they qualify as personal attacks. If they do, can you block him? This all started when he vandalized the articles China and Republic of China and I left a blatantvandal tag on his talk page. Thanks, --Ideogram15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since he agreed to what I pretty much said, I think it would be wise and prudent for him to keep the same user name. I'd be happy to help him out on this go around, providing that he can play nicely. Of course, if you disagree, I think perhaps Kylu would be a wise choice for a mentor in this circumstance. See you later. CQJ17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Featured Article" DRV
Hi,
What's the rush? I can understand your early closure of CVU (which resulted only in discussion continuing at MfD), but in this other case, you ended discussion a full two days before the minimum required under DRV rules, and I see no evidence of an overwhelming consensus in the review. I won't insist you reopen it, but I do think your action there was a mistake. Best wishes, Xoloz17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is better left as a redirect than a useless and misleading deleted page. There's no reason to let 'process' get in the way of common sense. Cowman109Talk17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My "common sense" is telling me (among other things) that there are many possible redirects for the phrase, that a disamb page might be better if we come up with more than one, and that leaving the DRV open could solicit other opinions. Remember, never think your "common sense" is the only version available -- that's one reason process exists. Best wishes, Xoloz17:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the article itself could use some rewriting, the article looks to be the name of a region in India. I don't think that would constitute as a vanity article, unless I'm missing something. Thanks. Cowman109Talk23:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Echilamvayal is a community in Kerala, India, located in the western side of Kallan Kunnu (Kallan Hill) on the Payyanur-Pulingome state highway. Echilamvayal is primarily an agriculture area. Most of the farmers cultivate rice, coconut, arica nut, banana, and other plantation and horticulture crops.
the article uses community. A community is not a region. A region is an area bigger in size than a community. The article gives reference: in the western side of Kallan Hill. Probably a very small region; european contries also use the term region, for instance an area in the range of a lake is a region. User:Yy-bo13:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The place does seem verifiable, nonetheless, and it is indeed described as an area where people live and not of any person in particular. Remember that notability in itself is not necessarily grounds for deletion, but verifiability is what is the most important. If you'd like, though, you could make a second AFD listing and mention that it is a second nomination - I can indeed see where some of the confusion may lie, so perhaps I was too quick to speedy keep it, but vanity guidelines usually cover just individuals, groups or organizations that serve no purpose other than to advertise oneself. Cowman109Talk16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article does not contain any picture, web links. In addition, its editor(s) have produced reaction. I do not need to see it getting deleted. Do not know if it needs review, or tags to be added. User:Yy-bo19:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California
Can you unprotect the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page? I know you were the administrator who originally protected, and the user who was primarily responsible for the problems on the page has been blocked for a year by the ArbCom, so it's probably safe to open the page again. Thanks. JCO31205:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh. Short story, you have kicked a Pandora's box... few comments: recently, I have not been engaged in any significant disputes wiht Ghirla, and as such I don't think I am an involved party in this dispute. After his short block for incivility he seemed to have realized that incivility will only get him blocked, and there have been virtually no trouble on the Polish-Ghirla content front. From your comments, however, it appears that he seems to be under the impression that he can be incivil elsewhere :( My recommendation: block him for a few days to drive through the point that incivility is bad anywhere and then see if it helps. I agree with Irpen that it would be a shame to lose such an active editor, but we must reform him, otherwise I believe his costs (driving away editors, raising wikistress all around) outweight the benefits.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely why I have filed an arbitration request - his incivility has been a long time problem, though his contributions to the articlespace are beneficial. Also see WP:ANI#Ghirlandajo for a recent Administrator's Noticeboard report about him. I know you have had problems with Ghirlandajo in the past, so your contributions to the case would be very helpful, as well. Thanks. Cowman109Talk17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cowman109. I have a question in connection with your recent ArbCom submission because something there is unclear to me and I would like to make a statement there but only after the points you are making are clear to myself. In your arbcom statement you said:
Also, another accusation is that he is making use of meatpuppets, such that many users come to defend him and support him in content disputes and other arguments
May I ask you to be a little more specific? Who exactly are included in this "another accusations" as Ghirla's meatpuppets? I am not intrested at this point on what you consider a basis for this accusation as I want to reply only to a statement you already made and not to the argumentative discussion that don't belong to the arbcom preliminary submission anyway. As such, please name the meatpuppets in your submission or below so that I know exactly who you mean. --Irpen18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't compiled evidence for that, yet, though if the case is accepted if I have the time I'll see if I can contribute to the evidence section. The past edit wars, however, seem to consist of Ghirlandajo and many other supporters against others, and it's usually the same people. Cowman109Talk18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you don't know (or don't want to say) who they are but you "know that they are there". Or at least you think so. Thanks for being clear about it.
