I didn't realize people *weren't* subst'ing it. I figure it should be. I might set my bot on it later. ^demon[omg plz] 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would make sense to subst it, in my opinion. Seeing as it's used on over 550 pages now (as of about 2 seconds ago, I checked), we should probably decide whether to protect it, or make it subst'd. ^demon[omg plz] 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And as for RFMF, we typically remove that, post-mediation-request, so no worries on it. ^demon[omg plz] 12:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, for RFM-Request that is...we can keep RFMF as-is. ^demon[omg plz] 09:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Penwhale. I'm looking for a few objective, experienced editors to provide their input on this MfD page. Browsing through your contrib history, I believe you meet both criteria. Thank you, --Otheus 13:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the correct link was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otheus/sandbox/dr with fmgt151 possie. However, given that the page has become a de facto attack page against me, and that the nominators and supporters show no signs of discussing things civilly, I've voted for speedy deletion. --Otheus 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello admin, thanks for adding the resources on my talk page. It's really helpful :D 137.132.3.11 17:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an admin... Did you make a mistake? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure go ahead, I had completely forgotten about that. ^demon[omg plz] 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq 06:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification. But should I wait for admins establish the account to be a sock, even if it is obvious that it is a ban evading user? As of now, a number of articles has been reverted by brand new accounts, which obviously have been created for the sole purpose of edit warring. Grandmaster 09:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I’ll wait till someone addresses my report on WP:ANI here: [1] just to be on a safe side and then act according to WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. But the situation with socks gets out of hand, we have now 3 main puppeteers reverting the articles to certain ethnic POV. Situation should be urgently addressed by admins, as continuous abusive use of socks would lead to further escalation of the dispute. Thanks a lot. Grandmaster 09:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's a good idea. I will do that later today, I gotta go now. Regards, Grandmaster 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, shouldn't I have semiprotected it? denizTC 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I do that, if I can do that? I am not an admin.denizTC 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Michael G. Davis 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I misunderstood the page and was under the impression that it was at the very least a violation of the spirit of 3RR (since it was just over 24 hours), but if that's the ruling, that's the ruling. It's not like I was expecting an admin to get warned or anything, just wanted to let someone know about it. What can I say, the guy's driving me nuts with the POV stuff. Sorry for the trouble. - RPIRED 15:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in some coaching toward WP:RFA? You've been doing excellent work these last few months and if you'd like to get mopified I think you're on track for a candidacy by late summer. Contact me at my user talk page if you're interested and I'll share some pointers. Warm regards, DurovaCharge! 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you posted on my talkpage, what were you refering to?
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.49.210.37 (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oops, sorry, looks like I reverted you. I wonder why I didn't get an edit conflict? But I guess it doesn't matter, we obviously reverted to the same version. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Can you just clarify for me, "For this case, there are 11 active arbitrators of whom 1 is recused, so 6 votes are a majority." but four close votes are enough to close it? Why do we close with less than a majority? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Motions to close only needs 4 net close vote --- the majority for the case doesn't matter. (And yes, it has resulted in weird situations before -- I think there was a case where the majority was 3) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizarre. Should you remove Krill's last vote as well? Given that the case had already closed. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, his vote stands for 2 reasons: 1) occasionally arbitrators will oppose to see a piece of the resolution resolved before voting to close (so 4-1 turns into 5-0), 2) at 4-0, any other arbitrator could vote oppose and hold the case-closure off. It's less likely that it'll happen at 5-0, since 2 arbitrators would have to oppose closing. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 09:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, the written policy says that once there are +4 votes to close, it's closed. On the other paw, your interpretation of the policy makes more sense than the policy as written. :-) All the best, Ben Aveling 09:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are always cases that needs to be reviewed-- after all, if it's just +4 votes, 4 people can rapidly vote to close and that'd be that. Which is why most of us don't see it as closed until a clerk actually closes it. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. For more background on the official rules for the vote required to open and close cases, see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. For more background on the specific procedures, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures or the fine print in the "motion to close" section on any /Proposed decision page. We've been trying to reduce any minor inconsistencies between the different pages, so if you think you've spotted one, let us know. When I queried the ArbCom mailing list they seemed to think that our current timing of closings was about right. Regards Newyorkbrad 13:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the practice is probably about right.
- Once a decision has been compiled, and a sufficient number of arbitrators have reviewed the case and cast their votes, a non-recused arbitrator may initiate a Motion to Close the case. A Motion to Close shall be considered to have passed once four arbitrators have voted in favour of closing the case; each opposing vote shall negate one supporting vote. A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the going into effect of those Remedies passed in the case, unless four or more arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or if a majority of arbitrators active on the case have voted to close the case. [3]
The bolded bit could be wiki-lawyered as saying that once the 4th vote is in, it's in, all over. Which clearly isn't the intent.
