This is an archive of past discussions with User:NuclearWarfare. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Well, that was a fun two months, observing Wikipedia but not editing. It definitely gives you a different perspective on the site. Sorry I didn't answer any of my talk page messages. If you want still want an answer, just dig it out of the archive and place it below this message. Best, NW(Talk)01:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I can hardly say how relieved I am to see you back! If you haven't figured it out by now, I consider you to be one of the best of the best around here and it has been good to know that you are always here when I need intelligent and fair-minded advise. It is so good to have you back. Gandydancer (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
view
Hello, I've invited some trusted editors to participate in Jerash talk page, about the fake information that user:banimustafa and his puppet socks trying to force, could you please give us your point of view about that. Thank you--HF►15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
question re: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy
Howdy:
I hadn't heard of this until today, but "The Franklin Scandal" has been floating around NPR's comments board in response to the recent news about Etan Patz, so I read the Wikipedia entry on it, which you semi-protected. I discovered that a recent article published in "USA Today" magazine still makes claims about the Franklin story that disagree with the Wikipedia page. I was considering adding a line to the entry briefly mentioning that there is still controversy about it, and that one author questioned the perjury verdict, with a citation to the USA Today article, which can be read online. (Assuming that the Google docs version of the article, which came from the author's website, is what USA Today actually published.)
What do you think? Is it a violation of a living person's biography to post public comments about trials that have already taken place? Basically, it seems like it would be unfair if the story wasn't true, but it's not as though wrongful verdicts have never been reached, so it's always a possibility. I don't know that much about the case, and I don't want to support wild conspiracy theorists, but I've been reading a lot about problems with the American justice system lately, so it's hard to know what to think about some of these trials.
Isn't this already covered by the last sentence of the article? Also, could you send me a link to this USA today article? NW(Talk)21:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi--I'm not that used to the "Talk" page, so hopefully this makes sense.
The last sentence of the article doesn't address the perjury case. But maybe my extra sentence should go at the end of that paragraph instead? This is what I was going to add (last two sentences of paragraph)--the link to the article is included in the reference:
Moreover, two of the purported victims were indicted for perjury;[1] one was convicted and sentenced to 9–15 years in prison.[2] Yet the controversy continues. In an article published in January 2012, Author Nick Bryant described the trial of the convicted perjurer as "a travesty," and likened the Franklin story to the Penn State sex abuse scandal.[3]
I don't have any evidence that the trial was "a travesty," but I thought it was interesting that Bryant would write that, so many years later. I'm not sure he's the most objective source, since he's been a crusader on this topic, but apparently USA Today found the article credible enough to publish. As far as the biographies of living persons policy, it seems like the argument here is between protecting the reputations of the accused abusers and that of the convicted perjurer, who claims innocence.
Belmontian (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This is really more a matter for the article talk page than my talk page, but here is my opinion: Bryant is definitely a crusader on this topic and I don't think it would be entirely appropriate to cover his opinion in the manner that you suggest. I think the inclusion of a clause along the lines of "claiming that the Franklin scandal was part of much more widespread series of crimes[1] and that the perjury trials were part of a cover-up" might not be inappropriate. But I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment further, so I would suggest that you bring the matter up on the article talk page. NW(Talk)04:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry--I'm not that clear on the uses of talk pages. Since you were the one named as the person who had "semi-protected" the article, I had the idea that you had to be approached before changes were made to the article. --Belmontian (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not. I semi-protected it to make sure the hardcore conspiracy theorists were locked out, but responsible editors like yourself should feel free to edit and discuss the content on the talk page. NW(Talk)02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Joe Pasquale
Hi! I am working on a DRN case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Joe Pasquale. Do you believe that there is still a BLP issue here that requires protection? I am not challenging or criticizing the protection, just gathering info so I can inform the person who opened the DRN discussion why the page is currently protected. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
RE: Delicious carbuncle and HIV speculation
I just wanted to make sure that you guy saw my comment. Fæ removed it as "trolling". Readers viewing that page (or an archive of that page) should be exposed to both sides, especially due to the severity of Fæ's accusations. Fæ shouldn't have a monopoly on what the public is able to see. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw it, though I'm not sure if the rest of the clerks saw it. Everyone who commented I believe read the AN discussion at least. NW(Talk)18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern Michael, but I've been around long enough to know how things work and how things are presented in archives, so it really really isn't a bother to me to express a reply to such things. MBisanztalk17:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Banned user's intervention in Fae case workshop
I'd like to bring to your attention that a banned user (User:Vigilant) has intervened in the Fae arbitration case via a proxy, User:The Garbage Skow. This message was posted in fulfilment of a request made by Vigilant in this off-wiki post. This is clearly meatpuppetry and not permitted by Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, and seems to me to be against the spirit and possibly the letter of the "important notes" posted by SirFozzie at the top of the case pages. Could you please look into this and take action, as it seems very inappropriate and counter-productive for banned users to participate in the case via meatpuppets. Prioryman (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Now that elements 114 and 116 have officially been named flerovium and livermorium, the templates {{Ununquadium}} and {{Ununhexium}} – which were unused anyway – have become not only superfluous, but even deleterious. I wanted to propose them for deletion, but they are edit protected. Could you unprotect them (or just simply delete them)? --Lambiam02:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
very nice indeed to have you back, keep it up! I also have had the intention to leave for good, i think i spent too much time here and many times i feel that editing is not a pleasure but an obligation, but anyway can't leave, feel like i'm "hooked" or something...
Now, for the title of my message: this has got to be one the most puzzling cases of persecution (the ones that i know of of course) in WP. One guy, from Madrid, started messing with the infobox, could not get any info there right, i spoke to them about that, got no reply.
After two or three more polite messages, where i redirected the person to the article's external links section, which contain the correct info, i got no reply and lost it, also warning with editing consequences there might be if they persisted.
Now, for the puzzling bit: the person obviously continues to undo me, but Alves' article is THE ONLY ONE they edit in WP, no other articles deserve their interest!! If you check the article's edit history, you will see the tons of anon IPs from Madrid "lurking".