Let me explain why I came here to clear this up. While the purported meatpuppetry is a side issue to the case you are making, unlike other things you bring up, the meatpuppetry is a serious ethics issue rather than merely a temper issue or content disagreement going too far. As such, I view this accusation no less serious and would like to comment on that in my statement specifically. I hope you agree that such accusations as meatpuppetry cannot be brought up (or taken) lightly and you, as well as myself, are interested to have this extremely important ethic issue cleared to the bottom of it.
But I take from your answer that you threw this serious accusation without having any evidence and you are only yet to "see if you can contribute to the evidence section" (in your own words). I reserve my judgement on that for the statement I will make at ArbCom but I would like to thank you for clearing this up for now. --Irpen18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you're more than welcome to join in the arbitration request with your own statement to clear up anything I may have not been clear about or I may have said incorrectly. Cowman109Talk18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cowman109, my goal is not to correct whatever you "may have said incorrectly". If you said anything incorrectly, or even "may have" done so, it is up to you whether to correct it yourself, you to rephrase your statement to make it more specific, or to remove the accusation you see unwarranted on the second thought. I only wanted to understand your statement better because it is your statement, first of all, that I am going to comment on. Thanks again, --Irpen18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. So that is what you consider evidence of meatpuppetry, strong enough to throw it puplicly at the ArbCom page. I hoped I would see anything more substantial but I guess I will have to live with it.
Oh, btw, if I am included among your suspected meatpuppets and you are interested in seeing my gmail log, please let me know together with the date range. --Irpen18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And could you please confirm my suspicion (caused of course by your answer above) that you consider me one of those meatpuppets? I do not have Wiki e-mail, the only contact I have with Ghirla is through user pages and so I can only point to my contributions, which vary from Australian ports to AfD'ing hoax articles about non-existing Belgian towns (note that I was on holiday in Spain at the beginning of August and putting flamenco before checking Wikipedia). I am also a contributor to Dutch Wikipedia, where people's ideas about me may be, er, a bit different, to say the least ([1] - I am using my mother's maiden name there, and not a nom de guerre as in English Wikipedia). Most of the other people I think you suspect have similar edit and life stories. --Pan Gerwazy21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do try to follow Ghirla's talk page and I do take part in these votes now and then. Those who vote more than me will have longer careers at Wikipedia, more contributions, longer talk pages and perhaps they were not absent recently for three weeks. Er, all of which makes them less likely than me to be meatpuppets of Ghirla I think.--Pan Gerwazy00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Pan Gerwazy, how do we know that Ghirla, through one of his sock/meatpuppets did not have a secret communication with you by exchanging messages at your and others' talk pages at Dutch Wikipedia? You know, few at en-wiki monitor what's going on there. And, besides, Ghirla has a Wikipedia email, so you could have emailed him first with your email address and you exchange messages on meatpuppeteering ever after. Or, perhaps you exchange messages with Ghirla by one of other plentiful options. You could have conspired by exchanges messages at one of many available wikis, say www.mythtv.org, where you have two inconspicuous accounts whose only purpose is conspire on the meatpuppetry on enwiki. Other opportunities are abundant. So, no, Pan Gerwazy, you have no alibi on that. Or does he?
I guess not. In fact, I was usually one of the last to sign. That could mean that I am completely innocent, because I noticed it at the last moment while browsing through the talk pages of a third person or alternatively ... that I was late because the very indirect way you describe was used to tell me. Personally I think that there are better ways of finding out that someone is not a meatpuppet: high number of contributions about a whole range of subjects, presence at more than one wikipedia, active presence at portals (asking questions and asking for help - not OFFERING help). Virtually empty talk pages (well, mine is not very impressive) and long periods of absence support the accusation, however. I agree with you that the accusation seems both serious and unwarranted at this stage.--Pan Gerwazy00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, Cowman109, I am really surprised that a Wikipedian with your status would be easily throwing out such accusations as meatpuppetry on such public and serious pages as ArbCom lightly, especially over the users like Ghirla and those who agree/disagree with him on the edit disputes, and especially if, as you put it, you have yet to see. whether you can contribute any evidence on the matter or, as you stated later, your "evidence" consists merely of the fact that some users tend to agree at more than one page. Meat/sockpuppetry is one of the worst ethical violations I could think of and such accusations are incredibly serious.
