User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 6

user:Crisarco

I think that Crisarco isn't Ragusino. Crisarco is an italian user, mostly active on itwiki. According to this, ranges are different. Thank you in advance. --Melos (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MEAT, and "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity" it is not vital that Crisarco is not Ragusino, but if they are disruptive in the same manner as a banned user. They are, in both my opinion and another editor with some experience of the manner of Ragusino's editing. Further, I am aware of the proximity between Italy and Croatia and the shared cross Adriatic cultural history between the two states (and their predecessors). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for meddling but I use to take a look at Istria vs. Croatia war on en.wiki, as you can see from my edits I dealt many times with this stuff.

Crisarco is not a sock or a meatpuppet of Ragusino's for a lot of reasons: different IPs, different why of use wiki, different levels of English kwnoledge and, finally, they have **so** different POVs, Ragusino and his friends (PIO and Brunodam) belongs to radical-right while Crisarco seems to belong to left.

You told that users acting in the same why of a vandal or troll must be blocked, that's true but I think Crisarco didn't: Crisarco reverted "Republic of Dubrovnik" back to "Republic of Ragusa", it sounds as reverting back Great Londinum to Greater London or New Amsterdam County back to New York County (I hope these links will remain red for a looooong time). But even taking no position in this edit-war you can see that one of the most respected it.wiki's sysops (Piero Montesacro) has been deemed "PIO's sockpuppet" by DIREKTOR. Even me who have been threatened of death by Brunodam (in order to have an evidence you can take a look at my edits on meta) has been called Brunodam's sockpuppet (!!).

So I'm asking you for doing a deeper analisys of Crisarco's behaviour.

Best regards. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request at Crisarco's It-wp talkpage for their comments, and have amended their Eng-WP talkpage to accommodate any response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you spent to solve this problem :)

--Vituzzu (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank U! --Crisarco (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

How long are article merge proposals meant to run? mark nutley (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Until a consensus is formed, one way or another. If no new consensus, then it defaults to the existing one - by means of inertia, I suppose - but the proposal is usually kept open for any new argument to emerge. The onus is to have a consensus for the merge, any other (no) result means no merge. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When you say the proposal is usually kept open do you mean on the article talk page? I am wondering how long the tags are meant to remain on the article itself, thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on the article talk page. The templates remain on the article until someone decides there is a definitive (no) consensus, or perhaps when the merge discussion has had no further comments for some months (or has been auto archived). The templates are only to advertise that there is an ongoing discussion, and if the discussion has concluded or stopped for some time then there is no need to advertise. If someone comes along and independently concludes there should be a merge then the process can start again, and the previous discussion be retrieved and reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