Do you think page protection is warranted (it has been already, at least one)? Thanks, regards and welcome back - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is very bizarre. I see absolutely no reason that they would make changes like this, which include removal of references, linking of places in metadata, etc. I have semi-protected for six months, in hopes that it will get them to come to the talk page. NW(Talk)17:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
please remove
If the evidence you hatted is legitimate you shouldn't be hatting it, and if it isn't you should remove it. Hats just act as Wiki-neon signs saying Look here! Look here!Nobody Ent23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
RE: Talk:MichaelPhelpsFoundation
Why has the page I tried to create, Talk: Michael Phelps Foundation been deleted? All of the content I used were from the Foundation's website and news articles. I did not advertise the Foundation but stuck to the facts of the organization and the programs it offers and sited all of the information I used. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonprofit89 (talk • contribs)
Hi there. I think my deletion was a mistake. While I don't think that the page is entirely neutral in tone, you did add a lot of good content. The Foundation likely isn't independently notable from Phelps himself, so the information should probably go in Michael Phelps#Philanthropy. I'll work on transferring the information to the appropriate location in a few hours. Thank you for contacting me. Best, NW(Talk)20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Cto has been nominated for deletion. Template:Cto creates a conditional topic overview linkbox for the See also section of an article with links to (1) the topic article, (2) the outline of the topic, (3) the index of topic-related articles, (4) the bibliography of the topic, and (5) the Wikipedia book on the topic. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Cto. Yours aye, Buaidh 19:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It may be the same person that, anon or not (with the above account), has been destroying Jean Paul Yontcha's article (the infobox, where they inflate stats consistently, that's vandalism no?).
Hi NW! This user is writing spams etc on my user talk page and he refuses to stop it, can you please block this IP-user so I can get calm, it is not funny to see unnecessary disturbing message every time so can you block him? Best regards BjörnBergman18:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally I've always considered your username to be highly offensive, primary because nuclear warfare was actually my first job. Nuclear warfare is thousands of people dying and WP is just a website. I suspect the many editors who don't have a problem with it haven't really thought about nuclear warfare very much. Given the communities longstanding acceptance of it I didn't think it appropriate to raise a ruckus over, however, and will not pursue the matter further now. Do appreciate the modification of the signature, at least. Nobody Ent23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
First, thanks for your service, and I hope you get to the Milhist talk page more often to put your experience to good use! :-) Second, didn't NW change his signature years ago for this very issue (during one of his RfAs, if I remember right?) Why is this being brought up again? Ed[talk][majestic titan]06:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi NW. Hope you're doing well. When you have some time, would you please respond to my comment [7]on your CU/OS discussion? Thanks. Minor4th19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. NW(Talk)
Sorry, no. I protected the page because there was no discussion going on and the material currently in the article seemed reasonable as is, but I have no strong opinion on how it should be expressed. NW(Talk)20:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
My talkpage conversation with him, i admit it, could have started better. I did not use any threats or insults, even though i knew immediately knew what he was up to after his first edit (no summary, removing true stuff in box), but now i am 200% SURE. I am not going to engage anymore with this fellow, i am way too protective of the articles to let my judgement cloud me, which in turns hurts the (hypothetical) interactions.
Please do not confuse this with WP:OWNERSHIP, i don't own WP articles, but neither to the vandals, moreover when they do nothing constructive. If you could block it would be super - or at least test the waters and leave him a technical message - if not sorry for any incovenience.
Hey Vasco. I just want to double check something before I take any action. Regarding [8] for example, could you point me to something that shows that Bento did indeed play for Futebol Benfica? Thanks, NW(Talk)03:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing! Check the first two items in the EXTERNAL LINKS section, it clearly shows that club as the second in his senior career. Cheers --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Bridge Boy, I thought your remark wasn't the best and showed a misunderstanding of an administrator's role (I really don't know anything about the topic area, nor do I care that much), but I didn't feel attacked.
Could you review your block of User:The Bluest? Xie made one satirical edit to the John Roberts article, received one warning, made the same edit and received two warnings for it and was blocked. If it had been a gross BLP and had no other contributions, I could see the block. As it is, it seems a little trigger happy. -- The Red Pen of Doom10:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
If TB posts an unblock request acknowledging his or her error and promises not to do it again, I'll be happy to unblock. But every person with an ounce of common sense should understand that it is not acceptable to just blank an article like that. I'll leave them a note explaining how they can get unblocked, but I want to see something from them first showing that they understand that what they did is not acceptable. NW(Talk)15:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you think some kind of protection is warranted? And what about this "user", whose IP is most likely standard? He's up to no good. Thanks in advance with whatever you can provide, article's in my watchlist anyway, but it's getting a little stressful... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, NuclearWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, NuclearWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Since I'm not a party to the case, what are the rules that I have to follow to provide input there? How can I improve my behavior there? NewtonGeek (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The rules are set out on the top of the page. Things are generally enforced a little more stringently for non-parties, but in general, I haven't noticed any problems with your behavior thus far. Do you have anything particular in mind? NW(Talk)05:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
No, a couple of Arbs separately mentioned there might be a problem. I told one of them I'd check with the clerks to see if I'm mistakenly doing something without knowing. I was warned by SilkTork for the reverting matter separately also. I know why he had to do that and it seems justified to me. Thanks for giving me feedback. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Would you rule on whether the closure is endorsed by default (and explain why you chose not to relist) or whether the article is relisted (and explain why you chose not to endorse by default)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would choose the first one. We have already had quite a wide range of comment on the deletion review. I think that it would be better off if people spent their time on the RFC rather than arguing further on a DRV that doesn't look like it will come to a consensus any time soon.
