User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Shusha

Hi John! You reverted last edits by TigranTheGreat at Shusha without any explanations. Ill be very grateful if you describe at the talk page what and why is disruptive in his edits (especially related to the Shushi massacres a topic which is represented by a strange quote about "Armenian attack" by an Armenian historian). Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading the talk page, and I see no consensus for the changes in that diff, and the edit summary was terrible. Do you personally believe that was a good edit? Are you standing up for those changes, as if it was your own? John Vandenberg (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Im supporting the most part (I can detalize which ones) so I think if something is dubious or discussed previously at talk we can rv or discuss, but why revert the whole edit by TigranTheGreat included justified and never discussed text? For example, a user (Basenius) made some changes which marks there was'nt term Azeris in 1905, there were Tartars (and there were Armenian-Tartar clashes in 1905-06). After the editwarrings started noone says why this edit is commonly unacceptable etc? Everyone knows its true and we can discuss the form of text by Bassenius I dont think if the basis.

Also my editions on 1920 massacres/pogrom were many times reverted to an Armenian historian without any discussion at the talk. How can we get a consesnus in a continuing undiscussed editwarring? Andranikpasha (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How to avoid edit warring? Easy: do only good edits, backed by quality academic research. Don't mix good faith improvements with changes that mess up the article. As an example of the silliness of that diff, TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs) replaced <ref name="penny"/> with {{Fact|date=March 2007}} - that had a reference, and what is more, I had asked for it to be transcribed and Grandmaster said he would do so, so that appropriate thing to do is wait (or do the transcription to prove that the ref wasnt appropriate). To remove it was very disruptive. There were many other problems with TigranTheGreat diff - I should not need to explain why it was so bad. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of a not clear source is not seems to be so bad action! and sorry, reverts of whole edit (also the good sourced parts; for that we have "partially rv") just cuz a little part of it is discussing at the time is also a kind of disruption! Its my opinion... Andranikpasha (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

more on the Shusha revert

Hi John. You recently reverted an entire set of edits in favor of suspected sockpuppet Grandmaster/Parishan/Atabek who in the course of the last two years has been using fake or irrelevant references in order to push their claims , which, in as a matter of fact, mirror what in Western academic sources was exposed as Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda. You intentionally or inadvertently support mentioned users and their disruptive tactics. I have not noticed that you possess subject-matter expertise or are keenly interested in discussed subjects in order to make such gestures. It was very suspicious that you brought in the issue of Penny cyclopedia on the Shusha talk page, and only minute later the user Grandmaster used it as a fake reference in the Shusha edit. I am assuming good faith but your behavior is undermining your credibility of a fair admin. Have a nice day. Bassenius (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bassenius, your suspicions about me are without basis or evidence. I do not favour anybodies edits. I favour edits that look appropriate. I have explained here and on User talk:TigranTheGreat why I considered that TigranTheGreat diff inappropriate.

In regards to the Penny cyclopedia, it has been used as a reference on the Shusha article since at least March of this year. I have noticed this with curiosity for a long time, and due to the recent activity on the Shusha page, I asked for it to be transcribed onto Wikisource, because

1. it is one of only a few English sources used on that page, and it is public domain. I am a strong proponent of using Public domain sources where possible, and recording them on Wikisource in order that everyone can see them.
2. it is hard to read the Google Books pages, and
3. I couldnt find the information that was being referenced.

That is the simple explanation of my actions - I dont know what actions of Grandmaster you are referring to; all I know is he has promised to transcribe the article onto Wikisource, which I think is fantastic. I eagerly await the result. It will be interesting to see what facts this old encyclopedia has hidden within its dusty covers. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I find the accusations John is either a sockpuppet or Azerbaijani quite amusing, especially considering I and a number of other long-term admins and users met him at a meetup just two or three weeks ago in Australia. Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, there is no requirement for subject-matter expertise, and given those with subject-matter expertise have seen this matter go to ArbCom twice through an inability to resolve their differences, it's probably better that those well outside the situation be given a go at resolving the matter as they're less likely to hold strong opinions in either direction. Rather than throwing accusations, I would suggest finding and putting forward credible sources Wikipedia can use per our reliable sources guidelines and neutral point of view policy (and to avoid original research) as being a more productive endeavour. Orderinchaos 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey , i just edited shushi and you changed it back ! i checked all the sources and it didnt include the piece i removed, therefore it isnt credible... im going to change it back ... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.89.163 (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Text Boxes for Azerbaijan Rayons

It seems you have removed the boxes that I'd been adding to Fizuli and maybe other Azerbaijan rayons. I don't understand why as I was simply doing as I'd been requested - ie to help improve Azerbaijan pages and had been adding in same-style text boxes as those previously used in other cases on other Azerbaijan rayons.

It seems strangely negative to simply remove these boxes which had taken some time for me to prepare (including the checking of population figs, post codes etc).

