User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 16

WP reform

Good idea. In the "Areas of concern" page I set up, there is space for discussing the mediation committee, arbcom, and also transparency and accountability at WP. Perhaps you can spark some discussion there? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I will give it thought. I confess, though, that you have listed none of my primary "areas of concern", with the exception of BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I left blank templates, for other people to add those areas theythey consider more important for concern. The top of the page explains that people who come should add areas of concern I missed (I can't think of everything!) Thanks for helping out! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what are the othe "areas of concern" that you will add? Which ones for you are primary? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I will be adding, although some areas of concern include conflation of "civility" with "no bad language" and also, I am very concerned that some of the newer crop of admins are woefully ignorant of such things as can an editor remove warnings from his or her own talk page? and such. The older admins came primarily from academia and the geekverse; I used to proofread for Project Gutenberg. Then they came from Ask and Yahoo Answers; more used to immediate feedback and scores, but still ok. Now with Wikipedia in the top 10 of all sites and the #1 reference site, it seems a lot of them come from MySpace and have a clique-ish mentality. We're still promoting editors as not likely to abuse the tools. I'm not sure that's scaled that well. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your point about civility is a very important one. I will add it in my own wording but given your thoughts on the matter I wish you would join the discussion and hopefully have a significant impact (and then of course you are free to rephrase what I write). I agree with you about the demographic change at Wikipedia and I do not know a concise and clear way to phrase it so I just hope you will come over and raise the topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Venture Capital Players

Hi, thank you so much for your feedback on the Luke Heron deletion thread. I was wondering whether I could trouble you for some advice (also looking for a mentor!)

Firstly.....I just wanted to explain a little bit about what I am wanting to do on the subject of venture capital players and specifically, investors and entrepreneurs that are doing things to change the investment landscape - develop new products, creating new ideas etc. I penned a short piece (my first so please go easy on me) about the UK based investor - Luke Heron - that has pioneered the process of making collectables an asset class. He attracts a lot of written press (I've done my best to dig this up but as he was previously an internet tipster, sifting the content is blooming difficult).

My first effort was more detailed than it appears now but as some of the information had been gleamed from not overly independent sources, I quickly edited it (I've had to learn quickly). There are a good number of references to support the notability of the subject, though clearly I am not using ones which satisfy everyone. The Financial Times piece actually talks about Heron and his company for almost half of the piece - which I am not sure how that doesn't back up notability on the particular note of his involvement in alternative investments as an asset class.

I am really keen to develop the wider area of investors, particularly "celebrity" investors - Heron was both a presenter and guest tipster on the game show Trading Places (internet TV and cable) for quite a while and his commentary as a tipster moved share prices on UK markets on a daily basis. Perhaps that element makes him more interesting than what I have detailed. The reality is he is well-known and pioneering a new asset class - one which does not have a great deal of coverage as yet - is (I feel) important. There are countless mentions of him in the main press...."Internet tipster Luke Heron says...etc etc", but clearly these references are no good and also irrelevant as they reference his past as an internet based tipster.

I am trying my best to learn the wiki ways quickly (I have been keen to contact anyone and everyone for help and advice about wiki articles and what can be done to improve them). If you had time to offer a little advice - as I say, I am really keen on adding further pieces on a number of investors, Scott Fletcher, Tom Winnifrith, Nigel Wray, Nick Leslau etc etc, but I need to get the format right with the first one - I am keen to understand all the things I need to do to be a good contributor.

I think that specific investors that are pioneering a new area of investment and pitching it as a new asset class are essential candidates for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but I am obviously keen to get this right. Any help and any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated. I have offered entirely independent links and as time goes by I will want to add further detail (as will others I am sure). As you can imagine, it is a little frustrating working at something, constantly editing it to satisfy different editors who have different views on notability, suitability etc. As I said in the deletion thread, it all comes down to an individuals view on whether (in this instance for example) an investor developing a new asset class is worthy of inclusion. THe subject matter clearly is, but I have obviously fallen short on execution. Any help, advice and pointers would be very useful. I am trying to learn and have requested a mentor on my home page......here's hoping. Myra (MyraSendak (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

What a great attitude, and what enthusiasm! I know it can be difficult at first but I'm sure you have what it takes to stick it out and become a great contributor. I presume you've read WP:FIRST, and possibly perused the WP:RULES, WP:MOS and so on?

It might help to write the article in a sandbox in your userspace, then move the article to mainspace. Writing in userspace has the advantage that you can have other editors take a look and help, but it won't be up for deletion while you're trying to get it into shape. Moving the article will ensure contribution history is not lost. If you want a mentor, I suggest you take a look at WP:ADOPT - try to pick someone who has experience (look at total number of edits) and knows what they're doing (look for barnstars, kudos, a clean block log, etc.) Good luck! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions I value them greatly. If the article is not going to stay up then I really hope I am given the opportunity to develop my article further in my userpage area and get contributions and suggestions from other members. Thank you once again. ( MyraSendak (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC) )

I thought of you

...when I saw this. I was tempted to add it to your front userpage myself, but didn't want to get my fingers nipped. Doc Tropics 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

evil possessed dog who bears no relation or resemblance to KC.

Good call. I am a friendly, sweet, kind and helpful puppy. I am not a rabid cujo. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your caution about asserting BLP at Sarah Palin

I've seen various policies being asserted by editors in ways that show little understanding of those policies, so I understand your caution to everyone on that talk page, but the diff you chose as an illustration doesn't jump out as a clear example of a misguided assertion of BLP.
The edit comment asserts "poorly sourced" which seems valid based on the BLP's RS section: "When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" I read the cited opinion piece and no one would ever mistake it for factual reporting. The BLP also states: "Contentious material...poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed...", so BLP can be invoked in this case even though the added content is vaguely neutral (or only slightly negative or positive).
Is the only issue whether the content is contentious? I take our meaning of contentious to be synonymous with contraverial, or "likely to cause contraversy", which includes almost everything that isn't simply factual or uninteresting. Rumors about the size of the advance, and especially the fact that it is much less than the rumored amount the author sought, seems contraversial to me. Likewise the speculation about future earnings on the talk circuit.
I'd like to hear your opinion on this, but I was really just writing to suggest that you might want to pick a more clear cut example to illustrate that caution. Celestra (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If it were clear cut, then it would not need clarification from me. That's precisely the correct example. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. We disagree on the meaning intended by contentious, but I agree it is a poor choice of words since it can be reasonably interpreted different ways. I would replace it with "Non-factual material which is likely to be contraversial" or something to that effect. What words would you have used? You are in a position to enforce your interpretation, so it is only fair to share your interpretation. ("This is how we are going to interpret that here: ") As it is, your caution has the effect of discouraging application of an important policy, instead of limiting it to appropriate cases. Celestra (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I am discouraging misapplication of the policy. I am precisely limiting it to appropriate cases. Your statement is the exact opposite of what I have repeatedly explained. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that you are "discouraging misapplication of the policy", our difference would be that I think the use of that example doesn't encourage appropriate application. I just don't see how it can "limit it to appropriate cases" unless you draw the line clearly between appropriate use and inappropriate use. I have no skin in this game, since I don't edit there much these days. I happened to read your comment, which I agree with strongly, and read the referenced change, which seems gray, and so I offered what was intended as a helpful observation. I get the feeling that I am not communicating that well, so I'll just drop the whole thing. Take care, Celestra (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The prospect of mediation

Yeah, I believe in mediation. Do you not? On a scale of 1-10, I would rate this one about 5. Compared to some others I've attempted—the Palestinians and the Israelis (Shalit) would as soon have shot each other and the Irish Republicans hated the poor man from the Ulster Defense Regiment with an enmity that went back generations—this one is actually mediatable. On one condition, of course (hence this note). Both parties have to agree to try it in good faith. Would you be willing to help with this? Sunray (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must be reading that first question wrongly. Of course I believe in mediation, what do you mean? Please clarify, that query has me truly perplexed.

Regarding this mediation, I place it at a two. I further think that ArbCom has teeth the MedCom does not. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this is an administrative action and editor behavior dispute, not a content dispute. As such, the purvue is clearly with ArbCom and not MedCom, whose bailiwick is content focused.

Would I be willing to help? I have been attempting to do so, via emails and postings. I think this was avoidable at every stage, but now has gone beyond the tipping point, unless one or the other party significantly change their view, which I think highly unlikely. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question and I didn't mean to offend. I am sometimes untactful. Sorry. You are more pessimistic than me about the chances of success, but even so, I honestly do not understand why it should go to arbitration at this point. How would a public drubbing be helpful? If the block was punitive, do we say "an eye for an eye"? How does that support our values? Moreover, I fear that the eye lost might be Wikipedia's. I thus remain perplexed. Why would we bypass mediation even if it has only a 20% chance of success? Sunray (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding whether it is a content dispute: True, it doesn't pertain to article content. However, in this case, the administrative action and response to it would be the content. It is not a behavioural dispute in that there are no ongoing interactions that contravene WP behavioural policies. Sunray (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your "rhetorical" question: It did not offend. It confused. I am still unclear what you meant by it. Regarding the "eye lost" yes, its a pity Bish was snappy. It is afar greater pity that Jimmy chose to block her, six hours after the event, and ever since has repeated his bizarre notion of what her POV regarding the block is. He is immune to clue on this; I am sorry to say. He may be immune to correction, due to the inflated position he holds here. I think it is a very great pity he is so bullheaded and self rightous about this very bad block; I think we're better served if we have a Supreme Leader; do you recall the userbox wheel wars? The thing is, he went and decided to do something about the civility problem on Wikipedia, did the wrong thing, and now is completely convinced that not only was it the right thing, he is supporting his action by making up what someone else thinks! It is this which I find unsupportable, not that Jimmy might lose admin privileges on a wiki where he's abused such ability. I don't worry about the "black eye" at all - if there is one, it will be his and not the 'pedia's. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I have taken the liberty of moving our discussion here from the Sarah Palin talk page because Simon Dodd's comments were getting in the way of a dialog. My interest is not so much in his specific edits that started the discussion but rather in my trying to better understand the policy in general. I don't want to take too much of your time so if this discussion seems not to be productive feel free to tell me to end it.

I've read the discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and also above with Celestra. Would it be fair to say that if Simon Dodd had labeled his original two edits as "removing speculation" rather than as "per BLP" that you would not have commented? Is it that you think some people are overusing BLP as a reason rather than clearly misusing it?