Yes, would you update your closing rationale? This will provide a measure of finality that the current close does not. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think symbolic is the right word. Your citation says the votes are about scoring political points. So perhaps the comment is that the votes are politically motivated, but that is obvious, as they are indeed politians. I'm pretty sure that Boehner's motivations include highlighting the continued Democrat resistance to the repeal of this law, which repeal is favored by much of the public. This in turn could help elect Romney and Republican senators. Hardly symbolic if it works. Perhaps you can find a cite that uses "symbolic", but there are probably others that show Boehner's motives to be substantial... Bottom line, TMI for the lead. RegardsThomas Pain 67 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Symbolic still fits, I think – Ghandi's march to the sea didn't stop being symbolic just because it helped get the British out of India. But it's not something I care about all too much. Feel free to remove the parenthetical if you wish. NW(Talk)19:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no realistic expectation by anyone that these votes will result in an actual change to public policy, and thus they're symbolic. That seems obvious, but also not worth arguing about, I suppose. MastCellTalk20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Stopping to discuss every little thing makes editing quite cumbersome. One or two reverts isn't the end of the world—do you actually have any objections to the edits I have made? NW(Talk)01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep. I understand you might find consensus-building cumbersome (don't we all) but it's how things work here. Please delete your additions and state your position on the talk page so that we can hash it out. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I was impressed (from my position as March the guilty bastard in, Sergeant-Major defendant) with your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there NW. I need some advice. I was one of the main editors with the recent BP Gulf oil spill article and just recently (June) happened to read the BP article. Knowing that the spill was the worst environmental disaster in history I was surprised to find no mention of that in the lead and in fact, even though perhaps 1/3 of the article is about their terrible environmental record, there was barely a mention in the lead and even that was watered down with their (pretty puny by comparison) green efforts. I left a note on the talk page to say that I planned to remedy the situation and was told that a DR (brought about by an editor that seems to have similar beliefs about bias in the article) was ongoing. The DR went on for some time, but nothing was settled. On August 8 I again made a talk page note saying that I believe that WP policy offers a clear guideline for the lead and I made a BOLD edit that included information that I believed to be appropriate. Not surprisingly, it was instantly reverted. My argument is that I believe that this should be judged as a clear case of another editor, or editors, just plain flat out refusing to abide by WP lead guidelines. What would my next step be to help this move forward to a lead that reflects WP guidelines? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Gandy, sorry for taking so long to respond. I'm not sure you'll like what I have to say. I think the article is actually fine as is or at most could use one more sentence on BP's safety record. Could you point me to the previous dispute resolution that you've tried? Thanks, NW(Talk)02:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The DR is here [11]. NW, although I didn't ask for your opinion I'm glad that you offered it. I came to you for advice because I have so much respect for you and as far as I know you don't usually edit environmental aspects of articles. But I am very surprised that you believe that no more info need be added to the lead. Considering that they have the worst environmental history in the oil industry and one of the worst in general, I believed that the lead should reflect that. My only experience working on a corporation article was Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and I used that as an example of how criticism should be handled. Assuming that you read the talk page note that I wrote when I made the edit, you know that I feel quite strongly about what I believe is a danger of Wikipedia corporation articles being biased. Now I am wondering if my judgement in this area is not as good as I thought it was. Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I would certainly not say that. For one, you are much more experienced with the relevant sources than I am and for another, even if I were more knowledgeable about the matter, discussing proper weight of points in the lead is a matter where reasonable people can disagree quite extensively.
Anyway, your assertion that BP is one of the worst oil companies w.r.t. the environment got me thinking. WP:LEAD says "[t]he emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." The section on environmental disasters is quite extensive and makes me think that perhaps the lead could be expanded a bit more. This is the version of the lead that you added to the article; I think this would probably be closer to compromise that others might be willing to accept. Are you happy with this version? If so, I could drop by and try to give you a hand in convincing people (which is really the only thing to try to do unfortunately; Wikipedia's dispute resolution isn't very good). NW(Talk)23:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would be willing to accept your version. Perhaps we can move the discussion to the talk page now. Thanks for the help! Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSetanta (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Potential Senkaku Islands ITN
Hi there NW. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Senkaku Islands dispute over the possibility of posting the latest developments on the Main Page. However, concern has been raised about the discretionary sanction being in effect whilst the article is on our most public page. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on whether the ban should be relaxed, or whether there might be a way of rewording it for the very specific purpose of not biting newbies for the duration of the article's time on ITN? —WFC— 02:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize that I wasn't around for this. We were discussing this very issue at WT:AC a while back; your comments there would be welcome. NW(Talk)23:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to request that you review the contributions of User:OYCH1961. I've just nominated a subpage of his (essentially, a POVFORK of Senkaku Islands telling only the China side) for deletion, and note his last two contributions to Talk:Senkaku Islands, which came after I warned him about the sanctions in this edit. This editor very much seems to be WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that if you do decide to take action, the editor has also been editing without logging in (to remove the MfD tag); see the history on User:OYCH1961/Fishing islets; there may be a range that's blockable. 13:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice the comments here. I think the registered user him/herself also needs to be blocked, but perhaps we can leave it since the disruptions seems to have stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No edits from the registered account since 21 August. Unless he returns to the fray, I don't see an urgent need for a block. If OYCH1961 comes back with more of the same, an indef may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have problems with your edits and think that it is very wrong to edit while it is protected like this. You have removed what I thought was a good summary of AV's view of homosexuality. Now the rationale sounds more dubious - that the reason for the hate group listing is that the death penalty for gays would "serve society well". I realise that the quotes are from the same source, but putting them together like that hints of original synthesis. Why would you make controversial edits to a protected page like that? StAnselm (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I figured it wouldn't be controversial, but I guess I was wrong. I have self-reverted. As I don't care about the issue all that much (which is why I edited instead of discussing), I'll leave the rest up to you. NW(Talk)04:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
(Undo - There is a lot here that I am not comfortable
The content below was entered by myself in the Roe V Wade page, and it is the most valid argument for the legal justification of abortion!
It is pathetic that the legal institutions and those responsible for communicating public policy are incompetent to herald the legitimate position for this argument!
It is not in your interests for what reason?
Does it bother you that it details a position with which you disagree or do you simply refuse to acknowledge its origin?
I am tired of playing games of avoidance with ivory tower news institutions and legal journals who refuse to yield to their own personal self interests and grant recognition to an outsider! a laymen in their trade!
What is the appeal process here?
