This 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.

You don't have to like each other, but I think you should each apologize unreservedly and directly (man to man), avoid each other in future, and disengage from the Arbcom case (half of me thinks those people are just bored and want some food to play with).

Feel free to give me what I deserve.

TCO ( talk) 21:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Er. Did you read my statement of "My commentary was entirely inappropriate and I have no wish to ever associate with him?" I'm not not burying the hatchet. Ironholds ( talk) 22:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, I did. Give me some credit. But since you are young, I will explain. Then after that I will click unwatch on each of your pages.

Go to his page, apologize directly for the lighter remark: without explaining how minor it was, without any quid pro quo, without defending yourself, and whether or not he wants to make some case against you for all your other remarks.

TCO ( talk) 22:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I ever made a claim that it was minor. I've apologised, and I know he's seen my apology since he amended his arbitration statement in response to it. I have no wish to turn this into a bigger deal than it is; frankly, I simply wish to be left alone, as I stated with my apology. I am perfectly willing to assume good faith; however, I cannot understand how, having seen my statement, you could believe I do not want to move on. I am consciously not going to comment on your "since you are young" statement. Ironholds ( talk) 22:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the barnstar. I had a question regarding the page curation talk page here. Do you have any thoughts on the issue? If you click on the review button next to the articles in question, do you see the curation toolbar? This seems like an odd little issue. Thanks. JanetteDoe ( talk) 22:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was just me! Throwing in bugzilla now :). Ironholds ( talk) 23:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the trust, and the kind words regarding the articles. Although I've been writing articles for a little while now (note: I wish I could tell every new editor that they should NOT start out by writing articles, which of course is exactly what I did), but I've had some very appreciated, very kind encouragement from several editors lately, which is inspiring me to actively seek other topics to write about. Again, thank you for making me feel welcomed. All the best, 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to hear I could make an impact :). Yeah, it took me about two years to start writing articles - and even then, they were nothing to write home about ;). Ironholds ( talk) 02:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You recently tagged the article on Herbert James Gunn as having an unclear citation style. What's the problem? Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 09:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey User:Rjm at sleepers :). So, the problem is that the names given for the references don't...really distinguish. "Amazon", for example, is a pretty big site. I always try to use Template:Cite web, which offers a lot of fine-grained control over metadata and standardises formatting. Ironholds ( talk) 10:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You recently tagged the article on Special Honours 2009 as having an unclear citation style however after a review of the article I can not find a breach of WP:MOS.

• Disclosure: I'm the original author of the subject page.

Examination

1. There are two citations which reference
   • a statutory regulation and
   • a honours list.
2. Insufficient citations

Findings

1. Conformity with Wiki Policy: When using citations to case law, legal documents and legislation WP:MOSLEGAL (refer to "Citations and referencing") allows the citation to follow the format used in the subject jurisdiction (which in this instance is New Zealand). The New Zealand Law Society provide the format of citations to statutory regulations and the New Zealand Gazette. The absence of {{cite web}} is not an error and is not mandatory.
2. Review of Verifiability: Both citations are authoritative and reference government owned and managed sites.
   • The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet administers the Honours Unit which publishes Honours List (include the New Year and Queen's Birthday lists).
   • The Parliamentary Counsel Office is responsible for drafting and publishing most of New Zealand's legislation. Publication in the New Zealand Gazette is a requirement of the Section 18 SR 1996/205 Statutes of The New Zealand Order of Merit.
3. Are the two citations sufficient to support the contention. Citation #1 is SR2009/90 which is based on a Royal Warrant that caused the announcement of a new honours list in 2009 referenced as citation #2 Special Honours List 2009. It is possible a further explanation of Royal Warrant and Statutory Regulation would clarify their role which can be achieved with links to Wikipedia articles and without further citations.

Conclusion

1. The only two citations confirm with WP:MOSLEGAL and the citation method for the subject jurisdiction.
2. Further references cite authoritative, government owned web sites which are managed by entities entitled to publish legislation and required by statute to publish honours lists.
3. An explanation of Royal Warrant and Statutory Regulation would be of benefit to the causal visitor however there is sufficient information cited to determine that the Honours are valid within The New Zealand Royal Honours System.

Recommendation

I recommend removal of the {{more footnotes}} tag unless there is a specific concern that can be cited.

Karl Stephens ( talk) 12:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, sorry; missed the citations at the beginning of each section. Ironholds ( talk) 12:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, I have not good ehglish. What do you mean in Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University when you write " its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations"? I added quite a lot of sources for an article of this size.These sources are good, enough informative, in English.What do you want? I will not find.I do not find many good sources on the English.They just do not, only Russian. Pet92 ( talk) 03:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I received an email today with the following line in it:"Your user rights were changed by Ironholds. You are now a member of this group: autoreviewer". I looked at the linked page in the email: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights, but couldn't find "autoreviewer". Could you please enlighten me, as you are mentioned as the person changing my status?-- Ereunetes ( talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Basically, the system is wrong ;p. I gave you the "autopatrolled" right: what this means in practise is that your articles no longer have to be checked by other users. It's exclusively distributed to recognise a consistent pattern of good content contributions - which you most certainly have :). Ironholds ( talk) 17:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both for the explanation and for the trust. Unfortunately, I have stopped contributing to the English wikipedia, because of the altercation I had in April with two administrators. So being "autopatrolled" is wasted on me I am afraid. But I sure do appreciate the thought!-- Ereunetes ( talk) 19:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that :(. Well, I hope your replacement hobby is more fun! Ironholds ( talk) 05:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds. Thanks so much for my barnstar. I wanted to jump up and down and brag, but since I work in the cataloguing branch of a big library it isn't really acceptable behaviour. Appreciate you taking the trouble. Jhouns ( talk) 00:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Jhouns: no problem! I imagine someone might hiss "ssssssh!" at you ;p. Ironholds ( talk) 05:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that, due to several members of the Arbitration Committee recusing on the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case, the Committee will be restricting discussion of this matter to the arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org mailing list. If you have any information that should be submitted privately, please send it to this email address. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ironholds, thanks for the barnstar and kind words! QuantifiedElf ( talk) 20:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@ QuantifiedElf: no problem! Love the username, by the way :). Mine is both more boring and less witty - it was the captcha when I signed up. Ironholds ( talk) 20:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I've literally seen that captcha phrase a hundred times. Not boring at all, it conjures images of someone in the prisoner holding cell of a pirate ship :) QuantifiedElf ( talk) 20:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Oliver,

I see you tagged the Greg Sepelak article for relying on one source. I created the article because it had red link, but was a highly-requested article. I was only able to find one source. I understand the tag, but wanted to give some context.

Thanks for all your contributions. Cheers! Richard Apple ( talk) 03:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Yeah, searching myself, I'm unable to find any either. A pity :(. Feel free to remove the tag. Ironholds ( talk) 13:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion's been hatted, but just thought I'd say I see your point now. I considered making a joke about the Saturday Night Massacre in my second post there, in terms of what would happen if the WMF tried that, but, having read your argument, now I feel like that reference might actually be spot-on.

