This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A few years ago the article Candy Young was deleted by you based on a consensus agreement among members of the community that she did not meet notability standards. I am now interested in recreating her page with additional information - specifically, she now chairs the American Political Science Association Committee on Teaching and Learning, she coauthored the official guidebook on assessment practices used by the APSA, and she was a contributing author to a book written by the current editor-in-chief of the American Political Science Review. Does this satisfy notability such that the article can be recreated? Adamc714 ( talk) 22:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It actually pains me to bring this issue here since I have no beef with User:The Devils Advocate...but in light of your comment here...how does his request for arbitration enforcement against User:Tom harrison stack up. The Devils Advocate was topic banned for 30 days until recently over the same topic...Tom harrison commented at that particular request against The Devils Advocate...The Devils Advocate has been blocked twice in 3 months over this topic...Tom harrison hasn't been blocked once in 8 years of editing.-- MONGO 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems we've both been getting lobbied pretty hard about this case (see my talk). I should have looked over here sooner so I could get a better handle of what's going on. I'm glad you got ownership of this close passed on to you. I support your plan as you've outlined above and am trying to end the discussion at my page. If you want my input on any eventual appeal let me know. -- WGFinley ( talk) 23:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Timotheus Canens,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 21:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully, this is the last comment I waste my time on in the AE forum over the recent case.
[1]
--
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 11:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I will try not let it happen again. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 08:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I was curious, reading my reply, did you instantly see it was a response to the previous version of the report? Or was it the blanking you deemed inappropriate?
I think it isn't good to move comments under a dramatically different report. Looking at the page we have no reason to think any of the users who posted a comment on the report visited the huge amount of divs later added to it.
Initially the report had only 1 div that applied to POVbrigand and there was nothing wrong with his comment. I couldn't make more of the page than a pure attack page? How else look at it? No evidence, other users cheering the non evidence? WTF?
I described the situation the way I thought was fit. And only then the evidence was added.
The comments do not even apply to the evidence provided but that is not what the page looks like at the moment.
There is a reply on the page with my name under it and I haven't even looked at the topic, I haven't seen one dif. But there is it my comment, a pile of nonsense. I would totally ban a user who writes such nonsense.
This was why I reverted it. He can fill a new report, put his evidence at the end, even just mentioning that he completely changed everything would be fine. Misrepresenting me is not OK.
The meaning of all comments on that page was completely changed by some one other than their author. To make things worse he was even unaware of this.
Telling me I can just update my comment is an unreasonable demand, other users should not be changing my comments. I'm not obligated to keep looking at my own comments. Kind of funny how it doesn't seem to apply if I'm already blocked for disruption the way I was? After I am blocked other users should still not be changing the things I wrote.
I even started a topic about it before you blocked me. [2] Perhaps you didn't think I could be reasonable, it doesn't really matter that you did. I am curious however if you attributed my comment to the evidence posted after that? Or could you see how it applied? I wouldn't know how to do that.
If you did misinterpret it it would completely demonstrate what I was so worried about.
I suppose it is also helpful if you tell me which edits you looked at so that I can better moderate myself.
If you have the time that is, I'm not in a hurry or anything. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I have responded to your last comment here. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 07:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Got some hits recently - can you provide any color in the filter notes section of what its trying to catch (or why it's an issue). Thanks. 7 05:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Special:Contributions/71.204.165.25 is another NoCal100 sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive. NoCal100's MO usually involves targeting editors at admin boards and especially following and targeting Tiamut. You have blocked them in the past which probably explains the hostile comments directed at you in various AE reports. I expect confirmation via technical evidence to fail and I'm not sure there is sufficient behavioral evidence for an SPI. What do you recommend in a situation like this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, at the Geography of Israel article, there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article, user brecrewer removed the npov tag from the article without explanation, then after, User Gilabrand removed it again, she also did not explain her edit, and the npov dispute is not resolved.
This is very disruptive behavior from Gilabrand, also considering her history, , im not sure exactly what to do about this now, and advise? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 05:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Timotheus Canens. You volunteered to close Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC - Should spreadingsantorum.com be hyperlinked within the article body and/or "External Links"? at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request. I have started a new subsection at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Triumvirate for the closing admins to discuss the close. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult task. I wish you the best of luck. Cunard ( talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm terribly slapdash sometimes. Thanks for the clean up, Roger Davies talk 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi - as per your offer to close the santorum RFC - could you link me to some complicated policy closures that you have closed, or diffs that assert you have community support that you are a respected interpreter of policy, thanks - Youreally can 00:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I object to your fully protecting the Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Triumvirate with a reason of WP:CRATCHAT - It suggests there at cratchat that a talkpage should be created - As discussion is curtailed through your full protection please create a discussion page - Youreally can 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Also - please answer my first question here in regards to your historic closures of complicated RFC discussions - Youreally can 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
See this comment where I noticed you as the first person to suggest the particular 1RR rule used in the ARBPIA template, the one which does not count reverts of IP edit against the total. Actually, TROUBLES may have used the IP-exempting rule earlier but I think it's in ARBPIA due to your suggestion. Luckily the Committee are not talking about changing it, just trying to make the wording clear. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A few years ago the article Candy Young was deleted by you based on a consensus agreement among members of the community that she did not meet notability standards. I am now interested in recreating her page with additional information - specifically, she now chairs the American Political Science Association Committee on Teaching and Learning, she coauthored the official guidebook on assessment practices used by the APSA, and she was a contributing author to a book written by the current editor-in-chief of the American Political Science Review. Does this satisfy notability such that the article can be recreated? Adamc714 ( talk) 22:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It actually pains me to bring this issue here since I have no beef with User:The Devils Advocate...but in light of your comment here...how does his request for arbitration enforcement against User:Tom harrison stack up. The Devils Advocate was topic banned for 30 days until recently over the same topic...Tom harrison commented at that particular request against The Devils Advocate...The Devils Advocate has been blocked twice in 3 months over this topic...Tom harrison hasn't been blocked once in 8 years of editing.-- MONGO 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems we've both been getting lobbied pretty hard about this case (see my talk). I should have looked over here sooner so I could get a better handle of what's going on. I'm glad you got ownership of this close passed on to you. I support your plan as you've outlined above and am trying to end the discussion at my page. If you want my input on any eventual appeal let me know. -- WGFinley ( talk) 23:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Timotheus Canens,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 21:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully, this is the last comment I waste my time on in the AE forum over the recent case.