The legal premise for abortion was presented in Blackmun's opinion with the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."[4] Accordingly, Blackmun's statement indicates that a state is obligated to its citizens, who receive protected rights at birth, per the 14th amendment. Hence, it is deduced that abortion is legal because a foetus does not qualify for equal protection until a birth requirement is satisfied. Consequently, it is deduced that a foetus without legal protections is the private property of the mother, wherefore a "right to privacy" follows as a secondary, and not the primary, foundation for the legal right to abortion in the Roe V Wade decision. [5]
^USA Today. August 9, 1991. p. 6A. Alisha Owen, convicted of lying to grand jury probing charges of sex and drug abuse in failure of Omaha credit union, was sentenced to 9 to 15 years in prison.{{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26
^Jaet,George M.,[1] "Political Hotwire - A Constitutional Review of Abortion" : The 14th amendment directly implies that a citizen receives wrights at birth; thus, the point of inception whereby the state concerns itself with an obligation to reprise a violation to a wright to life begins for a citizen at birth. ... The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." [2] "Debate Politics - A Constitutional Review of Abortion"
Wikipedia uses reliable sources as the basis for its articles, period. Blog posts and arguments from your own logic are not reliable in our context and cannot be used. If you want to get your thoughts or the thoughts of that thread writer published in a law review, then we can include it. Till then, we cannot. NW(Talk)23:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A direct quotation from the Blackmun opinion which rebuts a third argument alleging a state obligation to protect a pre-parturition life IS NOT MY OPINION. The deductions from the birth requirement and equal protection within the 14th amendment are direct, but none has bothered to deduce them. I am not a lawyer and an expectation that any journal would entertain my treatises, which I have been putting forward for more than six years, is ridiculous. My domain is political forums and legal representatives of anti-choice movement have long been exposed to my treatises, such that their current legal direction is towards legislation based upon an onset of sentience, which is directly extracted from my arguments. In vernacular, the main stream has not invited me through the front door, but my contributions are well known. GeMiJa (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"but none has bothered to deduce them" is essentially equivalent to "not acceptable for Wikipedia" per WP:OR. I'm sorry. You can ask at WP:NPOVN for a second opinion if you would like. NW(Talk)02:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
FA page move protection
Hi. I noticed this, which surprised me. Is there a policy or consensus for this kind of blanket protection? I don't really object to it per se, it just kind of seems to go against the grain. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There was, if I remember correctly, an ANI discussion where I was told "don't do that". I think it only ended up happening for 75 or so FAs because of it. My reasoning was "well, they're FAs, so they've clearly gone through some stability regarding their page title, and the chance of vandalism (especially when they are on the main page) is somewhat high relative to the likelihood of the article being moved." But people disagreed with me and that was that. I can try to dig up the discussion if you would like; it should be around late April 2010. NW(Talk)13:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No, don't worry about it. I can't imagine Bodiam's article name ever needing to be changed, but on the other hand, I'm strongly brainwashed into believing we should have as little protection as possible. If it's across dozens of articles, I'm not sure I can be bothered to get consensus to undo it after all this time, and after the original discussors clearly didn't think it should be undone either! Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain to me the process on how the motion closes on my appeal? I'm not upset or anything, just curious if it stays open a certain period of time, or until a certain number have voted, or what the process is. Thanks, GregJackPBoomer!01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It stays open for 24 hours after the motion has reached its majority, and then indefinitely longer until a Clerk (or rarely, an Arbitrator) has the free time to enact it. Unfortunately, it seems like we don't have a lot of clerks available to close it right now. The Race and Intelligence motion has similarly been sitting there for the past couple days because I simply haven't had the time to do them yet. If no one enacts your motion by the end of the weekend, I would suggest just emailing arbcom-l and asking one of them to do it. NW(Talk)06:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
May I ask why you've archived my request as declined? The requirements for declining is not met and you haven't performed all your duties. 2 people recused. 2 people voted to decline. 3 people did not explicitly worded their vote (one leaning for decline, one completely neutral, the other not so sure). That leaves 7 more people to vote: Wikipedia:Arbitration_guide#Voting. I can't see how you've followed the proper procedure. That said you haven't informed me of your archiving as well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for failing to notify you; that was my oversight. Regardless of what the guide may say, the way that this works in practice is that amendment requests are archived after a time if no one explicitly supports the action. This fell into that category, and after an arbitrator told me to, I archived your request. NW(Talk)06:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, "it" was referring to the fact that an Arbitrator emailed the clerks and told them to archive your request. But since they did it via email to a private mailing list and not onwiki, I'm not going to say who it was. Feel free to email arbcom-l if you wish; all of the Arbitrators will get your email and tell you who it was if you wish. But honestly, who it was doesn't matter that much. NW(Talk)19:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably not a sockpuppet; that's more consistent with an infrequent contributor who posts occasionally about stuff he reads in the news. But maybe. What are they discussing over there? (I'm not touching the NLT stuff.) NW(Talk)07:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It's been archived now. Didn't get much response, but it did get picked up by Andrew Orlowski of The Register, which I don't think is a coincidence. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I am an occasional Wikipedia editor, my name is Steven Pine(google me, I'm on twitter, facebook, I certainly am not hiding). Prioryman has been extremely aggressive with any and all who have any criticism of the whole Roger Bamkin / Gibraltarpedia, and given his extensive involvement I can only assume he knows Roger personally.StevenPine (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
NAAFS: I was looking to start a new article on the NAAFS, North American Allied Fight series. This is actually a big name in mixed martial arts promotions. http://naafs.biz/. When I went to create the page it said you deleted one similar a couple years ago, and just want to make sure there wasn't going to be an issue with me writing one.
