No apology needed or even appropriate -- you were correct I didn't summarize the consensus as well as I could have, (while not intentionally dictating I was being imprecise). The updated phrasing is better.Nobody Ent15:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nifelheim
So I'm going to go ahead and make the edits you proposed to the first paragraph; I'll wait on the other editor so he can share his input on the second (as well as the first if he wishes). Thanks for your input on this. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did make one minor change that doesn't affect the tone of the passage - I identified Dimebag Barrell as the deceased guitarist of Patnera, the same way Burton is identified as the deceased bassist for Metallica. I think that makes sense from an encyclopedic standpoint since reader may not be familiar with him. If you don't agree with that, it might make sense just to remove anything but their names, and the reader can click on their articles for details. I think it makes sense to include it since the reason it was so offensive is because they're both dead, and the reason it came up was it was the anniversary of Burton's death.--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the Dimebag side, I'd tend to agree - perhaps I should simply add a brief mention and a link regarding the murder and his other band.
In regards to Blabbermouth, I just want to be clear on the course of events. On December 3rd Blabbermouth did a story about an interview in Sweden Rock Magazine, including comments the band made about Motley Crue as well as the two deceased artists in question. Blabbermouth was not the only source for that story. On December 7th, Blabbermouh reported a statement from someone claiming to be in the band that made light of the comments, stating they were a bad joke and not meant to offend. I expressed my concern to H early in our interaction that the verbiage, tone and language in this apparently fake statement was similar (to me, obviously) to what apparently appeared in Slayer Fazine. FInally, on December 8, Blabbermouth reported receiving another statement from the band clarifying that the earlier statement was fake, and that they meant and approved their statements regarding the deceased musicians. Now, while I've certainly heard accusations of bias on the part of blabbermouth, I've never seen annything indicating they've patently made things up... I feel like this would need to be cited in order to mention it.
That said, one of my issues has always been that I don't really understand what the band means to convey in their Slayer interview - are they denying that they ever made the first remarks in SWM, or just the later statements? If someone could clarify this, perhaps that could be added to the second paragraph (eg, the band later denied abc...), and if there's a verifiability source that mentions a specific instance of blabbermouth making something up, I'd be open to including that in the second paragraph as well.
In order to facilitate discussion with all parties involved, particularly when two of those parties aren't interested in interacting with one another directly, perhaps it makes most sense to move copies of our user talk page discussions to the article talk page? If you agree to this I can do so in chronological order, or you can do it with my consent. If you feel that each of us should put our own comments there, let me know. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hemsworth
My pleasure. And boy, does 84.123.80.174 seem quite an enthusiastic Spanish fan. Glad to see I'm not the only one keeping watch on that kind of fannishness. Regards to you, Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
I keep that in mind, but I actually meant possibly libelous. By the way, don't you think the Twitter part needs some editing and shortening too? It maybe WP:WEIGHT in its current from. Also, there are is some weasel wording, like how the tweet attributed to the subject is presented as as an undisputed fact, yet Homan Majd's response is written as "he claimed" as oppose to "in his defense, he said". Kurdo777 (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps an attribution to National Post would be appropriate, given the newspaper's previous controversies, having to do with the accuracy of their reporting. Do you agree? Kurdo777 (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the way it was explained to me is how people navigate the page esp if they are vision impaired and have it read to them. Rowspan and cellblock colors and whatnot affect that and make it difficult. Accessibility <-- More info there. Hope that helps :) Lady Lotus (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nifelheim dispute
Hi,
I'm leaving this message because you helped bring about a compromise between two warring editors (1,2) here. It appears one of them (the first) has retired and the other has used the opportunity to reverse the compromise, even going so far as describing his intent here and here. Having been involved early in the initial disagreement I'd like to not see it erupt into a fight once again, though I'm hesitant to re-involve myself fully once I get home from work and sign on. If you wish the same I can't say I blame you. --129.33.1.37 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AE thread
TDA is capable of (and as far as I can see, is doing so) defending himself well enough. I only commented before due to the off-topic attacks at WQA. I find its best with some people not to enable their obsessions by engaging with them. Suggest you do the same. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFA
No worries - there have been too many other recent RFAs de-railed by off-topic bickering. I'd hate to see anymore happen. RFA is fragile enough at the moment as it is. GiantSnowman16:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please restore my edit to the sharyl attkisson article. here is the full legitimate reliable source: Gill, Kay Who, a Directory of Prominent People (2006) p. 31. the page is protected now for some reason so i cannot edit it, thank you very much. Coubelle (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I dont have authority to put an edit through protection like that unfortunately. The way to edit a protected article is to post a request on the talk page. There is actually one already there from the last time the article was protected so you can see how its done. I have dropped a note on the protecting admins page as I feel six months is a bit excessive. But the article has had issues before with people edit-warring over content. When someone disagrees with you and removes content, its better to head to the talk page and discuss it, rather than just reinserting it. Especially on a page thats been protected before, as it may (as happened in this case) get protected again very quickly. As to the source, I can see the book exists, and that she appears in it. So I am happy (absent anything saying otherwise) its accurate. There are additional issues that historically BLP's tend to attract some negative attention from the subjects when it comes to facts like age. Especially for people in the media. So my personal opinion is its better not to have them. Its not relevant to their biography in most cases, so no pressing need to have it included. (Other than for completeness). Either way, its something that needs to be discussed on the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a Warhammer 40'000 reference. Given the 'Imperium of Man' in WH40k does somewhat resemble a cross between Imperial Rome & the Catholic Church - latin is probably the way to go. The WH imperial schtick being that duty to the emperor (and by extension, the imperium, as the emperor is a dessicated corpse kept alive by machinery with no direct input on the imperium... hmm too many easy jibes here) comes before everything else, and your duty only ceases when you expire. When I originally chose it, I meant it as a comment on the wikipedia admin & editor corps at the time, as my interactions with most of them until that point (and still currently for the most part) have almost always been as a tireless entity devoted to making wikipedia better. Sadly a few bad apples have soured the bunch recently. Sadly I cant really change the meaning of the name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re; request
It's been something I've been discussing with the arbitrators, but we haven't yet decided on revdelete vs. blanking or a mixture of the two. I'm sure we'll announce it on the case pages once we've come to a decision. Thanks for your comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate side effect of cases dragging along, especially in PD phases, is unnecessary comments and parthian shots by involved parties. As stated before, the pages are going to get blanked; user conduct after the case is finally closed are going to be what counts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)14:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to the diff of "the accusing/offending diff of VM's on Jimbo's talkpage that Russavia linked above " in your statement. I can't find it. Sandstein 12:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
court decision
Hi Only in death, as you asked on Jimbos talkp for sources for my claim of a court decision about unlinked hosting, here you are: primary, secondary, secondary. All sources are in German, as they were decisions of German courts, one of a Landgericht (2nd-level court) and one of a Oberlandesgericht (3rd-level court). --Túrelio (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I should have guessed it was Germany. You guys are ahead of the pack when it comes to privacy and copyright most of the time. Thanks for the info! Dont worry, I have a German collegue I can bribe to do some translation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the essential question in these cases was whether hosting/leaving an image file on your server (even after you removed any links from your website) constitutes "publication" in the legally relevant sense to infringe one others copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree it would be good to move it here, and thank you for trying to help out. The Ghost in the Shell issue was the first interaction with Lucia Black and Ryulong. I reviewed the GAN at Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1 and raised numerous concerns with the lack of content and got a few third opinions which agreed their were concerns which Niemti covered in some detail. Though she began making personal attacks calling me 'biased' in with my review.[1] She raised the issue at multiple places like WT:GAN and A&M. Made an RFC to oppose the failed GAN.[2] and took me to ANI in the middle of the discussion.[3] Which was closed without issue.[4] She was even warned for making personal attacks at the ANI and other venues, I can pull those if you want, but like her long history of altering comments, that is behavior rather than content. I've had over 50 pages worth of discussion at the archived of Ghost in the Shell and a lengthy DRN discussion which I had to close as no one would take it. I tried to get the matter resolved at the currently viewable Talk:Ghost in the Shell matter, but dropped it because it was getting out of hand. The entire conflict boiled down to whether or not a topic-level article should exist to cover the 30 different titles and works in the Ghost in the Shell IP. Dragon Ball Z appears to be a proxy for that discussion now, with me wanting a proper page to summarize the contents. Talk:Dragon Ball is a huge boring read, but just like GITS, the underlying concept is incredibly simple. GITS had a topic level article, Lucia and Ryulong forced a merge despite outside editors disagreeing but not remaining involved in the dispute. Dragon Ball Z previously existed, was merged for violating "MOS-AM" in 2008 and the RFCs seem to invalidate the reason and have majority support and policy backing to recreate the article, but that discussion has life again when they reverted my re-creation. I'm considering wiping the slate on both of those and wanting a third party to mediate or put forth conditions for recreation of the Dragon Ball Z article. Here's the prototype: User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox. I have been working on it for some time, but it is not perfect and still is rough in spots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry for delay, been a busy day. A few things 1.)I agree the merge was unwarranted - MOS-AM does not over-ride policy when it comes to notability and reliable sourcing. 2.) Saying that, its been awhile, so rather than de-merge. The best option given the wealth of material on DBZ would be to re-write the article to bring it up to current standards (as you are doing in your draft), incorporate anything from the DB article that applies, then move it to articlespace and delete the content from DB if its duplicated in the DBZ article. If the consensus on the DB talkpage is to keep the duplicated info there, then it can be kept there. But to delete a stand-alone article on a notable subject once its live in will require an AFD. I would consider (and I am not talking from 'good' or 'featured' article perspective) a well laid out example of a franchise article to be something like Conan the Barbarian. Page on franchise & the universe, main characters etc, small sections on each offshoot (TV, Films, videogames etc) with links to articles on that particular media. I have not delved deeply into the GITS issue yet. Will take a look later, for now my dinner will shortly be in the cat unless I rescue it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that Ryulong will not allow it to exist, he reverts it and says it's 'against consensus'. The sandbox is already a full fledged article in its own right. This is how he forced the removal of the Ghost in the Shell franchise article with Lucia Black. They called my objection 'edit warring' and rather than follow policy or AFD it, just do it on their own. It was not submitted for merge nor AFD; they just 'boldly merged' which I reverted and they then forced. In both cases the articles were proper and should not have been merged back; the 2008 matter can be laid to rest because the new version is superior. Ryulong knows better and does not like me pushing for policy based arguments; but it is because his "rhetoric" goes against policy. I do not know how to appropriately deal with this problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, avoid the GITS matter for now. Please. That is an absolute mess and I do not have a large majority(5/6:2) for it. I don't want to cause any more trouble than necessary. I'm in a fairly good mood because some of my handiwork got mentioned in the news again and I'm glad the influx of readers will see correct content. GITS mattered to me because 60000 people see it a month, but I am not yet ready to commit to two disputes at a time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasnt going to touch the GITS issue. Although its related, in argument at least.