Oh, and it was something on testwiki... I'm not gonna say the user's name, since I think his name's been dragged through the mud enough, but you can figure it out yourself if you're curious. —  PinkAmpers & ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Testwiki is a very special case in and of itself, actually - it's a directly-Foundation-operated wiki. They use it for testing out new prototype releases and such. Actually, the trademark question is now weaselling away inside my head. Gah! Ironholds ( talk) 02:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

True. Hell, I've got adminship on two test wikis, both from late night IRC chats. But in that particular case there was an implication that that user would have also been desysopped on another, more important project, had he not resigned there. And hey, if the trademark question annoys you, I can always give you some distracting Constitutional conundra, sorta like swapping out the song stuck in your head. —  PinkAmpers & ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, please do. Ironholds ( talk) 13:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the one I stumped some law students with when I was at SCOTUS for DOMA was this: What would happen if Congress and the States tried to amend Article V? (For instance, by lifting the restriction on amendments that deny equal suffrage in the Senate.) Would the Supreme Court be able to actually invalidate an amendment that violates Article V? If the answer's yes, then that would give the Court unprecedented power. If the answer's no, that means that any Article V restrictions are effectively meaningless, since in any situation where you could get enough votes to pass an amendment that would violate article V, you could just throw in a line saying that article V is amended as well. —  PublicAmpers&^{( main account • talk • block)} 16:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

An excellent question! Personally, my line would be that SCOTUS would not be able to invalidate it....sort of. The phrase is that it'd be "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution" if done. This sort of touches on UK constitutional theories - Diceyan orthodoxy versus Jennings. My perspective would be that yes, the amendment would be invalid, providing that it was made at a point where that passage in Article V still existed. However, were congress to pass one amendment removing that condition, and another making the necessary changes.... Ironholds ( talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the Barnstar, and for changing the status of my new articles to autopatrolled. Much appreciated. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@ NinaGreen: no problem! Thanks for the good articles :). Ironholds ( talk) 22:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Before I am convinced that this entry should be deleted I would be interested in understanding the variety of reasons you consider it seems to be inappropriate. I can see you have contributed many articles to Wikipedia, but there seem to few dealing with Australian cultural institutions. So I think it is fair to ask you: Are you aware of the status of this Gallery and Sculpture Park in Melbourne and the state of Victoria  ? That it hold the most important collection of Sculpture in the state of Victoria, it sponsors the the most prestigious sculpture prize in Australia ? dnw ( talk) 02:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Dnwilson: if you look at the message I left you, the rationale was not that it wasn't an important institution - it was that most of the text for the article was copied from the institution's website. That has now been resolved, and it will not be deleted, but you need to understand that it is against policy for copyrighted works to be cut-and-pasted into Wikipedia. I'm happy to talk through the issue with you in more depth if you have any questions. Ironholds ( talk) 02:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the autopatrolling setting. Much appreciated - and a great compliment on my work. Mabalu ( talk) 09:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ironholds. You have new messages at Steve Quinn's talk page.
Message added Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi there. As the creator of the page, I got one of those newfangled notification thingies when you templated the article. Could you be a little more specific about what you feel the problem areas are? The tag you used implies that the problem is that there are references, but they're not inline citations - but they're all inline already. Your edit summary said that it should have more footnotes, by which I assume you mean references cited. I know there's no hard and fast rules about that stuff, but six isn't too bad for a start-class article and every paragraph is supported by at least one reference, so I'm thinking there must be something specific that you feel isn't covered adequately. Could you elaborate a bit (here, or maybe the article talk page would be better)? Most articles on WP could use a few more references, but article tagging is usually reserved for articles with sections of material that are entirely unreferenced or when there's specific concerns like BLP, neither of which I think is the case here. Matt Deres ( talk) 01:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry; it's an unclear template :(. They are all inline citations, but there aren't enough of them - by that I mean that there are statements that are uncited (if we follow the standard rule of "citations go after the content they refer to"). The only real example is "including a collection published in book form in 2008 by Smith Magazine, and two sequels published in 2009." Ironholds ( talk) 01:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I'll do a quick check and get that fixed; I think they're discussed in another article already, so I'll track down a cite for it. Thanks! Matt Deres ( talk) 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Are you trying to delete my post. They are legit i swear. They are one of my favorite groups. Please don't take the page down. I have posted this page like 3 times :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushi biskit ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to take it down, just highlight issues with it so others can fix it. Pretty much every article has problems of one sort or another - it's nothing personal :). Ironholds ( talk) 22:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, You recently tagged Dive light with {{ more footnotes}}. It is not clear which text you consider is unreliable. Most of the information provided is at common knowledge level amongst divers, and I don't want to spend unnecessary effort researching references that the sky is blue. Please use inline {{ Citation needed}} tags to allow efficient rectification of the problem. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Common knowledge, yes, amongst divers. That's not our standard; the involvement of Re Baden (No. 2) in the setting of the rules around certainty of object in discretionary trusts and mere powers is common knowledge around equity experts, but its inclusion in an article needs verifying...because most readers, and indeed, most editors, are not equity experts. Similarly, most editors are not divers. I'm not entirely sure how WP:BLUE relates to this; I've read it, and I'm not arguing that things need to be over-cited to the degree their example is (>2 citations a statement is a sure sign of controversy, in my book), merely cited at all. I'll try to find some time later this afternoon to add more precise citations to statements I'm leery of. Thanks, Ironholds ( talk) 18:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now done :). Sorry for the time delay - work has been hectic. Ironholds ( talk) 22:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Although a few of your requests for citations are mildly surprising I will try to find suitable references. At least I now know what you had in mind, and do not feel I have to guess what you wanted or reference everything. I appreciate that common knowledge among divers may not meet the requirement, even when a statement may appear obvious from basic physical principles, but {{ more footnotes}} is a particularly unhelpful way of making a point. Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Per your request at AN, I'm notifying you (in case the notification system doesn't) that I've commented on you at user talk:Fluffernutter. If you honestly shared Fluffernutter's concern about attracting and retaining more female editors who might be offended by what Drmies said, wouldn't your first step be to resign your adminship and WMF position? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw, Floquenbeam, and have commented. Ironholds ( talk) 23:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care too much about puerile behavior. I'm not the boss of anyone here, can't control it even if I wanted to, and it's easy to avoid 90% of it by not frequenting IRC channels. But it gets in my craw when someone who does engage in lots of it decides to lecture someone else doing something at least two orders of magnitude less offensive. It is prima facie evidence that you care more about the ability to tell others what to do than you care about making WP welcoming to editors. This was, I believe, a major theme in the opposes in RFA's #1-4, it isn't my imagination. I don't need background in why you felt justified in making some of the comments you've made on IRC; taken in isolation, they're unimportant (and anyone would understand momentary frustration with Keifer). But they aren't isolated; taken together, they're a pattern of behavior incompatible with someone who wants to maintain and expand female editing, or any type of editing, really. They're a pattern of behavior incompatible with representing Wikipedia as a community liason and an admin. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on justifying the comments, or taking them in isolation: that would imply I thought they were acceptable. I was planning to explain the, as you put it, pattern, and why it is (or more accurately, was) there. In any case, I've made the offer; you're welcome to take it up, or not to. But I would like to think that, were our positions somehow reversed, I would be willing to at least listen to you. Either you're right, and my actions are being accurately represented and are completely indefensible, or you're wrong, and you're writing off a long-term contributor without being willing to listen to both sides. In either case, an informed decision can be reached with 5 minutes of your time. I hope you might find it in you to at least listen, even if you do so skeptically or while firmly believing nothing I say could make a difference to your opinion. Ironholds ( talk) 02:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it's not like I'm going to hat the discussion here; if you have something to say, I'll at least read what you write. But yes, it will be with a skeptical attitude. By the way, I"m not "writing off" a contributor; I don't think you should be banished, or banned, I think you should no longer represent WP as an admin and a WMF liason. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 02:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Do you have any objection to me emailing you? The Streisand Effect is live and well. Ironholds ( talk) 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about it, but if there's a legitimate reason to do so, no I don't object. Probably won't get a response today, though. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 02:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm genuinely grateful. That's fine; I'm on a plane for most of tomorrow, so we can probably pick the conversation up anew on Friday, if my email leaves you with a reason to do so. If it doesn't, don't sweat it. Ironholds ( talk) 02:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I received and read your email. I'll respect your wish to keep off-wiki the pages you linked to in your email, and won't discuss them here, but will reply to the email instead. But I want to make these comments (unrelated to the email) publicly, because I think they are important:

• Your email does not address the fact that you continued to make inappropriate comments right up to the recent past; this cannot be explained away by your age at the time. Look at the IRC logs on Meta, for 2011 and 2012 and 2013, do a text search for "Ironholds", and show me one comment that is appropriate for a representative of WMF or WP to make.
• In my opinion, in this instance promising to change is inadequate. Do you understand the damage to attracting and retaining editors when someone can point to your recent IRC posts and say "this person represents WMF and WP"? A better way to do this would be to resign, change your ways, and then re-apply sometime in the future.
• You have never addressed my point that you are not in a position to lecture other people about their behavior, or block them for their behavior. That is what led to my involvement in this, and since I've done as you asked and engaged with you here, I'd like to see your reply to that, please.
• Please look at your response to Question 11 in WP:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5. Is that still true?
• I note that you said in WP:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 and WP:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 4 you'd be open to recall, and acknowledged that the way things are, we could only take you at your word on that. Is that still true?
• I've re-read the comments by the Arbs in the current ArbCom case, and am beginning to see that having you desysopped - which is what I think would be best for the Encyclopedia - is going to be difficult. I'll concede you are well connected politically, and that this matters to many of the Arbs.
• So that you understand my POV very clearly: If I can't appeal to your sense of honor, then probably all hope is lost; I doubt you can be involuntarily removed or desysopped. So my only hope is that you do have a sense of honor, and to convince you that resigning is the honorable thing to do. I'm pretty much done doing that, too. I'll wait to see what the results are.