I'm also wondering about your comment "Contentious is a poor choice of words on the BLP policy page". I know it can be difficult to come up with precisely the right words to clearly mark a line which is inherently unclear. But can you give me a few words other than "contentious" to help explain where the BLP should be trying to draw the line? Is it perhaps that "contentious" means a controversy among RS rather than a controversy among WP editors?

Thanks for your help. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've phrased it well - the "contentious" needs to be among RS, not among editors - this helps cut our own little POV pushers or biased editors out of consideration. Otherwise, we'd have fanboys removing all derogatory information about their idols, which might lead to some interesting articles. We must of course keep NPOV in mind; basically just because it might be perceived as negative does not make it a BLP violation; just because you think it shouldn't be in the article does not make it a contentious item. I use "you" here non-specifically of course. And some contentious materiel belongs in BLPs even though RS's argue; think "controversy" in political articles, in which case the content is not removed, but extra care needs to be taken to ensure that views are correctly described and attributed. And finally, no I wouldn't have commented at all had Dodd used anything other than "BLP" as his edit summary/rationale. I have zero objection to the edit, merely to the claim that it was a BLP edit. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, what did you do to put that message box when editing on your talk page. I.e. "If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page...." Sbowers3 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice. To write yours, go to User talk:Sbowers3/Editnotice. For your user page - perhaps a link to your talk page? it is User:Sbowers3/Editnotice. And so on. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats a speedy little dog...

I must have beaten you there by milliseconds! I thought to lay a warning first, and then probably 4 hour block. Good work, O noble WikiWarrior! RegardsHamster Sandwich (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Teamwork, Hamster - its all about the teamwork. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretties for you

The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congenitality cluster, 1st. Class) In Panis, Veritas.

For your tireless efforts, for your prompt, and courteous responses, and for being an all 'round great team player and good egg, I proudly award you this prestigious sandwich! Best Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oooh! You just made my day! Possibly my week. :-) thanks much!!! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking me. I definitely has learned a lesson. OckhamTheFox (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome; you might want to spend a little time reading up on the WP:RULES so you can ensure you don't accidentally fall afoul of them again. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) Thank you for taking the time to ask me some questions. I enjoyed answering the questions and am glad you found my answers worthy of your support. I look forward to serving the community in my new role.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. I would have thanked you earlier, but I just noticed it today. --javért ^stargaze 19:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome - I ended up blocking him for 3 hours, and he went on a rampage earlier today, reverting a bunch of my edits and one of Jimmy's, because we're both "indefinitely blocked vandals"[1][2] He's now, alas, an indef blocked vandal hisownself. He probably shouldn't have said "fuck him!" in so many edit summaries. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that's how I came to know about him in the first place. And apparently, he is also a sock. Who knew? ;) --javért ^stargaze 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dang, I knew he wasn't a newbie - no newbie knows about "indef blocked vandals" - but he's a busy li'l vandal! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bishzilla

How would a new user learn that Bishzilla and Bishonen are the same person? I see no notice on the user talk page, and the user page has been deleted. The account does not further Wikipedia's goals and there is no reason why Bishonen needs to use it. More broadly, the existence of that acocunt is being used as a reason to avoid tightening the policy governing socks. While the actual harm done by the Bishzilla account may not be major (unless you count useless drama as distruption), it is a bad example for other editors.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in these question. You have stated Bishzilla was never declared an alt account; you are seriously in error. That is all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote:

• User:Bishzilla is an alternate account of user:Bishonen, however there is no disclosure of the connection.

That is factual - there is no disclosure. The fact that Bishonene disclosed it and then deleted the page means that whatever disclosure may have existed has been erased.   Will Beback  talk  20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And such anal retentive wikilawyering is useful how? No, that was a rhetorical question. I see that you're not concerned about whether she has a secret account, but whether, right at this precise moment, you can see a notice of whose sock Bishzilla is. My, my. I'm so glad I don't have to work with you. You are tendentious and argumentative to no purpose at all. I am done with trying to help you. Make a fool of yourself at Arbcom; I am now sorry I tried to prevent you from doing so. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about a secret account. My concern isn't primarily with Bishzilla, it's with the WP:SOCK policy. Bishzilla just happens to be the most prominent example of an alternate account.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet you added this bizarre "concern" to the Bishonen ArbCom case. If your concern were with SOCK only, you would not have done so. And before you point out in your inimitable hair-splitting fashion, ensuring that the discussion is focused on teeny tiny details which miss the main point, that you said "primary" not "only", allow me to say that I can read, so save yourself the trouble of starting the argument. I tried to help you not make a fool of yourself at ArbCom, and that was MY primary concern. You seem determined to do so anyway, therefore I am DONE. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever our differences I appreciate your wish to help.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

:-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sing it with me, kids!

We wish you a merry ADristmas,

We wish you a merry ADristmas,

We wish you a merry ADristmas,

And a happy New ADar! HalfShadow 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Grin, I think you've been hittin the eggnogg a little out of season, there, HalfShadow. Oh, and for my talk page stalkers - he's talking (singing?) about this edit. Where we ADlebrate Christmas, because it ADrtainly is a bad idea to use search/replace carelessly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You forgot a tag.

You forgot to put the "</font>" tag before the </div>. Please fix, because it's making the page's text blue. miranda 09:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

oops, thanks for letting me know! Fixed now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IP bigot

Now, now, I just called him that because I had no name to use and wanted to make it clear my comments weren't directed at Ed Poor. The man's kind of sensitive. Czolgolz (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Ed? I would probably describe him more as testy and defensive rather than sensitive but of course this is speculation on both our parts. I tend to just refer to IPs by # - I either copy/paste the whole mess or use a partial IP. To each their own. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Between you, me and wall, I'm a little intimidated by Ed. Czolgolz (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Patricia Cloherty

Hello KillerChihuahua,

I was trying to fix up the Patricia Cloherty page and am looking for some advice. As you noted, the article has been the subject of some abuse. A single purpose username repeatedly deletes notable, verifiable content, and inserts content with a slightly derogatory bias into the biography; a very subtle smear. I am fairly new and don't know what else to do, its been going on for months. Anything added is just going to get deleted by the wayward editor, unless there is some new approach. What could you recommend? thanks Cgettings (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'd for a month and added to my watch list; but I note the last page blanking vandalism was by a registered user. However, most of the vandalism was by various IPs, and none of them have responded to warnings or requests to discuss, so hopefully this will allow for improvement in the general editing of the article. Please let me know if there is continued vandalism and/or edit warring; I am not always online and I have a long watchlist, so I can easily miss things. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that help. I think you are right about the effect of the semi & the likelihood of more from the registered user. Its a single purpose account just for this article -- we'll wait and see. Thanks again and have a great day. Cgettings (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, the other editor has again inserted the same un-sourced content (along with some poor grammar): "with operated in Russia before being taken over by United Financial Group in April 2009. UFG has assumed day to day operations of Delta and Cloherty has left the country." and "UFG replaced management and Cloherty left the country." I can revert it, but its going to continue to go back and forth, and then I become part of the edit war. More advice? I am also posting to the discussion, and their talk page -- but don't expect anything different than past experience would indicate. Cheers!

Also, what is the protocol re: my asking more than one admin to advise on this? there are 2 other admins who were helping me with policies, etc. Everyone of course being busy and if I didn't hear from one, I'd ask another for advice. So also Netalarm and Nancy have given input. I don't want to be greedy; so many articles, so little time, etc. Thanks for your patience. Cgettings (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First things first; speaking for myself, I think its a very good idea to ask more than one person, for two reasons: multiple input means if there are differing opinio9ns, you will be more likely to be made aware of that; and as we are not always online, you will be more likely to receive a response in a timely manner. Just be careful not to step over the line into WP:CANVASS; if that seems likely then try a noticeboard instead.

Regarding Patricia Cloherty: She's controversial. Her article will very possibly remain a problem spot for the foreseeable future. I know it might make you feel like Sisyphus at times, if it gets to be too much take a break. Remember not to WP:BITE the newbies, and don't expect the article to get, or rather stay, "fixed". Watchlist it and soldier on, and hopefully some of the noobs who show will learn policy from you and become valuable contributors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear KillerChihuahua: I am new to Wikipedia, so thank you for your advice on putting in third party references to the updates I made. I wasn't quite sure how to do this! About Patricia Cloherty, it is common knowledge in Russia that Delta was taken over by UFG and this can be confirmed by UFG. I believe that UFG will be making an official announcement shortly. Once they do, the page can be updated by someone. Cloherty is quite controversial and it looks like she has a PR firm trying to erase any mention of the takeover. In any case, I will put together some third party sources to back this up and hopefully they will stop deleting the updates to the page. Thanks again for your help! Happy225 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Happy225

Re: your warning

I was pretty surprised when I saw I was being accused of adding defamatory content. Then I saw who was threatening to block me for it, and all surprise ended. Killer Chihuauhua, you've had a mad-on for me for some time, and it is growing past tedious into tendentious.

Maybe you need to acknowledge that you have a significant problem with anything that I do, and absent yourself from any situation where you might feel the itch to judge me. If you come to my page to threaten me again with yet another bogus claim, there will be repercussions. 'Nuff said. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded to a BLP noticeboard complaint, as I did to the one above and as I have to many. Your assertion that its personal is nonsense. Stop erring, and you'll stop getting warnings from me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See, that's the problem - I am not the one "erring" here. It seems rather funny that you seem consistently able to assume the worst of me, whilst smultaneously piggy-backing that skewed interpretation onto complaints made by either noobs or folk with an ax to grind. Do I really need to point out to you that the last two times you've warned me, you were following complaints filed by first an editor with a list of ArbCom complaints longer than my arm and secondly by an IP sock-puppet? Do you even both to actually look at the complaint background before assuming that I am at fault? I strongly urge you to readjust your behavior, KC, unless you are willing to learn that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Please consider this your last warning in the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates was moved with no discussion

Hi, if you check the move log for this article, an editor changed the title with no input from anyone. It's a high profile article and this change should have been discussed. Would you mind helping set thing back to where they were, and then we can have a proper review of the proposed change. Mattnad (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should have been discussed prior to moving. However, I'm not going to move back without even attempting to discuss the move with the mover. Have you attempted this yet? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was discussed with the editor (JMundo). He refused, claiming that it gave him the desired effect of talkon the subject. Page moves are insidiously hard to revert. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes we have tried to discuss it. You can see the dialog on the article talk page. Per Arcayne's point, he refused. Here are some more of his recent and somewhat hostile comments to give you the flavor [3], [4], [5].Mattnad (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing hostility. I'm seeing him saying the talk page is focusing on the beer, especially the brands, and that's not important. what has he said that is hostile? I'm not seeing a "fuck off you idiot" anywhere in here, or anything remotely like that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