Essentially I think you should just take the article out of your sandbox at this point. Its large enough and well sourced enough. The article wont qualify for a speedy delete, as its substantially different from the previously deleted (well redirected) article. So it will need to go through AFD. I cant see it not surviving an AFD nomination easily. The only problem I have its not very, well, nice way to go about it. But I dont see much choice at this point given the arguments that are being thrown up. Merging it into the main DB article is really not an option. The main DB article should really be a franchise/IP article covering the franchise as a whole anyway, rather than, as it does currently, try to comprehensively cover everything. Its a bit of a mess. If I were to get started myself I would start by culling a lot of the fluff/extra stuff that doesnt apply to the whole franchise, then advise people to start a separate article if they want that there. I am asking some advice of people whose opinion I respect, but I am leaning towards *forcing* a policy based discussion. Which means taking the concept of a 'DB Z' article to a deletion request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a bit dramatic to say; it may even be incorrect because it is my assumption, but it seems that Lucia Black sees it as a proxy for the GITS debate. The merits of the article seem to be less important than defeating me as previously indicated in a conversation with Ryulong. She actually advised Ryulong to not compromise because it would end up essentially as I wanted. Ryulong has been removing such conversations rather than archiving them. But here is a version before it was wiped out. [5] The top three sections should cover the nature of it better than I can. I edit conflicted this post, but I understand. Lucia is out of her block and will be able to participate; I believe it would be best to notify both parties and give them a chance to defend their views. The action will be seen as a bit rough; but at least it will have weight and be better then continuing this 5 month content conflict. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My gut tells me it would be better to let people have their chance to defend/make their position at a more formal venue like an AFD rather than the talkpage. Less wriggle-room to avoid discussing wikipedia policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but what must be done to bring this to focus and does that mean I should stop working on the article in the sandbox? Its at 65 references and about 40kb, but its not yet done. I'm just not satisfied with it yet, but I do believe it should exist in mainspace. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wont be doing anything tonight I feel, :) so work on it as much as you want. Might want to move it to mainspace tomorrow. I read most of it earlier and had some thoughts though, would you prefer I lay them out on talk? Or wait until its in main? or edit the sandbox directly? Minor things really, just a matter of phrasing and layout. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and edit it, it may be my sandbox, but it has existed only to further the development of the article for mainspace. I don't mind at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So... I'm still not feeling up for pushing back to mainspace; I'd probably get dragged to ANI again if I do. Is there a way to bring this to a larger community discussion and override the otherwise guaranteed revert if that page goes live again? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delay, had unexpected guests on weekend. Its your article, so whatever you think best. A softer approach would be a decent RFC somewhere that isnt at the dragonball article. It might be best to wide-range it in scope - so concentrate on the franchise aspect rather than the specific media. The talkpage of the MOS might be best. Send out invites to various wikiprojects (as the franchise covers TV, film, manga, videogames, an invite for those respective projects can be neutral enough and not be classed as canvassing.) should be able to get enough commentators on how to handle multi-medium franchises. I have some free time this evening so want me to draft up an RFC in my sandbox on 'Franchises' as an example? There is no hurry anyway so it doesnt need to be a quick thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it probably shouldn't be started by me if at all possible, but I'd like to create the page first and push it out before dealing with yet another dispute which will surely restart the conflict. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still interested? The editors seem to have moved on; so I think bringing the page up to a more formal setting would be good to ending the dispute now that things have cooled off. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes still interested, sorry for delay, had to go away on short notice (family thing). I have just been trying to bring myself up to speed and noticed LB is back at ANI. I am refraining from commenting so as not to draw accusations in future of bias regarding the article. Probably best approach really at this point. I will be at work for about 8 hours then I will take a look. Once again, sorry for late reply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a post at Talk:Dragon_Ball#DBZ_creation; I want to push the sandbox back to mainspace. Previously, the majority sided with recreate and the policies back recreate; objections without policy backing based on "rhetoric" were all that prevented it. WP:JDLI seems to apply to the opposition because consensus on the merge rational has changed and its argument overthrown. Probably the single best example is that all the problems of the original page have been completely updated and improved; the page is not a pile of fancruft and boasts 66 references in this prototype variant. One it is live, improving it will be a better collaborative effort. I think it is not proper to revert its creation at this point; AFD should be required as you mentioned. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problematic editor you've been dealing with on this has just been topic banned from editing lists, so please feel free to return to your work on this unhindered, and to revert any improper removals. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Hello, Only in death. You have new messages at Taroaldo's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
regarding GITS
right now there is a DRN regarding the issue, its best to revert it until the matter is settled. you can add your 2 cents in the DRN, but only until the matter is settled. right now there is no consensus on it.Lucia Black (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be working on it and circumventing an ongoing discussion just because you arbitrarily agree with one side over the other.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said "If its too restrictive, he can appeal to the community or Arbcom and attempt to get it lifted."
Well, actually the community cannot overturn an Arbcom decision. However I did request an amendment, just over a year ago, to prevent exactly this sort of abuse, sadly the request was discarded out of process, due to the actions of Sandstein. I mention this in my notes on the AE page.
Please see my response to you on the talk page regarding the unnecessary and redundant content duplication that was added to the article concerning the side media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other areas are better
I'm not sure what caught Ryulong's attention, but I am done dealing with him. He's announced such disdain for the subject and actively degrades content while surrounding himself in conflicts all over Wikipedia. Its a waste of time. As much as I want millions of more readers to get comprehensive coverage of our topics - I'll not suffer through Ryulong or anyone else's poor behavior to do it. I've gotten over 20 GAs with another 25 GANs in processing. I got my first featured list and all the prospects are good. I wouldn't waste your time dealing with any petulant people in the future. The people most in need of help are incapable of willingly accepting it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
The Original Barnstar
For stepping up on the issue of accessibility in the Signpost comments, with the appropriate words and in the appropriate tone. It was a fine line between saying nothing or speaking too softly and speaking too harshly. You managed to hit the mark admirably. Good luck with your editing endeavors. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too. Your comments were perfect, especially the bit about 'thoughtless lack of consideration from others' on a daily basis and how it is easy to get used to that. There are times when I tell people some of the simple things they can do to help, there are other times when I don't bother (but know I probably should). I've made another follow up suggestion on The ed17's talk page. If you and others, such as Cullen328, would be interested in putting something together about this, let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we've met before, so it is abnormal for you to start out by attacking me. Some users change accounts as often as they change underwear, to avoid blocks, bans, or scrutiny of their actions for a variety of reasons. If you are a brave and honorable person you'll you want me to take you seriously, please introduce yourself properly. Please explain why you are taking an interest in me and whether our paths have crossed before, either with this account or any prior account you might have used. Thank you. JehochmanTalk00:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.
From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.
No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
Thank you for your recent comments on my talk page. Even after 5+ years I'm still learning my way around. My gut instinct at the moment is still to give the editor concerned time to explain, and then let higher powers decide what they meant. Thanks for being helpful. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of courtesy to people we discuss on Wikipedia, comments such as calling someone "a nobody" should be avoided. Even if you feel a person is not notable or that his or her writings do not constitute reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, that does not make the person "a nobody," nor should such a person be referred to as such on one of the most prominent websites in the world. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What should be avoided is non-notable wikipedia-affiliated people puffing themselves up on one of the most prominent websites in the world safe in the knowledge their biography (CV) is unlikely to be deleted due to their insider status. Sadly we dont always get what we want. I also cant believe you wasted the time to post this when previously in your stint as an arbiter you are personally partly responsible for the lack of adherance to the civility pillar/policies due to your unwillingness to enforce them. In short, just no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the person's having a mainspace article or not. If the person were not notable enough to be the subject of an article, it would be at least as important to refrain from insulting her needlessly. My voting as an arbitrator has nothing to do with the matter, but in any event, in that capacity I may or may not have had too much tolerance for intra-Wikipedia bickering among contributors, but I had very little tolerance at all for gratuitously denigrating people's personal and professional accomplishments. And as an administrator now, my feelings are to the same effect, and I instruct you never to make a comment like that again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, on round two you caught on to what my issues were regarding the Harry Jaffee business. I agree that include/exclude based on UNDUE would be a content dispute, but at the moment we have someone being stubborn, claiming personal knowledge, and not being communicative. Choor monster (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree RE the personal knowledge issue, unfortunately I hesitate to involve myself in the article as (from an admittedly brief look) I dont think it really needs to be in there (per UNDUE) as he (Harry) is a non-notable person. However I lack knowledge of the subject (Al) and not having read the biography I cant comment on what impact his brother and his brother's personal life had on him (Al) and his work. Your best bet is to take it to DRN or other content-related board, if the best argument Modernist comes up with is "I know the family and they dont like it/think its libel" thats not going to go down well. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that these charges in Georgia, USA were dropped by the DA in 2010. Kemi Olunloyo has a history of lying about her credentials and just about everything in her life. In the end, it does not matter what you do. The good guys will do everything they can to alert people about Kemi Olunloyo and take action against any Canadian that gives her any support in any way.
Jusrt to let you know, some of the comments you copy & pasted don't make the same sense without the links they originally had—it'd be best to copy & paste the code rather than the displayed text. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!10:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm actually sorting that now. Since all the comments were hatted and separate it was easier to paste the base text first. Get the main detail down, make it look pretty after. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
swearing
Being an editor with little current WP experience I have no real idea if this is true or not.
Help Desk assures me that it is not. But in my short time back I notice the power structure has an negative edge that it lacked 10 years ago.
Is what you wrote factual? SmithBlue (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(The BLP applies *everywhere*. You need a reliable source to explicitly label someone a 'zionist' before you can do so on wikipedia as it is a contentious term. 'Supporter of Israel' would be compliant.)
Zionism is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel.