-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Floquenbeam

Sorry for the delay; I was travelling, and then recovering from travelling. So, in order:

1. I have just taken a look at the 2012/2013 logs on bash; using find, I can't see any examples of inappropriate commentary by myself. If you can point me to a comment there that is inappropriate, I'm happy to discuss it. If what you mean is "I looked at the GNAA logs, and" - you should be aware that they're pretty well known to be deliberately falsified. See ArbCom's attitude towards them.
2. I certainly do understand the possible damage; see the section below.
3. What led to your involvement in this was me saying that a comment by another editor was potentially inappropriate, unless contextually justified. Hypocricy is "one rule for me, one rule for [every/someone] else"; I don't think I've made any bones about the fact that my prior commentary was inappropriate, so I'm not quite sure why you identify it as hypocricy. Nor do I think I ever said anything about blocks.
4. Yep.
5. Yes, certainly. Having said that I don't seem to have a recall mechanism, and so I'm not sure how community demand would be demonstrated.

I consider myself an honourable person, even when dealing with dishonourable individuals, or otherwise honourable ones taking dishonourable actions - and make no mistake, I consider your perpetuation of a conversation started via email a dishonourable action. If you think you've eliminated the reasons for having it via email, you're wrong.

An honourable person has a lot of traits; one of them is that they respect their leaders and the people with authority over them, and that's what I do. I, in the heat of the moment, am not the best person to identify the costs and benefits of having me around in a position of responsibility in the community or at the Foundation - community and Foundation leaders are.

In regards to my Foundation role, I sat down with Sue on Friday, explained the situation to her and made clear that if she asked for my resignation, I would provide it. Not happily, because I enjoy the work I do, but not grudgingly, either; Sue's job is, amongst other things, to keep an eye on public perception. If she wants me gone, she's better-qualified to decide I'm a risk than I am. She accepted my statements, and actively refused to permit me to resign. From my point of view, I've taken the honourable action, there: accepting that there are areas others are more qualified in than me, and relying on them for navigation in those fields.

In regards to my community role, the same process applies; reach out to the appropriate arbiter and see what they say. In this case, that's the arbitration committee: they are the supreme body for dealing with user conduct issues, they are community elected, and community approved. I'm disappointed to see you accuse them of, essentially, being scared, because they haven't immediately rushed out screaming "BURN THE WITCH" - which is apparently your preferred outcome. They aren't bowing to politics, they're applying policy - both arbitration policy, which the community actively endorsed, and elements of both arbitration precedent and project-wide policy since 2007. If they decide policy extends to the point where I can be sanctioned, I'm okay with that. If they don't, they don't. But either way, I've not seen any evidence they're driving in the direction they want due to politics. If they were, the case would simply never have been accepted.

I appreciate you're likely to find both these answers and the thinking behind them unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, I thought it best to be transparent. Ironholds ( talk) 18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words the WMF is pulling together and overriding the desires of the en communuity. Mentioning arbcom's non-action is a red herring and an undeserved deflection; they are not empowered to take action in that respect. Ceoil ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your meaning seems rather unclear, Ceoil. First, are you implying that "the en community" should be empowered to make hiring and firing decisions regarding WMF staff? Second, what do you believe "the desires of the en community" are, and how have you assessed those desires? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Demiurge1000, as you well know, I meant that hiring and firing WMF staff is well outside of arbcoms remit, so Ironholds claiming inaction as endorsment is disingenious. The desires of the en community are evident above and below your post, and on any number of pages around; dont act cute. Ceoil ( talk) 21:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ceoil, my comment was in reply to the demand that I step down as a sysop. This is certainly within ArbCom's remit. Ironholds ( talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam is giving good advice here, both for WP's sake and for your own. I assume you're aware that there's a Wikipediocracy thread about your immanent demise (230 posts and counting now, and no, I won't link it), and I hope you realize that both the "blog-o-sphere" and the "mainstream press" will eventually pick up on it.

Please don't interpret this as anything other than a well-meant heads-up. You strike me as a dedicated sort of fellow, but also a guy who has a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. Anyone who isn't advising you to gracefully back away from this mess is giving you bad advice. -- SB_Johnny |  ^talk✌ 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds / Oliver:

Are you alleging that any of the logs in which you are cited have been fabricated? Which ones? Why have not the other participants in those chats come forth and said that such logs cannot represent the truth?

You should be aware that resigning your position may have consequences for your eligibility for unemployment benefits, particularly in the USA.

Why not ask that your title be renamed to something like "Assistant Director for Special Projects" (which would not suggest that you be representing Wikipedia editors)?

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, I've made clear I want you to stay away from me, and plan to stay away from you. Please respect this. Ironholds ( talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been taking a much-needed (and much enjoyed) break from Wikipedia this week, but I feel compelled to log back in here and comment due to your rather surprising characterization of Floquenbeam as having acted dishonorably. I saw the thread on AN in which Drmies posted a good-natured "happy birthday" note to a friend, and I must say that the reaction to it has appalled me. If you thought Drmies' comment was inappropriately familiar, you should have contacted him privately, via email, or at the least on the relative privacy of his talk page, to express your concerns, rather than shaming him on a widely trafficked noticeboard. I'm surprised it needed to be pointed out that, as a subject of an ArbCom case regarding inappropriate commentary about other editors, you'd be mistaken to think it wise to opine on the appropriateness of the commentary of another editor in such a fashion. Floquenbeam was absolutely right to point this out, and I'm disappointed that your response to him was not of the "OK, I see the problem" variety. 28bytes ( talk) 20:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

28bytes, my problem with Floquenbeam's actions was that I asked him to continue the conversation via email, he accepted, I sent him an email, and he saw fit to then take the conversation public again - including implicit references to details included in my email. I have absolutely no problem with his commentary regarding my behaviour. Ironholds ( talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Should have mentioned earlier, have gone on vacation and intentionally left laptop at home. Don't plan to participate much by phone, so this will be short.

Willing to discuss confidential stuff by email - which was reason I thought you wanted to email - but see no reason non-confidential stuff can't be discussed on wiki. Disappointed but not surprised at Sue Gardener's response. Leads me to doubt her sincerity on this "more new editors and more women editors" initiative, but my political pull at WMF is zero or negative, so I guess that's that.

Please have a similar discussion with your other bosses - the WP editors - by having a reconfirmation RFA. Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A communications difference, then; my motivation was to avoid the Streisand Effect and more backroom biting. Again, while the community are my bosses as a sysop, I'm not best suited to evaluate their overall opinion of me; the Arbitration Committee is, if nothing else, better-suited than I am. Ironholds ( talk) 22:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree ArbCom is in a better position than you are to determine the community's overall opinion of you, the entity in the best position to determine that - by an extraordinarily wide margin - is the community itself. That's what RFA's are for; I'll again request that you go through another one to confirm that you still have their trust. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The same argument could be made for, well, any user dispute ArbCom has ever dealt with. The fact that the Committee exists is indicative of the fact that community workflows, particularly around user disputes, are not necessarily ideal. And I'd disagree; at the last election the number of voters vastly outnumbered the number of participants in, well, every RfA ever held, to my knowledge. If what we're looking for is representation of the community's overall opinions on behavioural issues and propriety, the Committee is in some ways in a better place to speak with authority than ~100 users at RfA. They represent more voices, even if those voices aren't heard directly. Ironholds ( talk) 22:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But an ArbCom case and admin recall have very different criteria; ArbCom is looking to see if you've violated any policies that should result in an involuntary desysop. Recall/reconfirmation is looking to see if you still have the trust of the community. It is possible to survive an ArbCom case with your bit intact, but not have the trust of the community.