Actually, I am not upset by the arbitration filing. While likely to be dismissed, if accepted, it will shed light of the ArbCom opinion on lots of things. My primary concern over the recent developments at Wiki has been expressed at the board a while ago and the problem is still looming. Hasty blocks following the misleading postings at WP:AN should not be put in the same ballpark as legitimate blocking of trolls and extremists by admins who should not wait for ArbCom to exercise their judgement in such matters. While the latter benefit us all as they allow us to spend time on writing articles rather than countless RfC's/ArbComs every time new extremist shows up, the former harm the Wikipedia a great deal. Please think over your accusation one more time and consider substantiating them if you want them stand.
Accusation of the unethical behavior of this scale is by far more offensive than pointing out towards the user being too emotional at times during DR. --Irpen22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit of you, I would strongly appreciate if you either provide a list of suspected sock and meatpuppets of User:Ghirlandajo or retract the statement. FYI I thought of one of my duties as an admin to create comfortable, productive environment for the productive users like Ghirlandajo and maximally uncomfortable for socks and trolls. If it is now considering meatpuppeting I would rather have the dispute somehow formally resolved abakharev01:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reworded the statement - meatpuppettry would not be the proper term, but a group of established users who persistently support him in content and user disputes. Cowman109Talk01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cowman. In your list of links for "Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request" at the Ghirlandajo RFAR, I've replaced your diff link to your own ANI post with a (permanent) link to whole ANI thread, as more useful. I hope that's acceptable; if not, please just revert, and sorry for interfering. Bishonen | talk12:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks :D. I think it might have been that way before, but then it was changed by someone to a diff to show the specific links to bits of incivility accusations, though that might have been something else. I don't mind either way. Cowman109Talk12:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Actually, don't you think your ArbCom request for Ghirlandajo was a bit too hasty? We all know Ghirlandajo sometimes uses strong words in his comments, but I believe he acted in good faith overall to Wikipedia and other users. It isn't exactly easy to be humble when you personally created thousands of articles, and Ghirlandajo, as I see now, is in much less dispute than before. Some of the diffs you included are not exactly incivil [2]. Anyway, good luck and congratulations on being an admin (I didn't notice the RFA, or I would have voted for you)! Aran|heru|nar14:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cowman, thanks for your reply on the Wiarthurhu talk page. My concern is two fold. Most importantly one of the editors who has butted heads with Wiarthurhu in the past has complained to me via email about these specific edits. There is still a lot of, at least somewhat justified, anger that Wiarthurhu has been unblocked, and people are going to be sensitive to any perceived breach of the agreement. Second, I have misgivings about these edits. They do not break the letter of the agreement: the edits to the WikiProject Automobile talk page are not to an article of the project; nor is the General Electric J79 article technically part of the WikiProject Aircraft. But I could make the case that they break the spirit of the agreement which was that he would steer completely clear of these projects.
I like your proposal that Wiarthurhu uses his talk page to propose changes to any automobile or aircaft related pages, I think this would be appropriate. Thanks for helping to mediate this difficult situation, Gwernol12:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion provided re: Catman Cohen listing at Wikipedia
Revert war in progress. Even after I asked not to revert-war one of the participants has stated his intention to revert again. --Ideogram01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done - and I won't be active during the week, so if further trouble arises (in any incident) during the week, it's best to try WP:RFP until I get back on Friday, or WP:ANI for other incidents. Thanks. Cowman109Talk01:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This went far to fast, and Ideogram is clearly overreacting. Protection privileges should not be used this way. The page is no frozen the way Ideogram wishes it to be and no one can add info to an imortant article. Please refer to my discussion with him on User_talk:Ideogram#Frozen_page_on_China. --Niohe03:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the latest advice. Frankly, I went to the deletion review page you suggested and it just gave me a big headache. Maybe I'm not educated enough for these things, after all, I was a sociology major/cheerleader in school, not a linguistics major, but after reading the instructions, I still couldn't figure out how to proceed.