--Willdawg111 (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Not really; I don't know anything about it. It was a WP:PROD, which means any editor can contest it. I'll actually go ahead and undelete the old revisions if you would like. NW(Talk)05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if any future issues come up. I don't have time to monitor the articles but I'm generally able to look into any specific reports that people want to send me. NW(Talk)18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Reason wasn't going to work with that guy, who had never edited the article or participated in any of the discussions or votes. I remain voluntarily committed to 1RR and have consistently abided by it. But when a vandal or someone recruited from a chat room comes in who isn't acting in good faith, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with playing games.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Whoa, buddy! I'm "that guy" that you accuse of being "a vandal or someone recruited from a chat room who isn't acting in good faith" and "playing games". That's a pretty egregious breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, and you might consider retracting and apologizing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't around last week. Looks like the matter was just dealt with. I would have considered a block, though the consensus of the administrators at AE is fine with me. NW(Talk)04:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't take this to AE. The editors there might not be following our content policies, sure, but they look like they are interested in learning and adapting to them. I would give it some more time. NW(Talk)04:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Holly crap, I just saw was train-wreck that thread has become. Could you hat the discussion there between Mathsci, YvelinesFrance, The Devil's Advocate and Volunteer Marek? It's about a completely unrelated incident on another page; completely unrelated in that it involved a completely different set of editors, even though it's still an R&I page. Thread hijacking... Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I found it actually really thought provoking. Why do we call it drama instead of hurt feelings? I mean "drama" rolls of the tongue, sure, but I wonder if we're incapable of admitting that hurting people's feelings is a thing that matters?--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
You are named in an Arbcom request
Here I didn't mention you in my statement, but you were involved in some of the actions linked to in the "previous dispute resolution". Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator at AE
G'day NuclearWarfare, can I ask you and the other admins that have commented on this report to keep an eye on the current RM at Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#Proposing_a_move_in_good_faith? It was agreed it would stay open for 14 days, but it is now nearly 21 days, and most admins with a sense of self-preservation may have taken one look and hit the back button. It might be appropriate that closure there (whichever way it goes) is done by an admin from the AE discussion so that there is consistency between the decisions, particularly if a move ban is implemented. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
appear to be personal attacks on me by Zeromus1. Please could these comments be redacted and the user in question advised not to make any similar comments in the future? AE sanctions disallow them from making any comments about me off arbcom-related pages. At the moment they seem to be exploiting a loophole, where arbcom-related pages are exempt from sanctions, to continue the disruption that AE sanctions were presumably enforced to prevent. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
As a non-filing party, I am uncomfortable with him commenting in the first place. I have collapsed his statement and told him to go talk to ArbCom. NW(Talk)17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a heads-up that you've been mentioned in a thread on my talkpage. You should feel free to respond there but you aren't required to; this is just a courtesy notice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Protection of the Chinese-language-name re-directs for the Senkaku Islands
Eh, preemptive protection isn't something that is generally done, given the large number of possible premutations of redirects that exist. Have you told TheChampionMan1234 about your redirection? NW(Talk)22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I see. There are only a few Chinese ones that I can really think of, actually, pretty much all with a combination of the name "Diaoyu" something. The re-direction was not in fact first initiated by me, but the content-fork was created, or resurrected, by this other editor after the last edit by User:Nihonjoe – who had in fact reinstated a re-direct – after the main articles were locked, on September the 17th.. Perhaps this is cowardice, but I would rather not do anything that would be inflammatory (or cause other to come "on my back"). He does not appear to be the original creator of the article, either as a simple hard redirect in the year 2003, or as a fork in the year 2005, before being repeatedly reverted and undone. -- KC9TV00:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, as far as the analysis and commentary section goes, I would try to make clear which criticism was contemporary and which is the result of looking at things from a later lens. That way might allow you to restructure how you approach that section in general. Also, have you exhausted the sources available for the topic? NW(Talk)16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
And you have been mentioned as an involved party. Please review the request [19] and consider assisting to clarify the matter before the committee. Thank you, My76Strat (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Since my awful experience when I came up against the law around this place I have imagined ArbCom as a place filled with cigar smoke and fat cats who have forgotten where they came from. I am so happy that you have thrown your hat in the ring and I hope to see you elected. That out-of-touch place needs someone like you!
I had the same trouble finding the "NW as Arb == awesome" button. Truely. Plutonium hair ball. Anybody gotta like really huge roll of lead towelettes? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Questions at election
Hi
If it makes you feel any better, the nonsense over moving questions has at least gained you one vote - mine. Not much, I know, but thought I'd let you know anyway. I'd make some more noise about it all, but I truly can't be arsed - after sleeping on it I'm just too disillusioned to bother. Good luck. Begoontalk01:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Hi. You just did some clerking on the request for clarification. Cla68 mistakenly thought you were clerking the request for amendment and left you an odd message there.[20] Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The warm wishes, and even more so the condolences, from you all are very much appreciated. Thank you all for your support, and I hope I can live up to your expectations. NW(Talk)15:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you sir, you fool and son of a fool. $10 is a paltry sum and would not even buy you a sideways glance at a shrink, and besides NW will need psychiatric help long before 2015 and it appears that you will as well, and I have RS to back this statement. If you can't handle this obvious fact, take it to ArbCom, not that they have a lick of sense either. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Michael Q. Schmidtmy talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You moved some lists, on converts from atheism, which I have now moved back. I'm not meaning to judge your move too harshly, the lists title I'm sure had problems, but I felt like there should have been some discussion with those of us who actually edited the articles involved. I'm off a bit for the holidays, but give me a couple days and I may respond more fully to your concerns. Happy Holidays, etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me know when it will be best for you and we can start a centralized discussion for the multiple pages somewhere. NW(Talk)05:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
One: Many people want to add people with poor sourcing or who never said they were atheists, but who were irreligious for a time. Also some people make highly dubious claims of having been atheist.
Two: Like many groups many atheists are insistent there are no former members. Any ex-atheist just didn't disbelieve thoroughly or rationally enough. So they tend to want to delete or undermine the article no matter how many or how respectable the sourcing is.
Anyway switching these lists to "converts from irreligion" could be acceptable in a way, but in another way it would mean the list as created/intended just can't exist. That the two sides will always push it one direction or other so we'd be better off with a different list instead. And that might actually be true, but I'd need more I guess. Switching it to "non-religious background" I thought was too open to being misconstrued. Like implying they were raised without any religion, which often wasn't the case.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough; I certainly have seen both issues you have listed in real life. I think irreligion would work fine, but the issue with just leaving as atheism to me is that it is simply too specific and would exclude people who are firmly agnostic but have not declared themselves to be agnostic atheists. Assuming that there is no consensus for a merge back into the main article, what would your preferred article title be? NW(Talk)04:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Although it's maybe a weird phrase I considered "converts from nontheism" as that would encompass atheists, agnostics, and deist converts if I understood the term "nontheism" right. Or "irreligion" as you suggested. despite my concerns on that being too big a change. (Like we'd have to remove Haycraft as she was previously of an atheistic church so arguably not "irreligion.") You're right that atheism is often too specific and that it's sometimes hard to determine whether someone was atheist or agnostic as they might not have been clear on that themselves. I may have to consult with some of the other editors.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Nontheism is a decent catch-all term. It's not entirely synonymous with the scope of the current list but I would be fine with changing things to them. Let me know where you want to continue this discussion. NW(Talk)08:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I put a little something on the talk pages of the article. See what people think. If it gets no responses within a few days I might just make the switch, to nontheism I guess, regardless as we're both okay with that.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Question about (possibly) disruptive editor
I'm having trouble with Xerographica (talk·contribs), and I'd like your opinion as to whether I have a valid concern. Recently, he's been creating articles on economic concepts in public choice theory, consisting only of one line (perhaps a definition, perhaps a description of where the phrase was first used), and then a collection of quotes (in a section marked "Passages") which possibly relate to the topic, but in many cases the relationship requires an expert opinion. He also links any article related to a potential failure of government to all such articles. I'm particularly concerned about the relationship between Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs and Legal plunder.