There is currently no mechanism in place to remove the bit from someone who no longer has the trust of the community, but who has not risen to the level of an ArbCom-enforced desysop. Recall, exists, but it is voluntary. But you said in the past, and reconfirmed in the past week or so, that you believe in admin recall, and are open to it. If the only mechanism for bit removal you're willing to respect is ArbCom, what exactly do you mean by that? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Recall exists, yes, and I'm open to it, but what precisely it constitutes - that is, the precise community disquiet necessary, whether it's a reconfirmation or a voluntary desysop, etc - is something that, I will admit, I've been deficient in thinking on, hence the not getting around to writing recall criteria. I'm willing to respect mechanisms other than ArbCom, but the precise details are, again, something I was deficient in identifying. Ironholds ( talk) 23:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to borrow mine? You should come up with something; it's not really kosher to say you're open to recall, but unfortunately you can't be recalled because you haven't got any criteria. That's functionally indistinguishable from "I'm not open to recall". -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough, and in the future I'm happy to use it - but as it says, fiddling recall about one way or another in situ is somewhat problematic. Ironholds ( talk) 23:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not problematic at all, when there is otherwise no way whatsoever to recall you. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear we're not going to agree here. Once again, I consider the Committee pretty well suited to decide whether I'm competent enough to continue to hold the tools; for future instances, I will set up a recall mechanism, most probably based on yours, which seems eminently reasonable. On other points we seem to disagree, I'm afraid. Ironholds ( talk) 23:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But we don't disagree at all; I think my criteria are eminently reasonable; you think my criteria are eminently reasonable; the recaller and the recallee both agree on criteria, so there can't possibly be a problem in using them now. If your concern is that using my criteria would somehow be seen as "gaming", I assure you that saying you wish you could submit to a recall, but your hands are tied and you can't, will be seen as "gaming" by many, many more people. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat| What I've done22:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I have moved your comment into the general discussion so it can be discussed as per the note at the top :) Just a personal reply to your point, IIRC we have only recently moved off twelve-hour 6-hook sets, which indicates to me that we have been rather deficit in material to use (it's usually 6-hour 8-ish-hook sets).-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this: "00:44, 14 July 2013 Ironholds (talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Yogesh Khandke from (none) to autopatrolled (good articles)" Thanks for trusting me. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 19:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Put it to good use :). Ironholds ( talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 20:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of my article Mount Davies Road. I have added two new sources and associated inline references, therefore request that you consider removal of the footnotes tag. Many thanks. Summerdrought ( talk) 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Summerdrought: thanks for fixing it up so speedily! It's a lot better now; the only two things I see that need inline citations are:

"After reaching and scaling the highest point, he noticed water in a creek below, which he later explored from his Land Rover. The vehicle sank into soft sand, and it took him until the next day to extricate himself as the rear wheels only were driving. He decided that the new road would pass by this feature due to the good supply of water."

"Beadell used his theodolite at night for astronomical observations, and calculated his exact location the next morning which he was able to pass to base via radio. It was a week before a rescue team arrived, however the wrong parts had been brought, so the vehicle was left where it was. It was repaired at a later date, and the survey was able to be completed."

Other than that, it looks great. Happy to remove the tag when inline citations are added to those statements :). Ironholds ( talk) 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Article citations re-arranged as requested, regards, Summerdrought ( talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Neat :). Yeah, inlines normally go at the end of the statement they're supporting - so if an inline is where you got the information for an entire paragraph, just put it at the end of the entire paragraph. Removing the tag now. Ironholds ( talk) 22:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am 99% sure that Flagrantedelicto is back with the same old aggression and POV pushing at Talk:Muawiyah I. He already tried this once before with an IP address, as CBW pointed out. Now we have this new account Special:Contributions/Zulfindar commenting on the talk page of Muawiyah - a very controversial figure on Muslim history - displaying a number of the same behaviors. If you see his contributions, he has the same ranting about Salafists and Wahhabis liking Muawiyah, the same aggressive tone calling other editors efforts "bogus" and a "pro-Muawiyah bandwagon," and the behavior of making one large edit (+2,332)‎ followed by a series of small tweaks to the same paragraph as though it was written hastily.

@ User:Someguy1221 was the one who blocked the IP sock, but I thought I would contact you because you apparently exchanged emails with this guy per his block log. Perhaps you could judge whether an SPI is in order - I am absolutely sure that this is him but I'm not too familiar with how these checkuser things work. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 11:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, him :(. I'd go for an SPI case, although if you're that sure, feel free to set out the evidence here and I'm happy to consider a block. Ironholds ( talk) 21:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@ User:Toddy1 is suggesting that this user may have used other accounts in the past, insinuating that the basis is behavioral evidence, just like mine above. With that in mind, I am now thinking that a formal SPI might be in order; as I understand it, an SPI not only checks for IP addresses but other forms of unmentioned evidence which can get to the bottom of things. Plus, it will flood your talk page; all my evidence is based on behavior, so proving it to those not involved will take quite a bit of time and work in terms of sifting through the old accounts diffs. Since you were involved via email and thus know a bit about the subject's behavioral patterns, I could let you know once the SPI is drafted and ready, if that's alright with you - you could provide an objective view as to whether there are grounds for an SPI or not. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 10:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense; happy to contribute. The unmentioned things are user headers and suchlike, which should be reliable even if IP has shifted (well, to some degree). Ironholds ( talk) 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally opened one up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flagrantdelicto. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 11:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool; thanks! Ironholds ( talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas on what this might be? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 11:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You recently tagged an article I created Gaana Bala. I don't know what it means. Why does it say the source is unclear? What can I do to add those 'Inline citations'?

- Sriram Vikram ( talk) 04:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Sriram Vikram: Hey Sriram :). Sure; it just means you need more footnotes (the things in ref tags represented by [1],[2], etc). I'll add more specific tags to denote where the issues are. Ironholds ( talk) 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Same question here. You added the tag on Nuestra Belleza Paraguay 2013. I don't know what is this about. It think it has enought ref. -- Marcetw ( talk) 19:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Same thing; there isn't an inline citation after "on June 27, 2013" in the prose. Ironholds ( talk) 19:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You may know about this already, but a comment you made on IRC was mentioned in a Christian Science Monitor article as an example of alleged misogyny on Wikipedia: [1] Robofish ( talk) 23:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of it; thanks for letting me know anyway. My perspective on it is the same as it's always been; that I was an incredibly dumb 18 year old, a marginally smarted 19 year old, and...so on and so forth. I'm not perfect today, by a heck of a long way, but I'm getting better at screwing up less - or, at least, screwing up in new, rather than old, ways. It doesn't diminish the impropriety of my actions, which is high, but I'm content with setting the standard that I will improve each day. Ironholds ( talk) 23:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't sell yourself short. You're still callow enough to provide years and years of entertainment. Lac-Mégantic ( talk) 02:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You got mail. T. Canens ( talk) 04:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing my articles and the autoreviewer privilege. You'll need something to replace all that energy you put in to checking through the articles I've created. Have a Brownie on me! EagerToddler39 ( talk) 23:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ironholds ( talk) 23:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosser Reeves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted Bates ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I saw that you re-granted Mishae ( talk · contribs) the autopatrolled flag. It's something worth considering, but he did have it revoked in the past. He had it granted in January 2012 but removed in December 2012 over concerns of the quality of his articles (see here. I'm not sure those concerns are unwarranted still, given this recent thread at WT:PLANTS that discusses the shortcomings on a recent article of his. He is prolific and the quality of his articles constantly needs to be checked. I assume most people patrolling the new article lists scroll by and mark his contributions as patrolled without really doing anything or looking at the prose. Regardless, I was wondering, from your perspective, whether you thought it worth it to keep his contributions without the autopatrolled flag, since they should have someone else's eyes on them even if they likely won't do anything. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 23:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rkitko ( talk · contribs), I don't know why you can't trust me and suggest other editors to do the same. I mentioned on the auto patrol rights, that I will use it on my one-sentence insect stubs. Anything that will not be a stub will be left to be patrolled by someone else. Fair deal?-- Mishae ( talk) 23:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for stalking, but given that the editor is talking about inserting "one sentence stubs", I'm not comfortable at all leaving them to be autopatrolled. One sentence stubs generally would not be acceptable and at the very least need to be checked by another editor, but an intent to make such articles is certainly not alright. I'm prepared to remove the flag unless this editor clearly agrees not to create "one-sentence stubs". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh, okay, in order:

1. As I understand it, there were copyright concerns. Autopatrolled does not exist to distinguish "users who write perfect articles", it exists to distinguish "users who can be trusted not to write articles that are non-notable, BLP violations or copyright violations". I reviewed their most recent articles and couldn't find any problems of that nature - I will happily admit to being highly fallible, and so may have missed some - but did find, as you say, prose problems, which I surfaced with the user and do not consider a barrier to autopatrolled status.
2. I'm not sure what Seraphimblade's concerns around one-sentence stubs are, but if they're willing to elucidate I'm happy to discuss it. Generally-speaking my perspective is there's nothing wrong with dinky articles, as long as they're in areas where things like notability is pretty much inherent (fauna and flora species are a good example: as a matter of fact, I cut my teeth writing one-line articles on the New World rodent family). Ironholds ( talk) 00:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Let me be clear, my one sentence articles as I mentioned above are about Insects, now the rest are fine! That includes biographies, (living and dead), soldiers, photographers, sculptors, fish and plants, all of them have more then one one sentence and are genuine stubs. The problem with insects is that I sometimes can't find any info other then on Fauna Europaea (and not because I am lazy). Yes, originally I am from Russia and there fore have a language berrier, but that doesn't mean that I am a bad editor (and will be a bad auto patroller!) In fact, people change over time, if I had one copyvio in the past in early July this year, doesn't mean that I will continue on doing so, in fact it was my second one in like a year. So, lets forget what happened in the past, and lets focus on long happy days ahead. Shall we? O.K. to calm people more, if you can't trust me patrolling the articles, can I at least patrol talkpages (meaning article talkpages)?-- Mishae ( talk) 00:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

For example, from the articles that I patrolled here: Peter Feldstein there is no copyvio and yes, he is a notable professor Emeritus (how many of those are there?) Or like here: Marin Studin famous sculptor, had exhibitions worldwide. Now here for example, I am not sure: Art Sinsabaugh. So, I will give you guys to decide what to do...-- Mishae ( talk) 00:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The userrights don't break down like that, I'm afraid; autopatrol status is boolean. We'll talk it through here and work something out, don't worry. Ironholds ( talk) 00:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To "elucidate", notability is never inherent. It might be, in some cases, always present (for example, there would never be a single chemical element or US president without sufficient sourcing for an article), but that just means the sourcing is there. Notability is due to substantial coverage, not "It's a...". We often are forgiving of new editors who write articles on subjects likely to be notable, but I'd expect a long term editor here to know that such sourcing is required and to look up and cite it before writing an article. If such sourcing only turns up a sentence worth of material, that's probably not a good subject. It might merit mention in a parent article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, when I write a single sentence article, I do provide a source, and I do cite it as well. Some of my articles are single-sourced, but:

1. They are sourced
2. They are cited

Is that clear to Mr. Seraphimblade? And one sentence articles can always be expanded look for sources and you will find some, sometimes I can't but if somebody would be kind enough on expanding them or give a link to a source that will broaden the subject, I will be more then happy to take it.-- Mishae ( talk) 02:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Seraphimblade is going on about, especially given WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, but thank you, Ironholds for the clear answers. I'm not aware of many recent copyvios other than the ones Mishae mentions here, but he frequently runs into notability issues outside of the taxon article creation. For example, just today User:DGG posted on his talk page regarded the possibly dubious notability of some photographer articles Mishae has created. (NB: As of this message, DGG has not replied to Mishae's polite comment asking for more info.) Earlier, there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter F. Kutschera where it was clear he didn't understand WP:BLPNOTE. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 02:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair points all. I'm going to go to bed in a tick, but I'll review tomorrow morning. Ironholds ( talk) 03:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Rkitko, that Walter F. Kutschera was the only one that was like that, since that time I was very careful on the BLP part, yes there was another one, but that's it (and that one was like a month ago).-- Mishae ( talk) 05:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll defer on the substubs, then, rather than to note that they are deprecated and that the "outcomes" piece is not a policy/guideline, while the requirement of notability is, and that such articles should not be placed into mainspace until they are actually ready (and while one sentence, they're not ready). Regardless, though, it sounds like others should clearly be reviewing the submissions from this editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all Substub guideline is no longer a guideline. It says that it is kept for historical reference. Second, for the starters, if you hate my one sentence articles I will give you a list of them to delete (I did some of the deletion myself), but decided not to do it since Wikipedia doesn't have a guideline on it. Here is the list:

1. Carabus (the blue links)
2. Nebria
3. Neocrepidodera (some of them)

That should be plenty to satisfy your deletion thirst. Keep in mind though, that Nederlands', Swedish and Vietnamese Wikipedias do the same, and they are medium. Another thing to mention, if you do so, can you kindly dewikify the list in the genus as well, so that people like me wont create the same mistake as I did? Have fun.-- Mishae ( talk) 14:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, when did the autopatrolled flag become such a high bar? To consider removing it from someone because they write articles of debatable notability? Sheesh. Initially it was given to anyone who wasn't writing trash articles, so that the NPP folks could focus on legitimate targets for their rapidfire patrolling. It's not a badge of honor as a Good Editor (tm). Anyway, hi Ironholds! See you've been having a busy few weeks :P Nathan ^T 14:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes he does, and just because I write articles like this Agonum exaratum someone is upset. Considering that Mr. Seraphimblade is not even a part of WikiProject insects I don't understand him even commenting here. Its sad though that Mr. Seraphimblade just likes to argue but when I try to reason with him he ignores it. I already suggested him on expanding (or help me to expand) on some of my substubs, but to no avail... In case if I am not being civil here, I would like to apologize in advance.-- Mishae ( talk) 15:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nathan. Yeah, something like that ;p. So, my thinking at the moment is this; Mishae is free to keep the autopatrolled flag, as originally decided, but I strongly advise you to make sure of notability around the stubs you create. Insect-related stubs are probably fine; others, you should pay special attention to. Ironholds ( talk) 16:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Deal. Thank you very much! In case of anything I will ask you for a notability check, since you already told me that you will have a pair of eyes on me. Otherwise I can ask Justin too, he is my mentor:)-- Mishae ( talk) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• ( talk page stalker) I don't see what the fuss is all about - who wants 'Autopatrolled' anyway? It's not as if it's a badge of merit for anything (except perhaps for the hat collectors who mistakenly think it is). As for 1-line stubs, it doesn't take more than a couple of seconds to patrol them, so the user 'right' doesn't save any of the enormous perceived stress that NPPers are supposed to suffer - in my opinion, when volunteers have done enough work for the day, they just go home. That said, if someone has mistakenly already been given the Autopatrolled flag for creating stubs, there's no real reason to take it away again unless there has been some blatant misuse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  Really? "a couple of seconds" adds up; I recently dealt with a guy who had written something like 250 stubs in the last few days. Sure, individually, it may not save me much time, but in bulk? We should try to avoid wasting our users' time on tasks that are irrelevant, and patrolling the works of users who write consistently good articles is one of them. I think some users burn out trying to save the world and some users give up when they've got tired of the activity for the day, but it seems fairly obvious that for the latter group we gain a benefit by ensuring that as much of the work they do prior to being tired is productive. Ironholds ( talk) 07:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've always maintained that NPPer burn-out was a fallacy. In spite of a Summer of Research initiative (or something like it) that claimed such a phenomenon, there was never any proof of it. But at least we got the superb Page Curation tool out of it. That said, it's still only any good in the hands of the right users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As you might expect I did wrote 2 articles which in my opinion have questionable notability just yesterday. Greg Bridges and Nykolai Aleksander (considering that the second one is a she) are all awarded with bunch of awards, but Wikipedia doesn't have even a stub on such. So, are they still notable in your opinion?-- Mishae ( talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