David Gratzer and Betsy McCaughey

Thank you for joining the discussion at the BLP noticeboard. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome! I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot; I believe that we both want good accurate articles. Perhaps your taking the articles there is the first step in a productive collaboration towards that end. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words above. Regarding the 3RR, I am sure you are aware that reversions of non-neutral assertions in BLP articles are within one of the recognized exceptions to the three revert rule: Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). Per the strong suggestion of edit war policy, I have attempted to bring about a broader discussion in the community by requesting comment from the users patrolling the BLP noticeboard. As one of the users who is a proponent of the disputed material, I would request that you show a little good faith and refrain from reinserting until we have some outside comment from uninvolved users. After all, if the material you support inserting is really an improvement, great, it is in the edit history and is being discussed. However, if it is an inappropriate, non-neutral smear of a living person, which I believe it to be, we are compelled by the BLP policy to get it out _now_. Assuming good faith all around, I think it is clear why I believe my reversions to be urgent, but I am not sure why the negative, non-neutral revisions are seen as so urgent and time-sensitive by you. For more on this, see WP:EW#WHATISNT ("In a number of cases, reverting or rejecting edits is necessary, including (but not limited to): ... Enforcing certain overriding policies. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant."). DickClarkMises (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2009

You cannot simply label your desired edit a BLP edit and have it be so, even if the article is a BLP. You know this. Your desire to remove sourced, consensus content because it is negative is understandable; but that it is the consensus version is clear. Merely because it is negative does not make it contentious, or else we'd have nothing but hagiographys. We must be able to call false information false; crimes crimes; and murders murders and so on. This is not violating BLP; this is enforcing NPOV. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

KC, my desire is not to remove "negative" material per se. My desire is to make sure that when we discuss important criticisms of a living person that these criticisms be clearly attributed to their proponents. If someone's controversial position in a particular debate draws so much fire as to bring about comment from third parties, that is useful too--a political commentator's saying that "X drew heavy criticism from many sources" might be useful to us here. It is inappropriate, however, to simply dub one side of a public policy debate "right" and the other side as having promulgated "false and misleading" information. I am not arguing for a hagiography version--there is a difference between whitewashing an article (removing most or all mention of criticism) and reworking an article so that criticisms are presented in a neutral tone. Simply reinserting the words "false and misleading" out of the context of such criticisms serves only to smear the subject, not to further our readers' understanding of the subject matter. DickClarkMises (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

then you really, really should stop wholesale reversions of sourced content, and instead take each bit, one at a time, and discuss your concerns with phrasing on the talk page. Suggest alternate phrasing, discuss, attempt to persuade and thus sway consensus. Your approach of edit warring to simply remove this content is incredibly poor practice. WP:NOT:Battlefield and all that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

KC, I hope that you will take a closer look at the actual diffs. You are reinserting text that says things like FactCheck.org consulted leading prostate cancer experts and cancer statisticians who found Giuliani's cancer "survival rates" to be false and misleading fabricated nonsense numbers obtained from an opinion article by Gratzer... This is not quoted material, and if it were, I would say it should be summarized because it would be too bombastic to directly quote while still maintaining a neutral tone. See WP:NPOV, which states that The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Now, with that said, I wholeheartedly agree that talking about the changes on the talk page beats an edit war every day of the week. I hope we can walk through each of the insertions that you are a proponent of so we can weigh them on their merits. DickClarkMises (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly the kind of discussion you should begin on the artilce talk page: specific, and make suggestions for rephrasing, don't just complain its too bombastic. Say something like "instead of blah blah, I suggest yadda yadda". I look forward to a focused and productive discussion once you start this, and am happy you seem to have decided to stop your senseless and non productive edit warring and complaints without offering remedies. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

KC, I hope that you can cool off a little. I am not angry at you, and I don't see any reason for you to be angry at me. So far as I can tell, we are both willfully participating in a collaborative project that requires talking to others who disagree with us. I don't think that your characterization of my edits as "senseless" and "non-productive" is accurate. I have taken great pains to show you the sensible policy interpretations on which my revisions are based. And before you get on your high-horse and accuse me of things, let's remember that at any time you could have made your own point-by-point argument on the talk page--it takes two to tango. DickClarkMises (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, text can be hard to "read" can't it? I don't know why you think I'm irritated, but I'm not. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert straw poll

Hi, this may seem rather trivial but I'm trying to gauge community consensus on including or removing "Order #" and "Results" columns from the performances section on the Adam Lambert article which you have been in some way recently involved. The poll is here. Your time is appreciated. -- Banjeboi 21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles related to LGBT issues

Hi: Thanks for protecting Conversion therapy to prevent edit-warring. Are you aware that there are similar edit wars going on at other LGBT-related articles, over the same material that sparked the Conversion therapy edit war? I feel at a loss to personally review all of these articles. I imagine that different results are prevailing on each page. I am not sure how best to ensure uniformity and overall consensus about how this new material should be presented. Any advice? Can you help? Thanks, Whatever404 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I'd add the current "hot" articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Watchlist, and then I'd start trying to get that project more involved in watching and policing these articles. Don't forget WP:RFPP and if you have a repeat offender (or group) then utilize ANI, RFC, BLPN if applicable and of course if I can help let me know. Remember to not become bothered! the world will not end, etc. If you are attacked personally, ignore the attacks and reply citing policy and consensus. I hope this helps you a bit - I know it can seem overwhelming watching this type article/groups of articles, sometimes you can fell like you're slogging through mud. But be patient and persistent. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That personal attack on me

Which you removed has been there for years. I don't even think that the editor who wrote it -- Zestauferov -- even edits Wikipedia any more. (Not that I'm complaining about the fact you deleted it: it's just ancient history which suddenly erupted into an embarrassing misunderstanding.) -- llywrch (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah - well, there is another editor now at that page who is having trouble in that area, and I really think having that be the first thing one sees on the talk page tends to send the wrong impression of what we find acceptable and not acceptable. I dont think there was any misunderstanding - I made it clear in my edit summary I didn't know who left it and wouldn't be bothered to find out - but I did want to not have that be the first thing one read there. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. Maybe I shouldn't assume that everyone has developed a thick skin about the things I have. As well as vice versa. :) -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a GAR, but...

Why, I dunno, I just followed a troublesome IP to the page Ellen G. White, but I started cleaning it up before I realized what I was getting myself into; it needs a whole lot of work...but 52 edits later, I think at least the cleanup tag can be removed, what say you? Auntie E. 17:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, puppy! Here, found something you may like... Auntie E. 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Facepalm

I was thinking the same thing, actually - but we don't have any graphics of a headdesk. Very disappointing. ;-) Rjd0060 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some people do seem to have problems getting it,[6] and a graphic headdesk would be useful. Regarding your example of the House of Commons, perhaps the Lords would work better, as with Lord Jeffrey? . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no example which would be perfect, I had rather hoped he'd get the point without nitpicking it to death, but alas, I was in error. Interesting your first link, is he actually saying that he's accused someone of violating EW who only made one edit, and that the chances of his apologizing to that wronged party are so low that "successful alchemy has a better chance of happening'? Interesting, for lack of a better descriptor. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I say, a headdesk graphic could be useful. Just thought you'd be amused by Lord Jeff, proof that perjury is no bar to a seat in the UK legislature. . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion?

I'd value your opinion on this, Killer. If an editor on a BLP wants to revert another, but cannot do so without violating 3RR, is it acceptable for him to solicit (an)other editor(s) to make the revert for him? Is it more acceptable, or less, or neither, if he solicits the revert during an ongoing discussion about the disputed content with the other editor on the article's talk page? Are there circumstances in which soliciting a revert to circumvent 3RR does not fall under WP:TAG? (In particular: "Like with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV)... Signs that may point to tag-teaming include: Working together to circumvent the three revert rule . . .") To my comparatively inexperienced eye it looks straightforward. But you may know otherwise. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Puppy may be busy, so I'll take a shot here. I would say that you should never contact another editor with the intent of getting them to revert something they have not posted themself. (OK, I'll make an exception for your own user page and talk page, if you can't take care of a problem yourself.) You should not let yourself get into an edit war in the first place. If someone reverts one of your edits, and that revert is not CLEARLY vandalism or a violation of BLP that cannot be left in, then first try to discuss the revert with the other editor. If there is no fruitful discussion, then ask for other opinions by posting on the talk page of the article, the talk pages of any projects listed on the article talk page and/or at Wikipedia:Third opinion. If someone is repeatedly vandalizing an article, you can post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (but note the restrictions listed on that page). If someone is repeatedly inserting material in an article that violates BLP, then post at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Donald Albury 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Donald. I'd agree, except that if its a BLP violation I'd go directly to the BLP noticeboard. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both. Writegeist (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI Thoughts

Greetings to you. You've chosen to particate in the ANI involving me.[[7]] I am therefore curious what you saw in my statements on the homeopathy Talk pages that was seriously disruptive. I have a history of being civil and a history of providing good, solid references. Some people with a strong anti-homeopathy POV say that I "misrepresent sources," but I'm curious where you saw that from me in 2009? User:Brunton thought that my statement about the wiki community's interest in replicability of homeopathic studies was not genuine, though he acknowledged his own interest in that subject, and the homeopathy talk pages have had many past discussions of this topic. It is a tad ironic that some editors are blaming me for the "disruption" at the homeopathy article (which I haven't participated in for 13 months) and at the homeopathy Talk pages (which I have not participated in the past 2 weeks during which time it has become increasingly heated DURING my absence). It is apparent that some editors are doing everything they do to mute me. I sincerely hope that you give yourself a chance to review my contributions to the Talk pages (because I have only been active in 2009 for 2 weeks or so and because I didn't make too many contributions to the Talk pages, this review will not take long). I would like you to provide some verifability of my "disruption". DanaUllman^Talk 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is on ANI. Please do not split venues. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In due respect, I did not find any specifics that you provided in any of your contributions...and yeah, I thought that was unusual, so I thought I would come here to ask you. I will take your thoughts here or there. DanaUllman^Talk 00:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI on DanaUllman

As you have participated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the courtesy note. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh

I have to hand it to you—User:KillerChihuahua/congrats is quite brilliant. :-) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! If you ever have any suggestions for improving it, please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Puppy

(Note: If you find that salutation improperly informal, I'll stick to KC in the future). RE: this post. Actually, I did sort-of, kind-of, have an idea. I've mentioned it a couple times - but it was a bit off-topic for the thread I was posting in. My idea would be to have something along the idea of WP:UPDATE for admin. actions/sanctions etc. Since we can't all get together on Monday morning, or Friday afternoon, I thought it would be a good idea to capsulize some of the more "embiggened" dramz around. Something like:

Month, 2009

• ArbCom concluded that User:A should avoid User:B and the two were directed to not interact with each other.
• After a lengthy discussion at ANI (link) it was decided that User:C is banned from Topic:D for a period of 90 days. Violation is grounds for an immediate block without further warning.
• After an AN/3RR discussion, (link) it was decided that User:E is restricted to the 1R rule, and violation is blockable without discussion.
• During an AN poll, User:F was blocked for personal attacks (link or quote) for 30 days. Upon an apology and vow to restrain their comments, the user was unblocked by community consensus after 1 week.

