At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.
Greetings. I've been involved (helpfully, I hope) with the article and now AfD for Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms. It looks like most people want to split the article into a Jewish and a Christian glossary. Toward this end, several people have voted to Keep or DAB the article -- apparently, only in order to make sure we keep the long Talk and edit history. Is such a DAB/keep the best way to hold onto the Talk and edit history? Or might the article be deleted and the Talk transferred to the split articles? I'd appreciate your input, either to me or, if you wish, at the AfD. Hope this finds you well. Happy new year, HG | Talk 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous user has restored material deleted following an Afd to a user page. The original case is here [1], under "Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy – Deletion endorsed", and the User Page is here [2]. I call this to your attention due to your comments on the previous case. Let me know what I should do next, and thanks. 271828182 ( talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I paraphrased my recollection of something I think you told me. Did I recollect correctly?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken at the DRV in saying there is consensus - I cannot see one, could you explain where you saw it please? I also question your suggestion to try UCFD - it was tried there, and then moved to DRV as it was suggested that that would be a better place for it. Thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry, I would appreciate it if you would please explain to me the error in the policy arguments that I advanced in the deletion review. I would also appreciate a response to the comments made by DGG. Thanks, Jay*Jay ( talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the close too, because I think it violates WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS. This debate is being bounced from pillar to post in something resembling classic bureaucratic style and people's opinions are being ignored in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 17:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry, I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. I appreciate you providing an explanation of the interpretation as you see it. I find it interesting to see you view the purpose of deletion review as not involving the review of failures to apply policy, or of admin errors, but rather as a pseudo-vote. I have not been around particularly long, and have no reason to doubt that your view reflects standard practice. Nevertheless, to me this simply indicates that the "review" is nothing of the sort, and that substantial change is needed to this process. Consensus is fine, but should not trump the dispassionate application of policy principles. Hypothetically, if I could get enough people to support me, I might be able to claim the George W. Bush article should be deleted as non-noteworthy and claim consensus. Now, suppose only one person at the AfD disputed me. Surely the closing admin should still not actually delete it because that action would violate policy, consensus or no. I see this issue in the same way. The notion that lots of people agree is irrelevant, as none of that consensus changes the fact that the decision was unsupported by policy. The fact that accepted practice means the principle is irrelevant simply means accepted practice is also wrong. Now, I'm not asking you to do anything, as the resolution of this situation will occur by other means. However, I do feel the need to respond to one substantial misinterpretation of the argument I advanced, and then to make an observation.
In composing your response point 7, you have not understood the point I was making. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, in which case I am sorry for that fact. However, LGBT editors have experience which cannot be suggested to be equivalent to those of people "interested" in the issue. I was not suggesting that those experiences should be incorporated in violation of WP:NOR or WP:V. However, those users are more likely to have read extensively on such subjects, to be aware of suitable reference material and of its content, and to be aware of WP:RS perspectives necessary for genuinely making a WP:NPOV article. By the way, the supposed "compromise" in the 'interested in' category is way way smaller than the much younger present category. Perhaps its potential to include the homophobes who are interested in LGBT issues might explain its unpopularity with LGBT editors.
My observation is that the refusal to consider the implications of WP:IAR in this case (and not just by you) will lead to far more disruption. Note the comment from DuncanHill. What do you think will happen if this issue ends up with a deletion of category:Christian Wikipedians and category:Jewish Wikipedians as not useful for collaboration (just to start)? Jay*Jay ( talk) 12:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 21. Could you please address the following issues?
Also, could you please count for me the number of votes opposing and endorsing the Jan 8 review and this one? Thanks. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
ordisregard your nomination as contradicted by the self-evident facts
.The three of you were given essentially no weight.
.There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy ...