They both seem to meet the notability guidelines; however, you cannot write articles about living people without including references. This is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia operates; were you unaware of it? Ironholds ( talk) 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Stupid me, I forgot to include one (was 1 am in my state, so my eyes were shutting). Thanks for pointing it out though (I am good with references for majority of my part), in fact, its the first time when it happened to me. How is it now? To be honest, no one can write articles here without references weather its living, dead, person or animal.-- Mishae ( talk) 22:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs some copyediting (what is the difference between a prize and an award, for instance?) but otherwise seems fine. Ironholds ( talk) 23:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just copy how it is called, for example; Archibald Prize is called a Prize not an award therefore...-- Mishae ( talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but I more meant " Besides awards he also earned the Packers' Prize" <- what distinguishes the Packers' Prize from an award? Surely it's an award called a prize. Ironholds ( talk) 18:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, but now its redundant I guess, it have a mention of the work award three times in one sentence.-- Mishae ( talk) 19:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked to demonstrate :). I also removed the "various other..." bit; generally-speaking that's problematic because you are using the subject's writings as the source of the claim. If it's a named award, we can follow it up and verify: "various other awards", not so much. Ironholds ( talk) 21:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reason why I did it is because so that the readers can read the main thing, not the list of awards through commas. Either way, my English is not my native one, so I live it up to you. Thanks for fixing my mistakes, feel free to go over the contributions.-- Mishae ( talk) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, although this flow feels more natural to me. In any case; thanks for being receptive - not every editor is, and it's great to encounter open-minded people :). Let me know if you want any other reviews! Ironholds ( talk) 23:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The arbitration case regarding yourself and Kiefer.Wolfowitz has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for bringing the project into disrepute, Ironholds is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.

2.2) For his history of incivility, which includes logging out to engage in vandalism and to make personal attacks on other editors on other Wikimedia projects, Ironholds is strongly admonished.

3) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds. May I ask you a question? Are you good doing peer review? Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Of articles? I can't say I've done it that much, but I've got quite a bit of experience at WP:GAN, which I'd imagine is transferable. What do you need? :). Ironholds ( talk) 12:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I need a peer review for this article. To see if it meets the FA criteria. Could you help me? Thanks for replying :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally! Have you seen the automated tips link here? It's usually pretty useful :). Happy to (independent of that) go through and look for tweaks, too. Ironholds ( talk) 17:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Oliver :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I assume Jim (Cullen) was in some way involved in pointing you towards me? He's a good egg, and you're lucky to have him :). Ironholds ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was wandering around and saw this curious username (Ironholds) and just went for a look, and then, Voilá!, it was you. I posted a comment on your picture profile a couple of months ago and asked you to sign my guestbook, and then Jim saw my edits and then this happened User:Miss_Bono/Mentorship#Ironholds. I am more than happy to have Jim around, he is one of the most wonderful editors I've met and a great person. He is helping me with my English, as it is not my native language... so, please, forgive me if I mess some word up ;) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope that my long explanation has't bothered you :'( Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 17:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all! I had my head buried in histograms. Interesting connection - I've found the weirdest connections between different people. I know one Wikimedian through non-Wikimedian friends, and another's husband went to college with my childhood best friend - however few of us there are, even off-wiki we're seem to operate in the same circles :). Ironholds ( talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting! How small the world is! :) You must be happy... and confused :) I am happy because today they scheduled and interview for the WP:U2, after a few months of its awakening and revamping :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! Hope it goes well :). Ironholds ( talk) 19:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for both, the congrats and the feedback on Ali Hewson. Didn't you find anything else wrong? And really thanks for taking some of your time to answer my questions. :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 20:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

15 August

Please, ping me whenever you have done the other part of the peer review. No rush. I am so so grateful for what you are doing. Best wishes! Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Shall do! I've spent my day buried in code, I'm afraid :). Ironholds ( talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that and thanks for the feedback :P Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just watched this File:Wikimania_2011_-_Conflict_resolution.ogv. I must say that I loved your presentation and you are pretty funny... and I do like British humour :P. I was raised watching Mr. Bean and George and Mildred so... you know :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ironholds ( talk) 19:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're more than welcome :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I also just watched your video from 2011. As a follow-up, have you considered making WP:IMPORTANCE something other than a redirect to WP:N? Perhaps an essay? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Covering...? It's been a while since I watched that myself, actually :). Matter of fact, I can't stand it; my voice is, I promise, a lot less whiny in my head. Ironholds ( talk) 05:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, I thought it was a great talk. Haven't been to a Wikimania yet and I'm getting interested based on some talks. In the video that Miss Bono mentioned above on ideological conflict on Wikipedia, you said that "notability is not an indicator of importance...this is something I try to impress everywhere I go. Notability has no relationship to importance whatsoever. Notability ensures...that all the content we have is verifiable. Importance doesn't come into it. If someone is unimportant but passes the general notability guideline, that should be fine." I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, that chestnut! A good idea; I'll work on it :). Ironholds ( talk) 06:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your voice is great. Don't worry about it :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It was days ago and we did discuss it at the talk page too and one other editor also agreed with me that his source was not reliable and not meeting Wikipedia standards. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep; see my followup message. Sorry about that! Ironholds ( talk) 21:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, its me again this guy above this message is an author of some biographies, one of which as the source says is notable. Need your opinion on it though as I am still confused. Another question about notability; I stumbled on this article: Andrew Jackson (baseball) and came to realize that besides that he is a 19 century black player, there is no notability what so ever. Like, I don't see any wins, that he and his team for which he played for had.-- Mishae ( talk) 03:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Mishae: the standard for professional athletes isn't that they had any wins; it's that they played at least one game for a fully professional team :). Ironholds ( talk) 03:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I used to write about Olympians as I recall, and the rule was at least one medal. But, I am getting the point now...-- Mishae ( talk) 04:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:NTRACK would seem to conflict with that - but fair enough. Ironholds ( talk) 04:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Another question regarding sports; Is it OK to put {WPSports|class=Stub|importance=Low} at every sports biography article even if the sport is already mentioned? For example, a user did it to my article here.-- Mishae ( talk) 13:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, as someone mentioned to me here, that if no one complains that's fine.-- Mishae ( talk) 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine; the sports wikiproject and the biography wikiproject are distinct groups. Ironholds ( talk) 19:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Now its time for me to put that template with Talk header and other talkpage related stuff. :)-- Mishae ( talk) 19:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem :). Ironholds ( talk) 20:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If at any point in the future you'd like to get the tools back, just know that you'll have my full support. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You have mine as well. Int21h ( talk) 17:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You made a brief copyedit to Benjamin Abeles yesterday. I think you were just touching that article as part of a run of similar edits, but in case you are interested I've done a bit of work on the article. I'm not sure much more can be done, but if you have any suggestions or have time to have a look, it would help. I'm also looking to see if my changes and corrections make sense (the previous text was getting some aspects of the science and technology wrong, though those parts of the articles still need work). What I also need is someone who can read Czech and Hebrew! I've also just realised I could put this on the article talk page, and use the notifications system to link to and alert you to that, but this still feels like a user talk page message, not an article talk page message, so I'll leave it here instead (I did also leave a note with the article creator, but he isn't around at the moment). Carcharoth ( talk) 23:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I know a guy who speaks Hebrew, at least! I can't comment on the science or tech, but the article looks a heck of a lot more cohesive now. If you want to expand it further, I have JSTOR/LexisNexis access; happy to do a sources search. Ironholds ( talk) 23:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to look and see what is there. It would be nice to know the name of the university in Jerusalem. I get the impression the PhD was jointly awarded by the Weizmann Institute of Science and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and that he was supervised by Chaim L. Pekeris, but I'd need to have something definite to be able to add that. If I'm reading the Czech newspaper article right, Abeles may be living in England now. The phrase used translates rather quaintly as "university of the third age". Incidentally, my general approach is to not create BLPs (I did create some myself before I realised what is involved and some of the downsides - mainly that I always imagine the person in question looking over my shoulder as I write), but to still tidy them up where I can. The trick seems to be to know when to stop, and to wait for future sources to emerge in the fullness of time. I've come to the conclusion that writing about BLPs at the level where book-length or (formal) article-length sources don't (yet) exist is just not encyclopedic except in very rare cases (it is more like a form of journalism). I could <ahem> write a whole essay on the topic... Oh, and pinging Casliber who just copyedited the article as well. :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 23:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The university of the third age isn't, actually, an idiomatic quirk of translations; kind of a neat place. I'll do some hunting. Ironholds ( talk) 23:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No particular luck, but I did find a mention of some work on strain-induced electric fields, if that would be helpful? Ironholds ( talk) 23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, but thanks for looking. The best next step (on the way to the U3A - thanks for pointing that out!) would be to look up the symposium proceedings and see what is said there. Might do that at some point, but am happy to leave the article for now. Flip a coin and end up at Sir Walter Howell! (Well, OK, that's not flipping a coin, that's the notifications system alerting me months ago that someone linked that article to one that I wrote, so I sit there looking at that article and wondering what to do - articles on civil servants are very boring). Carcharoth ( talk) 00:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The notification system works ok I can say..... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Oliver. :) Do you recall where to find the copyright warnings that appear on edit pages? I cannot, and I'm working with a talk page copyright concern about a comment made in 2006 where the contributor disclaimed GFDL. We didn't have a Terms of Use then, of course, and while copyright policy was in full effect, knowing if the guy agreed to the license could be helpful in determining if the material should be removed. If he did, I'm inclined to think no, not without an official takedown.