Therefore, I am de facto a Zionist, by definition, as is anyone who is a "supporter of Israel", which is the alternate suggestion you provided. Your alternate suggestion is actually the definition of the word. A human being wouldn't have to explicitly identify as a homo sapien sapien to be labeled as such. Hamas wouldn't have to explicitly be labeled "anti-Zionist" to be labeled as such, given that their platform is the annihilation of Israel – considering that is what modern "anti-Zionism" is. Similarly, Hamas wouldn't have to explicitly be labeled "antisemite" to be labeled as such, considering the fact they actually hate Jews – considering that's part of what antisemitism is. Inversely, anyone who is a "supporter of Israel" (the definition of Zionism) is de facto a "Zionist".
Since you blanked my page through reversion, I'd appreciate if you reverted your reversion, if you have come to understand it better.
Your comment: Andy didn't request anything, I did. He can't possibly say what he did wrong, because he didn't. It would be nice if we could keep things simple by not going into that (that the socalled infoboxes case should have been about reverts of infoboxes, - ask Ched). For a starter you can look at the edit an arb found concerning enough to vote to ban Andy in 2013 (to my knowledge the only diff of evidence supplied in that case). To make it easier here's what others thought, including arb Gamaliel who observed well and described precisely. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite, thats rather the point. He *did* do something wrong, thats why he has the restrictions in the first place. It is also a requirement that someone seeking to have restrictions lifted make the request themselves, precisely because it is expected that they will admit their mistakes and pledge not to do it in the future. Absent either of those it is not surprising some people are unable to support the proposals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is wrong: you can easily get restricted by arbcom without doing wrong, - I think I was, for example, and so was Andy. But it's exactly what I want to avoid: looking at the mistakes of the past, which includes the mistakes of the arbs then. One line in the 2013 case I wrote: "We can start today". - Infoboxes are no longer a battlefield, - most of the topics back then (Bach, Handel, Verdi, Beethoven, The Rite of Spring, Götterdämmerung ...) have an infobox now. My first barnstar was for resilience, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Andy was community sanctioned(not Arbcom) for (in part) dicking around with Infobox's on Featured Articles, I think you will find claims he has been sanctioned unreasonably given short shrift. But I am not about to re-argue past cases with you. I was just explaining that absent an admission of wrongdoing, or at the *minimum* a pledge not to continue past behaviour that led to the sanctions in the first place, it is not unreasonable to reject a request for having the sanctions lifted. Given the recent badgering he engaged in here, such a statement does not seem likely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your diff is from 2012. I talk about infoboxes case, 2013, and later. No more from me, I got used to 2 comments max, which would be a very reasonable way of improving all discussions on Wikipedia if only it was applied to everybody, not only me. - Did you see my Featured article on Easter Sunday? Dedicated to dear people who died, including my father and Dreadstar, - I would welcome the feeling of some resurrection ;) - Cheers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I tried to keep ARCA free from looking at the past. Your link to this discussion - I don't know what to think of it. I only wanted to give you (personally) some background. I did intentionally not link there to the 2013 questions to the arbcom candidates, because I didn't want to point with a finger to the arbitrator who thought Andy added an infobox where he only uncollapsed one, nor to his colleagues who didn't notice the mistake. It must be difficult to look at a diff ;) - On ARCA, I ended with an appeal to good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... which was heard, better late than never. Did you know that having worked on Kafka (most successful TFA so far) helped, see his The Trial: "it tells the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader", - that is no fiction (and also true for a woman) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The arbs seem to have understood. - Can I help you to check your premises? I'd take incivil name calling at me better than your smooth "I dont think Gerda needed any help discrediting themselves."
OID, I am not involved in the underlying discussion and don't intend to be, but Gerda pointed out that "discredited" comment and she is right. I don't know why we don't have a WP:SNARKY but we should. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You stated: "Rather odd since Bonham admitted he was present and a witness and was charged. While drumming on stairway at the same time?". The incident occurred during the band's acoustic set. You don't need a drummer on stage during the acoustic set. It was usual practice for John Bonham to leave the stage and get refreshed backstage before returning. And he wasn't charged at during the concert, he was charged the next day when the police raided the hotel they were staying in. 187.6.249.59 (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically true. But stating 'the band was on stage' when the entire band wasnt is not accurate. I will rework to say excepting Bonham. That section was/is badly worded in parts anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.
Part of your comment at the Arbitration noticeboard talk page has been redacted per a request as it did not appear to be backed up with suitable evidence. This has been carried out as a clerk action and shoud not be undone without express consent from the committee. Amortias (T)(C) 13:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Only in death, I wrote the wrong thing when I asked a clerk to remove that bit. However, the main reason I did so is that comments like that is what we're trying to avoid, as they make it harder for someone to come back into the community (also hence the goading and baiting restriction, not saying you were doing that) when people point to years old blocks and imply that the person being unblocked is going to create disruption (your popcorn comment, for example). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well frankly dont link to notices and say 'discuss this' if you dont want it discussed. You want to avoid comment about OR? Dont bloody unblock him then. He managed to get blocked for disruption on projects where he had less than 500 edits. 'Years old blocks' would apply where someone doesnt have a history and pattern of behaviour over a wide range of topics and wiki-media projects. The 'well he hasnt done anything recently' logic doesnt work at unblocking discussions, topic ban lifting discussions and elsewhere, as it is considered the restrictions in place are what is causing the lack of disruption. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing it is (as we are here) is fine, talking about eating metaphorical popcorn which watching another person get rebanned isn't. The hasn't done anything recently and what's said in theit statement and in answer to questions is all there is in unblock and unban discussions. I absolutely agree it doesn't pass muster for topic ban appeals (and I've declined some for exactly that reason) but when assessing unban requests (especially long-term ones) there usually isn't much else to go on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was responding to WP:AN page, with a wikipedia's mobile app editor. It somehow added my reply, but also duplicated some sections and may have removed part of your reply. That was not my intent, and is an app bug. I am unable to undo and fix my reply. Could be undo and fix it please. Sorry, for the inconvenience. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done this. I wasn't sure exactly what happened, but because you added more than 40,000 bytes to the page, I knew something wasn't right.--Atlan (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only if I was Moses... Someone did email me once attempting to out me. Unfortunately they confused me with the carefully crafted online and completely fictitious persona I used 15 years ago for game forums. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Cray
Hi Only in death. Did you see the keep vote by DGG for the Fred Cray article? As you stand opposed to this WP admin, who by all accounts is one of this sites most respected (and longest time) editors, and as he, correctly, points out that WP is all about croud sourcing, not accuarcy, I was wondering what your thoughts were in disregarding WP policy as it pertains to this article and if there is a greater movement here to remove artists, in general, from WP? And if so, are you a part of it? The reason I'm asking is because if there is an effort like this ongoing, I'd need to reevaluate my working on such articles. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 11 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Thank you for responding to my request to make some contributions to the biography of Martin Lorentzon. Have you received a response from the language ambassador page?
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
DHeyward (talk·contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
Hello, Only in death. 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.
I'm sorry. But I've made every effort to engage in talk page discussion and Elobelm hasn't tried at all - even given prompting on his talk page after his first reversion. Do you have an opinion? I really don't see how listing someone's titles and how you should address them has any relevance in the modern day. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately it doesnt (have any relevance). That doesnt make it not encyclopedic however. Styles of address (both current and previous) are common for BLP's where the subject is also a member of the artistocracy/lords etc. The problem with an argument based around 'I cant see why it is useful' is that there will *always* be someone who finds it useful or interesting. Regardless of the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have said the same thing to you, Softlavender. There is zero obligation to close a discussion using that template at AN/I. It is, in fact, wrong to use that template to close an AN/I discussion. This practice is not going to catch on. In fact, it's going to have to be addressed appropriately. Doctalk06:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had to go look up what this was about. Hawkeye, Keem may or may not be well known in the streamimg/YouTube community, but his article does not demonstrate notability. Secondly please do not reinstate material removed because of the BLP without addressing the concerns or gaining consensus at say the BLP noticeboard. Controversial unreliably sourced material is subject to removal and is considered an exception to 3rr. Self-serving self-published sources about racial insults are not reliable. Thirdly I have severe doubts that picture you uploaded is under a compatible license. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case you find interest
Hello Only in death. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for hatting that - if I knew where it came from I'd be inclined to replace the entire lot with diffs. I've given it my best shot at understanding whats going on, but drawing blanks - there's obviously some COI editing going on but I'm not sure if theres any other outcome than "drop it and stop editing those articles". I'll leave it to a patient admin to wade through and sort. Thanks again -- samtartalk or stalk09:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I doubt ARBCOM are going to be opening 'Welsh Politics' anytime soon. The only reason I responded to the original request at COI was a)I'm in Wales, b)I vote green. So its hard to accuse me of bias against the Greens. (I dont have any issues with who is going to be leader, all equally inept imho) But as Briahne and I both pointed out, we just dont list non-notable people like that. It causes Bloat. I didnt expect it to go on for days. I assumed Roger would get the hint, understand why we dont list every Tom Dick and 'arry, and go on his merry way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
POINTY. Which is not the same thing. Had you just not bolded the delete in the first place, it would not have come to pass. You know perfectly well why you dont bold a vote multiple times in the same discussion, you have been here long enough so ignorance is not an excuse. You were certainly not the only one who was misbehaving there (JPL did not cover themselves in glory) but accusing Carrite of doing it for kicks when there is a long-standing and really quite sensible convention is just being petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
Hi there, it appears you have deleted and moved pages related to Trịnh Thị Ngọ. Kindly revert the deletion and move and set up a discussion of the proposed deletion/move with reasons and allow discussion before such significant action is taken. This action needs to be discussed as there are other perspectives to consider. For example, there has already been a discussion at ITN/Candidates about the naming of this article. MurielMary (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page already existed at Hanoi Hannah and was moved to Trinh. Once a move has been contested and reverted, it is up to the editors who are requesting it be moved to do so, either on the article talkpage, or at WP:RM. Feel free to do either of those. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "But seriously, I wish people would stop posting to this board in hypotheticals and just link to the bloody article". I am not a regular at RSN, but I wish that at the Help Desk and the Teahouse, but if you are cynical, you can guess why people post in hypotheticals. They have provided a slightly biased description of the conflict, and then they want to get an advisory opinion to use it to wikilawyer the dispute. That is why. It is also why not to give advisory opinions; they are usually based on slightly biased descriptions, with the outcome selected. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its a combination of what you say above and the misapprehension (that is often fostered by people who give advice) that a 'reliable source' is a reliable source, regardless of context or use. Despite the ruddy great yellow box at the top. Sometimes I think the noticeboards would go a lot smoother if people just started closing posts that do not adhere to the required information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Only in death. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Michael Brutsch 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 notice from the top of the article. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas from me! Thanks for your help. (Silly lottery!) We have seen the percentage of articles on women rise from 15.5% to 16.77%. 20% is within our grasp and that's an increase of 11% over what we first found. Victuallers (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes.