I would be extremely thankfull if you could explain to me the reasons behind your recent blocking of my account [1] so I can be more carefull in the future. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As indicated in my block rationale, your responses to comments to your request at ANI (This diff - all of the comment, not just the update) indicated that you were not intending to abide by the consensus that you should allow the matter to drop, but were going to pursue the issue. I concluded that by continuing to act in this matter you would have been disruptive, and so enacted the block to prevent this. Had you responded at the ANI discussion that you would do as suggested in not seeking sanction against AlisdairGreen (spelling?) but civilly asked for further rationale and clarification, then I would not have sanctioned you. In short, if you go to a admin noticeboard and in refuting the consensus indicate that you will continue acting against policy then there is a good chance of there being action taken against you. The best way to avoid a future scenario is to disengage from an issue while you are feeling strongly about it, and only comment when you feel calm. Not only will this result in you not being sanctioned, but it will likely prove more effective in bringing about a resolution more to your preference; if you are being reasonable about another editors alleged poor behaviour then you will be accorded more consideration. I am not sure if this is the response you were expecting, but I hope that it gives you something to think about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, please, I was not having any expectations regarding the answer here... But, I still have some doubts, specially regarding "consensus". What you mean by "consensus" in that situation? And also, "civilly asked for further rationale and clarification", I was asking for further clarification, but where does my response fail in civility? Also, it looks like you assuming that I would "continue acting against policy" is clearly not WP:AGF, and, in your words, this could take me to "a good chance of there being action taken against you". So, by blocking me, you were also trying to avoid further action being taken against me? FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was that the comments by AlisdairGreen were not going to be actioned, as there was not the personal attack as you claimed, by a number of commentators. You, however, declared that you would continue to pursue the matter - which I said was disruptive, not uncivil. In my suggesting that you ask for clarification "civilly" I was not claiming you had been uncivil, but that in that request you should ensure you did not demand answers but ask for a rationale so, like here, you had a better understanding of the situation. The "acting against policy" I was referring to was the stated intent to pursue the matter, which I considered to be disruptive, which was from your own comment (and therefore not a violation of AGF). To the last point, no. I was explaining why I took the action - it was your reaction to the responses to your request, in a place where a lot of the readers have access to the block button. Another admin could have easily blocked you, perhaps for less time or perhaps more. That is always the risk when disputing the consensus on an admin board. I trust this clarifies my earlier response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, regarding the "consensus", your explanations don´t clarify me much. I still fail to understand how one opinion can be considered "consensus"? And, you mean, I am not permited to disagree and point some inconsistencies in the one person "consensus" comment? And, what you mean by "a number of commentators"? The only ones that commented before my "blockable" comment were User:DIREKTOR, not an admin, but simple user, that in the same report had expressed that he was acting on defende of the user I was complaining about because of his alledged abscence, and User:Beeblebrox already mentioned comment. Who counts here in your alledged "consensus"? Because if direktor does, next time I am going to pay a bunch of people to make WP accounts just to comment on my side on the ANI reports I am involved. Ending with ironies, I still can´t see how one opinion, beside being an admin, can be considered "consensus"? Please be kind and explain this to me.
Regarding your action, I can´t really understand how can a experienced admin consider far more important to sanction, and find all sorts of reasons for it, this words of mine: [2] "I am tired of this, and I wan´t give up just because it´s the easieast solution" meaning, I was deeply insulted, and I want just "forget it" as increadibly suggested by the previos comment, together with, "(well this kind of insults, never)", meaning, I had never said this kind of insults here on WP, and you feel completely free to ignore my complains, receving this on my talk page: [3] " you can kiss your sorry ass goodbye." and also "I will drag your sorry ass", both in SAME post, meaning clearly they were not "accidental", or something like. I can´t even see comparison between this two post... I really hope you can further explain this to me, because we should seek some solution to this. FkpCascais (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be repeating myself, but will try again. The consensus was Beeblebrox's explanation of how policy interpreted the situation - consensus is not numbers, but the application of the relevant rules. I am aware of DIREKTOR's commenting - and the counter claims and accusations included there - and note that Beeblebrox was addressing both of you, in his capacity as an admin, in requesting for you both to stop. DIREKTOR did, you didn't. The fact you did not like the advice is unfortunate and understandable, but that is sometimes the case when bringing matters to the noticeboards. Rebutting it was unwise, which is where my earlier advice that you should try to step back from the matter until the passion has subsided more relates to. Again, if you wanted understanding you could have addressed Beeblebrox's rationale and requested clarification - but you rejected it, and indicated that you would pursue the matter (having AlisdairGreen27 brought to account for the comments) further. I do understand that you were distressed by the language used, but you were advised that there was not sufficient cause for action to be taken and that should have been the conclusion of the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel extremely sorry that you have to repeat yourself. Beleve me, that was not my intention. Regarding your comment on the edit summary of your previos comment, here [4], saying "try again", I supose, to me, well, I think that you should know that I allways do what I feel that is correct and more apropriate, as in life, so here on WP, too, so if I feel that I have to "try again", I will, or not, so you don´t have to warry about my actions, or its consequencies.