If you don't like the actual design of the boxes, then why not change them rather than simply reverting? In the mean time I'll revert them to how they were so that if people want to they don't at least need to look up the figures all over again... Malikbek (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC) PS Sorry if I'm writing this in the wrong place, as I'm new to this wiki game.

Thanks for the message... Malikbek (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan

A tag has been placed on Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

First issue of Scientific American

Hi! I've uploaded scan of the first issue of Scientific American to Commons this march (see [1]). I noticed that you recognized the first page on wiktionary. I have the full first issue and of course, if you want, I can scan the rest pages. Should I? --Boleslav1 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All right! I'll scan them the other day in maximum possible quality and tell you. --Boleslav1 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha

I harassed no one. Read the two threads in full. Marskell (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's truly bizarre that you are removing that. I was hoping Orangemarlin would stop by and understand that all was well. Whatever. Marskell (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By removing it, you're managing the page yourself. He had managed it by going to the hide/show format. That seemed perfectly fair to me. Because you've removed, Orangemarlin is still under the impression the editor is up to know good; see here. Removing a second time has only confused matters. Marskell (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Note received and accepted. The revision history of the page is a mess, admittedly, and hard to follow. Best, Marskell (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks.

Thanks for standing up. I am sorry you and Marskell had a misunderstanding with my confusing edits to my own talk page (which complicated matters). Marskell, I think, was incorrect regarding warnings, but he or she seemed to be nice enough. ^S_wa_r^m _In^t_er_nat_ioⁿal_e 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

^H

Sorry, I slipped and hit enter before I should have. Anyway, the redirection page, ^H was put into a category it should not have been. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects states that "most redirects should not be categorized. Examples include misspellings, minor variations of article titles, obscure alternate titles, and abbreviations." -- H3xx ^(t|c) 03:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a special category just for redirects: Category:Redirects. Wikipedia is so wonderful, don't you think?

-- H3xx ^(t|c) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

pro-Azeri edits

Hi John! Surely any editor is free to do biased editions. Its even no amazing when they are obvious and too much! Personally me believe that admin's should have less rights to show their bias. but thats for the future. And now pls lets wait for a mediation which will go on at Shusha pogrom (1920) after you made your too much unacceptable (personally for my as Im an author there) and non-compromisse editions on that article during a long period! Best, Andranikpasha (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Verjakette and Bassenius

Greetings John, could you do me a favour and offer the same offer to Bassenius that you gave to Verjakette. I'm very curious as to the response you'd get. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani language

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have just responded. Parishan (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: on copyright

Sorry for having not answered for so long, but I have absolutely no idea how I can help. This speech that you speak of is sourced from a Singaporean organisation, which country it is based in also acknowledges Malay as a national language. Lee Hsien Loong is also Singaporean, so the entire issue falls under Singapore's jurisdiction. I have no knowledge of Singapore's copyright policy since I deal more specifically to Malaysia-related articles, but you should have better luck asking anyone affliated with Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board. Sorry again for my belatedness.

Further replies are best made in Two hundred percent's talk page. - Two hundred percent (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, coarse language, racism...

Hello,

Can we do something about this? Parishan (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki needed

Hey there, we just got a new article, Executive Order 13198, that needs to be transwikied to Wikisource. I was told that you use Wikisource often, so I was hoping you could help out. The article's also been put up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive Order 13198. Thanks! GlassCobra 22:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Montreal 24heures 01 11 mars 2005.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Montreal 24heures 01 11 mars 2005.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence on Adil's sockpuppetry

Hi John, I have collected some evidence that Adil = Ehud, here you at User:Fedayee/LesarBaguirov_Evidence. I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read. - Fedayee (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, thank you; I will look into this, but it will take some time as I am only familiar with specific topics in this region that I have been involved in. I am keen to expand my knowledge of the topics and the disputes. As your evidence is based on editing patterns and topical tendencies, I will need time in order to become familiar with Adil's behaviour; in the meantime, please assume that Ehud is not Adil when dealing with the user. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded here as well: User talk:Fedayee/LesarBaguirov Evidence.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been three days now. Why have you not responded?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been Christmas here, which has reduced the amount of time I have been able to spend online. I also administrate Wikisource, and that often takes priority as there are only a handful of admins there. I have started looking into this. Note that as a rule I avoid meaningless chatter - I respond when I have something useful to say. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Harry Potter newspapers and magazines

An article that you have been involved in editing, Harry Potter newspapers and magazines, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee

Just in case you didn't get to read my comment on Fedayee's talk page (and given your unawareness of the Wiki rules, you may have a reading disability. I am not trying to insult you, just raising an important concern), I am posting it here as well.

WP:AGF is not a policy. It is a guideline which "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (WP:AGF). Saying that someone is a sockpuppet is not a violation of AGF--someone may engage in sockpuppetry with good faith (i.e. believing that he is making Wikipedia better). Good evidence alone is enough to point out suspicious behavior--be it disruptive editing, or sockpuppetry. It provides effective common sense restriction against abuse. Otherwise, users would abuse the system freely until "proof" could be achieved, which could be never (especially if the admin asking for a proof is biased).