The page is here. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks! -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The warning is MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning; the version when he made the edit that included the GFDL denial was here, and clearly includes the GFDL. Obviously it's not as clear as the message is now, but I'd probably favour the side of "include until a takedown is sent", too. Declaring "this isn't GFDL!" and then submitting text through a form that says "everything you submit needs to be GFDL" is not on. Ironholds ( talk) 21:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think so. I've made a note accordingly. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned something funny about Talk:Muawiyah I to Someguy1221. Am I paranoid to think that we might be experiencing deja vu? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It does seem rather suspicious. I thought the other accounts were confirmed as socks? Ironholds ( talk) 04:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Zulfinder was confirmed as a sock of Flagrantedelicto, yes. This account, whoever it is, is brand new and immediately jumping into the discussion. If it is what I suspect it is, then the user behind it is much smarter, ceasing the behavior of one large edit followed by a series of repeated ones and toning down the rhetoric - both of which I mentioned in the last SPI, and if that user did intend to create another sock, they would likely avoid those two behavioral evidences. The immediate jumping into discussion in a manner more sophisticated than that of normal users, deriding the article's quality (which seems to be the main point Flagrantedelicto was pushing) and the awkward, suspicious looking start with "oh hey I guess it's late to jump in now, I just now found this discussion" yet speaking quite in depth about supposed flaws in the article all raise a red flag. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 06:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd probably have them checked; the fact that the user managed talkpage markup the first time around is a red flag to me, frankly. Ironholds ( talk) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For your viewing pleasure: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flagrantedelicto. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Ironholds ( talk) 04:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have stumbled on this article and would like to know if its neutral or not?: United States presidential election in Alaska, 1964-- Mishae ( talk) 02:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What sentence(s) are making you question its neutrality? Ironholds ( talk) 02:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it is about an election which should be within a specific candidate. Or am I wrong? As far the question of its neutrality goes, the fact that the article is about an election raise it to be a debatable topic. Like, personally I am neutral to both candidates but someone might be saddened by a fact that such and such candidate won or lost by such and such of percent.-- Mishae ( talk) 02:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So, we shouldn't have any articles on elections? The fact that such and such candidate won or lost by such and such a percent is a statement of fact. Ironholds ( talk) 02:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe yes maybe not, in fact its the first time I see an article on elections. Again, if I am wrong, I am sorry.-- Mishae ( talk) 02:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We have, I would estimate, thousands if not tens of thousands of articles on such things. "neutral points of view" refers to bias, not "avoiding making people sad". Ironholds ( talk) 02:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That what I ment, since elections are a sketchy topic, it can end up being biased. But apparently here, I was wrong. Sorry. However, its good to be on the safe site, don't you think? :)-- Mishae ( talk) 02:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to see you editing; alleviating a concern I had after seeing more stringent sanctions brought against you than the admonishment I thought sufficient. If you ever submit to another RfA, I stand ready to support you; even today; though I understand that others might hurry to ensure a bloodbath ensues. I always respected your administrative actions and you demonstrated willingness to enforce policy even in the contentious areas most would avoid; placing political correctness over propriety. I do hope you are not correct in your above statement; "code is likely to be obsolete", and am concerned that you could be alluding to something you know, rather than suspect? If so, I wish intentions were more forthright than the portrayals I have seen, especially to my own concern which was expressed on the implementation RfC. In either regard, I wish you the best and thank you for your service to date. :)  John Cline ( talk) 02:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :). What implementation RfC, sorry? Ironholds ( talk) 02:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The one related to the Visual Editor where it was asked if it ought to be opt in or opt out. :)  John Cline ( talk) 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The above statements, as the context shows, were about changes to the account storage process, not editing. Ironholds ( talk) 03:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I had taken it out of context. May the best be all you encounter. :)  John Cline ( talk) 03:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In the unlovely dispute between you and KW recently some good may come forth. One of the comments, true or not, concerned personality traits (or one may prefer some other description). So I wondered, assuming this to be fact rather than accusation, for what do I know of these things, whether you might be the angel in disguise that I am looking for?