I see your now that your comment on "Anytown, USA" was lifted directly from Schoolmann, which suggests you've perhaps never read the book (or any of Barth's?). Just as Schoolman was embarrassingly wrong about "cosmopsis" (a concept Barth's critics put considerable weight on, but Schoolman insisted didn't actually exist), he is wrong about his "Anytown, USA" comment as well. Maryland is the backdrop of virtually every novel Barth has written, and it's hard to escape it even in The End of the Road, where it's less in-your-face than in some of his other novels (like the ones immediate preceding and following it). It's there nonetheless—the Doctor has to ask Jake to get him a cup of coffee, because Jim Crow prevents him from ordering it himself—a scene that places the novel quite squarely outside of "Anytown, USA". Of course, if you want to understand the issues, it helps to have actually engaged with the work and the sources themselves—Schoolmann has read none of the sources, and you haven't even read the book, have you? Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on that userpage blanking, but...
I think citing BLP was not technically accurate. BLP applies to the recently deceased ("two years at the outside"), but the person in question has been dead since 2012. The material violated a whole load of stuff under WP:UPNOT, and was arguably WP:POLEMIC (given that user's history of bringing up other Wikipedians' activity, or supposed activity, on Conservapedia it could easily be taken that way).
Anyway, I've had about enough of trying to remove offensive material from other people's user pages recently, but if you wanna have another shot at it they've done something else that was arguably just as bad.[7]
Ugh. Sorry. I honestly had no idea who Phyllis Schlafly was. We don't have an article on "Phyllis Diller-Schlafly", and when I typed it in search the first result I got was Phyllis Diller. Our article on her doesn't say anything about Conservapedia, but applying logic to conversations on Wikipedia rarely does much good. It seemed odd for someone to be celebrating the death of someone who died four years ago, but this is the same person who accused me of presiding over a sockpuppet investigation against him when what I did was shoot down a sockpuppet investigation against him, and calls me a Conservapediot for thinking he should drop the stick. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can probably just close it with the atop/abot template at infobox person then just copy and paste the entire thing to MOSINFOBOX with a note that it was copied from infobox person. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Milo
Hi, Can you clarify why you've reverted my edit? Your cryptic "yup seen it" is lost on me. Do you reject the consensus achieved by other users? If so, that's entirely your opinion but the article here should mirror the Breitbart News one. Phatwa (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You claim a lack of consensus, but the issue has been discussed numerous times, including on the Milo talk page. The consensus has always -in my experience- been to stick with "alt-right" or "far-right". Breitbart is by no-one's definition a moderate right-wing source, nor a center right-wing source. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.13:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Generally I revert any editor who shows up at an article to make clearly NPOV edits while simultaneously accusing wikipedia of being run by a left-wing cabal. As Mjolnir explains above, by no means is Breitbart 'right-wing' except in the most general area of being 'right of center'. In accuracy its so far right of center its practically off the table. This argument however has taken place many many times at the Milo talkpage, so I refer all future discussion on this issue there and not here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost count of the times on my Galaxy I have done that. Its about the only time the mobile app is superior for me. But no problem, I usually give those things 5 mins in the assumption that no one would actually remove my comments, being as they are, of obvious correctness. ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MereTechnicality (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't do that. I've requested oversight which will surely be granted. What I removed was not you at your best and was embarassing to you and I did it as a favor to you. But OK. Rather than changing wording under your signature, then, I've just redacted your entire comment and I suggest that it would be quite wise on your part to leave it at that. Herostratus (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(by talk page stalker) BLP indicates that you can't make baseless claims about anyone, including Jokestress. I think Herostratus was correct in their assessment of the comment but I'm not sure I would have removed it. If Jokestress has engaged in such behavior it does not benefit the project to silence editors pointing it out. I think there's a real problem with editors running to the media to complain when we have established channels to deal with issues. When those complainers don't act with clean hands I would not forestall naysayers from voicing opposition. That said, I would recommend against restoring the comment and assume the audience heard you. Chris Troutman (talk)16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not baseless FYI. I have linked a relevant peer reviewed paper above that is actually cited *in* James's biography. Her actions regarding the Bailey affair are public record. I was actually toning down what she did. You may also want to read the Sexology arbitration case evidence page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It is a well-supported claim that many of us on Wikipedia found to be very difficult to process. As a card-carrying liberal wuss, I completely understand why Blanchard and Bailey's work might be considered grossly offensive by trans people, but James' response was appalling on every level. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt even offensive to *all* trans people. Just those who adhere to a rigid 'your gender choice is binary and fixed before birth (regardless of outward appearance)' mindset. If the same book was released now, I wager the harrassment campaign would not have got off the ground. Being as it is, the internet filled with such a wide variety of gender-fluid groups across a wide scale. Bailey's sin was in, god forbid, indicating there may be a cultural aspect as part of the decision to transition. Which did not fit the rigid narrative being promoted by some activists at the time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually familiar with this incident, and had no idea it had spilled over into Wikipedia until I saw the link above. After some digging to see what started this thread, I have to say OiD's claims were reliably sourced enough to be put into article space. They are certainly reliable enough not to have to redact them in talk space. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Granted my post on Jimbo's page was undeniably snarky, but it was certainly *not* a BLP violation. James recent article is filled with the same sort of hyperbole-ridden exaggerated, distorted and outright unbelieveable claims that have dogged her activism over the years. Coupled with the grudge she has after she was banned from skewing sexology-related articles to suit her POV, I would rate any article she pens on wikipedia (or in general) high on the 'likely to contain bullshit' meter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bleeding liberal hearts weeps at the idea of condemning a trans person in that way. But my rationalist mind agrees without hesitation, and I am a cold, mean-spirited, petty, pendantic, emotionless jerkwad. Just ask anyone who's ever argued with me! :D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No you're wrong, it is a WP:BLP violation. It is wrong to behave like this. Since it's wrong we shouldn't do it.
What you wrote is a total and complete non sequiter and an ad hominum attack which besides vicious was also pointless: it had nothing to do with the matter at hand.
WP:BLP flat forbids behavior like this. Flat forbids it. BLP applies to talk pages just exactly as much as to articles. You can't just write any old gossip that you have a ref for. It has to be germane to the matter at hand. In cases of doubt the rule is to remove the material.
Are you going to go to the article Douglas Ousterhout and replace "Notable Ousterhout patients who have written about their surgery include... Andrea James" with "Notable Ousterhout patients who have written about their surgery include... Andrea James, who by the way once did such-and-such bad thing [ref]"? Do you imagine WP:BLP would allow that? If so, you're quite wrong.
Exact same deal here.
And you didn't even provide a ref for chrissakes. You can't say "Well go find the ref, its in another location". You must provide a ref at the place and time where you write inflammatory negative material about living people. Article space, talk space, wherever. You just do. Herostratus (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trolling, clueless or just too upset to relax and read through? Those are the only three options I'm seeing here. OiD provided a ref in direct response to you, above. He also provided additional refs, in response to others. Finally, your value judgements are no more meaningful than anyone else's, so lecturing other editors on what's right and wrong basically boils down to blatant incivility. It's time to stop harping on about this and move on.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Its not 'any old gossip'. Gossip would be linking to a daily mail piece. 'Gossip' is not something that has been investigated in detail in a peer reviewed paper which is cited in the subjects own biography on wikipedia, that was also raised in evidence in an Arbcom case *where the same smear tactics were being used on wikipedia articles* against her opponents, and ultimately her tactics that got her banned from her pet subject. I am going to assume you are either unfamiliar with the depths to which Andrea James harrased her enemies or how well documented they have been. If you think her motivations are not behind her attack articles, then you are hopelessly naive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do me a favor?
Can you give a gentle explanation here? I don't think I have the patience, and it would be a shame to lose this editor completely – he could be of great value in improving these articles, but he has to understand why he has to stick to RS. I've often found Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history) helpful in these discussions. EEng03:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have been mostly away for a day or so. I will take a look, but from a brief glance at the RSN, its possible they do qualify as an expert under the self-publishing exception (being recognised as such by other reliable sources) for most standard content. I would still be disinclined to include that particular snippet, not just because it is completely ghoulish and un-necessary, but also because it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sourcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested. We dont link to redirects when directing readers to other articles or disambiguation pages. There are three choices. The primary topic (the football team) or the handball or hockey teams. Regardless of the existance of redirects, disambiguation/lists etc, either the hat at the football team should link directly (and only) to the disambiguation or 'list' page, or given there are only three, to the other two sports teams. Linking to a redirect which is targeted at a section of a disambiguation page is possibly the silliest option I have seen in awhile. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it still gives, as I've setup an unusual WP:INCOMPDAB (but it's not WP:DOUBLEDAB). It's because it's got a primary topic so it won't work like Aurora (album) but still satisfies the wording of WP:INCOMPDAB "When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect". We link to redirects all the time though e.g. "xxx (disambiguation)", not sure I've seen this attempt before though. (I'll move this discussion to the RfD now). Widefox; talk16:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing of discussion on Talk:Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory
Hi. Sorry for the short reply before. I added more details on the task and the request. I would be happy to respond to any other questions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly
Is this an endorsement of the threatening/aggressive actions taken by an impartial admin? Because it is not clear to me what exactly I am supposed to do at this point considering my legitimate concerns have received essentially no comments from parties involved. Nergaal (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If your goal is to get back rollback, then dont edit war for 3 months, reapply at perm saying why you need it and you understand you used it incorrectly previously, and that is the best way forward.
If your goal is to complain/get some resolution that you were treated harshly/unfairly by an admin? That is unlikely to happen.
First - the admin was justified in removing rollback - you were granted as a privilege a user-right that is given to users who demonstrate a need for it, and are expected to understand when it is appropriate to use it. You mis-used it in a way it is explicitly laid out that it shouldnt be used. Rollback can be summarily removed by any admin for misuse and has been in the past for less serious issues than yours.
Second - if your complaint is that the manner of the interaction was threatening, it is not a threat to say 'If you dont self-revert your bad behaviour I will make it so you cannot behave badly in the future'. That is a natural consequence of your own actions.