Furthermore, a penalty should be applied after an official warning is placed on a user's talk page, and the user is told that continued violation will result in blocking. It's spelled out in the ArbCom decision: "Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 Poorly worded and vulgar requests (containing stupid phrases such as "shut up") on other pages do not count.

It is clear that you are ignorant of the policies and rules of Wikipedia. You need to step down as an admin and first aquaint yourself with the rules. Before you do that, you need to lift Fedayee's block. If you don't, we, as Wikipedia users, will make sure that you are forced to step down.

If you reply, do it either here or on Fedayee's talk page. I do not want you to spam my talk page with your lengthy tirades as you have done before. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone can engage in accuse someone of sockpuppetry with good faith, either by filing a request, or by quietly compiling evidence on a user page, as Fedayee was doing. I even agreed to assist Fedayee in correlating the data and reviewing it.

That is very different from using an incomplete analysis that has not been confirmed by an admin as a basis for accusing another user of sockpuppetry. Fedayee was warned to stop doing it, but he continued.

p.s. I can read fine. If you have any concerns that I have a problem with reading, feel free to review my contributions and ponder on the question: could I really write so much without the ability to read? Food for thought. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that user A cannot accuse user B of sockpuppetry if user A has good faith basis to believe so. You are making rules up. And WP:AGF is not a policy. And warnings have to be on the user's talk page and clearly indicate that he will be blocked next time. Your behaviour is more like baiting. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:AN#Block on Fedayee; please review. Please discuss there rather than everywhere else. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear John Vandenberg, out of curiosity, and since one side of the Aremnia-Azerbaijan conflict strongly feels that you are not neutral, I have been studying your contributions, and you do have a history of mysteriously appearing on various articles in which User:Grandmaster is involved in, usually to support User:Grandmaster's position in an editorial conflict. There is an undeniable pattern that supports this assertion, so in light of this, can you please clarify the nature of your relationship with User:Grandmaster? Are you in contact with User:Grandmaster outside Wikipedia via emails and instant messaging? --JamesDS (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am in contact with Grandmaster besides on Wikipedia, as I am with hudreds of Wikipedians, via email, mailing lists, IRC, IM and other Wikimedia projects. Specifically Grandmaster often provides page scans of works that are not available online, and has on a few occasions provided translations that I have requested.

To forestall the next question, I received no communication from Grandmaster over the Christmas period, and never has Fedayee been mentioned in communication between him and I, nor has any other Armenian user still in good standing within the community. My block of Fedayee was unrelated to any other dispute (I dont recall even being in any topical dispute with Fedayee) - it was solely to put a stop to Fedayee's accusations against user Ehud, and canvassing of support for a block, based on an incomplete sock analysis - that block has been considered reasonable by uninvolved admins.

From what I have seen, Grandmaster is involved in the majority of the topical disputes in the Azeri-Armenian region, most of which I never go near because I do not like to get involved where I do not have sufficient knowledge of either the topic or the history of the Wikipedia article. I am not aware that my input has closely matched Grandmaster; I recall having different opinions to him on a significant number of occasions.

As best I can recall, the few articles that I have been involved in content disputes are either due to onwiki requests from Grandmaster or others, due to already being involved in closely related articles, or because my watchlist includes a growing number articles from this region. I have also received a emails over the last year from various Azeri and Armenian users who have since been banned, so it is possible I ended up diving into an article based on those emails.

I vehemently reject any notion that I am anything but neutral in the few issues which I have tackled. Please feel free to point out one or two occasions where you think that it looks like I was merely supporting Grandmaster, and I will give you a complete background of my involvement.

Now, as I have been very open and clear, could you please explain how you ended up learning of this matter?

John Vandenberg (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see here[2] VartanM (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reminded White Cat that accusations are counter-productive: User talk:White Cat#Andranikpasha and ASALA. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the emails, I strongly urge you save them. They might be requested as evidence in due time. VartanM (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan thing

I see you are active on the issue, please take a look at the following two discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Turkics in Armenia <-> Azerbaijanis in Armenia

-- Cat ^chi? 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See this is how much I pay attention to that flame war. I guess you are already looking at that. I strongly suggest bringing this problem to the attention of the greater community. The clue stick needs to be swung a few times. -- Cat ^chi? 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

White Cat

This is user is disrupting the project.