GRBerry, though I sympathize with you in that you feel supporters of undeletion made the wrong vote, the definition of "consensus" isn't "correct". Hyacinth ( talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Note I replied to your comment. Secret 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to the immensely high standards of civility that will result when you also redact all the attacks on Mantanmoreland, Samiharris and Weiss from that debate. Might take a while, it's all over the place. Guy ( Help!) 08:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Diff, you have there a warning from Jehochman ( talk · contribs) to JustaHulk ( talk · contribs), and comments from ChrisO ( talk · contribs) and Brianmc ( talk · contribs). So when you said above: Both editors should probably be advised to behave civilly toward one another... - I do not understand why you had to phrase this as "both editors..." when clearly the issue is with the one editor, JustaHulk ( talk · contribs). Cirt ( talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I did not realize that WP:AE was not the right place to post about this, and for that I apologize. Did you not see ChrisO ( talk · contribs)'s comment about that at WP:AE? Cirt ( talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it, so the user is allowed to keep the inflammatory remarks "propagandist..." up at both User:Justanother and User:JustaHulk, with zero actions taken? Cirt ( talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you feel that your timing with respect to the Science apologist probation action left something to be desired? PouponOnToast ( talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have filed a case at WP:SSP. Ronnotel ( talk) 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, your ability to deal with disagreement is refreshingly mature and appreciated, GRBerry. PouponOnToast ( talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This evidence section is really interesting. I didn't notice the drop in edits for last November until you drew my attention to it (it's not as obvious as the India shift). Anyhow, perhaps you could also supplement it with this table:
Month | Mantanmoreland | Samiharris |
February 2007 | 29 | 117 |
March 2007 | 205 | 62 |
April 2007 | 285 | 11 |
May 2007 | 260 | 73 |
June 2007 | 190 | 116 |
July 2007 | 188 | 157 |
August 2007 | 203 | 23 |
September 2007 | 157 | 98 |
October 2007 | 19 (ending October 21) |
109 (ending Oct 24) |
November 2007 | 7 | 9 |
December 2007 | 32 | 425 |
January 2008 | 80 | 194 |
Granted, I can't figure out why Samiharris almost stopped editing in April, but I still think it's notable that November was the only month where either editor had only single digits. Cool Hand Luke 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for looking at my WP:AE filing regarding Ferrylodge ( talk · contribs). The issue of whether his ArbCom sanctions applied to talkspace came up before; Thatcher commented at the time that talkspace disruption was included, though there would be generally be greater latitude there than in articlespace. I'm not sure whether this has any impact on your feeling that no action is required, but I thought I'd mention that it had come up before. MastCell Talk 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I listed that particular user by their username, it just happens that that user says on their user page that it also happens to be their real name (which I don't know if it's true or not). I've added that comment back in a clarified form. -- Minderbinder ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry, but I don't see the error you refer to. Could you quote it to me? Feel free to respond here or on my talk. alanyst / talk/ 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
They're discussing it at WP:RfA... And while I'll have to admit that I haven't always agreed with your opinions/perspectives, I was rather impressed with your comments after an incident involving a DRV closure. I think that you're a "thoughtful" (as Shakespeare used the word) individual, and you should easily be trustworthy of the "extra tools". Would you be interested? - jc37 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for stepping in. I'll defer to you as a deletion review expert. Have fun, and try not to get Abd banned in the process? :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) And now, back to wikidata-api
Kim is a he. -- Kbdank71 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a clarification on the TV episodes case. THe "currently existing clause" can be interpreted different ways. You may be techinically correct but the spirit of the ruling includes new articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello My Friend,
I did something you probably didn't expect and closed straight away with a reopening. Unless he's having an unusually nasty day, Kim is good-natured, and should take any result that ultimately saves time in stride. The point of retiring ought to be that one wants to avoid these messes anyway; ergo, I am moving things forward as if the MfD closure never happened. If nothing else, Kim was wrong to take B's arguments so lightly, but that is a perfectly nature thing for a "retired" fellow -- who has never worked with B, I assume -- to do. Best wishes, Xoloz ( talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of a prior ArbCom decision concerning him until now, and I wish I had known when I approached him on his user talk page about his actions on Trent Green yesterday. His attitude is completely unacceptable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I'm a bit confused by the closure of the Ferrylodge AE thread, and was hoping to ask you to clarify and/or review it. The guidance in the Ferrylodge thread leaned toward applying his sanction to all namespaces. I think I understand your reference to the Macedonia finding. In light of your closure, I asked User:Rlevse to re-open my request for an explicit amendment extending Ferrylodge's sanctions to all namespaces, because I think it's important, if the sanctions against Ferrylodge are to have any positive effect, that they be applied in talkspace. Rlevse responded that "It applies to all namespaces" ( [4]). I'm confused.