Ultimately any argument you make is going to come down to 'the admin spoke to me harshly' which short of outright abuse by the admin, if the underlying issue is justifiable, is not going to go anywhere. I suggest you take the route to regaining rollback and move on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know my opinions/edits/inputs are not welcome here, while the FAR more aggressive actions of an involved admin are welcome. Nergaal (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OID, Apologies for the interruption. I was just wondering if the comment here was in the right section. It seems focused on "non-editors", which is not the topic discussed, and, from the position and the indents, appears to be in response to my preceding comment. I am happy if it is indeed such a response, and will gladly make a reply, but would not like to be doing so in error. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'09:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May be entirely in the wrong section. Not using my usual comp and its playing havoc with my replies. I wasnt intending to reply to you - I was replying in general to the removal of the footnote (which I belive is for that wording - applies to non editors blah blah) but trying to point out that the bit 'this applies to non-editors' is blatantly unenforceable anyway, regardless of how many footnotes are added to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...but I actually have no idea if you would agree with me, so I guess courtesy-notifying you couldn't do any harm.
Hey, I saw this proposal at WT:BAN and thought of you, since I remembered you expressing some interest in the question some months ago, and figured you might want a notification if you hadn't seen it already.
I was aware of this but had refrained from commenting. Ultimately I do not think indef 'blocks' should require a full community run-around to lift, even if placed by the community. Save that for full bans. The rare problems where it comes up (and I can really only think of 2 in seven years but there may have been less high profile ones) are when an admin lifts an indef block on someone, who had they made a formal/public appeal to the community, would have had zero chance in being accepted. But this is an extreme rarity and results in a backlash and trouting for the admin. Which is why it rarely happens. The only real difference in the wording change is that it treats community blocks like community bans, in which case we might as well ban them in the first place rather than block. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Franzboas master account
Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have taken your However 'The source is clearly wrong - as can be seen by watching the film' is usually a terrible argument to make. overly literally, as he has now started demanding non-primary sources for claims made on talk pages. Even though at present, primary sources are technically allowed as sources for film articles, and (unlike me) he hasn't even expressed discomfort with that gross contradiction in our policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since RexxS seems to consider his talk page to be one where he can make disparaging comments about other editors, and considers them defending themselves to be trolling, and you still seem to think that his coming on the Free-roaming_horse_management_in_North_America and escalating a conflict was a legitimate action, I'm posting this here.
I am the major contributor to the article, having worked on it off and on since 2015. Here's what the paragraph in question looked like on March 20, 2017 after Montanabw's last edit:
"Two researchers have advanced an argument that mustangs should be legally classified as "wild" rather than "feral". They argue that, due to the presence of Equus ferus on the North American continent until the end of the Pleistocene era, horses were once a native species and should still be considered as such, defined as "wild"[100] rather than viewed as an introduced species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.[101] They argue that "the two key elements for defining an animal as a native species are where it originated and whether or not it coevolved with its habitat." and "E. caballus can lay claim to doing both in North America."[100]"
In May I went into the section and worked on it further. As she always does with any article that has the word "horse" in it, MBW, came along and "fixed" it her way. I left it for a couple months, and then went in and worked on it some more. Once again, MBW, came in and "fixed it". This time, I reverted for her "fixes" for the reason I cited in the article talk page. She reverted back. I reverted back and put the message on the talk page, where it sat for three weeks until she came back, and instead of addressing my comments, reverted back and implied I was POV pushing and adding unsourced material. I responded to her aspersion casting at her talk page, at which point RexxS decided he needed to play Underdog to Sweet Polly and swoop in and defend her from me. (BTW, I find RexxS's statement that he feel like you need to protect women editors very sexist, and ask if he knows I am also female?). RexxS made a huge mess, and still haven't answered my last question on the article talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As LynWysong seems intent on smearing me and insulting a respected colleague (Montanabw - the Editor of the Week, no less), I hope you won't mind me replying here then to that calumny? LynnWysong's assertion that she is the major contributor to the article is merely an attempt at ownership. It gives her no more right to determine the content of the article than any other editor who can read the sources. For comparison, here's the paragraph that she's gutted four times:
Controversy surrounds the presence of feral mustang herds on Federal lands (including BLM, Forest Service, Park Service and Department of Defense). Supporters of horses being present take two positions. Some, including the federal government consider them a non-native species, but culturally significant and with a place on the range. Others view them as them feral livestock.[ref][ref] Others consider them a reintroduced native species.[ref] Other opponents are primarily concerned about feral horses degrading rangeland and competing with private livestock for public land forage.[ref] The need for more sustainable management is generally agreed upon because of the degradation of the western range in areas inhabited by free-roaming horses, but what and how management occurs is hotly debated. Advocates for free-roaming horses suggest reducing the numbers of sheep and cattle allowed to graze on public lands, ranching interests hold the opposite, while wildlife advocates want to prioritize native species over both domestic livestock and free-roaming horses.[ref]
It has been the unjustified removal four times of that useful introduction that has been my major concern. I have asked her to respond to my concern and my criticism of her edit more than once on the talk page and I have only received ad hominems in return. When is LynWysong going to stop commenting solely on the editors, and start commenting constructively on the edits? --RexxS (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you RexxS for demonstrating that that paragraph has been evolving for a while. It has not been status quo verbiage that merited my initiation of discussion at the talk page the first time I reverted it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, LynnWysong, and I hope you appreciate that it is the version that I take responsibility for. I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm happy to discuss improvements, such as replacing "the federal government" with the technically more correct "Congress". Hopefully we can debate the article with emphasis solely on the sourcing and the text going forward. --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry how many dead duck improvements has the WMF tech teams had rejected while basic requests go unanswered? What happened to your last hire to run the WMF? Perhaps if you had a competent hiring process you might get someone to be able to run an event without charging obscene amounts of money. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales: OiD's comments are more easily parsed as opinion, and a fairly popular one at that (I personally have no opinion, but I've seen complaints about WMF being incompetent all over the web, not just WP). Bear in mind that OiD doesn't interact regularly with WMF staff and cannot, by definition, see the sort of things that would mitigate the results OiD does see. OiD only sees that requests for important improvements go unfulfilled, and only sees the waste and criticisms. There are relatively few "hard hitting exposes" of just how efficient WMF can be out there, after all.
I think a more constructive approach would be seeking clarification, or barring that, ignoring those comments than blanket-banning someone from your talk page. Remember, just like OiD has a gulf between him and WMF staff, you have a direct link to them; it remains a distinct possibility that OiD is making perfectly valid (if unhelpfully vague) points that you simply can't see for yourself, due to your own proximity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like part of a campaign by JW to silence on-Wiki dissent against critics of the Wikimedia Foundation on the Jimbo Wales Talk Page, which is a de facto community noticeboard akin to the Village Pump. LINK I encourage OiD to do as I will be doing and continue to post there as necessary and not to cave in to bullying from the one and only permanent lifetime member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. Carrite (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at your page, and I have the say that the community generally holds that editors have the right to "pageban" other editors from their talk page. I understand that Jimbo is a unique case, but I don't think it's really far to expect him not to benefit from that right, as well as anyone else.
That being said; yes, I think it's not right for him to do so. There are a lot of people complaining about WMF's apparent inability to implement many community requested changes, and since there's no explanation as to why that is, it's unreasonable not to expect editors to get upset over it and voice their opinions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I told him, HammerPants, if Jimmy Wales thinks that the prohibition against OWNership doesn't apply to Jimbo Talk, he is invited to start a case against me at ArbCom, which would be both useful and interesting. Carrite (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That depends, I also agree quite often with: TRM, SQUARESQUARESQUAREPants, Iridescent, Jytdog, NEent, Carrite - but unfortunately not (as seen above) Jimbo. I tend to think I am in good company. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree completely with everything you two said in that thread. Not because I find fault with your reasoning (it's perfectly good reasoning, capable of standing against many an argument), but because I'm a contrarian ass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Catalonia & Brexit
{Replying here to avoid derailing ITN)
The UK gov of course would *love* Catalunya to secede quickly, its a hole they can shove in a wedge to leverage brexit is definitely not the case, assuming you mean a successful secession that leads to international recognition rather than a Transnistria-on-Sea phantom state. Even the most incompetent Foreign Secretary in history can figure out what setting a precedent for recognising UDI's would mean. UK recognition of Catalonia would be followed in roughly a week by Scottish UDI (and quite possibly Shetland declaring UDI from Scotland in turn), Wales becoming logjammed in bureaucratic wrangling as Plaid try to figure out whether their commitment to the indivisible boundaries of 1974 really outweighs jettisoning Gwent and Flintshire to gerrymander a pro-independence majority in future (and the constant prospect of the People's Republic of Gwynedd if the nats are seen as not moving fast enough), and Norn Iron turning into Yugoslavia 2.0 as the counties with a SF majority promptly secede from the UK and members of both communities flee across the redrawn border. (If Brexit goes really tits-up, the unholy alliance of George Osborne and Tony Blair are ready-and-waiting to throw their weight behind London independence, to boot.) And that's just in the UK; recognition of "popular will for independence" as a principle would then mean Putin marching into the Russian-speaking areas of Latvia and Estonia, with obvious consequences; perceived UK support for the breakup of Spain would also poison relations with one of the few big EU countries which is still broadly supportive of Britain. Johnson and Davies talk a good game, but all the free trade deals with Australia they can draw up wouldn't compensate for the chaos the break-up of the UK would trigger. ‑ Iridescent09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more in line with 'taking advantage of the obvious clusterfuck that will ensue when Catalunya attempts to join the EU post-seccession.' Much as what would have happened if Scotland had left the UK and attempted EU membership while the UK was still in the EU rather than pre-brexiting. The UK as a political standpoint holds to a rigid definition of self-determination. Its the crux of the argument for why we keep Gibraltar and the Falklands after all, and why the Scottish referendum is so contentious - because we don't have a moral reason to deny it if Scotland want to leave. We would be obligated to recognize a fair referendum for independence or our (the UK's) principles are meaningless. There is a difference between say Scotland/Catalunya and Shetland/Irish counties. Historically those were strong independent countries which were amalgamated by a combination of politics & marriage. The Catalan mindset has been consistent (much as many of the scots have) that they are part of their respective unions on sufferance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh; the UK's principles are whatever suits the UK; if "independence is supported by 50% of the population" were really the principle the government worked on when it comes to diplomatic recognition, they'd be recognizing all Putin's puppet states in Ukraine and Georgia as well as North Cyprus and Somaliland (both former British colonies). With Poland and Hungary (May's only other allies in Europe) both busily alienating everyone in sight, the last thing Britain wants to do in the run-up to Brexit is piss off the only country with the clout to veto Barnier's more hardline proposals. ‑ Iridescent10:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have my torch and pitchfork ready. Its an interesting situation to watch (Catalunya) because the Catalans suffered huge amounts of cultural, economic and other forms of repression under Franco, so the more the current Spanish government cracks down, the more it will be compared (in the Catalan mind) with the repressive fascist governments of the past. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right up until they get created. Believe me, I've been through this a million times, and the person most ardently supportive of removing red-linked cats ended up just creating those cats, with all the problems going away once they did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Only in death - at a recent ANI thread you kindly suggested that you would remove from Talk:Johannes Brahms inappropriate references to myself via WP:RPA, if the writer of those references did not do so his/herself. S/he did not remove them - so I would be very grateful if you could carry this out (and of course remove similarly any of my comments if you feel them to be beyond the pale). I am only concerned for myself about the epithet 'liar' - as regards the rest I have been called worse and can live with it. I would apply RPA myself but I am not absolutely clear whether it is permissible for me to edit third-party comments about myself even when (as seems to have been agreed) they transgressed WP standards. Best regards, Smerus (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ANI archiving