• He just attacked the Armenian genocide memorial images. He deleted the ones in commons and requested the ones on wikipedia to be deleted as well [3] He is a known Armenian genocide denier[4] and his actions are disruptive and insulting. I request immediate attention. VartanM (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  Armenian copyright law is binding in the United States where the Wikimedia servers are. I did not write the Armenian law. I did not write Wikipedias/Commons' free content policy. I am merely enforcing all three. -- Cat ^chi? 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're specific targeting of Armenian genocide memorial pictures is an insult to me as well as any Armenian. I demand that you be baned from touching Armenian Genocide related articles. VartanM (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to complain to the Armenian government over their copyright law. I will be the first person to undelete them if you cite me such a decision by the Armemian government. I focus on various topics from time to time. A little while ago I was deleting US license plates in bulk over copyright concerns. State License plates are not copyrighted by the US federal government and hence are copyrighted. You are welcome to rise objections on commons:Commons:Undeletion requests if you like. -- Cat ^chi? 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographic excitement over at WP:VPT

If I can briefly digress your Talk page from arbcommish stressful stuff, there is a fun conversation at the Village Pump about bibliographic tools. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha and ASALA

This is counter-productive; I did block Fedayee for repeating accusations of sockpuppetry. It is quite likely that there is offwiki canvassing going on here, but the article is on the noticeboards, so it will sort itself out in due course. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I dealt with sockpuppets from the Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense for quite sometime. For example I was rather active on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad: (page history). I helped expose a good number of Artaxiad's sockpuppets. That #Raw_data was generated with my intervention. So yes, I have been dealing with this issue. I merely had taken a long break as dealing with this is more then stressful as you probably agree.

I did not randomly go to Penwhale, he the person placing VartanM under the restrictions and I merely pointed out identical edits by Andranikpasha. All this was before the issue was on the noticeboards.

I merely do not want any of the Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense leaking to that specific article. Now that the problem is under scope, I do not believe we will see any more of the nonsense on that article.

I clearly am not the source of the problem here and would welcome a little more courtesy. That was the first time I used the word "sockpuppet" in months.

Is there any way I can help you regarding either this or some other problem?

-- Cat ^chi? 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, "I clearly am not the source of the problem". You're POV pushing on using non-neutral sources and have spilled the content dispute on administrator noticeboards and their talkpages. and you claim not to be the source of this? VartanM (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration clerk

FT2 mentioned that you had contacted him a few weeks ago about being an arbitration clerk. Are you still interested? If so, read WP:AC/C and WP:AC/CN and then let me know. Thatcher 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Montreal 24heures 01 11 mars 2005.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Montreal 24heures 01 11 mars 2005.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Account creation

Hi, thanks for this. Everything's working fine. Cowardly Lion (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat ^chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource licensing of Emperor Hirohito's speech.

Thanks for the heads up. Released into PD. Cheers Manning (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Townsville-Burdekin School District

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Townsville-Burdekin School District, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As the unblocking admin, just wanted to let you know that BM has been editing outside the parameters of his unblock condition. Notified Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard per your unblock comment diff link. Not sure if I left it in the right place there or not, please let me know for future reference. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And I am curious why he wasn't blocked again for his yet again violation of his unblock restrictions? -- ALLSTARecho 15:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the latest attack where we're all just "thuggish, self-righteous and over-bearing"... -- ALLSTARecho 09:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Missed one? ALLSTARecho 15:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial deletion of article

Could John Vandenberg or Fransvannes show me a Wikipedia regulation which would state that a copyright permission cannot be granted retroactively. And that the work of banned users should be deleted. Yerkatagear (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh: Monuments of History, Architecture and Art was a blatant copyright violation, by two users who are now banned. Move along, nothing to see here. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yerkatagear, the deletion took place right after the discussions when I suggested to do all the copyedits as the topic itself is surely notable. anyways im not amazed for such a result... We can just work out a different article on Artsakh culture. Andranikpasha (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Starting again, without violating other peoples copyright, would be a good idea. Creating stubs about related topics is the best place to start. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My question still stand: show me a Wikipedia regulation which would state that a copyright permission cannot be granted retroactively. I was about to get a permission, only to realize that the article was deleted. I am not sure that there was any copyright violation at all to begin with. The text in question was developed, expanded and well-referenced; there was no repetition of pics. By they way - are you an administrator? If you do not answer the first question, I would assume that you:

1. not aware of Wiki regulations, and are acting at your will or whim; in essence, this is vandalism. and please do not get me the "move along." Vandalism is a punishable offense and you will be held responsible. There was a piece of work of great encyclopedic value that was lost. 2. as many pointed out on this very page, you may be meatpuppetting or sockpuppetting for certain Grandmaster. Indeed, as I noticed too, only minutes after this Grandmaster an his suspected socks Parishan and Atabek make an abusive claim, here you are enforcing their abuse. You have confessed that you maintain a permanent link to Grandmaster, and that your behavior may be explained by routine favors that Grandmaster does to you (scanning texts for Wikisource). Get me the answers. Please. Yerkatagear (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am an administrator. Stop pestering me with your false allegations. We are here to write an encyclopedia that is freely licensed, and that includes deleting copyright violations. This copyright violation came to my attention because I had been monitoring the two authors of this article, who turned out to be proven sockpuppets. Ironically, it is because Andranikpasha, Grandmaster and you commented on the talk page that I looked into it. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, please cease your involvement in Armenian-Az. controversies