I think I might have to go back to Mr. Cohen and tell him that I personally can't resolve this matter. I suppose maybe you have a point about the notability thing: if the listing has any merit, let somebody else - a fan, a critic, a music librarian, etc -- create it. I have no idea how to satisfy Wiki criteria and it seems unlikely any Wiki editor will help me create an appropriate article so this whole appeal process seems so pointless. I just hope I don't lose my client from this whole mess :>))
Hey -- you blocked this bot, because it was malfunctioning. The owner, User:LeonardoGregianin, is requesting unblocking, and says the malfunction has been repaired. Since you made the block in the first place, I thought maybe you should decide what to do. Thanks! Mangojuicetalk05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was an unapproved bot so I probably shouldn't unblock him myself if he's just going to continue running it without approval, but the process would be to see WP:BRFA. I left a note on his talk page saying this. Thanks for telling me. :) Cowman109Talk20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you are condoning User:Londheart's presence and even wish him "happy editing", although he's a multiply permanently banned user, as was easily verifiable from the links. I have therefore posted this issue here. That is not personal, of course, but I think you might have misjudged the issue by not recognizing him as a sock, yet not looking into the links provided, either. Ebbinghaus21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have a chance to look at his previous blocks (I responded to the ANI report now), and now I see why he was blocked before. I'm just AGFing that he wants to change, though I won't object if another administrator blocks him. Cowman109Talk22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I didn't know, and I don't think, that just creating socks many times means that someone should get a new chance, especially because the last really harsh acts by him (calling people Nazis and the like) are from yesterday or today, and he has zero respect for any Admins, etc. To encourage him (really blocking is impossible because of his wide IP) really doesn't make things easier... Ebbinghaus22:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
HRE's RFA
It was not indicated as an office protection, though I see it is on WP:OFFICE - but I'm not going to check that every time I unprotect a page. From the protect log:
00:25, September 5, 2006 Golbez (Talk | contribs | block) unprotected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4 (i may be out of line but i don't think there's any more issues with this page)
22:42, July 3, 2006 Lar (Talk | contribs | block) protected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4 (temporary protection to stop this reversion [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
I saw a temporary protection, not an office issue. I suppose this is all part of my complaint that WP:OFFICE issues are horribly communicated. It was never "office protected", it was protected due to a revert war. --Golbez21:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there was an office tag at the top of the page [3] before you unproteced it, though it looks very much like a full protection tag, so I'll go propose that it is made to look different so people aren't confused by it :D. Cowman109Talk22:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of my RfA, Kim Bruning suggested that I join MedCab. I've done a little informal mediating on NPOV disputes and RfCs. Is there anything I should do other than adding my name to the list and watch the page? - CheNuevara
There's no strict requirements that are expected of mediators - it is an entirely informal process, so you can try yoru hand at a new case that seems fit to your liking at any time. The process has become largely autonomous lately, led by a dedicated group of mediators, so if you have any difficulties, it's probably best to ask on the medcab talk page. Cowman109Talk03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith, until I have evidence showing that assumption is incorrect. Assuming something to be true, when you know it to be false, is delusional. I am hostile because they are censoring information from articles to get them subtly, but significantly, in a certain POV position. Lordkazan19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't aware of that extra information before. Still, you do appear to be unnecessarily hostile towards them, even if they may be pushing a point of view. Nonetheless, it is probably best to ignore them and request a third opinion or an administrator's outlook on the issue through WP:ANI, as the ongoing fight between you and them is unproductive at this rate, I hope you can agree :). Cowman109Talk20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was unaware of the existence of Robert_the_Bruce or any RfC relating to that user. I had never heard of that user before clicking on the link above. It has nothing to do with me, nor as far as I'm concerned does it have anything to do with the issue at hand. I do thank you for taking the interest and time to weigh in on this subject, since it has obviously become a problem for me. Dasondas21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there are only 11 months in a year now. I wish people would tell us when they go and change these things. -- Steel00:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Supreme_Cmdr's edits being mere content disputing and not vandalism. He's blanking cited information. Lordkazan03:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He stated his intentions and he believed he was improving the article. He also had only made one edit in the past 10 days, so I don't think the block was necessarily called for. I'm hoping he will respond and clarify his reasoning further, but if he continues to revert the information I will re-block him for revert warring without trying to settle things on the talk page. Cowman109Talk03:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the history of the article and the user. He has been persisting in blanking cited content for longer than I have been a regular editor. Lordkazan03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you're right - this may indeed be long term abuse. I won't block him just yet - I want to see if he attempts to engage in talk page conversation instead of continuing this futile edit war, else I'll probably block for a logner period of time. Either way, the previous 24 hour block clearly didn't really do much since he didn't edit for another week the week before that anyway, and he hasn't responded yet either :). Cowman109Talk03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal attack. I kept the position, but removed the accusation. This is per Wiki Rules. Rather than file a RFC, i'm contacting you concerning this. Mykungfu18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually controversial for users to remove personal attacks, especially if they feel that they are the ones being attacked. I would recommend that you just ignore the people that seem to be harassing you, and if the user has often expressed this view against you, perhaps a note at the administrator's noticeboard giving a neutral overview of the situation to see if anything should be done if this continues may also be in order. Cowman109Talk18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any autoblocks on the list of active blocks relating to Mykungfu's new block. Could you clarify that the problem is, please? Cowman109Talk20:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting the page and issuing those warnings. I have never participated in these reverts and I don’t pick sides. However I found Happyingeneral’s reverts, particularly the ones on Falun Gong main page unacceptable. He has been removing a sourced and relevant statement which among to preventing others from contributing. I just started a dialog on the talk page, maybe they can talk to each other now. --Kent888801:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Kent8888, might I ask you if you found my reverts unacceptable why didn't you contribute to the discussion page?