Since you stated that you don´t want to repeat yourself, and I obviously don´t desire to have someone doing it (that would really become painfull to both of us), I will just ask you one last question: Do you really feel that this case is over the way it is, and you really feel that there are no reasons to setlle this out and find some solution for it? Thank you, and I really apologise to make you "repeat yourself". FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The particular instance regarding AlisdairGreen(some number)'s alleged personal attack is, I feel. If there are repeated instances in the future, then there may be some value in referring to the issue again (perhaps as part of a WP:WQA report, where upsetting comments below the criteria of personal attacks might be addressed). Like the editing history of Wikipedia, nothing need ever be completely discarded - but neither does it need resurrecting unless it becomes relevant again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem regarding that particular user is that this was not his first time that he has got this kind of trouble (and I am not talking about my previos report on him), but has been rather a "periodical" problem he has (I´ve been doing my homework. Ironically, you gave me time for it ;) ).

I was really talking more about my recent account block by you, and its reasons... FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For me, the matter of the block might have been concluded once I had notified you of the matter. However, since you have expressed a desire to understand my rationale I am obliged, by my understanding of the remit of administrator, to provide you with as good a reasoning as I am able to give. You have been polite in your requests, so I am willing to extend the courtesy in responding to every point (as I understand them) raised. This matter thus concludes when either you are satisfied with the response (not saying agreeing, just that you believe you understand my reasons) or you decide there is no more to be achieved in pursuing the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I must adress that you have been quite polite in responding to all my questions raised here by me, that are a obligatory procedure when wanting to make a report on Admins tools abuse. Since I still fail to understand the reasons that have lead to the blocking of my account (specially having in mind the circunstancies and the reasons of my complains), I really decided that persuing with this matter with higher instancies was more correct and appropriate. There is really no need for repeating ourselfs, where I completely agree with you.
To be honest with you, I really fail to understand how can this situation be considered fair and concluded. I was heavily insulted on my talk page from a user that I had already complained against, and where the comunity failed to respond, since I had antecipated this users behavior. I complained again about it (lost time with a predictible new accurence) and I was sanctioned (by you) with a 24 hours block. The offensive user, User:AlasdairGreen27 didn´t even receved a warning. And you, well, you had here something that you didn´t gave to me, a WP:AGF, a 2nd chance, and a chance to explain yourself. Thank you for all. FkpCascais (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

re users BisR41 and TrisR41

I note you blocked the former as a sock abusing account. I would note that I have blocked the latter as a block evading sock of the former. You commented in your block summary that BisR41 passed the WP:DUCK test, so if there is an ongoing SPI you may wish to include the latest incarnation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a SSP case, but the sock template's should do the "tag-and-recognize" task. Quite a persistent and predictable fellow though; Create an account, post an angry message, complain at jimbo's talk page about how he is blocked unfairly and then create another. But i shouldn't be speaking to you - talking to myself is a sign of madness, and since we are all meat-puppets according to him... O well, easy enough to recognize and remove i guess. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

this is probably inappropriate for ANI, so I'l say it here

It's kind of like Double Secret Probation? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Something like that - I couldn't possibly comment... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding the recent blocking of FkpCascais account

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

NickLenz19

Hi, LessHeard vanU. I'm one of the editors from WikiProject Comics whom you helped after a consensus of editors tried to get user User:NickLenz19 to discuss his questionable edits. He declined, you blocked him for 48 hours, and now he's immediately begun making the same edits. I noted on his talk page just now that I'd be seeking admin intervention. I hope you can help us again. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that admin J Greb has blocked for a further 60 hours. If NickLenz19 resumes his nonco-operative editing upon expiry of this block, I suggest that you ask for an indefinite block on the account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What?