Something along those lines. Tossing the "thoughts?" back into your court. Whatcha think? — Ched :  ?  11:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea has merit, but perhaps something more like the Signpost's "report on lengthy litigation" with additions of community actions, etc? In fact, why not see if the Signpost will add a "Report on community actions" section? Articles on probation, community sanctions, etc. I agree its a wee tad off-topic for that thread, it wouldn't help with HeWhoShouldNotBePanderedTo.

Regarding Puppy - of course call me Puppy! Puppy, MurderDog, ShortNDeadly... just don't call me Bitch. I'll get testy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to come up with something then, and drop you a link in a couple days. RE: "The B-word" ... my R/L Springer Spaniel mix (Mocha) doesn't allow me to use such words. ;D — Ched :  ?  12:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

Looks good. :) I like the new layout. →javért ^chat 14:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the feedback is much appreciated! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice layout indeed, but I'm not really sure green is your color. At least, not those particular shades. Good to see you redecorating the old doghouse anyway  :) Doc Tropics 16:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was debating between green or blues, leaning towards the grey and teal end of the pool. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a big fan of teal! Doc Tropics 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a little softer, more towards the teal end of the spectrum. Better? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Much nicer. I have no doubt that visitors to your page will find themselves totally unable to pursue hostile editing, so soothing and aesthetically pleasing this is. In fact, we might start sending aggressive, uncivil editors here, just to stare at your page and appreciate it, slowly falling under its calming influence. Well, I like it, at least  :) Doc Tropics 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RE COLOR: Beautifully frames that perfect doghouse ... which must be the determinate of colors :) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to get the palette from that pic, I just love that image.

Which? One or two? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

COMPLETELY NEUTRAL VOTE STRAW POLL

Version One Version two

Version one

1. I tend to think that one provides a better contrast, which helps a little. The rather unusual edit summary got my attention, for what it might be worth. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per John Carter. Syrthiss (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - An obvious NPOV background. Those supporting Version Two have failed to cite sources; preference for that version is essentially a FRINGE view and should be discounted by the closing Admin. Doc Tropics 19:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - Just cause I like it! -- Donald Albury 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Guettarda (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Tied votes discussions where a decision is made with equal weight to each participating account regardless of the rationality of their opinions or how much they disagree with me are much better for illustrating the violence inherent in the system. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Version two

1. Two (and disagree about readability) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   PS AFTER CHANGE OF EXAMPLES: When I said "Two," "one" was greener(?) ... Now that you have adjusted the example, the answer is not as obvious ... Still think two, but pondering. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   yes, sorry, it was a slightly brighter shade originally. I promise I won't change it again. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Confirming "Two"—If the beautiful doghouse is the iconic home of the puppy ... then the blue tone of the trim (rather than the more green tone of #1) should perhaps tie the user and talk pages. Such is my thinking after many moments of thinking. BOTTOM LINE: Your redesign is a success. The choice to key the design from the doghouse image was perfect. (And if you happen to prefer the greener tone as background, there are fine logics to support that choice as well ... including that it is simply your preference. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

2. IMO, two is best per WP:ILIKEIT. →javért ^chat 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3. I prefer too. (approved stalker level IV) Verbal chat 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
4. cuz I wanna be a fringe pusher (per docT) ... and 1 reminds me of a "mean ***** machine" or somethin' Vsmith (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
5. The Big clumsy lovable mut likes number 2 .. "woof" — Ched :  ?  19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Two goes with the border better. S'purty. Auntie E. 02:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• FWIW, Two is a closer match for the doghouse on your userpage, but I'd say One is a better background for reading text. Doc Tropics 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• I wonder if I should list this at WP:CENT? :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Clearly we need more eyes on this. Let's just hope it doesn't go to Mediation. Doc Tropics 18:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• RE WP:CENT? Since all of your userpage stalkers may not wish to admit they are so brazenly (by commenting on the colors), perhaps. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yup, I know I have more stalkers than those who have commented here so far. Maybe if I call in an edit summary? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• QUESTION: The current page background is "one," yes? :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, currently (as of this post) it is one. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  OK: When I voted Two, I was voting against the greener version. The current version (one) is a nice complement to the doghouse (matching, which would be "two," is probably not best, but I'd have to see the whole pages that way to be sure). HOWEVER :), the background color in the PREVIEW is different and may be even better LOL—you could call that version 3. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  What do you mean, the background color in the preview is different? I am confuddled. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  LOL If you edit just this section (not the whole page), and hit the "Show preview" button ... the background color of these comments is the "standard" edit mode background ... which is lighter/grayer than version one, but less bluish than two, which would be OK, too. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, no. I am not going to add colors until there is a version 47. Nothappening. You has two picks, you makes your choices based on that. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps you noticed I mentioned it in fine print. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: until the poll is over I suggest if you want to see how it looks overall, you can edit User:KillerChihuahua/Color 3 to DEE9D1, which is version one, or E9EFF5, which is version two. This will allow you to see the entire page with that color applied. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ban for life with no possibility of parole. Wait - what is this straw poll about? :P MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment In regards to this being such a close "poll", i.e. a dead heat, clearly all puppy !votes! should count twice as much as non-puppy voices. Considering the venue and all. Just saying. ;-) — Ched :  ?  10:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - On the contrary, it's obvious that Canine editors aren't NPOV on this issue and shouldn't get to vote at all. Also, we shouldn't allow the !Vote to women, children, blacks, or anyone under 5'10" tall. Doc Tropics 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I resent that! (what with being 5'9½" tall) -- Donald Albury 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Polling is evil!

• As if you didn't know ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  yeah, yeah... so which do you pick? :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of personal attack

You have accused me of a personal attack, but have refused to provide an example of me making a personal attack. Are you going to defend your accusation, or should I go to ANI?Heqwm2 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong on two counts: I warned you not to make personal attacks, or else you would be blocked; and you never asked me to give a dif, you demanded I apologize, and I declined. I presume since it has already been explained to you on your talk page that you understood your repeated characterization of other editors as "liars"[8][9] is a personal attack. Feel free to take this anywhere you like; just give me time to make popcorn first. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yo

Just got your e-mail. I'm still here. :) Interwebs (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh... am I extraordinarily dense? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Death panel debate

The Political positions of Sarah Palin article has a probation tag, and you seem to be an administrator who deals with such things. If you wish, please take a look at the "death panel" debate on this page. Several editors there think that the death panel claim should be mentioned with no information from anyone but Palin, and claim that this represents a neutral point of view. Among other things, they wish to remove evidence, with references, that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is less "Orwellian" than Palin said he was. Again, take a look if you wish.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Request For Advice

I would like to offer my services as a mediator and would like to know exactly what I need to do in order to have my ducks in a row, as it were.
Respectfully,
--NBahn (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure precisely what you're asking me for? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your User and Talk pages

Very cool.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Hi KC! Now I'm confused. Maybe I misinterpreted Thatcher? My interpretation is "I'm on the audit committee and I may know something you don't. And so may CHL, who is an Arb!" I find that not an acceptable style of discussion. Am I that far off in my interpretation or in my opinion on productive discussion styles? Or do you possibly have not carefully read the piped links in his second comment? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. Allow me to say that your interpretation may be correct, but your methods of responding to or addressing what you perceive to be issues problematic to that interpretation leave much to be desired. In short, you could have been considerably more civil. You insulted and failed to clearly express any concern whatsoever. What, may I ask, is your concern? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the thread, CHL seems to suggest that "some CU" (but really Raul) might "checkuser everyone who disagrees with him", and Thatcher hints that there may be something to it. I find that entirely unacceptable. They are welcome to either make a clear and open statement, or to keep quite as long as they want. But making half-hearted suggestions with hints at "secret knowledge" poisons the discussion. It leaves an accusation in the room, but gives neither the accused nor the community the chance to evaluate the case and the evidence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the thread. I see CHL making that complaint; I do not see Thatcher giving the view you ascribe to him. Would you paste a link to the precise dif you feel gives that view? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Here he reinforces the accusation and here he suggests that his and Luke's position may make them privy to special knowledge - or a least that's my interpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing the part where "there may be non-rhetorical reasons" = "checkuser everyone who disagrees". Thats where it just falls apart. "there may be reasons" does not mean anything but what it says. It also does not mean Aliens done it, Its the socialists, Gay nazis did it, I know something you don't know and you can just suck it! or any other imaginative thought which may cross your or any other mind. I'm wondering why you've made this leap, and why, having made this leap, you don't see that what you've said was very rude and hostile. Yes, checkusers know a lot that isn't public. That's why we don't give checkuser to just anyone; we actually do need someone who can keep their mouth shut. You seem to be saying not only that Thatchers comment means something it doesn't, but that you think he should violate the trust which has been placed in him in order to satisfy your curiosity, with no other reason given. Now, if I've misread your post, please enlighten me; but that's how it reads to me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. I'm not assuming "there may be non-rhetorical reasons" = "checkuser everyone who disagrees". That's not even well-typed in any sorted kind of logic ;-). I'm assuming that "checkuser everyone who disagrees" = "every new editor (or nearly so) who expresses a skeptical point of view on global warming gets checkusered." CHL talks about "checkusering everybody who disagrees". I call him out on that, and Thatcher jumps in with "Yes, there are non-rhetorical reasons to suppose that every new editor (or nearly so) who expresses a skeptical point of view on global warming gets checkusered. Expect to hear more on this soon." Admittedly, the two statements are not strictly the same (one talks about disagreement with a given CU, the other about everybody who "expresses a skeptical point of view" on a given topic), but in this context I think its very reasonable as treating them as referring to the same event or series of events. In fact, I don't see how you can reasonably interpret them otherwise. I do share your concern about publicizing checkuser data or methods that you just expressed on AN. But, on the other hand, I strongly object to public accusations being made on the base of non-public knowledge. That, if anything, is something we should have learned from the OrangeMarlin disaster and accompanying ArbCom RfC. That's essentially my point - if you are ready to go public, do so. If not, don't. But don't put out insinuations that you are unwilling or unable to support in public. And, BTW, there is an army of socks out there pushing "skeptical" positions on global warming related articles. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Palin article probation

Hi, Puppy - just curious, do you think the terms of the Sarah Palin article probation should apply to Levi Johnston & Bristol Palin? Those articles didn't exist at the time the probation started, they were protected redirects. If so, I can add the appropriate notices to the talk pages. All the best Kelly ^hi! 10:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

They are definitely part of the Palin family of articles, yes. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NYT

Thanks for the post. Interesting the way it was presented. I wasn't defending Wilson or his comment. I was defending Wikipedia against recentism and POV, but some editors assumed I was defending Wilson.DCmacnut<> 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur: I "got" that; I think it was reasonably clear in the article, to those who understand the way WP works. However, its not clear to me that it was clear to the author. *shrug* I've seen far worse in the news media, I would not be terribly concerned. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeated WikiLinks

KillerChihuahua, thank you for the message. I couldn't find the particular thing you mentioned in the help pages. I did read this a long time ago, which is what I based the link on:

In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:

   * where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first.
   * where the first link was in an infobox or a navbox, or some similar meta-content.
   * tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own.