To Cowman109, actually I agree with the fact that you blocked me, because I did actually violate the 3rd revert rule (by mistake I might add, since I was truly caught up in the flame because the reverts were done without any attempt of discussion, still I do believe that getting caught up in the flame is not something acceptable). If you don't mind I would have a question since you are an administrator (I suppose, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Does the 3 revert rule apply even when the counter party does not attempt any communication. I'm talking about the Li Hongzhi page, I did explain every step of my revert, but there was no mature discussion about it. They were just ignoring my remarks and questions. When I mean they I mean "Samuel Luo", "Mr. He", "Yenchin" who based on they article comments and contribution are against Falun Gong and try their best to enter something calumnious about Falun Gong. We'll as far as I know it's OK to have more then 1 opinion about a subject on wikipedia, but when there are disagreements they should be taken to the discussion page right?
It is best to try to engage in conversation at the first signs of edit warring. There is of course nothing that 'forces' administrators to block someone who violates the three revert rule, as it may be clear that someone is acting against a wide consensus, but in general edit warring in any form is unproductive (and if anything, just leaving the article alone for a while to discuss is better than having the entire page protected. Cowman109Talk19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, than I guess the correct way is this: 1. start discussion on the edit page; 2. if notes on the discussion page are completely ignored, then I'll talk with you, since then you can evaluate the situation and are able to give a warning if you feel necessary.
Anyway since I'm a Falun Gong practitioner I don't feel that it is OK to leave the page alone if somebody makes some incorrect notes to it. I hope that you can understand and perhaps even sympathies with that.
Also I would like to assure you that I do have full intentions in respecting Wikipedia spirit and rules :).
Also why is there an association with pages users such as Mikeandike when the last time it was used was march 2006 while ninjanubian came around in august and then became mykungfu. Please address this. thank you
The current page boarders on harrassment in my assessment. Is the screen shot a necessity?
You eliminated an entire batch of text in the article "mung" because a single source (urban dictionary) is poor. I agree with you whole heartedly that urban dictionary is not a valid source, but there were several other sources. If those sources are unacceptable, please offer reasons why in the discussion.
Well, technically we probably shouldn't be having most school articles as they don't seem to meet notability guidelines, but it seems to have become common practice to include them, so if it makes people happy (and probably attracts editors), I guess why not. :) Cowman109Talk01:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re Specialized Bicycle Components
Um, did you notice this article had over a 2 year edit history? It seems like you could have reverted to any number of previous versions. Speedy deletes are almost never appropriate for articles with significant edit histories. The version from September 14, 2006 looks like any number of notable company articles (and, this is a notable company). I suggest you restore and find an earlier version to revert to. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, nope, that part of the history also seems to be some sort of copy-and-paste job. I think the only acceptable entry really would be the first edit from 2004 before all the commentary on how appropriate their motto is would be best. What do you think? Cowman109Talk02:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of this. I hope you don't mind my butting in. As a future tip, always check the history before doing speedy deletes. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from Specialized HQ in Morgan Hill. We were (seriously!) trying to improve the very outdated entry for our company on Wikipedia, and were not acting in anything other than good faith. But hey, we're new at this. So rather than get in an argument about what is advertising and what isn't, can you please take a look at the entries you obliterated and give me some ideas as to how to avoid things being removed again? The company history, our advocacy efforts, our efforts to promote women's cycling, and our history of sponsoring professional racers is similar to other content on wikipedia for other Enthusiast-type brands (ferrari, nike, burton etc). Can you suggest a good "model page" for us to follow? We want to improve wikipedia, and get more accurate and robust info onto the site. -- Sapphireguy
(Also posted at Sapphireguy's user talk page, but copied here just for the sake of reference)
Concerning Specialized Bicycle Components, it is usually highly discouraged for companies and representatives of companies to edit articles about their own company for reasons stated at WP:AUTO, such that is often a conflict of interest involved between the editor and attempts to make an article that conforms to a Neutral point of view. I mean no offense to you by reverting your edits, but there are many parts of the content that could be viewed as advertising the subject of the article.