Can I ask you to touch base with Rlevse? Either a) Rlevse's statement that Ferrylodge's sanctions apply to all namespaces is correct, or b) if Ferrylodge's sanction is being narrowly construed, then I need my request un-archived because I think it is essential that Ferrylodge's sanctions apply to all namespaces in order to have any positive effect. As a separate issue, if you feel (as I do) that there is actionable disruption by Ferrylodge, then would you be willing to act on it outside the confines of the ArbCom decision? I'm a bit frustrated, because he has repeatedly talked his way out of any effective enforcement of the sanctions, and the same problems which led to the case in the first place are still in evidence. MastCell Talk 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your further consideration on the Chrisjnelson block. I think your ultimate resolution was a very reasonable one, and as indicated we do appreciate your putting some time in on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, which is the epitome of a thankless administrator task. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am inviting you to WP:SKCN if you haven't already joined. We look forward to welcoming you to the project. Thanks. Mr. C.C. ( talk) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment in this MfD, it, and a few others, give me some hope that there is intelligent life in this universe. When the smoke clears, we will begin laying the foundation for a better understanding of what the proposal actually was -- which has been radically mischaracterized as being about voting. I could simply ascribe this to a tactical error on Absidy's part, but he really did not expect the massive immediate rejection of what was to be a very simple experiment, changing no policies or procedures, merely testing what happens if proxy files are created. (Proxy file created by user in userspace, thus under direct control of user (no restrictions on undos, for example) and proxy table transcluding user proxy data, in WP space, in his idea, or where needed in mine. Both very, very simple, no bureaucracy, no privileges created by holding proxies, no voting.) The tactical error was that (1) he gave an example of how proxy analysis could help understand what was happening in an AfD, thus making it easy for charges to stick that this was about voting, and (2) the name "proxy" implies voting; plus most off-wiki proposals for this and similar have been about voting. But not my own work, which has actually been about "Free Association" applications, where, essentially, voting is as it is on Wikipedia: non-binding polling, advising servants but not controlling them. If the community were to use the proxy tables, however, something would be set up that creates consensus on a large scale, efficiently, at least in theory. It's never been proven. But, in an FA context, it is fail-safe. If it doesn't work, not only is no harm done, but very little effort was wasted. And the small effort is only invested by those who thought it was worth doing, it doesn't affect anyone else. This wasn't AMA and it wasn't Esperanza, but .... the intuition behind the claim is correct, i.e., if Esperanza and AMA had been organized this way, they wouldn't have failed and wouldn't have been crushed.
Your objection about sock puppets is a common one. It's not actually a problem. Only if votes are made binding is there an issue; otherwise analysts can easily factor for sock puppet attempts to manipulate the measures generated by proxy analysis (which can include other data, such as edit counts or time since last edit). And, in fact, sock puppet proxy assignments would stand out like a sore thumb, it would be as if puppets were handing us the puppet master identity on a platter. (or at least connecting the puppets, something which puppet masters want to avoid, not to make easy). What's overlooked is that we suggested that, to be of significance, proxies must be accepted, which implies some kind of responsibility on the proxy for verifying that the client is real. My own standard would including having the phone number of my client (or my proxy, the relationships are actually symmetrical in certain ways), or at least a direct email address. Proxy tables, if used in anything like this way, create robust networks that can't be broken easily through any kind of central control. Those who can see this far, and who have some interest to protect, which might be as simple as a belief that if the great unwashed take over, it will all be ruined, may indeed feel threatened, though, in fact, there is no direct threat and what I forsee is not any sort of violent disruption, but orderly and cautious change. Delegable proxy collects trust, not votes, and that collection is, I predict, associated with wisdom.-- Abd ( talk) 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Where should I list sources for The Game? Please can you tell me the correct procedure for re-evaluating whether this page should exist. Thanks. LoserNo1 ( talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see a bit of the article history now. I'm not going to join in an edit war, so if someone else removes it I'll not restore it. I will not self-revert, for removing everything on this controversy regardless of its sourcing and shortness is censorship. Nyttend ( talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If I read Polish, I'd investigate the discussions with LUCPOL. If an uninvolved admin that reads Polish sees them, please take a look. On Space_Cadet enforcement page. He just made threats in Polish to Space Cadet. [8] Among other things he threatens " I guaentee. There is no place for Polish point of view on Wikipedia. I will revert it to the end of the world.". Keep your POV claws out of Silesia-piss off". "ale od Śląska POViaste łapy - wynocha"
"Jeżeli będziecie wciąż robić swoje w śląskich artach wspomogę innych w rewertowaniu was również w innych artach. Koniec pobłażania." If you will keep your work in silesian articles, I will help others in reverting you in other articles. End of mr. good guy".
"skończy się wasz polski POV w całej Wikipedii." Polish POV will end in whole Wikipedia.
To me those are serious threats. If you want some other Polish editor to confirm those texts are translated in correct way, I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tymek or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus to confirm this translation.