I looked into the issue again and see that the two authors of the article (Verjakette and Bassenius) were not proven to be sockpuppets, they were qualified "suspected sockpuppet/sockmaster" -- this is a bona fide, verifiable "false allegation." sorry, but in every step of the way you do not fail to show that you are biased in the Armenian-Az. issues. I urge you to reconsider your involvement in Armenian-Az articles. Yerkatagear (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Artaxiad, they were all similar enough that Dmcdevit said that they are all likely to be the same person, and Picaroon blocked them all. They were banned for abusing our Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry policy. You are trolling. Go contribute to our wonderful encyclopedia, otherwise I will urge others to ban you from being involved on any articles. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez ArbCom case

Thank you for your note on whether a person can be added to an ongoing ArbCom. I appreciate it. Wjhonson (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Again thank you, I was completely unaware that sub-pages existed, I didn't see it linked off the main discussion page on the RfA. Wjhonson (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I didn't even notice until now. Wjhonson (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reblock User: Bluemarine?

Hi, could you please consider reblocking User: Bluemarine? He persists in attacking other editors despite many reasonable efforts and blocks to curb such behaviors. Latest unprovoked attacks here. Benjiboi 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jayvdb, there was a discussion at Wikipedia:AN/I#Reblock User: Bluemarine? about this. Addhoc (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I started that discussion, which was closed with directing me to the Arbcom to "Take it up there with one of the clerks" hence my posting here to the clerk on the case. Benjiboi 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Addhoc (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is forced to read Bluemarines talk page, so it is in everyones best interest to keep the talk page unprotected if possible. The clerks, and others, are removing any attacks that are placed on that page. I suggest that all parties to the case stay away from that page. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

So that I can distract vandals from wanting to vandalize. NHRHS2010 13:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not a vandal. When I refer 'vandals' and legitimate users see my joke, I am letting them know why the joke is there. NHRHS2010 13:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tatev

Thanks, I checked it out and added a comment. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Journal of Psychohistory

Please take a look at what I posted yesterday in Talk:Journal of Psychohistory. Thanks. —Cesar Tort 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Academic Journals

Hi there. Things have gone a bit quiet over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals (I didn't check in for a long time myself). I've started up two new subpages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Images and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Scope (please see the talk pages as well), in the hope that this might generate some comment or activity. I've notified three other active contributors, but what about the others on the members list? A newsletter seems overkill at the moment, but is there a way to keep things more active? The weekly collaborations seemed to work well for a while, but maybe a monthly one is better? Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ZZZZSTUV

I answered your question on Talk:IBM 7030 Stretch. -- RTC (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine

I think it needs to be clarified and stated somewhere that Matt Sanchez the person, is banned for one year, regardless of the username or IP he used to edit. As it stands now, only "Bluemarine" is banned, yet his other username User:Mattsanchez isn't because the wording doesn't specifiy. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakhchivan

Hi John. We have a dispute with regard to the page move on Nakhchivan and a number of related articles. A third party opinion would be much appreciated. Please see Talk:Nakhichevan. Thanks in advance. Grandmaster (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the problem has been resolved. Sorry for disturbing. Grandmaster (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

The photo the Matt Sanchez profile is using should not be used. It is the photo from my ID and i have had problems with Identity theft. I'd ask you not to use it.

I do have ownership of the other Francis Brutus photo. If that is not acceptable there's another photo I uploaded.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:MattSanchezchopper.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewsanchez (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The above user has been banned indefinitely[5], and is evading his block. He has no copyright to the photo he is claiming he owns. --Eleemosynary (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. Blocks are to prevent misbehaviour and disruption; leaving a comment on my talk is hardly a problem. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

His very message was a disruption. Sanchez is relaying untruths about photos he would like deleted from his article page. --Eleemosynary (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a report on WP:AE here and Luna Santin has now instituted an indefinite block of user:matthewsanchez. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

John, I don't know when you first saw the message from Matt. However, your edit to the talk page of Matt Sanchez occurred half an hour before anyone did anything about this sock. I recognise that you don't see the issue as serious, but I am disturbed that an ArbCom Clerk-in-training appears to have seen the creation of a sock puppet of a newly ArbCom-banned user and take no apparent action. No response pointing out to Matt that his new user identity is a breach of ArbCom's decision. No apparent consideration that the new user identity might do anything other than post on your talk page - after all, as you well know, throughout the case Matt was repeatedly unblocked, posted in places from which he was banned, and then re-blocked. Taking no action (or at least, no on-wiki action) when this new user appeared seems to me to be a lapse in judgement on your part, and I am raising this here (rather than at the AN/I discussion) as a more private place to suggest that you reflect on your choices here. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in a meeting when I saw it. I had intended to block the user in due course, with a polite message informing Matt to use my commons talk page or OTRS if needed. I was the previous blocking admin, so I didnt expect anyone to go running off to ANI/AE over this, especially when the sock had not been used disruptively except on my talk page. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that you were the previous blocking admin, and I know the message was polite. Neither alters the fact that you chose not to act - not even a "busy, will come back to this - and Matt, you aren't really allowed to post like this" - but did choose to take other actions. Judging from the time stamps (and your comments), it appears that you saw the message, were busy in a meeting, decided that you were too busy to institute a block or to even leave a message to Matt saying "you really aren't allowed to post here, and don't post anywhere else or people will react", then (despite being in meeting) paused only to issue a warning on talk:Matt Sanchez, dropped over to Commons to defend an image created by Matt and uploaded by Elonka (who isn't a proxy for Matt), and then returned to your meeting. Do you see why your judgement might appear to be a little off here? Jay*Jay (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I did those actions while in the meeting, and did so because they were discussions that needed input quickly because they were heading in the wrong direction. As the contribs history of sock clearly indicates, that situation was under control. By the time I had finished drafting my block notice (this is during my meeting), the block had already been done.