[1]
--
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 11:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I will try not let it happen again. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 08:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I was curious, reading my reply, did you instantly see it was a response to the previous version of the report? Or was it the blanking you deemed inappropriate?
I think it isn't good to move comments under a dramatically different report. Looking at the page we have no reason to think any of the users who posted a comment on the report visited the huge amount of divs later added to it.
Initially the report had only 1 div that applied to POVbrigand and there was nothing wrong with his comment. I couldn't make more of the page than a pure attack page? How else look at it? No evidence, other users cheering the non evidence? WTF?
I described the situation the way I thought was fit. And only then the evidence was added.
The comments do not even apply to the evidence provided but that is not what the page looks like at the moment.
There is a reply on the page with my name under it and I haven't even looked at the topic, I haven't seen one dif. But there is it my comment, a pile of nonsense. I would totally ban a user who writes such nonsense.
This was why I reverted it. He can fill a new report, put his evidence at the end, even just mentioning that he completely changed everything would be fine. Misrepresenting me is not OK.
The meaning of all comments on that page was completely changed by some one other than their author. To make things worse he was even unaware of this.
Telling me I can just update my comment is an unreasonable demand, other users should not be changing my comments. I'm not obligated to keep looking at my own comments. Kind of funny how it doesn't seem to apply if I'm already blocked for disruption the way I was? After I am blocked other users should still not be changing the things I wrote.
I even started a topic about it before you blocked me. [2] Perhaps you didn't think I could be reasonable, it doesn't really matter that you did. I am curious however if you attributed my comment to the evidence posted after that? Or could you see how it applied? I wouldn't know how to do that.
If you did misinterpret it it would completely demonstrate what I was so worried about.
I suppose it is also helpful if you tell me which edits you looked at so that I can better moderate myself.
If you have the time that is, I'm not in a hurry or anything. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I have responded to your last comment here. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 07:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Got some hits recently - can you provide any color in the filter notes section of what its trying to catch (or why it's an issue). Thanks. 7 05:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Special:Contributions/71.204.165.25 is another NoCal100 sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive. NoCal100's MO usually involves targeting editors at admin boards and especially following and targeting Tiamut. You have blocked them in the past which probably explains the hostile comments directed at you in various AE reports. I expect confirmation via technical evidence to fail and I'm not sure there is sufficient behavioral evidence for an SPI. What do you recommend in a situation like this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, at the Geography of Israel article, there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article, user brecrewer removed the npov tag from the article without explanation, then after, User Gilabrand removed it again, she also did not explain her edit, and the npov dispute is not resolved.
This is very disruptive behavior from Gilabrand, also considering her history, , im not sure exactly what to do about this now, and advise? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 05:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Timotheus Canens. You volunteered to close Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism#RfC - Should spreadingsantorum.com be hyperlinked within the article body and/or "External Links"? at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Campaign for "santorum" neologism RFC close request. I have started a new subsection at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Triumvirate for the closing admins to discuss the close. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult task. I wish you the best of luck. Cunard ( talk) 02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm terribly slapdash sometimes. Thanks for the clean up, Roger Davies talk 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi - as per your offer to close the santorum RFC - could you link me to some complicated policy closures that you have closed, or diffs that assert you have community support that you are a respected interpreter of policy, thanks - Youreally can 00:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I object to your fully protecting the Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Triumvirate with a reason of WP:CRATCHAT - It suggests there at cratchat that a talkpage should be created - As discussion is curtailed through your full protection please create a discussion page - Youreally can 01:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Also - please answer my first question here in regards to your historic closures of complicated RFC discussions - Youreally can 01:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
See this comment where I noticed you as the first person to suggest the particular 1RR rule used in the ARBPIA template, the one which does not count reverts of IP edit against the total. Actually, TROUBLES may have used the IP-exempting rule earlier but I think it's in ARBPIA due to your suggestion. Luckily the Committee are not talking about changing it, just trying to make the wording clear. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)