What can be done ?. -- Molobo ( talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this DRV, but I'm still confused. Based on his stature, I wouldn't doubt that JzG has in fact restored the article history as he thought appropriate, but it still doesn't jibe with my memory or my understanding of how restoring a history is supposed to retain attribution of all contributors. I was pretty sure I had edited that page and that it had a significant history prior to Feb 3. My suspicion is that the article was deleted twice, once before 12:22 on Feb 3, and again between 12:41 and 13:07 on Feb 3 (see its talk), and that the history restored was only that in between the two events. Could you please find out if it is possible to restore any history before 12:22 on Feb 3, or let me know if going to JzG's talk is the most efficient method? Thanks! The article is now in AFD by the same person who (apparently, at least once) got it deleted on Feb 3, and who ignored my plea for obtaining the history prior to initiating the AFD. John J. Bulten ( talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (It looks like it was deleted a third time at request of Nancy on Feb 3 13:18-13:57 and restored at that time by Od Mishehu. So I really think one more restoration will do the trick.) John J. Bulten ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your comment. I agree that the UNDUE and BLP issues need to be weighed in the context of the subject of each article. However, I also believe that exactly the same conclusions apply to both cases. The matter is trivial, utterly, and violates policy for identical reasons in both cases. I posted my comments on both talk pages because I believe that readers of both pages should know about these violations. BCST2001 ( talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in your input on this matter. I hope it is not too much of an imposition, and I do not want to say anything further to prejudice your opinion. — Whig ( talk) 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I take great exception to your claim that it is a content dispute, when it is nothing of the sort. As the diffs and examination of source material clearly demonstrate, the issue is with an editor with a conflict of interest falsely claiming material was sourced when it was not. The content itself was irrelevant, it's an editor conduct issue not a content dispute. I refer you to principle #2 of the ArbCom case, that all information be supported by a reliable source. Requests for sources were made, and a false claim was made that the information was sourced. It's a textbook example of disruptive editing, ie fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. It's nothing like a content dispute, it's textbook disruptive editing from an editor with a self-admitted COI with regards to that article which needs to be addressed in some form. Brushing it under the carpet as a content dispute fails to do that. One Night In Hackney 303 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your comment here? It sounds like you're scolding me for forum-shopping. I raised this complaint directly with Martinphi on his talk page; finding his response there unsatisfactory, I brought the issue to AN/I for wider input. What forum-shopping are you referring to? MastCell Talk 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that ArbCom took the step I have erquested previous ArbCom which is to apply wikipedia policy to all all editors on he subject.
Over the past two years I have been editing under major restrictions - which many times have been used to place further unjustified restrictions on me (some of those unjautified bans/blocks have been removed quickly). Zeq ( talk) 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, per your advice I contacted Guy about what I could do to have my ban reversed and he seems to suggest that the AE board is where the discussion should take place and his last comments there were essentially that a ban's not a big deal and I should simply edit elsewhere. I still feel my ban is excessive and would like advice on what forum I should address. Thanks in advance for your time on this. Banji boi 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Noted, thanks for the heads-up. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue of whether you considers the apology acceptably contrite is entirely beside the point. It doesn't change the fact that the block is punitive. Can you please explain how a punitive block issued several days after the event is permissible? Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI. This block was brought to WP:AN, where it has already been overturned apparently without even making you aware of the discussion. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute - you blocked against consensus at AE? And you're complaining about your block being overturned? Wow. Guettarda ( talk) 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi; thanks very much for your comment - I'd not picked up on that otherwise I'd have noted it too!! — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
You stated in a statement that Will e-mailed you a log. Would you please e-mail me this log as I'd like to know what I've apparently said. Matthew ( talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a handy tip: Rambutan is now TreasuryTag. Who did participate in the PiC edit war. And, between you and me, I think people are using the phrase "blatant violation of NFCC" (or derivatives) more than it should be used. Sceptre ( talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as you were the only other person to support keeping the article originally, I was wondering if you wanted to assist at all in cleaning it up. KV( Talk) 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I'm fully aware of the history of the article (I was the last person to stub it down and kill it). A little humor from time doesn't hurt though. east.718 at 21:08, March 4, 2008
Hi. I was just reading the discussion at WP:AE and I noticed your comment that 1) after arbitration, enforcement is left to administrators that are not arbitrators, 2) enforcement of arbitration decisions is left to uninvolved administrators [10]. (1) is patently absurd. Arbitrators are normal users who are voted for a high level of trust by the community for diificult decisions. It has never been the case that they are prevented from taking particular actions by this position. Indeed, it is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that users who are particularly trusted should be restricted in this fashion. I don't know where this impression has come from, but it is not a useful one and has never been the case. On the other hand, (2) is, of course, true, but like any admin, being an arbitrator is in no way "involvement" in a case. All administrators examine evidence of conduct and can decide to block for it if standards are breached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn ( talk • contribs)
At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bots, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.