I do not appreciate the suggestion that I am defending the image; I was indicating that freedom of panarama, which is usually mentioned in regards to architecture, is not reason to delete that other image. On Commons, I do not care about any issue or POV except for copyright and free content.

John Vandenberg (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

John, I could point to the contribution history during the case to show that the notion of Matt as "under control" is wishful thinking, but there would be no point. I posted here because I thought (and still think) that your actions were questionable. I pointed out why that was the case, and tried to illustrate why they look problematic from the outside. I understand the instinct to become defensive, but there is no need to defend yourself. Remember that my original suggestion was "to reflect on your choices". We all make mistakes, but learning from them requires we recognise them. I am simply suggesting that you ask yourself whether the response indicates that it would have been better to have acted differently - and if so, to consider the reasons behind the choices made. There is no reason for you to describe where any such reflections might lead. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

John, you might like to look at / comment on my recent post to the ArbCom discussion page here. It suggests an option that would allow Matt to raise concerns in a nono-disruptive and policy-compliant manner (if ArbCom were to implement the suggestion). Jay*Jay (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your edits to Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP)Eschoir (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Drafts

Sorry. I'm done now.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. I'm sorry again... I'm going to close my browser now and not look at for a few hours.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

Hi, is WP:RFAR#Dr_who1975 a request for a new arbcom case, or is it regarding a prior case? John Vandenberg (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a new request. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you attempted other methods of dispute resolution ? John Vandenberg (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr_who1975 requested arbitration. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiombe Lockhart

Hello, John Vandenberg ... How could you possibly close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiombe Lockhart as Keep? That wasn't even close to the consensus! (I mean, I can live with No consensus, so Keep, but this is pure weapons grade Balognium, IMHO) ... I've never initiated a Deletion review before, but if I must get "Administrative" about this one, then it will be a New Experience for me ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}

Give me a few minutes and I'll go back and review. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right; I did see no consensus, and felt that there hadnt been enough discussion of the available resources that could demonstrate notability. There is a big backlog on AFD at the moment - my apologies for not being more clear. I have no problem with deletion if there is more discussion and it turns out those sources arnt as significant as I have quickly presumed they are. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please Relist for continued discussion ... note that I am the nominator ... BTW, since you have an interest in protocols, what do you think of my Flag-templates like WP:FLAG-BIO, and my {{Flag-article}} (see Talk:Tiombe Lockhart) and {{Flag-editor}} (see User talk:MrMPS) templates? I'm going to stick a dummied {{Oldprodfull}} on Talk:Tiombe Lockhart to use as an example. :-) — 72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there are backlogs, the discussion wasnt very detailed, so I made a judgement call. Simple as that. I suggest you do more research with the intent to prepare a better AFD nomination, and AFD it again if you are absolutely sure it can not be improved. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy that ... I have little interest in the subject one way or the other ... I am more interested in the process ... for example, that you went back and fixed the {{Oldafdfull}} says that you are the kind of conscientious editor who would also update a {{Oldprodfull}} if you encountered one,  :-)

Based on this article alone, I'm even thinking about a {{Oldcsdfull}} for flagging speedy deletions that have been declined ... a bot should flag the talk page instead of editors having to visually scan the history looking for an edit summary with "CSD" in it.

So, any comments on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol, or the smoke&mirrors draft of Template:Oldprodful? For a deletionist, I'm trying Very Hard to be a proactive contributor to Wikipedia by offering tools that can be used to save articles as well as delete them ...

"Most people just surf the Web; a few of us make the waves."

I HATE complicated procedures, and never do anything by hand that I can write a program to do ... I believe that's why God created programming languages.