I haven't looked into his full history, but he was blocked twice in 2010 for adding treatises about governmental systems on multiple talk pages. The current activity is nothing like that, so it wouldn't be fair to block him without warning, and I may not block him, anyway.
No, I do not believe you are being oversensitive. The user seems to have confused Wikiquote's mission with ours and also clearly needs to rethink how we approach topics. I'm not sure how to best approach the situation but you are correct in that there is a problem. NW(Talk)22:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. This caught me by surprise and I don't understand what exactly happened o.0. Just a curious wikiarchaeologist trying to put the peices together. Could you help me in this laborious task? — ΛΧΣ2122:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
A number of users expressed concerns to multiple checkusers within the last few days and we looked into the matter, finding sufficient clear evidence to block. NW(Talk)22:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Understandable, yes. Unexpected too. At least in my case. For what I've read, seems like he (or she?) expected this outcome. — ΛΧΣ2123:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I made some changes to the suppress-ed status of some of the revisions after consultation with WP:AUSC. Unfortunately, the software makes it difficult to do so without undeleting the page, so I had to undelete it very briefly. NW(Talk)14:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
McGurk Johnny
I've put his unblock request, in which he denies being a sock of anyone, on hold because, as FisherQueen notes, your block message doesn't say who the alleged sockmaster is. Can you elaborate? Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it has been handled, but I should have been more specific—I wasn't aware of who the sockmaster was, but it was clear that the account met WP:ILLEGIT #3. NW(Talk)20:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Vensatry, I am still a new checkuser and try not to handle cases unless things are pretty straightforward. My apologies that I can't help. Hopefully another administrator will address the matter shortly. Best, NW(Talk)21:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I would imagine so, yes. But then again, I have had checkuser for all of nine days now, so I'm not sure who usually does these follow up checks. NW(Talk)14:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I doubt anybody performs regular checkuser followup research; certainly there is no formal method standardizing this sort of essential protection. I think there should be a specific list of chores for SPI and CU folks to perform as regular maintenance. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
On SandyGeorgia's talk page, former ArbCom member and smart fellow Iridescent said that checkusers were already overwhelmed with dealing with pedophiles, etc., and probably lack time to investigate disruptive users like Mattisse?
Baseball bats, strangulation, or a prison sentence to be served in the general prisoner population are probably more effective than check user. Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
re curtaintoad
Hi, I'm curtaintoads mum.
I've just looked through his recent messages.
I'd like to thank you for removing the userboxes containing personal information, I was unaware he had added that info.
NuclearWarfare effectively closed this discussion when announcing, "I am done here"[21] Clear instructions were given to cease this level of dispute resolution, and to proceed to the next level if concerns remain. Any further post's by Gimmetoo to this page, regarding this topic, will be clearly interpreted as harassment. We are done here! --My76Strat (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[22] This comment of yours is interesting in that you note you were "given them back without objection". Your resysop thread [23] was open for less than two hours, which hardly leaves time for anyone to notice it and object. To my recollection, there were two separate issues concerning your adminship at the time. I, for one, would have objected, as you dropped responding to the thread that could have resolved one of the issues. And I still object to you having check user access. I expect, should you ever wish to acquire checkuser access, that you will submit yourself to public inquiry, and will notify me on-wiki (on both 'too and 'trow") at least 15 days prior to you attempting to acquire checkuser. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Please note that inasmuch as NuclearWarfare was just elected to the Arbitration Committee (having incidentally received the second-highest level of community support in the entire election) and takes office as an arbitrator tomorrow, he will receive checkuser rights automatically (assuming he wishes them). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
And that is largely why this needs to be addressed. There are also at least one or two outgoing arbitrators who, if they still have check user, should have it removed, in my opinion. I expect they also will not be "automatically" retaining it without public inquiry. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If you feel that I should not have checkuser access, please feel free to either contact me privately to convince me why I should not acquire them or to contact the rest of the Arbitration Committee to express your concerns (I will of course not be privy to such discussion). I have already made arrangements to receive CheckUser tomorrow, but I could be convinced to hold off for a short time if you give me a reason to do so. NW(Talk)16:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You have shown evidence of your lack of fitness to handle data that could lead to outing. After your on-wiki solicitation of private data in August 2010, you claimed "I hope that I have thought enough about the issue to avoid something similar happening in the future." You did apologize, but you didn't discuss, so that remained unresolved. Your actions with Usher apparently resulting in the outing of two editors. According to you, that incident was September 2010 "plus or minus a few months". Either way, you didn't learn from one of the incidents, and repeated much the same problem behavior shortly after. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought that you already had CU? Didn't you go through that process earlier this year? (Note: While I opposed NW having access to CU, and would have opposed his ArbCom bit had I noticed it, the community has spoken on both. On the September 2010 issue, it is time to drop the matter, at least in regards to CU/ArbCom, and move on.) GregJackPBoomer!16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, it was oversight that I opposed. Either way, my comments about the community speaking and moving on stand. I'm not real comfortable with it, but Wikipedia is based on consensus, and the consensus went the other way this time, so we need to just put it behind us and work on articles. GregJackPBoomer!16:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have decided that your concerns are insufficient for me to reconsider obtaining checkuser. As always, please feel free to email the Audit Subcommittee if you have any concerns with my use of advanced permissions. NW(Talk)05:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You have failed to respond about your admin actions on-wik. We now have the interesting case of a sitting arbitrator who [apparently] resigned adminship to avoid scrutiny, then re-acquired it without any mention of the issues, and who refuses to discuss the issues when asked. Are you capable of responding, or do you still need to have arbitrators intercede for you? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