Jrobinjapan (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated_links has changed slightly since I viewed it last. There is now, apparently, room for debate regarding repeating links in the article body, which was not the case last time I viewed it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear what you are saying. For me, its kind of a pain to go back up through the article to find a link a few sections back (especially if you haven't read the previous sections). Much easier if you can just have the extra link -- as long as its not overdone, of course. Jrobinjapan (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Conceded. Would you prefer to restore the second link, or do you want me to do so? Or do you want to take this to the article talk page for wider input? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its really worth putting to a vote for. Let's leave it as it is. If someone else finds it inconvenient they can re-add the link. (Maybe it was just me) Jrobinjapan (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Suggestion: If you do decide to re-add it, you might wish to link to Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated_links in your summary, for those old timers like me who didn't get the memo. ;-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

I noticed that you closed the comment on talk page I made. I would like to say that I meant no offense to anyone, after a second glance at it when I came back from lecture, the tone was sharper than I should have written. Unfortunately what is done is done, but in the future, I will try to avoid such biting language. I am being honest when I say that I meant no offense. I was just attempting to state on the discussion thread why certain editions should not be placed on Joseph Wilson's bio page. I won't go into detail here, but I got a little frustrated and thought the discussion thread was getting ignored. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion, you might wish to remember the canon: Comment on the content, not the contributor. It is almost always helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's definately a good one to go by. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hamster, get your butt over to Talk:Conversion therapy then, and help me explain why attacking one editor, or even starting a debate with one editor, is inappropriate on an article talk page. Today is the "I never read AGF or TPG or CIVIL" poster-child day, I swear. Is it because it is Friday and ppl are grumpy? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A little bit grumpy, maybe. Hyper3 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nods, and I'm getting a bit testy myself. :-( KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

KillerC, for the fourth time, STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE. MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitals again.Hyper3 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time so far as I am aware, and it will do you no good. Its not your talk page; its Wikipedia's. If you continue to ignore policy, I will continue to inform you of it. If you still persist, sanctions may ensure. Please be aware that when I post links to policy on your page, it is in the interests of protecting the community and the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, I'm going to need some time to read all of this. It took me a few minutes just to get through the banners at the top of the page. Whem I went to the bottom, I read through a bunch of posts between you and W.Beback. Are these last few posts the crux of the matter? Should I read this article, even though I have a cursory knowledge of the subject already? I must say, from my reading of the recent talk page postings, i don't sense any kind of "attack mode" from either side, just a kind of- repartee.

Then. while I was writing the stuff above, I previewed and the last three posts had appeared. Yikes! Holy Shamolies! It all bears close reading, including your talk page M.Bluejay. I promise to get back to you on this K.C. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bluejay and BornGay and Hyper are all getting a bit heated under the collar. In addition, Bluejay is trying to add materiel sourced to his self published website... Will has sources - which he'll have to dig out - which should hopefully resolve the sourcing issue, which will be helpful. He has not weighed in on any of the other disputes. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The mediation I tried to get is here Hyper3 (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Mediation Cabal, not Mediation Committee, that's why I didn't see it. There is a difference. Lemme read up on that and get back to you, Hyper. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I sound sycophantic enough? Hyper3 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You sounded vague and non-specific, is what you sounded. NPOV issues? You have to identify them, be specific. You cannot simply say "well, we have issues, see? And we want 'em fixed, see?" You must say "Fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of reparative therapy" or "Parties cannot reach consensus regarding definition of Conversion therapy - should we include yadda, or merely whatnot?" with something specific in place of yadda and whatnot, of course. So go think hard, and see if you can define the single most important issue, clearly and concisely. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is what I need. Although its all a bit like being trapped in an Asimov novel. Will try again - shall I amend this one, or start a new one? Hyper3 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, not Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal - so I cannot really tell you how to approach them. I also caution you that as they have open standards for mediators, your results may vary considerably from instance to instance. You may wish to read some recent meditations to get a feel for how they work before spending any time updating your request. Or you can go for really really informal mediation, as we've begun on your talk page and here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking softly, but carrying a big stick? He's back, btw, reverting everything in sight.... Hyper3 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Hey, could you check out the discussion here? ceranthor 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We're both at fault - me moreso for not looking being for removing the report. My bad. ceranthor 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: you trusted in my competence, which in this instance was misplaced trust. I appreciate your diligence in setting this right; I thank you, and I reject your very admirable attempt to shoulder the blame yourself. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

KC, I notified the user about his perfectly correct report - and called it wrong. I should take some blame too. ceranthor 12:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jones/Yarhouse study

I have explained my reasons for removing the Jones/Yarhouse study repeatedly. It says it is not about conversion therapy and didn't prove anything about it. You presented it, nevertheless, in a way that suggests its authors think it is about conversion therapy and that they did prove something about it. That violates WP:NOR, which is clear that kind of thing's not acceptable. Also unacceptable are edit summaries that violate WP:POINT. Born Gay (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"I have explained my reasons" does not translate to "I have gained consensus" nor even "I have substantial support". Could we possibly discuss this one edit for a bit? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alas, this is true. But seriously, the study is not appropriate. I've tried to explain why not on my project page, and on the talk page too. It says it isn't about conversion therapy, so how can it be presented as being about it? It could be rewritten in a way that wouldn't be misleading, but even then it would be undue material for the article, in my judgment. Born Gay (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Link the project page, please? thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, its the most interesting study, because it is done by opponents on adherents, and the results are fairly favourable (to adherents). This section is meant to address adherents (with due weight of course). The trouble is, everyone wants to distance themselves from other people's terminology, and it has become trendy to say "its not conversion therapy" by which they mean no one is getting electric shocks. But it still is relevant. Hyper3 (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-useful, sorry. Are you saying it is sympathetic to advocates of CT? Please provide the link here, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What, can't read minds? Here is the link to the book. I'm not sure if that is what you want. There is a conversation on the talk page, and here is the edit. I didn't add it, or choose the particular quotation. Hyper3 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, that's sourced to Christianity today, a partisan site, and is a "self-study" not a neutral third party scientific or even arguably neutral study. You want that in? Why? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, the book is a little better... the source still sucks a bit.. reading more... KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Nope, the book is no better at all: Stanton L. Jones also wrote a book subtitled "God's Design for Sex" and "Why God Cares About Sex" and Mark A. Yarhouse co-wrote two books both sub-titled "A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal" - these are strongly partisan "investigators" and their "study" is thereby impossibly flawed. They have a soapbox. Is there a source which is neutral at all regarding this study? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"This is clearly the best scientific study yet conducted on change of homosexual orientation and on the question as to whether attempts at such change are inherently harmful. . . . This study meets the high research standards set by the American Psychological Association that individuals be validly assessed, followed and reported over time with a prospective, longitudinal outcome research design." -- George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Th.D., FAACP; Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus, University of South Carolina School of Medicine; Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology" Hyper3 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Amazon reviews are useless on WP, you know that. And George Alan Rekers is hardly neutral, being an associate and aligned with Dobson. Give me a break, Dobson is a known homophobe with very odd views on that subject. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to get a better quote. Hyper3 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say rather it would be good to explain why this should be included at all. As it sits, we have a Christian group who is anti-gay for religious reasons, writing a book about a "study" which explains that they're right. Its the book version of self-published advocacy, and not an independent study at all. Why do you think this should be in the article, and what source might you have for this? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You know better than I do on the US scene, then. My knowledge is more UK. Hyper3 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you could have simply read all the reviews; this one is checking out completely so far:

The conclusions based upon the Jones/Yarhouse data, unfortunately, appear biased: Both Jones and Yarhouse work at conservative Christian universities, and compromises in study design and execution were made in order to secure the cooperation of ex-gay members of Exodus International, an organization that claims to support people leaving homosexuality. This book quickly secured endorsements from ex-gay and antigay therapists, but support from mainstream mental-health professionals has thus far been lacking.

Watchdog web sites including Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out and Ex-Gay Watch have found the following shortcomings, which I hope are addressed in future studies:

-- The study was conducted by two supporters of ex-gay ministries.

-- They originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.

-- During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant's answers were too incomplete to be used.

-- Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported "satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment." (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.

-- After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied -- he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn't, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.

-- Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as "success" stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy -- something many conservative gay people already do.

-- The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite -- or because of -- this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.

In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it.

The raw data obtained from Jones' and Yarhouse's surveys will hopefully lead to greater understanding in future studies, despite these researchers' strained efforts to make failure to "change" sound like success.

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My project page is here [10]. The full passage from Jones and Yarhouse about the relevance or non-relevance of their study to conversion therapy is this, from page 374:

"Fourth, the change results documented in this study are the results of a set of diverse, religiously based intervention programs, and hence these findings do not speak directly to the issue of the effectiveness of professionally based psychotherapy interventions, what are commonly called reparative or conversion therapies. Psychotherapy delivered by a mental health professional was part of the total 'package' experienced by some individuals in this study, but we are unable to tease out the impact of such therapy from the more general context of change. Though this study does nothing direct to establish evidence for the effectiveness of professional reparative or conversion therapies, however, to the degree that the contemporary mental health field regards such conversion therapies as discredited on the presumptive basis that it is impossible to change sexual orientation these results may and perhaps should open the door for a reconsideration of the possible efficacy of such therapies. In other words, as we argued in chapter three, professional conversion theraies are being regarded as discredited not because a positive evidential base exists proving that such therapies are unsuccessful, but rather in spite of a considerable (though imperfect) research base suggesting that such treatments produce positive outcomes some of the time with some individuals. At least in part, the credibility of this argument is grounded in a general acceptance of the claim that sexual orientation is immutable. The present results suggesting that some change is possible undermine this core assertion, which may contribute to a reexamination of whether professional conversion therapies ever succeed."