Re [9] - I've seen that before. I think it's a "One Click Archiver" issue where a user loads the page and looks at it for a while - while they are looking at it someone removes a section or alters the section order in some other way. Then when the user clicks on a section to archive it, OCA uses the section number and title from their browser, which is now different to the live page. If that makes sense... Personally, I think I'd mostly prefer it if folks just left it to the bot, but I do understand the desire to prune when it gets huge - and the bot does break down a bit. Certainly folks who do use OCA in this way should be aware they need to check it actually did what they intended... --Begoon10:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more brusque than I needed to be, however they should have noticed they archived two wildly differing size sections with the exact same title. It was more irritating because due to the changes on the page, it couldn't be undone - had to be manually returned which is a pain with the current setup. One day the WMF will actually point some engineers at implementing a proper threaded discussion format, archiving etc. Its not exactly an unsolved problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, last time I saw it, it was the same user. On that occasion they did notice, and undid the ANI edit - but they didn't undo the archive edit, so I fixed that. If anyone ever wonders why the archives get "partial duplicates" - that's one way it happens. That can be dangerous, because if you only find/read the first copy in the archive you'll miss any additions/resolutions that happened before it got archived again the second time around. --Begoon10:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's not a problem. With the Wikipedia built-in search engine being unable to do such basic things as sort its results by date of archival, no one will ever see it unless they know its there anyway! (That's number 2 on my list of things that really annoy me about Wikipedia discussions). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three wasp a not from Sweden noticing but because of the discussion style from the user it wasp hård för us to make enwp notice. As you can see on the discussion right now in Swedish wikipedia we from Sweden are looked down at by exile swedes like his friend. Best regards Adville (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently reclosed the discussion you openen up on the village pump, because it was turning into an uninformed vote followning the proposal on MEDMOS. If you check the dates you will see that voting at VP began after the discussion at MEDMOS. Having the discussion at two different places is not productive, and this has nothing to do with me not liking the result. In fact it is WP:CANVASSING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING by an an individual whose name I will not mention — to start the voting on the VP.
If it matters I can ping all the involved editors at the VP to the MEDMOS discussion, but having two discussions is not helpful and I stand by my closure. Especially when one page has arguments properly laid out and is acting as a proper informed debate, while the other is a simplistic vote. Carl Fredrik talk16:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider that in no way is a discussion at the MOS going to supersede anything at Village Pump. Regardless of the merits of the !votes, you will be open to LOCALCONSENSUS arguments post-result regardless. It would be better to copy the discussion from the MOS to the VP and continue it there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS hardly represents LOCALCONSENSUS, also an informed discussion at one place, with more involved editors is more likely to be interpreted as final than some spattering of last minute votes at WP:VP. Carl Fredrik talk20:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)19:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Only in death. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You are quite aware that two admins, @Masem: and @Coffee: agreed that your obscene insults and defamatory comment about a BLP on the ITN nomination page was uncalled-for and my redaction was proper. Yet after several days notice and the closure of the discussion you snuck back in to restore your improper comments diff. This is disruption, you have already been warned of blocks, and you'll be taken to ANI next. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged, but I don't think that specific diff is as much an attack or the like. In context, it doesn't seem to be OiD's personal opinion, though maybe the opinion of the rest of the world (by the UN) looked at by OiD-tinted glasses. Inactionable, but it is part of the concern of attitudes in question from that discussion. --Masem (t) 18:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noes! Two admins overeacted? (and one of them is here disagreeing with parts of that). OiD's gunna get indeffed!
Seriously: an editor saying, in their very own words "Fuck Trump." is not a BLP vio. Watch: Fuck Trump. Fuck him hard, with a sandpaper dildo.
An editor paraphrasing the reaction from the UN as "Fuck Trump" is nothing but an editor paraphrasing. Which you might recognize as something we often encourage editors to do here; it's bound to spill over onto the talk pages from time to time.
Finally: Calling Trump racist isn't a BLPvio either: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17] were all on the first page of a google search for "Trump" "racist". So it's well-supported by reliable sources and rarely contested. When it is contested, it's usually done with "well, he's actually right that [insert racist statement here]." which doesn't actually contest the assertion that he's racist, just that he's wrong.
The fact of the matter is; a huge proportion of the world's population that has access to news media and any interest in Trump whatsoever believe that Trump is racist. The counter claim (that he's not racist) is held only by a tiny minority. In other words, it's a fringe theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think he is racist as such, however since he outright makes racist statements, pursues racist policies and retweets racist hate groups. It's a rather redundant distinction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd come around eventually. :D Or more to the point, I knew Trump would do something racist enough to make you change your mind at some point. The most fun I'm having was asking my neighbor -who is a naturalized Haitian and voted for Trump (I live in South Florida; there's nothing down here but alligators and crazy)- how he was doing this morning and getting the response "I'm feeling very democratic today, very blue." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the plus side, you are getting an exemption from offshore oil drilling. Not related to your Republican guvnor making a run for the senate at all and getting his buddy to give him a PR hand, no sirrah. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lot is about context. BLP itself points out that BLP lines may be crossed when discussing content to include. However, that allowance is not universal.
Here on a talk page, "Fuck Trump" is a personal opinion, one that tells us you very much dislike the man, but certainly not a BLP. But if it were made in context of the ITNC to support or oppose a blurb, that's not really appropriate. Not a BLP but part of the attitude problem them.
The "Dear US, Fuck you, signed everyone else" is clearly a swear-loaded paraphrase regardless where used, again not really civil but not anything actionable above. It could and should be avoided though.
However, describing "Trump's racist policies" is a BLP in a ITNC !vote. "Racist" is a label, regardless of how many RSes say it. Per BLP and LABEL, on a main space article page, that type of language better be attributed as opinion and sourced, that avoids the BLP issues there. On a talk page for a main space article, I would probably not blink if people called Trump racist in context of whether that language should be included in the mainspace article. But when used on a talk page like ITNC to discuss the appropriateness of a blurb, such language is very much inappropriate and can be taken as a BLP, particularly when it is not at all relevant to the matter at hand (in this case, there is nothing of note of Trump's apparent racism to discuss if we should post a blurb relating to the UN resolution against his decision to recognize Jersuleum as the capital of Israel. Mentioning it is just personal opinion to fuel the flames, making it a BLP and has no reason to belong there. This is judging OiD's full comment in context, not in isolation, which shows why it is a problem, because it throws the label in describing issues the editor seems to have with how ITN is run). --Masem (t) 19:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, the man is going out of his way to rile up Muslims because it serves his political agenda. When ITN is complicit in his PR shenanigans by posting every little stupid thing he does and then refuses to post the world's response despite it fulfilling the ITN criteria, it is entirely relevant. It is not in any way a BLP violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)But when used on a talk page like ITNC See, that's where you're drawing the line. I don't see any fundamental difference between WT:ITN and Talk:Donald Trump because I know damn well that even I, as an editor, rarely click on talk page unless I'm looking for something on that talk page (and I make a lot of talkspace edits, too). Before I registered my account, I never once clicked on a talk page. I actually read WP:TPO before I ever went to a talk (and knowingly violated it with my first talkspace edit, but pobody's nerfect).
Sure, you can argue that something like ITN talk is more likely to be clicked on, but not only is that a matter of degrees, it's not going to be many degrees. And part of the point of talk pages is to allow editors to communicate. Meanwhile, the changes to OiD's comments absolutely made their meaning far less clear. So any new editors curious about what OiD actually said would have to wade through god-knows-how-many pages of revisions to find the original comments, sans edits. So the redaction just made communication worse, while the comments themselves were -all things considered- pretty damn unremarkable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them. Not altered them. And you are a dynamic IP with less than 10 contributions so blocking you is fairly pointless. The result of the road you are going down will ultimately be semi-protection for the talkpage, which has no effect on you since you are topic-banned, but would effect other IP's editing in good faith. So I suggest you obey the terms of the topic ban and find something else to do. Also read WP:TPO: "Removing prohibited material such as comments by banned users" which links to WP:BAN which in the very first line defines a ban as "A ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all Wikipedia pages". You have been formally prohibited from editing any post-1932 politics pages, your comments are freely removable under WP:TPO by any editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already freely admitted my identity: Doc9871. I'm not impersonating myself. And I don't give a rat's ass bottom if you block my account. I've busted more socks than you can shake a stick at. I'm not blocked in any way here. But I AM banned from post-1932 American Politics articles. You can file a report at AE if you want. 69.122.234.2 (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blurring the lines between blocks and bans? Between American Politics articles and "closely related" ones? The house of cards will fall. Check your bias at the door, right? LMAO 69.122.234.2 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to understand the difference between a block and a ban. TPO allows removal of comments by banned users. Not blocked ones. You not being blocked is irrelevant. You have been banned from the topic area so any posts you make in the topic area can be removed as posts by a banned editor. Its not a difficult concept. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually worked on that policy page. I'm not what you would call a "banned" editor, period. Thusly, you cannot remove my comments in the same way you could an actual banned editor. Sounds like a challenge, no? Bring it... 69.122.234.2 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You participated in a discussion about the addition of a paragraph about Harvey Weinstein in the bio of NBC News President Noah Oppenheim. You and two other editors weighed in that the addition was COATRACK.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You previously participated in the inclusion of Harvey Weinstein content in the Noah Oppenheim article. There is an RfC on another matter, regarding Matt Lauer, with a vote, and I am notifying everyone who participated on the Talk page recently.