My temporary putting aside of the admin tools in late 2010 was related to the issue at hand, but I did not do it to avoid scrutiny from the relevant overseers. I was continually in contact with members of the Arbitration Committee during the time period who are far more aware of the issues at hand than you are, and they were perfectly able to comment as they saw fit regarding my actions. I would think it is rather self-evident why I chose to take the matter off-wiki and am now refusing to fully discuss the matter on-wiki—it involves the privacy of several users including myself that I have no desire to breach merely to satisfy your curiosity. I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "You have failed to respond about your admin actions on-wik." NW(Talk)08:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You put aside tools while there were questions about your use of tools. I highly doubt anyone on the AC is "far more aware of the issues at hand" than I am about one of the two issues I have raised about your actions, though it's possible some of the AC are "equally" aware. And I remind you about AGF and NPA in attributing "curiosity" to me, which is not at all what this is about. That I even had to say that is surprising. Indeed, I expected that you would discuss your actions as required by WP:ADMIN, including the specific issue of your acquisition of CU rights be subject to public discussion; had you done so you might have acquired the CU rights honorably. It's also interesting that even now, 2 years later, you neither acknowledged nor apologized for the damage you caused. As a result of your failure to address issues raised, you are judged to be biased and WP:INVOLVED and you are barred from taking any administrative action with regard to me, in any form, including check user. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer, if you are talking about my situation in 2010, that you just drop it. I don't want to go through any of that again, nor do I want to rehash it. It was very disruptive to me, and it was painful enough at the time. I don't need to have it brought back up. Regards. GregJackPBoomer!16:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I am talking about a different situation with NW; your situation is coming up mainly as indicative of a pattern. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Well now I am not even sure what you are talking about. If this is in relation to the block of your account, I apologize. It was a block I would not have made today, but I'm also not sure what relevance it has to anything. NW(Talk)22:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's see. Block without basis in policy. When basis in policy challenged, result was you removing talk page access, again without basis in policy. And in the same case, as a CU clerk you authorized a checkuser as far as I can tell also contrary to normal checkuser practice. (Which is, by the way, part of the reason I do not trust you with check user.) Gimmetoo (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
So we are referring to what we thought we were. Well, I have no idea what to say that I didn't already say here then. I stand by my actions then as acceptable, if not entirely what I would have done today. I am fine if you do not trust me with CheckUser. If there ever is a situation where I feel that checkusering you is important, I will be sure to ask for another CheckUser's input, as I would with any experienced editor and as I did earlier today. Is there anything else? NW(Talk)05:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Unacceptable. Your response essentially revokes even the half-apology you had given and shows you have learned nothing. As you have formally declared your action to be "acceptable", you are declaring that you consider it "acceptable" for admins to make out-of-poicy requirements of other admins. While I disagree with that, according to your own principles you should have followed my directives, even if you thought them out-of-policy. Furthermore, I consider your access to check user to be a danger to the project. As such, you may be blocked to prevent damage to the project. Following what Kirill said, even if some might consider that such a block is "not a correct response, the Committee is not so fickle as to judge someone on the basis of a mistake made in a good faith attempt to protect the project." I have extended you the courtesy of permitting you to respond to these inquiries, a courtesy that you did not allow me. As you declare your actions "acceptable", then you must agree that I have no need to permit you continued access to your talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You've extended no courtesy at all. You know such as action would boomerang very badly on you so you make idle threats instead of taking that action.--v/r - TP13:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Two notes. First, blocking someone doesn't prevent them from using Checkuser. Second, as someone who has blocked an Arb, I recommend against it. For the first of many reasons, it will be undone in approx. 24 seconds (by me, if I see it; if not, by about 500 other admins when they see it). More reasons not to do it available on request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm only here because of the threat of a block. Rescind the threat, acknowledge that such an action would be involved and retaliatory as you were blocked by NW and your issue is with that very same block, and I'm gone.--v/r - TP14:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
NW's actual use of tools was challenged, making NW involved, and NW continued to use tools, and did so out of policy. As NW has declared NW's actions "acceptable", NW could not object to the same behavior directed toward NW. Nor has NW acknowledged NW's involvement. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Please reconsider this path you are taking. I've spent the last hour plus rereading the detials of the odd incident in 2010. While I think the block was NW was a bit hasty, it was understandable. Quite a number of editors weighed in, many with significant experience with the project, and I didn't see anyone arguing that NW's actions were improper. If that is your basis for failing to trust NW, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you should not take precipitous action based upon that opinion. If there's more relevant information you ar unable to share on-wiki, find someone on Arbcom you trust, and share it with them. --SPhilbrick(Talk)14:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
How about letting NW try to respond. NW took "precipitous action based on [NW's] opinion". Since NW has declared this acceptable, NW should have no objection to the same directed at NW. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I stand by the correctness of the block, though I certainly would not follow the same path today. After all, it has been sixteen months since then and I have had an additional sixteen months of experience with the admin tools.
If you would like to follow through with your stated intention to block me, you are welcome to do so. I have other business to take care of, so I suggest that if you wish to do so, you do so in the near future so I can address it and move on. If you have other statements besides continuing to make the same point over and over again, please attempt to do so soon. NW(Talk)14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
How about you just address it now? You have not responded on point about much of anything. That you stand by the "correctness" means you still don't get it. You removed talk page access under what policy? You authorized CU under what policy? You made involved admin actions under what policy? If you claim IAR and prevention of damage to the project (as one of your defenders did), then those reasons can equally apply to admin actions against you. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Blocked sockpuppets abusing talk page access routinely have talk page access revoked if they disrupt Wikipedia as per the blocking policy; I belived that you were for reasons stated before. CheckUser is used to check if an account is a sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:CheckUser#Policy. I believed that you were a sockpuppet of a user who was not Gimmetrow and wanted to rule out the possibility that you actually were. NW(Talk)15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think [24] is sufficient evidence for anyone who wants to take a look. Clearly not enough for you though. Look, I'm not sure what you want from me. That apology that I put on your page in August 2010 after the eventual unblock still applies.