Greetings. I've been involved (helpfully, I hope) with the article and now AfD for Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms. It looks like most people want to split the article into a Jewish and a Christian glossary. Toward this end, several people have voted to Keep or DAB the article -- apparently, only in order to make sure we keep the long Talk and edit history. Is such a DAB/keep the best way to hold onto the Talk and edit history? Or might the article be deleted and the Talk transferred to the split articles? I'd appreciate your input, either to me or, if you wish, at the AfD. Hope this finds you well. Happy new year, HG | Talk 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous user has restored material deleted following an Afd to a user page. The original case is here [1], under "Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy – Deletion endorsed", and the User Page is here [2]. I call this to your attention due to your comments on the previous case. Let me know what I should do next, and thanks. 271828182 ( talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I paraphrased my recollection of something I think you told me. Did I recollect correctly?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.-- MONGO 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken at the DRV in saying there is consensus - I cannot see one, could you explain where you saw it please? I also question your suggestion to try UCFD - it was tried there, and then moved to DRV as it was suggested that that would be a better place for it. Thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry, I would appreciate it if you would please explain to me the error in the policy arguments that I advanced in the deletion review. I would also appreciate a response to the comments made by DGG. Thanks, Jay*Jay ( talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the close too, because I think it violates WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS. This debate is being bounced from pillar to post in something resembling classic bureaucratic style and people's opinions are being ignored in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 17:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry, I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. I appreciate you providing an explanation of the interpretation as you see it. I find it interesting to see you view the purpose of deletion review as not involving the review of failures to apply policy, or of admin errors, but rather as a pseudo-vote. I have not been around particularly long, and have no reason to doubt that your view reflects standard practice. Nevertheless, to me this simply indicates that the "review" is nothing of the sort, and that substantial change is needed to this process. Consensus is fine, but should not trump the dispassionate application of policy principles. Hypothetically, if I could get enough people to support me, I might be able to claim the George W. Bush article should be deleted as non-noteworthy and claim consensus. Now, suppose only one person at the AfD disputed me. Surely the closing admin should still not actually delete it because that action would violate policy, consensus or no. I see this issue in the same way. The notion that lots of people agree is irrelevant, as none of that consensus changes the fact that the decision was unsupported by policy. The fact that accepted practice means the principle is irrelevant simply means accepted practice is also wrong. Now, I'm not asking you to do anything, as the resolution of this situation will occur by other means. However, I do feel the need to respond to one substantial misinterpretation of the argument I advanced, and then to make an observation.
In composing your response point 7, you have not understood the point I was making. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, in which case I am sorry for that fact. However, LGBT editors have experience which cannot be suggested to be equivalent to those of people "interested" in the issue. I was not suggesting that those experiences should be incorporated in violation of WP:NOR or WP:V. However, those users are more likely to have read extensively on such subjects, to be aware of suitable reference material and of its content, and to be aware of WP:RS perspectives necessary for genuinely making a WP:NPOV article. By the way, the supposed "compromise" in the 'interested in' category is way way smaller than the much younger present category. Perhaps its potential to include the homophobes who are interested in LGBT issues might explain its unpopularity with LGBT editors.
My observation is that the refusal to consider the implications of WP:IAR in this case (and not just by you) will lead to far more disruption. Note the comment from DuncanHill. What do you think will happen if this issue ends up with a deletion of category:Christian Wikipedians and category:Jewish Wikipedians as not useful for collaboration (just to start)? Jay*Jay ( talk) 12:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 21. Could you please address the following issues?
Also, could you please count for me the number of votes opposing and endorsing the Jan 8 review and this one? Thanks. Hyacinth ( talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
ordisregard your nomination as contradicted by the self-evident facts
.The three of you were given essentially no weight.
.There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy ...