By his actions? A comment about another editor that is in context with their one sided edits to a BLP! This gets sillier and sillier. Tie someones hands behind their backs tighter and tighter until they cannot edit and then say "it is your fault" what an utter joke. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does WMC have a civility restriction? Is he blameless? Perhaps you may not think so. I am suggesting that there is an extension, prompted by WMC's choices in the terms by which he addresses other editors. Does he not have free will in making those comments? Then the responsibility is his? Regardless, my suggestions do not restrain WMC from making the edits and noting the reasons why he has done so, but only to limit what he may say about them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I retain my doubts about LHvU's objectivity in this area, I should note that I support this action as long as it also applies to Marknutley, and is liberally applied in the future to all other incivil SPA's should they return to the topic area. Hipocrite (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have so commented in the Marknutley subsection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I look forward to SPA's no longer calling me "kid." Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A simple question. Why extend a civility restriction, when an editor makes a remark that most people on wikipedia find acceptable in the context it is in? If you won't answer this I will. It stops an editor performing in a normal way. Nice if you can then blame them for this situation. MN is another matter. I deal with one thing at a time and at the moment the case is about WMC and there has already been enough nonsense, this should be shut down right now not added to. Polargeo (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Without ignoring the beam in my eye, WMC crosses the line at times. This was one of them. I wish he'd stop, because then Lar wouldn't have an ammunition. Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

One quick clarify on "value of the sources quoted" - this should not preclude WMC from arguing that any source is unreliable, or that a source is being misrepresented, as there is a real problem in the use of unreliable sources and the blatent misrepresentation of sources. It should prevent him from using the phrase "torrygraph," which, while in the broader scale of things is totally inoffensive will just be used as a lever to fuck with him. This, of course, will be mirrored in marknutley, who, to use an example of a statement that he has not used, would be prohibited from saying "The New York Slimes," or whatever british people call their liberal equavlent of something. Hipocrite (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The British Liberal equivalent of the Torygraph is the Grauniad, but of course Liberal here means centre party, probably centre right but we'll see how things go when the general election results come in. The Morning Star is definitely left wing, if that's what you mean by the term, but not really popular enough to be equivalent, The Daily Mirror is a cenre left tabloid. Neither have attracted Private Eye nicknames popular enough for me to remember them :-/ . . dave souza, talk 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am letting you know because you participated in the thread the first time it was brought to the WP:ANI. Here are the URL and wikilink to the current discussion. [5] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Color me puzzled.

I noted to NW, and now to you - I'm puzzled that, in an RfE nominally about WMC, there are discussions of possible sanctions against Mark Nutley. Mark hasn't been informed of the discussions, there are no diffs, no summary statement of alleged infractions, no evidence of prior warnings listed, and the entire discussion is taking place in an admin only section, so no one else(including Mark) is even allowed to add an opinion to the discussion. Sanctions may or may not be in order, but shouldn't there be a proper discussion, as opposed to proposals in a section titled "Result concerning WMC"?--SPhilbrickT 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Requests for probation enforcement are not taken in isolation, but are judged against past requests and complaints. It can be that to try to enforce the probation that actions are discussed that impact on more than the persons originally noted in the request (such as a particular article being subject to a 1RR restriction on all parties rather than the one or two accounts named, so the edit war between the two cannot become one by proxy). I would comment that these issues are discussed before being enacted (if there is consensus) so there are opportunities for comment from the individuals concerned. In the case of Marknutley, there is sufficient previous comment regarding some of his interactions for the matter regarding WMC and he to generate possible solutions to reduce the interactions between them - since they produce rather than solve disruption. Remember, admins do not act to punish editors, but to remove or at least lessen the opportunity for disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that repetitive attempts to get an editor such as WMC removed from the topic area could result in an unjustified presumption of guilt, but judging against past findings is of course reasonable. Comments by WMC which would be given a bit of slack in most productive editors appear to be seized on as being disruptive, the main disruption being the complaints that are raised against WMC. Having said that, he should take great care to be polite and your advice about commenting on actions, not on editors, should be well taken. You've probably discussed this many times before, so just take this as my musings on a difficult situation dealing with a hotly contested topic. . . dave souza, talk 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"incorrectly formatted"?