If you want something else from me, you're going to have to spell out exactly what you desire. I think I explained my position to near everyone else who commented and was unfamiliar with your history. I suggest if my comments here are not to your satisfaction, you go elsewhere or take such action as you see fit. NW(Talk)15:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not enough. Are you saying you removed talk page access for edits I made before your block or after the talk page access was restored? You were directly challenged on the policy basis for your actions, so you had no business removing talk page access, nor authorizing a CU, even if there was justification. But you had no real reason to think this was anything but an alternate account of an admin, which it was. Verifying that is not something I see listed under the reasons at WP:SPI, and in any event, editors should not be held hostage and subject to privacy invasions at the whims of those with unjustified suspicions. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
He's saying that's all he is going to say anymore on a 2 year old subject. So either carry out your threat, and face the consequences, or drop it. You'll get nothing else out of him. He explained himself already, he is not required per WP:ADMINACCT to explain himself to your satisfaction. Only to that of the community's. Take it to AUSC if you don't feel it's resolved, as you should have done two years ago.--v/r - TP16:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As he failed to discuss it then, and still defends it, it is an active, open issue. But your other point, that I "should have done [this] two years ago", is most interesting, but unfortunately cannot be fully addressed yet due to privacy reasons. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm done here. If you feel that you need to escalate this further, that is your perogative. NW(Talk)18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think NW is the one to decide whether NW will respond further. Frankly, I expected this to die down, but NW has been willing to continue. I don't want to see Gimmetoo carry out the threat (I hope it is understood it wouldn't have the desired result), so I'd be happy if Gimmetoo were clearer on what questions aren't answered, then NW can decide whether to answer or not. It is very tempting to recall Sayre's Law, although I hope it isn't apt.--SPhilbrick(Talk)16:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
He did say: "If you want something else from me, you're going to have to spell out exactly what you desire."--v/r - TP16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, which was interesting to me, as I had just written a long post (which I abandoned) saying the same thing. It isn't clear to me what unanswered questions still exist. It is a fair request. NW is attempting to respond, if those responses aren't on point, then more clarity in the questions is warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk)16:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
NW, I've asked you quite specific questions. Why can you not answer them? When you removed talk page access for "abusing talk page access", what edits were you using as a basis for that? This is very specific, as between your block and your removal of talk page access I made all of two edits which directly challenged the policy basis for your actions. Per ADMINACCT you were required to respond to challenges to your actual use of tools. You failed to do that then, or now, and now you have levied what I consider an unsupported personal attack. If you cannot support that with diffs, then I expect you to withdraw that and apologize. And speaking of apologies, so far your respond to these inquiries is essentially "they were correct but I would act differently now", which neither acknowledges that you did anything wrong, nor provides any indication what, if anything, you would do "differently". That's one of the things I was expecting here. If, two years later, you cannot bring yourself to apologize properly, with some details of what you learned, then what have you learned? Even you say there was a "decent chance" you wouldn't have passed RfA at the time. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Noting that 24 hours after being challenged on it, you have failed to retract or justify a statement of yours that I consider a serous accusation about personal behavior. Per WP:WIAPA. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Gimmetoo (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Gimmetoo, if you want to continue down this path, and you feel you have strong evidence, you may bring your concerns to the Audit Subcommittee. Please either do so or stop posting here, because further comments here are not going to further anyone's goals. Thanks and regards, Ed[talk][majestic titan]15:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The Audit subcommittee is tasked with investigating complaints about the use CU and OS. This is something else, and outside their charge. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This was prompted by NW's comment on BN. I was expecting NW to acknowledge some specifics of what NW did wrong, and explain in some detail what NW would do differently, to get some closure. That shouldn't have been a big deal, now, 2 years later, and would have illustrated that NW has matured somewhat. But NW did not do that, and I would like to know (or verify) why. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah. So continuing to post here furthers that goal... how, exactly, when he's said that he is done replying? As I said before, and as NW says above and below, please either move up the dispute resolution ladder or stop posting here. Thanks, Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Other stuff
Gimmetoo, I posted originally this thread, not to "intercede for" NuclearWarfare as you suggest above, but to ensure that you weren't blindsided by seeing an announcement that NW had received CU before he had a chance to respond to your post, since it looked like he was offline at the time. In other words, my post above was intended as a courtesy for you, not for NW, and I certainly hope you won't hold it against him.
It looks like the issue with a third party discussed above has been addressed, and in any case I join in asking that that situation not be discussed further on-wiki. With regard to Gimmetoo's last comment, although ultimately each arbitrator and checkuser decides for himself or herself (within broad limits) when to recuse, for what it is worth, I think that Gimmetoo's request that NW agree not to use checkuser with regard to him appears to be reasonable (which is not to suggest that there's reason to anticipate such a check would be needed anyway). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Err, no, not quite. G didn't "request" anything, G asserted that NW was "judged to be biased" (apparently, G is doing the judging, though you can't tell that from what he wrote; perhaps G usually talks in the 3rd person) and G "barred" (again, apparently on his own authority) NW. Since G has no such authority, the judgement and the barring are meaningless; though if re-phrased as requests (as I suppose you're suggesting) they might become meaningful William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you please stop commenting yourself? Checkuser has already been used several times by NW since he acquired the rights. The community elected NW with a large majority and your own dissatisfaction with that result will have been noted by TPWs. One positive thing that you could do is to list your alternative accounts, like this one, on User:Gimmetrow, if that's what's bugging you. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, why is he 'banning' Admins from taking action against him? He has done so with NW on this page and with Kww in that diff. The responses on his talk page have also been poor - "You clearly do not understand what's going on here. Please go away" / "Please stop interfering". GiantSnowman16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That your for the links Kww, while I had run across the former, I hadn't noticed the latter, which meant until now I didn't have the pleasure of reading the marvellous gem of Since you have elected not to respond, I will reiterate: As a result of your repeated inappropriate actions, you are barred henceforth from taking any administrative action (interpreted broadly, including closes and any advanced permission) with respect to me or my accounts. xD I've never run into this user before I believe, but I get the strong feeling that this person's having a mop is a mistake that needs to be rectified. SnowolfHow can I help?16:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. Some admins don't seem to take well to having the principles and practices they use in dealing with non-admins directed back at them. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
@Gimmetoo: As I said, I am done here. You know as well as I how to move up the dispute resolution ladder should you wish to do so. NW(Talk)16:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
That a sitting arbitrator made a serious, unsupported accusation is bad enough, but to fail to support or strike it following inquiry is serious. You are WP:INVOLVED with respect to me. Additionally, you are asked to recuse from any any cases involving similar or related behavior involving anyone else, to avoid compromising the AC or its decisions. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
(butting in) NW has answered you, several times over. That it the answer given is unsatisfactory to you is obvious, but that seems to be all that you're going to get. Follow the steps laid out at dispute resolution and stop this harassment, please. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice try, Gimmetoo, but NW has only been involved with you as an administrator. Harassing and badgering the Arbs you don't like so they have to recuse from you is gaming the system. Go away. NW has said all he is going to say. He is capable, indeed he is, but he chooses not to because WP:ADMINACCT doesn't make him accountable to you and doesn't require he put up with your badgering. Frankly, you're lucky has hasn't asked WP:ANI for a harassment block at this point. Find something else to do and stop stirring up 2 year old drama.--v/r - TP18:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Giant Snowman alleged that I was friendly with Gimmetoo, but this is another falsehood. His other falsehoods will be addressed on my talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz18:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