GRBerry, though I sympathize with you in that you feel supporters of undeletion made the wrong vote, the definition of "consensus" isn't "correct". Hyacinth ( talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Note I replied to your comment. Secret 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to the immensely high standards of civility that will result when you also redact all the attacks on Mantanmoreland, Samiharris and Weiss from that debate. Might take a while, it's all over the place. Guy ( Help!) 08:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Diff, you have there a warning from Jehochman ( talk · contribs) to JustaHulk ( talk · contribs), and comments from ChrisO ( talk · contribs) and Brianmc ( talk · contribs). So when you said above: Both editors should probably be advised to behave civilly toward one another... - I do not understand why you had to phrase this as "both editors..." when clearly the issue is with the one editor, JustaHulk ( talk · contribs). Cirt ( talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I did not realize that WP:AE was not the right place to post about this, and for that I apologize. Did you not see ChrisO ( talk · contribs)'s comment about that at WP:AE? Cirt ( talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't get it, so the user is allowed to keep the inflammatory remarks "propagandist..." up at both User:Justanother and User:JustaHulk, with zero actions taken? Cirt ( talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you feel that your timing with respect to the Science apologist probation action left something to be desired? PouponOnToast ( talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have filed a case at WP:SSP. Ronnotel ( talk) 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, your ability to deal with disagreement is refreshingly mature and appreciated, GRBerry. PouponOnToast ( talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This evidence section is really interesting. I didn't notice the drop in edits for last November until you drew my attention to it (it's not as obvious as the India shift). Anyhow, perhaps you could also supplement it with this table:
Month | Mantanmoreland | Samiharris |
February 2007 | 29 | 117 |
March 2007 | 205 | 62 |
April 2007 | 285 | 11 |
May 2007 | 260 | 73 |
June 2007 | 190 | 116 |
July 2007 | 188 | 157 |
August 2007 | 203 | 23 |
September 2007 | 157 | 98 |
October 2007 | 19 (ending October 21) |
109 (ending Oct 24) |
November 2007 | 7 | 9 |
December 2007 | 32 | 425 |
January 2008 | 80 | 194 |
Granted, I can't figure out why Samiharris almost stopped editing in April, but I still think it's notable that November was the only month where either editor had only single digits. Cool Hand Luke 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for looking at my WP:AE filing regarding Ferrylodge ( talk · contribs). The issue of whether his ArbCom sanctions applied to talkspace came up before; Thatcher commented at the time that talkspace disruption was included, though there would be generally be greater latitude there than in articlespace. I'm not sure whether this has any impact on your feeling that no action is required, but I thought I'd mention that it had come up before. MastCell Talk 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I listed that particular user by their username, it just happens that that user says on their user page that it also happens to be their real name (which I don't know if it's true or not). I've added that comment back in a clarified form. -- Minderbinder ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry, but I don't see the error you refer to. Could you quote it to me? Feel free to respond here or on my talk. alanyst / talk/ 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
They're discussing it at WP:RfA... And while I'll have to admit that I haven't always agreed with your opinions/perspectives, I was rather impressed with your comments after an incident involving a DRV closure. I think that you're a "thoughtful" (as Shakespeare used the word) individual, and you should easily be trustworthy of the "extra tools". Would you be interested? - jc37 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for stepping in. I'll defer to you as a deletion review expert. Have fun, and try not to get Abd banned in the process? :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) And now, back to wikidata-api
Kim is a he. -- Kbdank71 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a clarification on the TV episodes case. THe "currently existing clause" can be interpreted different ways. You may be techinically correct but the spirit of the ruling includes new articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello My Friend,
I did something you probably didn't expect and closed straight away with a reopening. Unless he's having an unusually nasty day, Kim is good-natured, and should take any result that ultimately saves time in stride. The point of retiring ought to be that one wants to avoid these messes anyway; ergo, I am moving things forward as if the MfD closure never happened. If nothing else, Kim was wrong to take B's arguments so lightly, but that is a perfectly nature thing for a "retired" fellow -- who has never worked with B, I assume -- to do. Best wishes, Xoloz ( talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of a prior ArbCom decision concerning him until now, and I wish I had known when I approached him on his user talk page about his actions on Trent Green yesterday. His attitude is completely unacceptable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I'm a bit confused by the closure of the Ferrylodge AE thread, and was hoping to ask you to clarify and/or review it. The guidance in the Ferrylodge thread leaned toward applying his sanction to all namespaces. I think I understand your reference to the Macedonia finding. In light of your closure, I asked User:Rlevse to re-open my request for an explicit amendment extending Ferrylodge's sanctions to all namespaces, because I think it's important, if the sanctions against Ferrylodge are to have any positive effect, that they be applied in talkspace. Rlevse responded that "It applies to all namespaces" ( [4]). I'm confused.