So, unlike some other sources that regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy (such as Haldeman), Jones and Yarhouse are absolutely clear and explicit that the two are not the same and that the relevance that their study might have to conversion therapy was limited and indirect at most. The form in which Hyper3 added the study doesn't make this crucial fact clear. Even in a rewritten form that did make it clear, it still really wouldn't be appropriate material, as the study has no special importance in the context of conversion therapy that I know of; it isn't used as a source in statements specifically on this topic. Born Gay (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, give me a bit to read and absorb this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We're back to disagreements about scope. How do you solve that? Hyper3 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

please specify the disagreement to which you are referring, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitions are hard to come by: see this and scroll down to terminology. There is debate and "de-synonymisation" to avoid unhelpful implications. Only the dead will not resist being corralled with electric shock advocates. But its the same thing in description, people are being helped to change their sexual orientation. Hyper3 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bed time for me. Thanks for your help in coaching the conversation. More soon. Hyper3 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on last night's exchange are that we should include both the Yarhouse study and the critique. Anyone coming along who knows about this will keep trying to put it in. A lot of BG's work can be included. However, that only really raises the larger issues of scope. New proposal below.Hyper3 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Back again. Jones/Yarhouse should be in because it is a study relevant to the page (or SOCE if we define CT narrowly). I am not an expert, and don't think we are being asked to assess it apart from some basic checking of it as an appropriate source. If anyone can tell me why the source is inappropriate, then I could respond from wikipedia policy. None of us are experts, and wikipedia consistently rejects expertise as the standard, but encourages the wisdom of crowds. When it goes in, then all the relevant criticism goes in too. Hyper3 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this comment from Jimbo is helpful:

“ If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. ”

Jones/Yarhouse isn't part of the fringe: "a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials." Are they scientists respected by the mainstream who merely differ? Hard to say, as I don't really know, but I think it is at this point that some debate emerges. Yet if we can mention the fringe theory (according to Jimbo), how much more should we mention those who can substantiate the methodologies they use scientifically, even if their basic stance is that of a tradition alternative to the liberal humanist tradition? Hyper3 (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution for conversion therapy

I think we keep running up against the problem that reparative therapy has been merged with conversion therapy. Let's create a series of articles, with appropriate links. We allow Born Gay to have his restricted version of Conversion therapy, perhaps in two articles CT and history of CT. We also create a reparative therapy page, but the new overall article is called SOCE and all the other articles refer back to it. The truth is that if we can agree that CT has the stricter meaning, and we don't have to shoe-horn reparative therapy and ex-gay concerns into it, then Born Gay is doing a fantastic job and needs to be allowed to get on with it. I am still unhappy at the way he has conducted his communications, but apologise myself for taking a more aggressive/sarcastic tone in the latest exchanges. There is more to talk about, but if this could be agreed and proposed to other users, then we could move on. Perhaps the AR material could go onto the SOCE page for example. This would follow the trend for SOCE people to distance themselves from CT, which means we don't have to make the case (that I was trying to make) that we should see through this fiction. We can include everything more adequately in a SOCE page, with all the usual policies in place, but expressly writing it as a minority view within the debate about sexuality. Thoughts? Hyper3 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think one thing at a time. Why do you think the Yarhouse "studies" belong in the article? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In an article about a minority viewpoint, policy as I understand it allows that viewpoint to have greater weight, and sources that would otherwise be unreliable are allowed when they are used to validate information about themselves... so NARTH articles our reliable in order to describe NARTH, and Yarhouse would be relevant because of its relevance to the subject, and the way it illustrates how ex-gay adherents function and what they claim. I am not suggesting that it should go in without the criticsms that others have had of it, but that if it does not go in, it would be strange as it has been a feature of the way the conversation has gone recently. People would keep trying to put it in. I think it is better for all that it goes in critiqued and sourced well, rather then it is missed out. There is a new paper that responds to some of the criticisms Hyper3 (talk)

As one of the people who helped bring Intelligent design to FA status, I can assure you that NPOV means giving the majority view the majority of the weight, the minority view the minority of the weight, and the far fringe or pseudoscientific view virtually no weight - to the point that its generally only mentioned if the article is about the fringe or pseudoscientific view, as it is in the ID article. We don't unbalance by giving UNDUE weight to the fringe view, regardless of the article. That would be a gross violation of NPOV. ArbCom has upheld and confirmed these policies. What you are describing is the "Sympathetic POV" not the "Neutral POV" and that has been repeatedly rejected here on Wikipedia. The suggestion that we adopt a sympathetic pov led to the fork WikiInfo, established in 2003 by User:Fred Bauder, which does have such an approach. See the userfied article User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo - which I should inform you I personally have not checked for accuracy - for more about WikiInfo. If you prefer a sympathetic POV, you should consider contributing there not here.

Now, please explain why you think the Yarhouse "study" belongs in the article? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is relevent, but it could be (in the main) that the study allows, within the scope of the Conversion Therapy article, that the theory behind the "therapy" is contentious/polarizing. It's obvious that a "Faith-based" theraputic technique is going to provoke the strongest kinds of reactions. Let me ask- are there any "definative" statistical sources that we can lean on in this case? All I really look for out of this kerfuffle is a balanced approach. One that allows for the contrasting viewpoints to live harmoniously upon the article page. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent question, and one to which I do not have an answer at this time. My vague recollection is that there are a couple of reputable studies, but I don't remember any of the details. Right now I'm focusing on getting the edit warring resolved, to which end I had the article protected for a week and am trying my utmost to get people to deal with one issue at a time to resolve them. Thus far, BG has been the only respondent to stay on topic, and his view has been made very clear. No one wishing to include the Jones/Yarhouse content has responded with rationale as yet - I certainly don't count "there is other stuff with the same problems!" as a rationale for inclusion - but we're only a day or so into the week. I have hope, as always. I'm not sure whether item 2 will be the second study brought up on article talk, or the reparative therapy issue Hyper wants to move to the front of the line. Perhaps we can do both at once, if people can manage to stay on topic and color between the lines (keep each subject in its own talk page section.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Talk:Conversion therapy#Jones/Yarhouse. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Need advice on policy

KillerChihuahua, I'm uncertain about exactly how to interpret the no original research policy, and could really do with some advice on this. I'm asking with regard to conversion therapy in particular [11], but it's a general question. BG 05:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I'm not ignoring this; I'm not sure how to reply just yet. Thanks for your patience! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trash, it seems

[12] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a MacGuffin? Dare we miss the next exciting episode?? I wait with baited breath, having finished my after-dinner cheese. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I see your cheese breath, and raise you garlic Parmesan breath! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Objections to Evolution

Yeah, I'm thinking I know exactly what kind of editor that is. I'd venture a close watch is warranted. --King Öomie 13:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the name is a clue, but there are really great editors like User:Pastordavid who have a strong personal pov which they don't allow to affect their npov editing. Then again, there are always the Gastriches. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Names can be a dead giveaway. I've been noted for my overwhelming pro-monarch POV. --King Öomie 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no one has ever accused me of being partial to murderers or canines, although there is the kennel to consider, and Uncle Ed once thought it was witty to call me a "bitch". I was not amused. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Puppy Cabal? More like 'Kibbal', amirite? --King Öomie 14:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Were bad puns listed among the types of taunting which led to the animal attacks? Just curious... They certainly should be. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to compose a pun in Deer? Screw up the verb conjugation, and they'll just think you're a moron. They'll probably still maul you. D'oe! --King Öomie 14:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh deer, while Kibbal seems somewhat different, Kibble does seem apposite – and here was me thinking this page was filling up with kibble. Hmmf. Will maybe go back to the Kibble Palace for respite. . dave souza, talk 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd most certainly cite your name if you were POV-pushing on When Animals Attack!. (I thought that'd be more than a stub when I thought it up, but I'll be arsed to change it now)

"The human participants of the show typically taunt the animals, and the "attacks" seen are often self-defense." --King Öomie 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Except the one with the farmer and the donkey. That one was the best. --King Öomie 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered if my name might be considered an encouragement of vandalism...it's actually my excuse for my bad housekeeping. The Aunt bit I cannot deny: I have thirty nieces and nephews. I guess that would go towards explaining the entropy bit as well... Auntie E. 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... --King Öomie 15:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Get well soon

Hope all is well. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooohhh...

Nice userpage. You really made it better from what I did :D ResMar 02:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Your changes got me going, as it were, so much of the credit is yours! I was stuck, and never would have been able to get this done without your hard work, so thank you! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

re your notice

Hello KillerChihuahua. I'm archiving my talk page, but I replied (in an essay-like way) to the issue that you alerted me to--the one that began the ANI thread--here[13], if you didn't see it. I could refactor its contents for use in some 'review' I suppose, but that hardly holds any promise!

I'd like to state (somewhere, why not here!) that as the first editor to remove that tag on the article in question, my intent was to minimize the chances of any of this happening. I can't think of an action more in this encyclopedia's interest than avoiding these entrenched, content-less discussions that charge up people needlessly, gain little for the encyclopedia, and divide editors. The page was on my watchlist; it was not a matter of me going out of my way; and I'd not have commented further, despite strong feelings, if I hadn't felt psychologically dragged into this by the "removing tags is evil and people like Outriggr are attacking me" line. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

An apology

KC - we've had problems and we've had fights. However, those fights were on reasonable grounds and I apologize for fighting with you. It saddens me to see someone who has no sense of our community, consensus, or any respect what so ever threaten you like that. It is one thing to fight with someone, it is another to purely bully them in a way that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hatchet buried, cemented in, and flowers planted over the grave, with pleasure.