Re. [6]: WP:BURO and "should" (as opposed to "must") come to mind. I'd prefer it if you throw out that part of the closing rationale. Did you see any disadvantage from the simpler format as opposed to the giant template? But yes, it has run its course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at this article

Hi there. Would you please be so kind and look thoroughly into this issue? There's an editor who keeps changing the type of album from "studio" to "demo" on this article. He has no reliable verifiable sources to back up his edits, he tried unsuccessfully to have the article deleted alltogether.

The editor has a long history of disruptive editing, blocks, topic bans etc. As his own account is already blemished as such, he basically has nothing to lose if he receives a further block for edit war. This is why I belive he is so adamant in continuing his reverts, wanting to engage me in an edit war.

I am asking you, and have sent the same message to other admins online, to please thoroughly look into this issue. I have reported the whole incident to both Ani and Avi, yet to no avail. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If I have time I shall look into it, but I am involved elsewhere and you may find another sysop more quickly able to assist. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Blocked for 48 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for taking a thorough look into this matter. Hopefully now the article will be free from disruptive editing. Amsaim (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Working on it

LHvU places fingers in ears, covers his eyes, and chant's "I am not involved - I am NOT involved". Other editors may continue to post here - but I am not going to be involved... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

[7] I am trying over here you know :) [8] mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I am attempting to close the subsequent Request on you by WMC by merging that part with the existing one, since it is the only part of it that bears scrutiny (I think I have evidenced that you are not in violation of 1RR). Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The argument that a blog is a reliable source because it's on a newspaper's website and has a copyright notice to that newspaper seems like the sort of issue with questionable sourcing that Mark was cautioned about.[9] Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. . dave souza, talk 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The substance of the dispute over whether a blog may be a reliable source under circumstances is not within the remit of the probation, but the issue of diminishing the instances where Marknnutley is in dispute over the matter of using blogs as sources is - and that is being dealt with presently. Involving myself in the dispute itself would mean I would no longer be uninvolved and could not partake in that discussion, nor any subsequent ones involving other instances (although I should hope there will not be any...) I will have to decline the invitation to place my thoughts upon the specific matter here or elsewhere. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Dave, if what you are saying is the case perhaps we should remove all the Monbiot refs from our articles? His blog is no different to Delingpoles after all. And you should also check the talk page again, the Telegraph retains the rights to all material on it`s site mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems regarding direktor

Hello Less, sorry to bother you but I feel this way we could possibly try to fix one problem and perhaps know each other better. The problem is direktor and his edits on the Flag of Yugoslavia and related articles. He is editing the articles against 4 editors that clearly disagree with him. I already asked for advice on the project talk page and they also agree with me (disagree with the way direktor edited the article). Direktor treats the article against WP:OWN, completely ignores other editors, attacks when criticised (called "Serbian nationalist" to one editor and "vandalism" to me...). He is completely wrong on this one and he does this only because he treats all edits of his as some kind of battle. You can see all explained at Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia... I have to work now, I´ll be back tonight, can you please intervene (I have no patiente for further dealing with him), or can you please tell me an advice how to solve this in your opinion. Thanking you in advance, I send you regards, FkpCascais (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 3 days so that consensus may be attempted at the talkpage, rather than within edit summaries. I am not going to count reverts, nor investigate the rationales (since they are not too detailed), but it appears to me to be an edit war was either occurring or incipient. In my talkpage notice I commented that consensus is not the product of a majority, or a minority, demanding their version is optimum - but the use of (En-Lang) WP policy and reliable sources to indicate the most usual terms used. I am aware who last edited the article, and would comment that not participating in a discussion on consensus - on the basis that the article presently reflects the preferred version - is inappropriate, and against the WP ethos. I shall note DIREKTOR individually that this matter needs to be resolved through proper processes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I also asked for intervention in the articles project Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology so they can further help on this. I am extremely greatfull for your help and I apologise once more for making you loose time with this. FkpCascais (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to stop disputes is part of what I do here, so no problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no Less! I see you wrongly protected the article Yugoslavia. I´m not sure if there had been any troubles (I don´t think so) but the articles in dispute here are others, being the main Flag of Yugoslavia, but also directly related Flags of the Yugoslav Republics, Coat of arms of Yugoslavia and Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Sorry for this mess (I did gave you the link to the flag article in my comment...) please don´t be mad with me :) . Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice sought