Can I ask you to touch base with Rlevse? Either a) Rlevse's statement that Ferrylodge's sanctions apply to all namespaces is correct, or b) if Ferrylodge's sanction is being narrowly construed, then I need my request un-archived because I think it is essential that Ferrylodge's sanctions apply to all namespaces in order to have any positive effect. As a separate issue, if you feel (as I do) that there is actionable disruption by Ferrylodge, then would you be willing to act on it outside the confines of the ArbCom decision? I'm a bit frustrated, because he has repeatedly talked his way out of any effective enforcement of the sanctions, and the same problems which led to the case in the first place are still in evidence. MastCell Talk 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your further consideration on the Chrisjnelson block. I think your ultimate resolution was a very reasonable one, and as indicated we do appreciate your putting some time in on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, which is the epitome of a thankless administrator task. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am inviting you to WP:SKCN if you haven't already joined. We look forward to welcoming you to the project. Thanks. Mr. C.C. ( talk) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment in this MfD, it, and a few others, give me some hope that there is intelligent life in this universe. When the smoke clears, we will begin laying the foundation for a better understanding of what the proposal actually was -- which has been radically mischaracterized as being about voting. I could simply ascribe this to a tactical error on Absidy's part, but he really did not expect the massive immediate rejection of what was to be a very simple experiment, changing no policies or procedures, merely testing what happens if proxy files are created. (Proxy file created by user in userspace, thus under direct control of user (no restrictions on undos, for example) and proxy table transcluding user proxy data, in WP space, in his idea, or where needed in mine. Both very, very simple, no bureaucracy, no privileges created by holding proxies, no voting.) The tactical error was that (1) he gave an example of how proxy analysis could help understand what was happening in an AfD, thus making it easy for charges to stick that this was about voting, and (2) the name "proxy" implies voting; plus most off-wiki proposals for this and similar have been about voting. But not my own work, which has actually been about "Free Association" applications, where, essentially, voting is as it is on Wikipedia: non-binding polling, advising servants but not controlling them. If the community were to use the proxy tables, however, something would be set up that creates consensus on a large scale, efficiently, at least in theory. It's never been proven. But, in an FA context, it is fail-safe. If it doesn't work, not only is no harm done, but very little effort was wasted. And the small effort is only invested by those who thought it was worth doing, it doesn't affect anyone else. This wasn't AMA and it wasn't Esperanza, but .... the intuition behind the claim is correct, i.e., if Esperanza and AMA had been organized this way, they wouldn't have failed and wouldn't have been crushed.
Your objection about sock puppets is a common one. It's not actually a problem. Only if votes are made binding is there an issue; otherwise analysts can easily factor for sock puppet attempts to manipulate the measures generated by proxy analysis (which can include other data, such as edit counts or time since last edit). And, in fact, sock puppet proxy assignments would stand out like a sore thumb, it would be as if puppets were handing us the puppet master identity on a platter. (or at least connecting the puppets, something which puppet masters want to avoid, not to make easy). What's overlooked is that we suggested that, to be of significance, proxies must be accepted, which implies some kind of responsibility on the proxy for verifying that the client is real. My own standard would including having the phone number of my client (or my proxy, the relationships are actually symmetrical in certain ways), or at least a direct email address. Proxy tables, if used in anything like this way, create robust networks that can't be broken easily through any kind of central control. Those who can see this far, and who have some interest to protect, which might be as simple as a belief that if the great unwashed take over, it will all be ruined, may indeed feel threatened, though, in fact, there is no direct threat and what I forsee is not any sort of violent disruption, but orderly and cautious change. Delegable proxy collects trust, not votes, and that collection is, I predict, associated with wisdom.-- Abd ( talk) 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Where should I list sources for The Game? Please can you tell me the correct procedure for re-evaluating whether this page should exist. Thanks. LoserNo1 ( talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I see a bit of the article history now. I'm not going to join in an edit war, so if someone else removes it I'll not restore it. I will not self-revert, for removing everything on this controversy regardless of its sourcing and shortness is censorship. Nyttend ( talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If I read Polish, I'd investigate the discussions with LUCPOL. If an uninvolved admin that reads Polish sees them, please take a look. On Space_Cadet enforcement page. He just made threats in Polish to Space Cadet. [8] Among other things he threatens " I guaentee. There is no place for Polish point of view on Wikipedia. I will revert it to the end of the world.". Keep your POV claws out of Silesia-piss off". "ale od Śląska POViaste łapy - wynocha"
"Jeżeli będziecie wciąż robić swoje w śląskich artach wspomogę innych w rewertowaniu was również w innych artach. Koniec pobłażania." If you will keep your work in silesian articles, I will help others in reverting you in other articles. End of mr. good guy".
"skończy się wasz polski POV w całej Wikipedii." Polish POV will end in whole Wikipedia.
To me those are serious threats. If you want some other Polish editor to confirm those texts are translated in correct way, I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tymek or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus to confirm this translation.