I don't know what to think about this latest stunt from Sandstein. I've not been able to follow the CoM situation with any detail, so I had reserved judgment, but this latest block is beyond the pale, and his reactions to criticism is so hostile and dismissive it is clear he's not willing to accept any opinions which don't support his actions. It seems to me there are several views: that Giano should not have been blocked; that Giano should have been, but not by Sandstein but the length is ok; that Giano should have been, but not by Sandstein and the length is too long; and that Giano should have been blocked, its ok Sandstein did it and the length is fine. The last is S's view of course; but I cannot say I see any significant support for it. Certainly not consensus. Yet Sandstein has not said he'll leave Giano alone in the future; he's not removed the block as not getting community support; he's not only not acted on criticism received, he has rejected all criticism whatsover, and even gone on the attack against the critics. This is very disturbing. I had always thought Sandstein was a sensible admin. I don't think I was in error, but I think his sense is getting clouded out by stress? Involvement? Burnout? Something is affecting him. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Our disagreement at ANI

KillerChihuahua, I am sorry to see that we seem to be taking a very contrary stance to each other in the current Giano thread. While I stand by what I wrote, I regret this confrontation because I have, so far, formed a generally good opinion of your work. Could we, perhaps, discuss this disagreement here, out of the ANI spotlight, with a view perhaps to get a better understanding of what both of us seek to achieve? Best regards,  Sandstein  15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you wish. You "have argued that you should be blocked for editwarring to restore a personal attack, and in fact I intend to block you should you do this again." - this was directly to me.[14]

1. You characterize my restoration, once, of Giano's comment, as "editwarring". I object, strongly, to such aggressive framing of restoring a post which another editor removed.
2. The edit you linked has the edit summary of "please discuss this with G.)" This is advising discussion, rather than removing another's comment. It is, as OR pointed out, restoring a comment which was arguably improperly removed.
3. On that same page, I had removed a comment I thought was a personal attack; another editor disagreed and restored it. You did not block them. Nor did I, nor do I think a block would have been appropriate. Your personal view is that the content in Giano's post is a personal attack. You are entitled to your option. You are not entitled to go running roughshod over everyone enforcing your personal opinion about what is and is not rude.
4. Blocking for personal attacks is clear: the attack must be "egregious" - like "You are a fucking whore and you shit out of your mouth every time you talk. If you try to edit this page again I will find you and fuck you over!". That is probably a comment people would not strongly object to blocking for. Characterizing someone as a fool, which may be interpreted as saying they are behaving foolishly, is borderline at best.
5. You are not considering that removing another person's comments is often considered a blockable offense; I did not block the person who removed the content,but advised they discuss it with Giano rather than remove it.
6. So we have two comments which some find NPA violations and some do not. I submit to you that I don't consider the person who restored the personal attack against me to have been edit warring, as there is room for disagreement on what constitutes a personal attack; that I blocked no one and threatened to block no one; and that you've done precisely the opposite.
7. You originally stated you thought I should be blocked for restoring a comment and advising discussion, but said you would not do it.[15] You then said you were arguing for such a block. Now you've threatened me with a block if you see me restore a talk page comment which you personally think is objectionable.[16] I'm missing where you are trying to do any good on Wikipedia at all and fail to see why I should not assume you're going to block me for anything you see which you object to - as you have already done to Giano. In short, I'm having trouble thinking that you are thinking clearly, and I know you're not "use(ing) the block ability sparingly".
8. And finally, why are you here? You say above "I stand by what I wrote" so I have now been informed you stand by threatening me with blocking, for suggesting discussion instead of removal of a post. TPG, removing other's posts, these are all things which have much disagreement, to the point many believe no posts should be removed regardless of how egregious the attack. You have your view, and you are willing to block me in order to punish me for not following your interpretation! You have no room for respecting that I have a different view and that view is valid. You have threatened me with a block if I don't follow your instructions! Allow me, with all respect, to say that is complete and utter bullshit, bullying, and dead wrong. One puppy's opinion.

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will reply here as soon as time allows.  Sandstein  16:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how to best format this? Maybe the editwarring part first. The comment was added by Giano, removed as an attack by Tintor2 (talk · contribs), restored by Giano, removed by Tintor2 and then restored by you. According to our policy, "an edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Your restoration of the comment was the fourth in such a sequence of back and forth, hence my assertion that you were edit warring. I find it surprising that you, an administrator, "object, strongly, to such aggressive framing of restoring a post which another editor removed." One half of every edit war is always "restoring a post which another editor removed."  Sandstein  17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So now I'm tag teaming? Enough, Sandstein. You're not interested in getting feedback or resolving this; you're clearly here to prove how right you are and how wrong anyone else is. I'm done, at least on this page, at least for today. I'm too damn sick to deal with this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmf. Sorry that you're not feeling well, had hoped your return meant a recovery. Do please get well soon, which is much more important than wikitrivia. Best wishes, dave souza, talk 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no still sick. Doing better tho, and hopefully will be able to take that tag off in a few days. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that you are not feeling well. Get better... NOW! Big dog has spoken. ;) — Ched :  ?  03:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

just to explain

hey, hope i didnt offend with my remark on sandstein's review page. i was just noting how it could appear to those with a different point of view. not that you asked for it, but here's my (admittedly naive) take:
There is one faction of editors who are all about content, and another side that cares more about verifiability. this is similar to the delete/keep crowd, but different. it seems that the content people spend more time in non-controversial, academic areas, while the verifiable people are more active in highly-contested or nationalist/fringe areas where NPOV and OR are constant problems. sooo ...
the quality-content people think that someone who doesn't know about a subject shouldn't be questioning its references or the accuracy of its statements. but, for editors concerned with verifiability, the FAR is a good thing. they don't see how that editor was being unreasonable by wanting to be sure all of the statements were sourced and there was no OR. this isn't a statement on anyone's motives, just how editors with different backgrounds might view this incident.
well, like i said, i dont know much about this, i could be wrong. i can kinda see everyone's side here. hope you get better soon. untwirl(talk) 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalking the sick (get well soon!) puppy's pages  :) ... for inspiration

FYI: New Signpost solicits "opinion" pieces ... and I submitted (as an experiment, with nearly zero expectation it will be anything more than an amusing surprise to the editor) "Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by 'civility'" :) ...

... and the second line of the second one refers to (and links to diff of) "Sweet pup's manifesto". Again, I believe this to be of no consequence, but letting you know of the link in case the editor solicits a limerick or two from you in response. LOL (If there's been some horrible breach of protocol, please bark below.) Cheers, and get well soon. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm honored. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Guh. I'm sick too (though for me, that actually means more time to spend on WP... usually too busy!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sympathies. Glad to see you around though. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

late reply

KC,

Not sure whether to bring this up, or let it die. But I just noticed you replied to my comment a few days ago on ANI, re Giano/Sandstein. That, I suppose, is why it's probably a bad idea to comment on a page and then un-watchlist it.

It was not my intent to offend you, and if you look again you'll see I phrased it as a rhetorical question, or a request, not as an accusation. Still, it was exaggerated, and I'll apologize for that; exaggeration during an already heated dispute is dumb.

what I was *trying* to say, is that - even considering the rationale in your edit summary (which I did read at the time) - the effect of your revert was to restore, yet again, an inflammatory comment in a situation that was already obviously heated. There were several other approaches you could have taken besides restoring it. I found it at odds with the philosophy shown in your earlier request to me that I remove a sarcastic comment, not directed at anyone in particular, in an RFA. Just knocked my sense of symmetry out of whack. If Collectionian had called Giano a fool, and been reverted by someone else, would you have restored that comment too?

Anyway, sorry to have upset you with my ill-worded comment. Like I said, maybe this is all better left in the past, so I'm happy to discuss more, or let it drop, or agree to disagree, your call. But I didn't want to leave your comment hanging unanswered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's inappropriate to remove someone else's talkpage comments, unless they're blatant personal attacks (which I feel is arguable in this particular case). By contrast, it's perfectly reasonable to request that someone remove their OWN comment. --King Öomie 16:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Puppy, sorry you seem to have all this flak because of me dropping a loaded revolver for Sandstein to pick up. It's a pity we don't have a mailing list of our own to avoid these confusions, but there you are - we don't. His multiple blocks of late have all been, to my mind, OTT and his refusal to contemplate his own fallibility equally concerning. I had emailed Arbs about it over the last two weeks or so and initiated discussions on-site, but no one was concerned - so he had to block someone slightly more "high profile" so people could see what he is like. The fact he was supported by the Eastern European Mailing list is even more concerning, there is an entire bundle or emails entitled "Sandstein needs support" - and indeed, he got it and it buoyed him further. That I find terrifying and in need of investigation. Many, many brilliant editors (eg Ghirlandajo) were driven from the project by such people - it has to be stopped. Some of Sandstein's blockees are still more or less blocked because of it as people seem to hold him in some authoritative awe. So, knowing he was desperate to block me, I took drastic action and now is the time to "fess up" as the British kids say. I was concerned that Wehwalt's opening comment [17], had blown the game, but no one picked up on it. I expect many will want to ban me now for showing them exactly what Sandstein is (Wikipedia always likes to shoot the messenger), but there was no alternative, all other avenues were explored and had become a dead end. He has proved himself to be one big hungry fish who swallowed the hook - and I'm very good a fishing. At least people can see him for what he is - even I never imagined he would threaten to block you for just disagreeing with him. The tools are really not safe in his hands. Sorry you got caught in the cross-fire. Love Giano (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring

I am posting here to reduce drama. I agree with G-Guy that comments about other than Mattisse's actions and what to do about them are unhelpful and inappropriate on the monitoring page or related talk page. Concerns about individuals related to an incident involving Mattisse are probably best dealt with by addressing that person directly, or - if serious enough - on an appropriate forum or notice-board. If you are not sure that Philcha was helping Mattisse you may consider a) That is a judgement for Mattisse to make, as she is the one who will suffer the consequences of taking Philcha's advice; b) Raising the matter with Philcha; and c) That it might be worthwhile reading the ArbCom case on Mattisse, and the Plan that came out of it, as there is a lot of misunderstanding of the role of those who signed up to the Plan. G-Guy has put a link on Mattisse's talkpage to this comment by myself as he feels it sums up the situation quite well.