One such phrase would be this:Never happy with just good enough, the company continually revises its bicycles, components, apparel and everything else it does with this philosophy in mind. and New technologies, new concepts, new riding styles, and women riders everywhere help Specialized to create the best line of women's specific products. The result? More women on more bikes more often, all having more fun and riding with more confidence and greater ease than ever before. seem to be something that someone would read in an advertisement for a company (once again, I mean no offense by this, but from an editor's standpoint, Wikipedia is specifically meant to differ from advertisements in such that it provides a neutral, factual representation of its subjects through sourced statements instead of 'fluffing up' articles, to put things in simple terms).
Honestly, the majority of the edits to the article read as though they were meant to be sold through Wikipedia, and as such I must ask that you try to refrain from editing in the interest of not walking into a conflict of interests of a subconscious bias towards the company you work for that you can't help. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me, though. Most people would just revert back, so I'm glad that we can open up a discussion on this instead of fighting over it. :) Cowman109Talk18:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, noted. I totally understand your position, and I'm sure you can understand ours (we'd like, for example, that our race team facts & figures reflect the current year, rather than facts from 2 years ago that are being presented as "current"). Let me direct our editor to take a renewed, more neutral approach to this. We still think there are facts and updates in our first attempt that are both relevant and useful for wikipedia users, particularly as they relate to our history and the history of the modern bicycle. We're a bunch of cyclists, more than anything (join us for a lunch ride if you ever need proof) and we thought the content that was there was in dire need of improvement.
For situations like on Derek Smart, it may be best to block the editors edit warring and make it clear that they will be blocked again if they continue. The full protection prevents anyone from editing, when it is only a certain few who are the problem; they should not be allowed to lock up a Wikipedia article. —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were 4 or 5 editors involved in the edit war from what I saw, so full protection appeared to make the most sense to promote talk page discussion. I'll unprotect the page now, though, as it should be long enough. Cowman109Talk03:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After the two failed mediation attempts and a (now final) arbitration, moderator CP\M requests a review of his activities, especially pertaining to the mediation of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon case. His request has been posted on the MedCab Coordination Desk, as stated above, and I have added relevant links for coordinators who would like to review ArbCom decisions. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Smart
You recently banned me for perceived war editing. Apparently you are willing to mete out this sort of ban without fully researching the facts.
I spoke with Nandesuka as his revert was indeed uncalled for due to the numerous other positive changes involved in the edits. The article seems to be progressing now, though, so I'd rather not protect it once more. Cowman109Talk18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I would request you to go through my edits and see that for a new user I have made significant contributions to small areas of the wiki according to my knowledge. Secondly since Supreme_cmdr bought up the matter, I would be gratefull if you could have a look at the [4] where we are having a problem. Supreme_cmdr has repeatedly and vehemently denied that he is Smart, however information related to a trace I ran on his IP address showed that both he and Smart have the same ISP, and have remarkably similar IP addresses. However this information which I thought is approprite as the issue of Supreme_cmdr being smart himself was routeinely debated in the talk page, was removed by JBKramer saying it was against wiki policy. Is there such a policy, if so I would be more than willing to abide by it. Thirdly I would kindly request that you tell me about any action or authority I can tell regarding supreme_cmdr's allegation of racism against me which is a serious allegation which should be routinely condemmed. If you deem me to be lacking good faith as alleged by Supreme_cmdr who is a SPA (just have a look at his edits) then by all means tell me so and I will leave the wiki never to return.There is no need for banning me etc, I am a educated man and I can abide by guidlines.Kerr avon18:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be gratefull if you could find the time to help us as you seem to be a senior person around here. Currently the Derek Smart article is subject to numerous edit wars. One heated source is the inclusion of the werewolves site and as to whether it is against any guidlines in the BLP. There is a discussion going on at [5] regarding this. I would like your opinion on how to proceed with this matter, should it be referred to arbcomm or are there other ways to find a solution.Kerr avon14:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no edit wars going on in that page or one of the more experienced and regular editors there would have reported it. Besides, you are the one hell bent on note following WP:CIVIL. You been on Wiki for a little over a month and all you have succeeded in doing is having your talk page littered with warnings about your conduct. Hence the reason I am currently compiling an RFc against you. Supreme_Cmdr(talk)14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but I don't really feel the need to respond to the IP's wikilawyering purposely trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Cowman109Talk19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So