I believe that bots should do as much of the administrative bookkeeping as possible, so I'm making templates that Some Other Editor can use, either by hand, or writing a bot to utilize them ... I wrote bots in C for Active Worlds over a decade ago, including a chat-bot based on a Fortran version of ELIZA, but I am still ramping-up on the MediaWiki tools ... and that's where I'm coming from ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk) _{06:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)}

Your ideas do have merit, and it would be great if you built the bots to go with them. I suggest you download a copy of m:pywikipedia, or one of the other mediawiki bot frameworks, and get to work. If you want to practise working with a bot in a smaller wiki with less red tape and more flexibility, come over to Wikisource and drop me a note. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Harlequin (color) deletion discussion

I hope you realize that you just effectively killed the discussion, which murder will result in maintenance of the current (terrible) status quo w.r.t. stub dictdef color articles. I don't particularly care, but the result is certainly harmful to Wikipedia. --jacobolus (t) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Try and keep it going; if discussion doesnt keep going, come and grab me in a few days. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Mississippi Election Page

• • Did you see where I wrote this before you responded:

The use of the word "declined" comes from the fact that they declined to file for the election in spite of speculation from the local media. If Steelbeard has a problem with the word "declined" then we can change it to something else, but he doesn't want to do that, he wants to remove the information entirely. If you have a problem with the word "declined" then we can usea different term but I don't want the names completely deleted.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Restore of UN Security Resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh War

Thanks very much John, my primary motivation for the restoration of the article was to compare it to some links that user:Eupator posted in the Ehud Lesar arbitration case but I think it might have some value as an article after your rewrite. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tool News

Maynard James Keenan has been nominated for GA and is currently on hold. It should be listed within the next couple of days. It has also been listed for peer review, and is planned for an FA nomination after a couple of reviews are completed. All help once the drive for FA begins is certainly appreciated!

In the meantime:

The current WikiProject Tool Collaboration of the Month is Lateralus Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

Thanks to everyone for all your hard work. The project is off to a great start! Lara❤Love 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wall of Shame

I personally took the Wall of shame picture and do not understand why it has been deleted. Please advise.

• Columbia University demonstration against Matt Sanchez 2006 An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.
  Columbia University demonstration against Matt Sanchez 2006
  

  ---

  An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

Kiosque

On 2/10/2008 I appeared in the French language program of Kiosque.[6]

I am described as a "Correspondent de Guerre" War journalist and a "journaliste"[7] I'll let you figure out what that means.

http://tv5.org/TV5Site/kiosque/intervenant.php?id=138 71.247.181.254 (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on Commons, and blocked your IP address from editing here. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ferdinando Pisani

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ferdinando Pisani, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinando Pisani. Thank you. Edcolins (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I there, yes I see reason for notability was given, not sure why someone wants to delete it again. thanks in any case. --Nando65 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinando Pisani

Hi Jay. I see you had earlier stated that notability was asserted for this article. I will note vote myself since I may have a conflict of interest, however if you are interested indeed in confirming notability, you may contribute to the discussion on deletion here. Cheers, --Nando65 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Younge and Elizabeth Young

Hi, when I was new at Wikisource, and was messing around with Love and Freindship, you told me to use this template and to put {{similar|Love and Friendship}} at the top of the page.

Here at Wikipedia, I recently started the article Elizabeth Younge — a Shakespearean actress. There's also an Elizabeth Young — a literary critic (not started by me). Is there something I should use at the top of those two articles?

Thanks. Cowardly Lion (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

NWT mediation

I have intentionally avoided this issue because I have no confidence in the veracity of Mr Shilmer, specifically in his claim to be a present member of the religion being discussed while frequently making edits with a negative slant regarding that religion and its policies (usually by highlighting negative truths and ignoring positive truths), and having made other negative (less subtle) statements about the religion on other websites. Also, I predicted that there would be much circumlocutory in the mediation process. For these reasons, I am minimizing discussion involving Mr Shilmer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of ScienceAplogist

John, I ask that you reconsider your block. I believe you have made an error, as ScienceApologist was not notified of either the WQA or AE reports by Tom Butler. Tom also made no request for refactoring to SA, either on his talk page or where the comment was made. SA refactored immediately on being notified of the complaint, as far as I can see. Evidence described here. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only just joined Wikipedia, and think I shall not be here very much longer. This amounts to cruel form of persecution in my view. What he said was not meant seriously, was harmless, and he is trying to do the right think by the encyclopedia. This place is clearly filling up slowly with cult followers, crackpots and cranks, and the actions of people like yourself are simply encouraging this. Would you reconsider your decisions. Respectfully The Rationalist (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I second what Jay*Jay writes above. And the only place where I disagree with The Rationalist is his or her use of "simply". -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He, in fact. The Rationalist (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez - another sock