I'd rather see something more like:
- Once a decision has been compiled, and a sufficient number of arbitrators have reviewed the case, and cast their votes, any arbitrator active on the case may initiate a Motion to Close the Case. When that motion gains support from over half the arbitrators active on the case, any arbitrator or clerk may declare the case closed. Once the case is closed, all remedies take effect after the earlier of 24 hours or of the relevant party or parties being notified of the closure of the case by a clerk.
Basically, I'd like to see someone actually say "case closed". This wording allows that person to wait 24 hours, or whatever time they feel is appropriate, but doesn't require it. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some play in the joints here, for sure. Three months ago before I started clerking this bothered me some. Having had some experience now, I can see that there is reason for some flexibility. For one thing, I might decide as clerk to close a case right away where there is one remedy proposal that's passed unanimously, and wait a bit longer when there's a case where there are proposed remedies against a dozen users, some have passed, some are close to passing, and some would pass if one or two more arbitrators got around to voting on them before the close. Other times an arbitrator posts a new proposal right around the same time others are voting to close, and we need to find out whether we should wait for the new proposal to be voted on or not. So it's a little complicated to formula a hard-and-fast rule for this one, but we try. Also, the provision about 24 hours delay between the closing of the case and the effectiveness of the remedies has in practice been completely disregarded. Maybe a grace period before probation or something, but when a case ends with a ban, no one posts "you've been banned, and this account will be blocked, effective tomorrow." Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're agreeing with me. At the moment, the play in the joints happens because it makes sense, not because it's permitted by the text. I've tried to achieve two things: (1) by adding human intervention, reduce any lack of clarity about when or if a case is actually closed and (2) by adding human intervention, explicitly permit flexibility about when a case is actually closed. My change of "24 hours" to "earliest of..." is to allow remedies to take place ASAP when desired, without opening a loophole for someone to claim that "they weren't notified". And by making closing the case discretionary, people have the choice to vote close without actually closing the case, unless they are sure that everyone else agrees. If a quick decision is needed, this wording allows for that. If contemplation is needed, it allows for that too. Is it time to move this conversation somewhere more central? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we want to move it, we can move it. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to move it, RfAr talk is probably the best place to move it to. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't condone physical threats, your timing on this is not very considerate. He wrote the threat on the 2nd, and it wasn't reported until the 15th. On top of that, the Arbitration was opened on the 13th, therefore your block may effectively prevent him from presenting any evidence. Just thought that I'd let you know the situation. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 07:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the notice. Please read this. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm using Mozilla Firefox and on Times New Roman (18) it appeared well arranged. Restored old setup :-)
Freedom skies| talk 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Evangeline Williamson her relationship status was removed can you put it back, with Todd Manning:
(Seriously dated) 2007 (Close friends since 2003) [4]
It must have gotten removed during vandalism, spam and edit warring by new users.--Migospia†♥ 03:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dede261 keeps adding and removing things in the Evangeline Williamson article, don't know if anythin can be done--Migospia†♥ 05:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have discussed this issue with the user in the past she says Evangeline and Cistian are soulmates, meaning she would state that and remove reltionship status wth Todd--Migospia†♥ 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this a legit edit, but something in the edit had made my browser break the code in the page, so I had to revert it. Thought I'd let you know. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, have a screenshot. See those bars in your edit I reverted? I don't know what went wrong. Something must be wrong with my browser, but I don't know what. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Not all schools are notable, and certainly Charles Conder Primary School is among the non-notable ones, but speedy for notability is limited to people, groups, companies, and web sites. So I changed it to a prod, which will do just as well. Thanks for spotting it. DGG 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is, of its very nature, quite technical. It is therefore quite unlikely that any article respecting the topic of von Neumann universal construction will be both easily digestible by the lay reader and fully descriptive of the topic. William R. Buckley 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the flag is some technicality, and not necessarily respective of a view you hold that the article is unapproachable by the lay reader. (Did I understand you correctly?) Yet, it remains the case that the article probably cannot do justice to its topic without also being a challenge to the reader. What I hope to get from you is either specific recommendations for article content change, or a removal of the flag, or some kind of middle ground, which recognises the two positions we hold - that the article is a technical challenge to readers, and it is so because of its subject. Comments? William R. Buckley 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see I have made an error. More careful review is needed, it would seem. Thanks for the clarification. William R. Buckley 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I saw the note during AX). Anyways, I got some pictures for you. I am not sure how they will turn out, but I hope you enjoyed it. (I also cosplayed as Kyon and took pictures of the Haruhi manga a few times, so you should be fine). However, I was not able to take photos of the Japanese VA's due to them being a virtual no-show during the entire convention. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, didn't realize that. StokerAce 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