If not then you may be able to point me in the right direction. This is the issue I am attempting to handle. Or, rather, the editor who is embroiled by no fault of his own in this. Fiddle Faddle 10:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, probably not, I'm afraid. So: for a very long time I was diagnosed with Asperger's (read: from 9 to 16), only to be rediagnosed with "high-functioning autism not otherwise specified" or words to that effect, which essentially mean "you tick enough boxes that we know you're screwy, but not enough boxes in any one column that we can categorise you. So...here's the uncategorised category, sit in it". My partner at the time felt very vindicated, since she'd been telling me for years that autistic people tend not to be as sarky as I am ;p. Whatever it is, it's mild at best: I speak fluent lawyer, but not fluent Asperger's, I'm afraid. Ironholds ( talk) 16:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Great to be uncategorised(!) Sorry you can't help in a specific way. If you can shed some light ion the problem as an independent soul I'd love that to happen, though :) Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My only thoughts so far are "it's clearly a multi-person advocacy account". And, y'know, advocacy accounts are fine; multi-person accounts are not (and multi-person advocacy accounts by people who haven't read WP:COI are the worst of the worst ;p). I'd advocate reaching out to them and trying to communicate, but a block may end up being necessary. Ironholds ( talk) 17:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it's very hard to know with any precision what the editor means when he uses the first person plural. This may be literal or it may be how s/he views the account. What I've achieved is the finding of a mentor for the editor, one who appears to be a useful guide. Now I hope for a positive outcome. Part of that will, I hope, be the clarification of what the account status is. I'm sure, if there is more than one, we may well get them to subdivide into individual accounts, once the matter is explained, probably via @ Mishae:, whom I've pinged to make sure he is aware of the need to explain this as well. I am very hopeful that we can achieve an excellent result. Fiddle Faddle 19:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome; hope it works out well :). Ironholds ( talk) 20:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact it will. You see, I believe that a block suppose to be the last resort for any user otherwise we might loose a handful of contributors. True, not all contributors might assume good faith, or knew of it existence, but majority of the new ones are here to help. P.S. This is my second deal with an organization. I had something similar on the Russian Wikipedia.-- Mishae ( talk) 21:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with you; my worry is over the multi-person account, which we do not permit, full stop. This is nothing to do with the intentions of the contributor and everything to do with establishing certainty in regards to Wikipedia's copyright status. Ironholds ( talk) 22:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What does multiple accounts suppose to do with the copyright status? Either way, if a user have multiple accounts unless its permitted incase of vandalism, etc, we must consider it as a sock puppet? If so, then I must find a checkuser and let him know so that will check multiple Aspie accounts on Wikipedia. I counted 8. And I am pretty sure that User:Aspie numba 1 and User:AspieDBA (considering that the second one made only a userpage with no contributions since April 19, 2012) is the same guy that we are talking about. In case of anything, we will apologize if we will be wrong.-- Mishae ( talk) 23:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you can have multiple accounts per real, live, legal person. You cannot have multiple legal persons using a single account. The reason for this is simple; Wikipedia's content is under the CC-BY-SA license, one of the requirements of which is that attribution be provided to the author, which it is via the history page, which lists the username. If the username represents multiple legal persons, things get complicated. Ironholds ( talk) 23:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, when I see such users as User:Aspielman (account creation June 10, 2013) and User:AspieDBA (account creation April 12, 2012), then you have User:Aspie numba 1 (account creation September 28, 2009) and last but not least User:AspieWiki (account creation February 22, 2013 - July 12, 2013) makes you wonder whats going on here. I don't know, like whats the point of having multiple accounts and produce them yearly or monthly if you need only one account to edit Wikipedia? Either way, to me multiple Aspie accounts with 1 year or couple months difference seems fishy.-- Mishae ( talk) 23:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We have >3,000 unique accounts registered a day; the idea that there might be multiple autistic people using Wikipedia is not, I think, a new one. I'd note that "lman" is meaningless; Aspielman is more likely to be A. Spielman, a name. Ironholds ( talk) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Unique accounts are unique accounts but look here: User:AspieWiki (account creation February 22, 2013 - July 12, 2013) and User:Aspielman (account creation June 10, 2013) have an account created within couple of months. I wonder if its the same person?-- Mishae ( talk) 23:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Again; we have over 3,000 accounts created a day, and Aspielman is most likely a name, not a reference to Asperger's Syndrome or anything else. Even were it a reference to Asperger's, 3,000 a day means 180,000 accounts in those couple of months. That more than one of those people might be autistic would not be amazing. Unless you have any evidence that they are similar (and I doubt it, because, ignoring that they have totally different writing styles, one of them has only made a single edit) this is a non-starter. Ironholds ( talk) 23:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, wont argue. And no, I am not surprised that a lot of Autistic people use Wikipedia. The thing that I am surprised about is so many Aspie accounts (some of which are months apart). Makes me wonder if its used for malicious purpose?-- Mishae ( talk) 23:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A malicious purpose that is fulfilled by...creating a userpage and then not editing again? Ironholds ( talk) 23:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me explain it this way: Every so often I open a few Wikipedia windows, and sometimes the server will sent me a red error. Now, maybe it have something to do with my talkpage edits, maybe it have something to do with doing that and checking recent changes. But my speculation will be too much of inactive user accounts. Its sad that Wikipedia can't sell user account (or give it for free) if its not being used for like a year. I think I should go and talk to a checkuser just to be safe. Who knows, I don't have a proof because I am not a checkuser, but they could find some.-- Mishae ( talk) 01:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't "sell" anything; we're a free service, and you can grab old account names. A checkuser is almost certainly not going to run a check based on "they have similar usernames". Their activity levels are vastly different, their writing style is totally different, and again, Aspielman is meaningless and probably a name. Ironholds ( talk) 01:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Are those Aspie accounts are listed on the reference that you gave me? If not, is it OK if I add them to the list, and if yes how? By the way, I already issued a question on ANI. I hope I wrote everything nice and clean.-- Mishae ( talk) 01:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not; users usurp accounts when they specifically want those accounts. Unless you want to be Aspielman instead of Mishae they don't need listing. Again: I do not think a checkuser will check those accounts, and I do not think there is any need to do so. Ironholds ( talk) 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I stay with my account. If I will get vandalized (which never happened) then I will reconsider. Thanks for explanation, and I am sorry for any pointless trolling here (if any happened). Another question; Can Wikipedia remove accounts which are no longer active?-- Mishae ( talk) 01:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Strictly-speaking it is technically possible but incredibly thorny, and would not be done; it would violate the copyright license, for one thing. Ironholds ( talk) 02:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How would it violate anything if the user have not used the account and no one else wants it? (so far)-- Mishae ( talk) 02:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't, but that's such an edge case that it hasn't been built. See WP:UNC. Ironholds ( talk) 02:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there is a place if I can ask about such and such accounts to be merged, like seeking a consensus?-- Mishae ( talk) 02:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "merged"? Ironholds ( talk) 02:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You gave me a link without reading it yourself? It says something about merging accounts which the system is not able to do (yet).-- Mishae ( talk) 02:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I assumed you were referring to something that could actually be done. Theoretically, you could ask for it to be enabled on the village pump or on bugzilla. In practise, I suspect that there is a reason the developers have not enabled it. Additionally, Wikimedia's sites are moving to a new system for user accounts as we speak, which means that code is likely to be obsolete. Ironholds ( talk) 02:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that soon those unused accounts will vanish?-- Mishae ( talk) 02:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, they will remain, but the process through which accounts are stored in the database will change dramatically. As a result, code written to work with the current setup is unlikely to work with the new one. Because of that, I cannot see developers being too enthusiastic to put their time into making it work. Ironholds ( talk) 02:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Another thing; How do you know who writes in which style if all of us use the same typing style. Or one user types in Times New Roman while the other types in Helvetica? If so, I didn't saw any.-- Mishae ( talk) 02:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing style isn't the same as typing style. I, for example, have a propensity to use semi-colons more than is the norm; if I ever decide to sockpuppet, that's a good way of identifying me. Other users use complex words a lot, or exclamation marks, or smiley faces, or refer to themselves as "we" rather than "I", or consistently misspell the same word, or...so on. All of these would represent different writing styles. Ironholds ( talk) 02:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Still confused. If a user haven't made a single edit within a year from one account but then moved to another one, how can you tell if his writing style is different? I'm talking about Aspielman and AspieWiki. As far as we instead of I goes, isn't that what AspieNo1 is doing?-- Mishae ( talk) 03:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Aspielman's userpage is written in the first person and is relatively restrained; AspieWiki's is in the third person and features gratuitous caps lock. Ironholds ( talk) 03:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Than we should check AspieNo1 and AspieWiki. They both use caps.-- Mishae ( talk) 03:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Except one refers to themselves in the first-person plural and the other the first-person singular. Ironholds ( talk) 04:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And the difference is? Can a duck change its quack but still be a duck? In my opinion, absolutely.-- Mishae ( talk) 05:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, to take your allegory literally, no: quacking is one of the things that makes a duck a duck. But more importantly, checkuser is not for fishing. It exposes private information about user(s), and is only undertaken when there is legitimate evidence. Your evidence is "they registered months apart, have totally different behavioural patterns, but their username contains the same word". That's not enough, as the comments by other users about the previous SPI filing indicate. Ironholds ( talk) 05:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yes. But then we have users which aren't ducks. We do however have a duck test which makes our checkusers like hunters. Or my allegory is wrong here too? O.K. So maybe our user is not a duck, its a songbird. I live in Minnesota, so I know the difference between song #1 and song #2, and a slight change in chirping make it different. Your thoughts?-- Mishae ( talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm (and mention the original issue briefly, since you two are having fun!), AspieNo1 has confirmed explicitly that the use of "we" refers to people giving him or her material offline. S/he is the sole user and operator of the account. S/he has confirmed that anyone else who wishes to edit Wikipedia will be instructed to create their own single user unique account. AspieNo1 makes the sole judgment and is the sole editor here. Fiddle Faddle 14:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome :). Ironholds ( talk) 15:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Then except my apologies, but take caution. If a block will happen and he/she will start using any of the Aspie accounts, you were informed and advised.-- Mishae ( talk) 15:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

More accurately: if a block happens and he/she starts using any of the Aspie accounts you've mentioned.... sure. I'm prepared to live with that possibility. Ironholds ( talk) 15:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Case closed. Give me ping if it will escalate toward a block.-- Mishae ( talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)