Another sock Special:Contributions/68.55.219.186 left this bit of loveliness. Benjiboi 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And again he returns: Special:Contributions/208.54.95.64 with more abuse, this time directed at Eleemosynary and me. Apparently when I supported the retention of the wall of shame image, or argued for the Columbia image on the Matt Sanchez page, I was being childish and unprofessional, and I am a fellow traveller of homosexuals and sodomites. I have requested the block of th IP be extended by the blocking admin and recorded on the ArbCom page. In the meantime, is there no way we can stop him froms doing this? Also, if you happen to speak to Matt on commons, you might consider pointing out that actions like this don't help his cause. I certainly have no intention of speaking with him directly. Ironically, it is my professionalism that will make me continue to support having a balanced article, although being abused for doing so does grate. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Slakr has blocked it for a short duration; I'll look into it tonight to see if a longer block is appropriate (i.e. if the IP is statically assigned), and your suggestion to pursue this onto Commons sounds good. Give me a bit of time on that front OK. I just want to double check things first. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I realise Matt isn't your responsibility, so your willingness to try and get him to behave is appreciated. I wish you every luck, as I think you'll need it. Best, Jay*Jay (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I cant block this IP for longer due to the nature of that address. It is worth pointing out that the three blocks so far are from three different states in USA. At present there isn't a lot we can do to prevent this, except block quickly. If it keeps happening on your talk pages, we could protect them from anon users, but that has draw backs so it is your call - but, im happy to do it if it is requested. I've put all if your talk pages on my watchlist in the hope that I can help prevent it. If it continues, we should take it to the CU to see what additional light they can shed on the matter. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective I think we should simply note this in the block logs of the arbitration as it seems likely Sanchez has/is moving to other wikis so this at least my provide a history for admins over there to at least reference. Benjiboi 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Arran

Hi John. Could you please help us with the move of the page of Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan). We reached the consensus on talk of the article to move it to the title of simply Arran, as it is the most popular use of the word, and to move disambug page to Arran (disambig). I would appreciate your assistance in performing the move. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource

Well I did indeed find something to add so I thought I'd let you know to check it out, wikisource:Civil Action 98-2406 (HHK), Schwarz v. United States Department of Treasury, et al. if you're still interested in helping me out over there. Anynobody 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded at s:User talk:Anynobody. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I was missing something

I misunderstood the antecedent; I thought a different editor was being discussed there. Already cleared up with the editor I reverted. GRBerry 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

improved

You improved it, thanks Eschoir (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

I was under the impression that articles weren't reverted before being protected? Benjiboi 00:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have explained myself on the talk page. I did the combo because I felt it was the right way forward - I wont be surprised if my action results in friendly fire, but I will let other admins review whether it was the right call. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

John, in the interests of transparency, I'd like you to know that I have sought advice from Newyorkbrad on his talk page. I have deliberately asked the question about the principles of the situation without giving specifics as I don't want the two issues to be conflated. I will follow up depending on how he responds, but I would ask that you not comment until he has had a chance to respond to the question I have asked. I am willing to explain why I have chosen this path, should you wish, but I'd prefer not to do so until Newyorkbrad provides a response - I don't want to influence the outcome. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

John, Newyorkbrad simply directed me to the relevant policy page. I have now asked that he review the specific situation. The request is here. I disagree with your call - I think this was a clear case where reversion was not justified. You had the option of acting as an editor and reverting to your preferred version - and calling for an outside admin to comment; you had the option of acting as an admin and protecting on the wrong version. By doing both, you used tools to advance your content position, in my opinion. I have no idea whether Brad will see it the way I do, and I will respect his position, so what I am looking for is a quick resolution and a move forward. It is my view that asking Brad to look at it will produce finality in a way that asking an uninvolved admin or at AN/I would not. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never intended to be a content editor of that article/topic, and dont give a toss which image is selected. Post arbcom I have been trying to inject some neutral advise, especially wrt to Commons practises, image copyright, etc, and am surprised that anyone would for one minute think that I am involved in this article except as a monitor of article due to the editing restrictions.

I was appalled that editors were under the impression that an edit summary was sufficient justification for a revert.[8] The mistake on my part, if there is one, is that I was not more neutral when I kicked off the initial discussion about the infobox image. I reverted because there was a discussion going on in the revert edit summaries, and that is wrong, especially under editing restrictions; I started the discussion because nobody else had, and I was clearly saying that those types of arguments need to be discussed in detail on the talk in order that everyone can understand what the issues are. Consensus is achieved when people discuss a matter, and editors are either persuaded or willing to make concessions. I am appalled that editors continued to edit war while the discussion was barely started, so I locked it down. There was support for Dressblues in spite of claimed "POV problems" that were not appropriate rationale because this is a BLP. I reverted to ensure that the opposers did not win the content battle simply because they they had more voices and were more active on that article. Of course I was aware that it was controversial type of approach, but I did take the time to consider if it was the right thing to do. It is not surprising that the editors there want to crucify me for forcing them to actually prove their point. I am surprised at how strongly they ABF, and I am surprised that you are among their ranks. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cholga/Boomgaylove

Cholga was identified as part of a large sockpuppet farm at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove, see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. I suspect Cholga is the puppetmaster account as this is the oldest of them. Did you have a particular reason for your inquiry? Best, Gwernol 01:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks also for linking the block notice to the RfCU, which is useful. I'm afraid the whole Cholga situation impinges on a number of unfortunate situations, including Matt Sanchez. I had been suspicious of QRC2006's edits for some time and am disappointed that despite assurances of good faith from that editor that he/she turned out to be a particularly insidious editor. Best, Gwernol 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)