have you guys come up with a permanent solution for my most favorite user on WP, Panarjedde? Once again, numerous 3RR blocks, further disruptions to WP, same behavior keeps continuing... --Palffy21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the deletion of the article is common sense. It has no business being in the encyclopedia in its form. If I may offer a few quotes from the "article", "This image of Brad Pitt shows what can happen when a misguided man thinks that No Shave November implies a retreat to barbarism in facial hair.", and the image caption "James "Grizzly" Adams, who extended the holiday to No Shave All Year 'Round, and his bear, who has managed to never shave during its entire life." If you honestly think that the article has merits being in the encyclopedia, by all means recreate it in a proper fashion and I of course won't stop you, but we should have no tolerance for unencyclopedic crap in the encyclopedia. There was no redeeming point in the article revert to, so I deleted it. Cowman109Talk01:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As JYolkowski explained on Wikipedia_talk:Permanent_semi-protection_of_official_policy_pages: "It is absolutely not a requirement that changes to policy pages be discussed beforehand [at all]" [7] Consequently, purely procedural objections to the manner in which Wikipedia:Permanent semi-protection of official policy pages was enacted are unpersuasive, especially since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Only one editor objected to the policy proposal, and all objections were rebutted. Furthermore, five established editors (including myself) supported it. Additionally, the arguments in favor of semi-protecting official policy pages were far stronger than the arguments against it. I don't see why "this essentially rewrites the semi-protection policy" -- it merely creates a small exception for official policy pages, which new and unregistered users are highly unlikely to edit in beneficial manner. Finally, the decision of two administrators to act on this policy amendment (see [8] and [9]) provides further evidence that there really is consensus for this amendment. John25405:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking another admin is always something to be done in the last resort
The banner of the Rouge Admin, awarded by User:Lar for having the courage to do the needful...
I just noticed that you blocked this individual for three hours. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Steel359_reported_by_User:David_Levy_.28Result:.29 for an explanation of why I believe that a 24-hour block is appropriate. Had I noticed Steel359's 3RR violation before I became involved in the spelling dispute, I would have placed such a block myself. (We routinely impose this duration, and if anything, an administrator should be held to a higher standard. The page protection further adds to the infraction.) —David Levy 01:49/01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings, Cowman. I'm gonna take a break. Could you keep an eye on my talk page because last time I was away from Wikipedia people left admin requests there which went unanswered for a while. Thanks. -- Steel10:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough. Wiarthurhu has broken his agreement - he MUST take a one week ban. This is not negotiable. It's bad enough we let him back from an indefinite ban at all - it's bad that we imposed such lax conditions - but it's completely unacceptable that he be able to break even this most lax of agreements without the specified punishment being applied as agreed. We cannot and must not weasel out of this otherwise the entire penalty system is without teeth and serious editors are at the mercy of the bozo's. SteveBaker03:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering that this occurred one week ago (and he made no edits for seven days after that) a block now seems it would be inappropriate. Of course if he does it again I won't be so lenient, but blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. The message has already been put across that he made an error in doing this, so if he continues I will block him. His other contributions are positive, so a block at this point would do more harm than good. Cowman109Talk04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not pointless - it makes it very clear to everyone that this behavior is not acceptable. It's recorded - it's there for everyone to see - and if he does it again we can point to this block and say "Look! He did it again." - just because it took a week for the infraction to be noticed changes nothing. I'll accept a back-dated block - I just want to see it there in the formal record. SteveBaker04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation Cabal - Possible new cabalist for animal cases
I've noted the case at Tiger still goes without any official "Lead" mediator. I'm not sure how many such animal-related requests there are, but think I would be interested in trying to help resolve them. Am involved in both the cats and dogs projects, and would be specifically interested in resolving any issues there. Also, the case above seems rather easy to handle, based on the fact that the point of contention regards an animal, the liger, which does not technically qualify as a true species of cats. Would appreciate any response, here or elsewhere, and thank you for your valuable work here. Badbilltucker19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mediation cabal is an entirely informal and (hopefully) autonomous process, so you don't need to ask for permission to sign up and try to help. Just be familiar with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators and try to help the users. The merely technical side would be to change the word new in the infobox to open, but other than that there's nothing to it, so feel free to jump into it. :) Cowman109Talk20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to request a checkuser on the workshop page of the arbitration case. If it is proven that he was evading a short 24 hour block, that would be something of interest to the arbitration case. Cowman109Talk21:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