Ah its irritating sometimes when utter tripe is being peddled on Jimbo's talkpage and you are banned from it. Ah well, will stick response here. "The last 4+ presidents were not blatantly attempting to enact racist policies, peddling conspiracy theories and lying through their teeth at every opportunity, as well as engaging in willy-waving with dictators and describing countries as 'shitholes'. So... comparing Trump with any of the previous presidents is largely a waste of time. As most of their criticism are related to genuine political issues rather than tweeting into the early hours of the morning. As for being 'persecuted'. If anyone feels 'persecuted' reading about Racial views of Donald Trump they either support/voted for Trump or are a racist - both of which deserve to feel bad and I wont lose sleep over it." Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for getting confrontational at ANI. It's easy to get absorbed and not realise you are too tired and irritable to write in a collegiate way. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. It's still edit warring, even if you're "right".Natureium (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I think our search system holds up fairly well" - A joke from the WMF. Its possibly the least functional search (other than for 'Does this article/user' exist) of any modern website with user-generated content. It doesnt even approach the functionality PHPBB forums had 10 years ago for advanced queries, it doesnt handle anything that isnt directly an article, user or heading title well. Its actually more efficient for anything in mainspace to google it rather than use the built in search. The complete lack of being able to reliably sort results by user submission or date/time (prefer recent does not do anything close to what is needed) for discussion and archive pages makes it far more difficult . Keyword functionality is... not good would be the kindest thing to say about it despite it being worked on for a decade. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DS and WP:AE. Discretionary sanctions are authorised in some areas of particular contentiousness (AFAIK, Greece and its history isnt one of them). What this means is where editors are being particularly problematic, AE can enforce a variety of sanctions against editors in those areas who edit in bad faith. Specifically related to the query - constantly removing material where the overwhelming consensus that it is reliably sourced is (or can be) an example of disruptive editing. The US politics area is particularly prone to a number of problems, and is under a variety of specific sanctions that mean bad faith removals of material can stand for significant periods of discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments at ANi
As a followup to your comments about me you might find this tool useful. [18]. Can you show that anyone making accusations has accepted more than 1500 new pages without missing the odd copyvio or well written hoax? Easy to throw stones without looking at the big picture. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You now have multiple people watching your actions. The next time you transfer blatant copyvios to mainspace that could have been detected by a brain dead potato, expect to get off less lightly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Only in death. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Canvassing on Twitter isn’t going to work too well. There is such thing as freedom of speech, the right to complain or brag or be proud of an article. I do this myself at times and it’s not effective at swaying discussions. It’s not meant to be. You’ll notice this user isn’t saying “Go to this page and vote. Moreover any decent admin will ignore votes from newly registered accounts on the grounds that they can’t know our standards yet. JehochmanTalk12:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There is however a marked difference between the above "take a look at this" which is on the benign end (and the more common form of off wiki publicising) and "go here and copy me" approach which is way over into meatpuppet land. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have been saying, if one of you assembles a clear set of evidence, you can email it to any admin or ArbCom and request the user be banned. If you were to email me, from what I've seen, I would ban them and then mail the evidence to ArbCom for safekeeping. JehochmanTalk12:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame editors use Wikipedia to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I posit that pointing to any open XfD via media is probably an attempt at meat-puppetry. I wish the climate on wiki were such that the admin corps and ARBCOM would punish partisanship rather than allow the usual suspects to continue their bad behavior. Chris Troutman (talk)13:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they're pinging certain special interest groups etc in their tweet, as here, then that is not benign. Those groups have an inherent bias. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, Roger
Hi Only. I noticed on one of the Talk pages I typically stalk that you recently removed a YouTube movie clip published there by MovieClips.com. The extensive notes for that clip contain, among much other stuff, this statement (my emphasis added):
"The MOVIECLIPS channel is the largest collection of licensed movie clips on the web. Here you will find unforgettable moments, scenes and lines from all your favorite films. Made by movie fans, for movie fans."
I wonder could you suggest any key features of that posting that demonstrate quite clearly that it may not be fully copyright compliant? Many thanks for your time. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hat-mania?
See [19] for another example just made. On a Talk page, no less!
On the "Hijack" talk page, please read the diatribe aimed at me, as I fear one editor has gone a bit off the rails from WP:CONSENSUS. I am not going to write a single word more to that editor, as I find his position to be so weird as to belie belief. Thank you for what you wrote, but he clearly "owns" the article and I think he will never, ever, concede any errors. Thank you again. Collect (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. Largely pointless, I'm assuming it was one of the core editors with accesst to the account password who has an axe to grind with Fram. He's successfully made fools of quite a few of them. Thankfully someone with half a brain realised it doesnt look good having a project account tweeting libellous statements about easily identifiable individuals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 RFA
Hi there. I reverted your late oppose vote because the RFA had already been closed, but I see that DeltaQuad closed it only two minutes before your comment so you could have just missed it. I'll leave it to the two of you to determine if your comment should be added back or not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should go make my own french vanilla (no article on it suprisingly) from Tim Hortons now ;). Either way, tally is already posted, and I don't feel like changing it in multiple places, though I do accept the vote would be completely normal. -- Amanda(aka DQ)13:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AN thread about reliable sources and BLP violations reminded me of something. This article gets a lot of IP editors adding deaths, and pretty much all of my 50+ edits to the article have been to verify that these people are actually dead. Most of the time, they are, but there's been a few instances where the date of death was wrong. Since BLP also covers recently deceased persons, does that mean I should remove each new unsourced name until I can verify every single one? Clovermoss (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
I just read your comment on the ANI thread about portals and one part really stuck with me Neither has any editor or admin seen fit to enforce WP:NPA which allows anyone to remove personal attacks. There's a lot of comments there, but hopefully that bit doesn't get lost in the forest fire. It's not worth the community's time to debate personal attacks, and the thread would be made much shorter if we followed WP:RPA and just removed reverted and ignored. I'm glad you brought it up, and I hope more people follow that advice in the future. Wug·a·po·des 01:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Only in Death, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. I haven't seen you around in a while, so I hope you haven't given up on it because I always value your opinion. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Only in death! Hope you've been well. Haven't seen you around much lately, but I know how real life gets in the way of all the Wikipedia we want to do. :-) Anyway, I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas, and may you have a great New Year! Zaereth (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your intervention. Question: Did you review the edits/notices on that article's talk page to see if they met with WP policies/guidelines? Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1st Warning
Somehow I overlooked your comment at AN the other day, and it's probably a good thing that I did. It was a blatant PA against me and totally unwarranted. I don't recall ever engaging you in a discussion in the past, much less a disagreement but you apparently have an issue with me for whatever reason. I really don't care at this point, your comment tells me all I need to know about you. I won't bother asking for an apology - they come naturally when they're sincere. What I want now is for you to not interact with me at all...ever - pretend there's an iBan preventing you, and if you can't do that voluntarily, then I'll make it happen formally. Atsme💬📧21:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll make it happen formally" - Suffice to say, if you think you can survive any discussion where your extensive politically biased editing will be listed in detail, with references to your edits at BLPN, RSN, BLP's etc, then feel free to have at it. I am willing to bet the chances are much greater you end up with a topic ban before you get any sort of sanction on me. Its really trivially easy for anyone to do a brief trawl through your contributions to back up anything in my comment there. But a word of advice, if you have been previously sanctioned for your editing practices in an area, and you go to an editor who actually contributed to the discussion that resulted in you being topic banned because of your behaviour, you had better have a better argument than 'its unwarrented'. I see no substantial improvement since 2018. I see no real substantial improvement since 2015 if I am to be honest. If anything your editing has just become less disruptively focused on one topic (eg American politics/trump) but has become much more focused on attacking the structure that underpins the encyclopedia's efforts (eg the policies, the wider sourcing discussions). Why try to skew one article to the right when you can argue instead a right wing conservative mouthpiece is reliable.
In more detail, I dont care about you, or your ultimate motivations, it would be impossible to verify them and a pointless effort. However your editing and arguments have the obvious and transparent goal of skewing sourcing towards unreliability, biographies towards obfuscation, and generally degrading the quality of anything related to modern politics. Just taking a recent example at RSN. We (as in you and I) have almost no interaction not because I do not engage at RSN or BLPN (I do quite regularly), but because I have zero need to attempt to refute your arguments in any discussion you get involved in. Because half a dozen others will be there before me. Usually with much better arguments than I could articulate. Its not that you are wrong and advance weak arguments in support of that wrongness, its that you fail to learn from it. And then you do the same thing again and again. I can throw a brick and bounce it off any number of editors who have argued against your obviously biased contributions, @Aquillion:'s interaction with you in the above linked discussion being one example. I could, if I wished, reference more examples on the current RSN, such as your laughable contributions on the Washington Post responded to by @JzG:. The funny thing is, its not even that you are clearly biased, and editing specifically to skew ENWP towards that bias, it is that it has now reached the point where if I see you have contributed to a discussion, I dont feel the need to contribute to it because it will inevitably close against you. Your involvement actually increases the chance of a successful outcome to the benefit of the encyclopedia - but against your personal desired outcome. If I genuinely thought you were capable of it, I would suspect you of being an agent provocateur deliberately galvanising the opposition in order to make wikipedia a better place. Certainly the 30-odd years you insist on reminding people you spent at CNN (or wherever) would have well trained you in manipulating the public perception. Certainly its much more likely to have done that than CNN spending 30 years training you with an outcome that you genuinely and honestly argue in favour of 'Everybody does it' when evaluating the reliability of a source. Now I didnt particularly want to spend this long answering such an amazingly short-sighted threat from you, but consider this going forwards: I spent the majority of my career doing mainly 3 things, Risk assessment, Root cause analysis and Troubleshooting. If you really want a demonstration of what I can do when I decide to apply my particular skillset to editing behaviour, keep going down the road you are currently on. Alternatively you can take some good advice and step away now while you still can do voluntarily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Liz, You are aware of the broad leeway I mentioned above, right? I seem to recall you warning of just this occurrence in that thread, so don't act too surprised you're getting some pushback here.
As far as CFD deletions go, unless you can show where every editor who was in a user cat was invited to discuss it's deletion, there's a serious WP:CANVASS and WP:LOCALCON problem with the outcome of those discussions.