What can be done ?. -- Molobo ( talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this DRV, but I'm still confused. Based on his stature, I wouldn't doubt that JzG has in fact restored the article history as he thought appropriate, but it still doesn't jibe with my memory or my understanding of how restoring a history is supposed to retain attribution of all contributors. I was pretty sure I had edited that page and that it had a significant history prior to Feb 3. My suspicion is that the article was deleted twice, once before 12:22 on Feb 3, and again between 12:41 and 13:07 on Feb 3 (see its talk), and that the history restored was only that in between the two events. Could you please find out if it is possible to restore any history before 12:22 on Feb 3, or let me know if going to JzG's talk is the most efficient method? Thanks! The article is now in AFD by the same person who (apparently, at least once) got it deleted on Feb 3, and who ignored my plea for obtaining the history prior to initiating the AFD. John J. Bulten ( talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (It looks like it was deleted a third time at request of Nancy on Feb 3 13:18-13:57 and restored at that time by Od Mishehu. So I really think one more restoration will do the trick.) John J. Bulten ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your comment. I agree that the UNDUE and BLP issues need to be weighed in the context of the subject of each article. However, I also believe that exactly the same conclusions apply to both cases. The matter is trivial, utterly, and violates policy for identical reasons in both cases. I posted my comments on both talk pages because I believe that readers of both pages should know about these violations. BCST2001 ( talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in your input on this matter. I hope it is not too much of an imposition, and I do not want to say anything further to prejudice your opinion. — Whig ( talk) 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I take great exception to your claim that it is a content dispute, when it is nothing of the sort. As the diffs and examination of source material clearly demonstrate, the issue is with an editor with a conflict of interest falsely claiming material was sourced when it was not. The content itself was irrelevant, it's an editor conduct issue not a content dispute. I refer you to principle #2 of the ArbCom case, that all information be supported by a reliable source. Requests for sources were made, and a false claim was made that the information was sourced. It's a textbook example of disruptive editing, ie fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. It's nothing like a content dispute, it's textbook disruptive editing from an editor with a self-admitted COI with regards to that article which needs to be addressed in some form. Brushing it under the carpet as a content dispute fails to do that. One Night In Hackney 303 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your comment here? It sounds like you're scolding me for forum-shopping. I raised this complaint directly with Martinphi on his talk page; finding his response there unsatisfactory, I brought the issue to AN/I for wider input. What forum-shopping are you referring to? MastCell Talk 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that ArbCom took the step I have erquested previous ArbCom which is to apply wikipedia policy to all all editors on he subject.
Over the past two years I have been editing under major restrictions - which many times have been used to place further unjustified restrictions on me (some of those unjautified bans/blocks have been removed quickly). Zeq ( talk) 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, per your advice I contacted Guy about what I could do to have my ban reversed and he seems to suggest that the AE board is where the discussion should take place and his last comments there were essentially that a ban's not a big deal and I should simply edit elsewhere. I still feel my ban is excessive and would like advice on what forum I should address. Thanks in advance for your time on this. Banji boi 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Noted, thanks for the heads-up. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue of whether you considers the apology acceptably contrite is entirely beside the point. It doesn't change the fact that the block is punitive. Can you please explain how a punitive block issued several days after the event is permissible? Thanks. Guettarda ( talk) 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI. This block was brought to WP:AN, where it has already been overturned apparently without even making you aware of the discussion. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute - you blocked against consensus at AE? And you're complaining about your block being overturned? Wow. Guettarda ( talk) 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi; thanks very much for your comment - I'd not picked up on that otherwise I'd have noted it too!! — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey,
You stated in a statement that Will e-mailed you a log. Would you please e-mail me this log as I'd like to know what I've apparently said. Matthew ( talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a handy tip: Rambutan is now TreasuryTag. Who did participate in the PiC edit war. And, between you and me, I think people are using the phrase "blatant violation of NFCC" (or derivatives) more than it should be used. Sceptre ( talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as you were the only other person to support keeping the article originally, I was wondering if you wanted to assist at all in cleaning it up. KV( Talk) 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I'm fully aware of the history of the article (I was the last person to stub it down and kill it). A little humor from time doesn't hurt though. east.718 at 21:08, March 4, 2008
Hi. I was just reading the discussion at WP:AE and I noticed your comment that 1) after arbitration, enforcement is left to administrators that are not arbitrators, 2) enforcement of arbitration decisions is left to uninvolved administrators [10]. (1) is patently absurd. Arbitrators are normal users who are voted for a high level of trust by the community for diificult decisions. It has never been the case that they are prevented from taking particular actions by this position. Indeed, it is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that users who are particularly trusted should be restricted in this fashion. I don't know where this impression has come from, but it is not a useful one and has never been the case. On the other hand, (2) is, of course, true, but like any admin, being an arbitrator is in no way "involvement" in a case. All administrators examine evidence of conduct and can decide to block for it if standards are breached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn ( talk • contribs)