It is worth remembering that Mattisse is responsible for her actions; those she has listed as people to turn to for advice are not responsible for her actions. People may select a range of advisors in order to get a range of opinions, and then choose to take the most appropriate advice from the opinions offered. It may be difficult for you or I to assess why Mattisse selected those she did, but we should allow her the freedom to make her own decisions and mistakes, even if those mistakes lead to her returning to ArbCom. There seem to be a number of people whom Mattisse did not select to advise her who are giving her advice which perhaps makes it more difficult for her to decide on the best course of action to take. SilkTork *^YES! 16:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned user

Hi. The banned user Rbj has been editing Planck units as 74.104.160.199 and 38.104.186.254. Please see Discussion Page for that article, section titled Hi Rbj. The tell-tale signs for those who know Rbj are attitude, phrasing (eg 'sorta') and subject interests (eg Marriage). I have chosen to stop editing Wikipedia but I'm making an exception for Rbj on this occasion. Thanks 121.223.69.138 (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting my concerns on Admin Noticeboard. I have updated your comments there with the necessary proof but somebody will need to make sure the issue doesn't go to sleep - the Noticeboard is a VERY long page. Thanks again. 121.222.35.162 (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Owing to length of Admin Noticeboard, I've now posted my concerns to Uncle G ( see Uncle G talk). You might be interested in my comments there as you were involved in the original disciplinary action against rbj and maybe you and Uncle G can work this through together. At the moment, I'm the only one driving the issue and yet I promised myself not to edit Wiki anymore, so I really want to leave it with someone else - please. 121.222.35.162 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and psychology

Hello, I know you have been involved in conversion therapy, and I was wondering if you could give advice on this. BG has decided that treatments to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions has nothing to do with Homosexuality and psychology based entirely on one person's breakdown on major areas of psychological research. He brought it up, and I disagreed with him. He didn't like my response and so he just deleted the whole section. I reverted it. He put it back, and I reverted it again. He deleted it four times, but it doesn't break the 3 revert rule because he wasn't reverting the first time. I mean, you can't just mass delete a section you don't like, and then keep deleting it until no one can revert you any more. Shouldn't we have to discuss this on the talk page first? What are my course of actions? It can't be that he can just delete anything he doesn't like for whatever reason. How can I address this without getting into an edit war? Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The change was discussed beforehand. Mish and I agreed that the section should be removed. Joshuajohanson was the only editor to object. There already is an entire article devoted to conversion therapy, so it doesn't seem to make much sense having a long section on it in Homosexuality and psychology. There is no evidence that attempts to change homosexuality are a major part of the article's subject, however it is defined, and the lead provides some evidence they are not. BG talk 04:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's edit warring, Please read WP:EW and WP:3RR. 3RR is NOT a license to revert three times. You were edit warring, and had I seen it I would have blocked, BG. Enough of this bs. "discussed" does not mean "I had consensus" and you know better. I was just checking in between other things, I have to run but I will be back. I strongly suggest you cease your combative behavior. I'm not impressed with your actions nor your ridiculous excuse for edit warring. Joshua, you should not have reverted either - you're almost as guilty as he, and blocking you for edit warring would have been fair. I swear, I'm seriously thinking I'm going to put the whole damn page on a 1RR rule and block anyone who exceeds that if you people don't cut it out. You're acting like POV warriors not responsible editors. Puppy has spoken; puppy will be back. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the editor behavior issues. Misunderstanding Wikipedia policy is easy, and not the same thing as deliberate bs. If I was mislead into thinking there was a consensus, it was partly because WP:CONSENSUS states that, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." It is difficult for me to make sense of that passage, unless it implies that, at a certain stage, arguments that are of poor quality (which is what I judged Joshuajohanson's arguments to be) can be disregarded. If that understanding is incorrect, please explain what it does mean. Do you have any comment on the content dispute itself? BG talk 06:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, quality of argument... I didn't write that bit, so I'm not positive what is meant,but IMO it means if someone says "Well, I'm not thrilled about it but ..." that's not a strong argument. But there needs to be no serious arguing left. If you make an edit and someone reverts, you did not have consensus. Obviously there are situation where there is an editor who is a vandal or serious, unreachable, POV pusher. If everyone on a page thinks one thing, and one lone person holds out, the rest can effectively tell him "dude, you're arguing against consensus" because here on WP we use the term more like "supermajority". True consensus means everyone has signed on, even if somewhat reluctantly, and that should be your goal. You don't tell them your rationale and then whoosh, you're done. You must convince, persuade... and compromise. They have their views, too, you know. You're not listening to them, and you are not willing to give some ground, and you're also not persuading them. You usually have to do all to reach consensus. Until you do, you'll have edit wars. I'm not going to play referee here between a bunch of people who only want their own way and cannot play well with others. You all need to actually try to find common ground. Respect each others views. Y'all figure it out. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 08:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I came here because I want to know what is the correct course of action. I have tried to discuss this with BG, but his arguments made no sense. The argument that he brings up here that there is an entire section devoted to conversion therapy was never brought up on the talk page. I don't want to spend time arguing here, because I would rather have him bring it up on the talk page than here, but it is misleading because the paragraph was not about that. His argument was that it didn't follow the lead, which I suggested to change the lead. Also, I don't know where Mish and BG discussed this, but it wasn't on the talk page. You said you won't play referee. What am I supposed to do when someone makes arguments don't make any sense and insists on changing it even after I revert it? I swear if you look at the talk page you will see that it was his arguments that don't make any sense, not mine. I don't want to get into an edit war, and I admit I'm not perfect either, but I want to know what the appropriate course of action would be. It seems the only choice I have is to let him do whatever he wants or get in an edit war. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson: Your arguments may make sense to you, but so far you do not seem to have convinced other editors of your position. I don't think that Mish would endorse my behavior, but for the record, she did appear to agree with me that this content should be removed, eg, by saying, "Perhaps Psychology of homosexuality would be a more accurate title - but whatever you call it all this stuff about conversion therapy belongs somewhere else - psychologists views of conversion therapy - or psychological views of SOCE? It is off-topic." That's there on the talk page, in the "Psychology and homosexuality" thread. Paying more careful attention to the talk page might help matters. KillerChihuahua: thank you for acknowledging that the policy is unclear and that how it is interpreted is partly a matter of opinion. I realize that unclarity of policy should not be used as an excuse for poor behavior, nevertheless, it is a problem in its own right, and needs addressing. BG talk 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am seriously unhappy I logged in and checked since again, I am short of time. BG: You are wikilawyering. Your statement that I confirmed that the "policy is unclear" is twisting my words so far out of shape the original meaning is not recognizable in the wreckage. You are wikilawyering in the extreme, you're being passive-aggressive, and you're beginning to piss me off. Now, get your content dispute off my page, and do not quote me on anything, especially policy, because you misuse my statements. Do not reply to this post. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello, KillerChihuahua. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 06:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

All that conflict

My dear KillerC, I would like to apologize for my confrontational tone in the last day or so. Although you have worked hard and given me some useful information, I was being very defensive. Actually, you are helping me to handle a delicate and tricky situation, and I owe you my gratitude an support.

See also my response to Durova on my user talk page.

Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unclear

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=317285424&oldid=317285061 ??? Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Part II of [18] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been accused of drama mongering so I will not add further to the length of that thread if I am not mentioned there. If you think it is meritorious, could you raise the idea that Law was aided in gaining adminship by one or more administrators (close friends) who knew the nature and history of his account? Now that Casliber has resigned, I find it exceptionally unfair that those parties are not being called to answer for their actions. Casliber stood aside, did nothing, and chose to resign. How about those who actively encouraged granting of sysop access to Law? Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still reading this over; my one clear thought at this time is that it is reprehensible and unacceptable to have known and remained silent. Lara twice states that she values friendship over policy; that she has, and will, ignore the trust the community has placed in her in order to further her friend's aims (get his back is the phrase I think she used) and her response to concerns voiced has been "get over it". I cannot fathom why no one is as appalled as I at this gross abuse of trust. That said, I do not wish to speak in haste, so please allow me time to digest and consider this matter. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding: to those who accuse you of "drama mongering" I would say "were there nothing here, I would have nothing to be concerned about. An admin who willingly and unashamedly states her friends come before policy here might have her friends gratitude but she should not have Wikipedia's trust, and to say so clearly is hardly 'drama-mongering'" In short, why are you letting them bully you into silence at a clear wrong? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai asked me to pipe down. I disagree, but when somebody who's apparently neutral makes such a request, I'm going to heed it. The situation is so despicable, I may need to speak out no matter what the consequences. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree strongly with Tzn's reasoning. He said it was "personal" and all I see is a gross abuse of the community's trust, and you voicing concern at that. That is far from "personal" and I can only think that Tzn didn't read as carefully as he should have. I repeat that you were bullied into silence, and you took the first "neutral" request and bowed out under pressure. If you wish to remain silent, that's your business, but IMO it is a pity you let yourself be pushed into it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to speak up about clear breaches of policy and trust when one is swatted down with the carry-all put-down "drama monger". The truth is, there are so many breaches of trust and policy going on that if stuff like this was dealt with straightforwardly, it could break the site. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hard, but not remotely negotiable. I do not think that "if stuff like this was dealt with straightforwardly, it could break the site" any more than I think that was a particularly good argument for keeping slavery in the South prior to the Civil War (If we abolish slavery, it will cause financial collapse and ruin) Sure some people will lose their positions; they damn well should. One puppy's opinion, yours may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your take on that war may be mistaken, but that's not what we're talking about here. My mistake was, I didn't mean to say nothing could be dealt with, or that most of this couldn't be handled in careful steps. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we're misunderstanding each other, here. Your post makes no sense as a reply to what I meant with mine. Not terribly important, though, so simply ack that we are missing each others meanings here and let it go? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what happened is, we agree on this, but not on the analogy. Yes, we can drop it! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I'd like to post to ANI. Is this drama mongering? Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators nominating and supporting a sock puppet at RFA

• GlassCobra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - [19]
• Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - [20]
• maybe others

At least two admins knowingly nominated or supported Law's request for adminship which ended at (101/23/4). I think this was a gross abuse of trust, and I call upon the community to ban these admins from sysop access. ~~~~

I think drama will ensue. I think any remedy attempted will ensue in drama. I think there will be those who will want to shoot the messenger. I think there will most assuredly be those who, like Lara, "back their friend(s)" whether they are right or wrong. And I will support this if you post it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I retract that. I think it might be best to take it directly to Arbcom. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good lord. The shields can't withstand drama of this magnitude! --King Öomie 15:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It'll be called drama mongering (or whatever) in a flurry back of... drama mongering. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have enough powerful wikifriends to gain traction with that, I don't think. Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also a likelihood of revenge-seeking, I'm sorry to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with GG above, though I replace likelihood with "near certainty". Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not enough wikifriends? Is that what we've sunk to? I, thankfully, have ethics. Knowing I am doing the right thing shall sustain me if and when "friends of..." attempt revenge for my voicing my concerns about such blatant lack of ethics. Hochman, write the damn thing in my sandbox and if you are intimidated or concerned, I'll put the darn thing up. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Put as such, yeah, I'd say that's what it's sunk to. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was waiting for Risker's opinion on whether an RfArb or an RfC should be the next step before I filed an identical case. This absolutely needed to be done. Karanacs (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)