And for the record, I had actually read that discussion. I saw some seriously questionable behavior from the nom and several of those voting to delete. bludgeoning and the assumption of bad faith were downright thematic in that discussion between 7 users who !voted 4:3 to delete something which affected several dozen editors. One wouldn't be surprised to learn that an editor might have wanted to !vote to keep the categories, but chose not to after seeing every keep !vote responded to with the same bad attitude.
Your repeated bullying and abuse of editors on the Autism spectrum
One day the community will see you for what you are and you yourself will be community banned and subjected to the same harsh treatment you dispense onto others. Vengeance ofZH (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting until the Arbcom resolves the case, and it occurred today. Now, we need to talk.
On 4 August, you opened a topic against me at ANI saying "Ymblanter has blocked Marek and GCB for edit warring, despite the editor in question not being eligible to edit on the topic in question as they are way below the 500/30 threshold. Which is *specifically* exempt from edit warring. If they arnt unblocked with either an apology (I dont care who apologises, I doubt Ymblanter will proffer one themself) the next step will be ARBCOM to request Ymblanter's tools are removed". This statement has a number of issues. First, it went to the ArbCom anyway, and the ArbCom confirmed my interpretation of the policy. Second, you did not try to resolve it with me at my talk page. Third, you did not follow WP:AGF. Two editors (not counting me) pointed this out to you; to one, your response was to double down, the second one you ignored. This was not the first time you failed to observe AGF towards me, we have been in similar situations before. As a result, I had a medical emergency which had some (mild) real-life consequences for me.
Whereas you are perfectly entitled to your opinion that I am a horrible administrator, and I do not think it would be a good use of my time trying to convince you of the opposite, I do not want to have a medical emergency again. In the end of the day, this is my hobby, and I also have a real-life job and my family to care about.
Therefore I would like to ask you next time when you think my actions are not compatible with me being administrator, before going to ANI / Arbcom, to (i) discuss this with me on my talk page - you can think whatever you want about me, but I have never avoided discussing issues related to my behavior on my talk page, not since at least 2017; (ii) Assume good faith towards me, which happens to be a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.
I would expect a reaction to this message. A simple "yes" would be good enough for me. I will take an absence of any reaction as a "no".--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly "I do not want to have a medical emergency again." Are you an idiot? Do you really think that emotional blackmail that transparent is acceptable? Fuck right off. I am neither responsible nor in any way culpable for any purported medical issues you may have. And that you would show up here and even imply that just reinforces my low opinion of your manipulative nature and terrible judgement. If you in any way, anywhere, even so much as hint that my actions contribute to your physical condition, you will regret the consequences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
"So sealioning it is then. Good luck in your endevours. I will significantly oppose any bot request you now put forward unless you can clearly demonstrate community consensus for the task."
It was not meant to be helpful. It was informing BHG of the consequences of their failure to understand what multiple people have spent significant time and effort trying to explain to them. That point 4 of BOTPOL requirements is routinely ignored by BAG and when approving BRFAs is not my concern. Perhaps if BAG did it's job properly and actually assessed BRFAs in line with botpol, we wouldn't have editors doing mindless make work tasks that irritate others, and perhaps if more of those editors had been given more than just a wave through, we wouldn't have instance after instance of mass automated editing where there exists no consensus for the task to exist beyond a tiny group of people who are concerned only with the "Will this break anything" rather than "what is the benefit to editors/readers". That botpols requirements for consensus holds little weight at BRFA is because the process is faulty through deliberate evasion of what BOTPOL actually requires, and the unwillingness of BAG to identify and engage stakeholders in potential automated tasks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Only in Death! I'm glad to see you're still helping out at BLPN from time to time. I'm always glad to read your comments. I hope you have a very happy holiday, and may the new year bring you great joy and good fortune. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
regarding Special:Diff/1072966340, I think "whining" and "actively working against any sort of constructive reformation" may be a bit of an overinterpretation. Primefac was the first person to respond to the AN thread, and was in immediate favor of re-adding the EC group membership. Primefac was also the person to notice and point to Special:UserRights/MamaTeeth, so their participation seems to have been helpful.
And I'm a bit baffled looking at the above sections about a comment "not meant to be helpful", a threat about consequences that would be regretted, and a "transparent goal of skewing sourcing towards unreliability".
I mean, even if you're completely right, perhaps there are less confrontative ways to say so?
Sadly 'less confrontative' in wikiland is almost always synonymous with 'stop saying things we dont like to hear'. Regarding the specific comments above - at least one of the recipients of those has demonstrated amply over an extended period of time that they either lack the capacity to understand anything except the bluntest of comments, or they are deliberately engaging in what is routinely described on-wiki as tendentious editing (but is a distortion of what tendentious actually means). A recent discussion on the Fringe noticeboard should give you a decent background to the level of sophistry applied. RE my comment at ARBCOM - there are two things you could do to enlighten yourself. 1. Go have a good read of the various discussions over the years about reforming RFA (and inactivity of admins), pay attention to who votes for what. And 2. Have a look at the various decisions by the ARBCOMs in the same period where they have made it clear they oppose any sort of community process for removing tools from admins. The hand-wringing over issues with admin tool abuse is both disrespectful and aggravating given the group of users who have created the process as it stands today - hint: it wasnt editors without tools. Granted Primefac themself may not be personally responsible, but like it or not, now they know how utterly annoying it is to hear it from the body they are elected to. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see that problem; I'd probably have avoided saying anything if I had been a part of the perceived problem. I don't want to make an impression of attempting to silence criticism. Regarding de-adminship, I think we share very similar opinions, and I've tried to provide data-based arguments against concerns voiced at WP:DESYSOP2019 and WP:DESYSOP2021. I was also in favor of many proposals at WP:RFA2021/P. And especially members of ArbCom need to be able to deal with criticism, even if it is harshly worded. Ideally, all people should be. I just wanted to share an impression I had when reading it. Thank you for sharing the details and the discussion link, and all the best. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite surprised by your comments OID, and perhaps I'm missing something. I don't see the committee members as "whining" that admin cases are ending up at our doorstep - I do see that the committee almost invariably accepts that it is the only place that admin conduct issues can be handled, and generally does accept them for that reason. Equally, we have a duty to find a balance, so we're not accepting vexations complaints and driving off hard working admins.
I know you are paying attention, so you'll know I fully support a community desysop method, I've proposed a few myself and have spent many, many years trying to change the culture around administrators, from election, to accountability during their tenure, through to all the general "us and them" differences and of course, the end of their tenure. Now, I am aware I sit, so I've got a different perspective - but I've certainly not got the impression that the committee as a whole would like to keep hold of it's monopoly on desysopping. I cannot speak for every committee member - that's the whole point of the a committee, opinions differ, but if we're giving the impression that you are implying... well, I'd like to to know more. WormTT(talk) 13:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that recent poor decisions on Tamzin's part are problematic, but maybe you will consider withdrawing this request? They are a newish administrator, and I believe they will learn from this experience. Why not giving them some more time. Would you consider, please? - GizzyCatBella🍁13:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While normally I would consider this, the problem is that they *are* a new administrator, but what you expect new admins to do when making a mistake is learn from it. In Tamzin's case, they make a mistake, doubled down, and made another mistake. I dont think they will take notice of anything except hard action.
But let's be realistic, Arbcom are not accepting that case in a million years, but until I said I was going to do it on Tamzin's talkpage, there was zero hint they were willing to engage in any sort of self-reflection over their actions, so I would say the request has served the purpose of prompting at least some action. It also serves as a place for ARBCOM members to more forcefully state their opinions without having to get involved in a messy AN/ANI filing. In practical terms a warning from an arbcom member (or ex-member) carries far more weight. But I would say look how quick to question if I was some random IP Tamzin was. Even a bare 2 mins brief investigation would show why that is an amazingly silly thing to do. Its just more indication that Tamzin acts before they think. (I am ignoring the IP issue as its so laughable even responding to it would just be... well, yeah.) I have had to threaten ARBCOM to only two admins for their actions, despite my interactions with many many of them, but the point about consequences is that when you say you are going to do something, you do occasionally have to do it so people know you mean what you say. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For any future spurious IP accusations, I am on O2 not EE btw. There should be some stuff in my contribution history in the last 3 months from my mobile, should anyone manage to come up with a credible enough reason to get a CU to check ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are one or more trolls who sometimes seek to stir up additional drama by making repeated log-in attempts against editors involved in high-profile on-wiki disagreements. This has happened recently with opposers at RfA, for example. This person(s) may or may not even hope to actually gain access to the target's account; the motivation may be simply to provoke us into suspecting or accusing each other of attempted hacking, as here. Please don't assume that these log-in attempts were made by anyone associated with this dispute. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Regarding: "Its my ball and I am taking it home" didnt get a lot of traction there either. Pardon my saying so, but that exchange in the comments section of that particular Signpost article you linked is truly one of the absolute dumbest I have ever read on Wikipedia. I'm glad that catering to accessibility has become much, much more accepted since then, regardless of the behavior of a singular editor. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a rare defence of Wikipedia processes and consensus, it has always been very good at catering to accessibility issues (primarily sight ones as it's a visual medium but also others like my own deafness). It's rare that a visual disability incident occurs that is not covered by a set of guidelines and options to enable access. On those rare occasions when something does cause an issue, it's often fixed quickly because things like screen reader errors are easily tested and fixed. Likewise colour blindness etc. It's actually quite rare for an accessibility issue to arise where an editor/s actively try to hinder access. It's not surprising it happens in relation to the signpost though, as it's one of the very few areas where individuals can (attempt to) have control over content beyond the usual consensus processes. Frankly it needs to be barred from EN-WP and it's editors and writers can host it on meta, the recent hatchet job in relation to the current arbcom case being a good indicator of why. It's editorial processes are fundamentally at odds with a consensus based approach, and subject to whatever an editor has an axe to grind about this week. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to Baroness Joanna Shields page
My name is Laura and I work for Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields, a baron, businessperson, and former British politician. The page about her was recently tagged for COI and advert issues due to some poor edits made years ago. I posted here regarding my desire to address the substance of the tags with a re-write or heavy trims, to remove the promotional content. I was hoping you might be willing to chime in on the proposed trims and/or the suggestion for a rewrite. Let me know. Best regards.~~~~ LauTad89 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
First of all, you are misreading NFCC. Secondly, if multiple users contest with your interpretation a policy, that means it is no longer "clear" or "blatant". Discuss on the talk page, or you will be blocked for edit-warring. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