— Deon555talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
I blocked one IP earlier today, and he appears to have returned with another IP. I'd rather not sit here blocking IP after IP when the target can be sprotected. -- Steel20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I go through my logs every couple of weeks and unprotect stuff. So I'm not creating a whole lot of work for VoA. -- Steel20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yoshiaki Omura Entry Protection
Thanks for re-protecting the page pending further discussion and the proposed/hoped for wider involvement of the community. It seems, at least to me, the most hopeful route. TheStainlessSteelRat03:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
/16 IP block blocks
Hi. We got a complaint to the unblock-en-l mailing list that 70.231.142.97 can't create an account. I see that you've recently blocked two SBC /16 sized subnets out of a /11 and a /12 they've got for home users. My understanding was that hard IP blocks on subnets of that size was strongly discouraged outside emergencies. Can you give some context for why you thought those were necessary? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert03:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ranges were blocked due to a user creating dozens, if not hundreds of sockpuppets through the ranges to edit war on China. Dmcdevit blocked the ranges for a week after checkuser rooted out a good deal of the sockpuppets (see this version of my sandbox for an almost-complete master list of the known socks on the range). I reblocked the ranges after Dmcdevit's block for a week ended and the user began to create a dozen sockpuppets on the range once more. Personally I'm hesitant to believe that this is a legitimate user requesting the range to be unblocked as this happens right after the IPs were blocked a second time, but go ahead and unblock the range temporarily for a day or two so the user can create their account. I'll ask for another checkuser to determine if more abusive accounts popped up in the gap in the blocking time. Cowman109Talk04:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know anything about the field, or have a personal agenda, please refrain from personal attempts to censor a scientific site
Especially when your blocks are lifted because they are seen as a personal attack by Wikipedia.
Whitedragon1976 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Either today (Friday 11:50 PM PST) my IP address was blocked for abusive account creation. Since my account wasn't blocked, this is probably a mistake. I will be happy to resolve it with you in my discussion page.
Sincerely,
- Steve Sims
Here is what the block says:
Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Cowman109 for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Abusive account creation
The IP (and its entire range) was blocked with intent to not cause collateral damage to accounts using them due to a user abusively creating dozens of sockpuppets to edit war on certain articles. Dmcdevit is currently looking to try to narrow down the range block so it affects less users while the sock puppeteer tires out. Cowman109Talk16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help
Tomananda is unfairly blocked. He exhausted his 3 reverts on this page but he did not violate the 3RR rule. I contacted the admin that blocked him the following is his response. What is more unfair is that Olaf Stephanos who had just as many reverts on that page was not blocked. Could you help unblock Tomananda?--Yueyuen20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll full protect if it they continue reverting after your comments to the talk page, just to see if they're listening to the advice and want to start conversation. There hasn't been too much edit warring lately, at least. Cowman109Talk20:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are still edit-warring. Of course, that probably also means they won't consent to participate in a mediated discussion anyway, so maybe we should just close the case. --Ideogram02:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. You don't even know what edit warring is. I made a perfectly reasonable edit of a single line and everyone is up in arms over it. Anyway, I don't think Cowman109 is stupid, so lets just sit tight and wait for his response. You folks are like children in a schoolyard. When something doesn't go your way, you run off to call a teacher. All the while forgetting to tell the teacher about your own actions which sparked the reportedly perceived infraction. Supreme_Cmdr(talk)17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A case for exhausting the community's patience should be decided at WP:ANI to determine if there is consensus for a community ban or simply a longer block for edit warring. Cowman109Talk20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly how to proceed here. Do you think I should post to WP:ANI? Can you give any guidance on that? Do you think filing an RFAr would be more appropriate? I know how to do that, but I think a community ban would be more efficient. --Ideogram20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom would only be the option to take if there is some sort of objection by the community. Just a new header with Supremecmdr as the title, describing your desire for a community ban and giving reasons for it, listing out his previous blocks, etc. And then see where it goes from there. There's no real process to such a thing. If it's determined there is community consensus, then that's that. He can always appeal to arbcom if he is indeed blocked. Cowman109Talk20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently he's already been blocked for ten more days. If he continues the same behavior after the block is up I will take it to ANI. --Ideogram21:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