Since you seem to shift your defn of revert fairly frequently, I'd like to know if the one your using this week/day makes [10] a revert? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt it strange that you managed to insert "Polemic" back in but not the fact that the book is non fiction which hipocrite removed with the edit summary "Book is not "non-fiction," since it's fiction!". And is it not also strange that in talk there is no consensus to call this book a polemic yet your edit summary was "Per Talk", would you care to explain that? And ever more strange that no refs can be supplied to support both these claims? mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are admitting to being one of the other accounts that has edited in the previous 24 hours I see no good reason why you should enquire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Wording?

He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. So you know what that actually means right? It means i`m screwed. I`ll not be able to add anything, you know it`ll be reverted and then i`ll be stonewalled. How the hell does wmc get RFE`d and i get the restriction? mark nutley (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As you will have the services of a mentor in relation to placing the sources in the first instance, then the finding of a consensus based in policy would not be hard - and policy overcomes (well, it should) any amount of rhetoric - and then it is established unless someone can find a new consensus against it. Also, through the use of the mentors assistance, the sources used from now on should be so policy compliant that anyone removing them without a good faith rationale might be viewed as being disruptive or otherwise violating policy. I suggest that only being able to include watertight sourcing is beneficial to your editing stance, and the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What like this you mean? [11] Or the removal the BBC as a source or the Guardian perhaps? [12] yes i can see how i can achieve consensus with people who will blank an article while they are trying to get it deleted, i may as well just give it up mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can give up, it's a volunteer project when all is said and done. However, what I said was, if you can ensure that you only use scrupulously policy compliant references, then any removal needs to show how it was not in violation of policy in any subsequent discussion. If you use only a reliable source, and it gets blanked, then the blankee runs the risk of having their edits reviewed for compliance - and the consensus then gained means the source should not be blanked or changed without a new consensus. It is the hard way, but ultimately sound. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, btw, is this rfc/u about lar [13] also meant to be mentioned here [14] ? mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Re the RfC, yes, apparently so. You may wish to remind people of that fact on the RfC talkpage; Please do not blank the RfC - act in the way you would have preferred people to have done to you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Done that, thanks. Might i ask how long my block will be for? and if possible can i have a voluntary block so i can work on the wips in my userspace? mark nutley (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Added. Please check my addition to make sure it is correct. It is the first time I have made an RfC. I hardly ever bother with this sort of forum. I hate any situation where some editors pile on against each other like headless chickens but I suppose this is something we have to face in this area. Polargeo (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are blocked, it will be a technical violation and therefore 24 hours - same as WMC. That said, if Bozmo doesn't want to block and no further input then there is a stalemate and that would default to no block. More admin comment may decide either way. I am for the block, since I wish to act to the same standard as before and nothing personal (then or now). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, with regards to this If you use only a reliable source, and it gets blanked, then the blankee runs the risk of having their edits reviewed for compliance How do i get something reviewed? as chriso has again removed well sourced material [15] it is not going to be possible for me to add material to any articles without fighting all the way, that is ridiculous mark nutley (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, did you pass this over to CLA68 before posting? If so, can you give a diff on his comments. Have you asked Christo for a fuller explanation, and can you provide a diff for it and any response? My brief look is that Christo may have a case when he says the source is not a review; the first sentence or two may well be, since it describes the book and its author within the context of the subject matter. The second half puts forward the claim(s) contained within the book, but offers no comment on the validity of the conclusion or the method in obtaining it and therefore could be construed as publicising rather than reviewing. All this is on the basis that the source was being used as an example of a book review, rather than another purpose. I think this is an example of why having a mentor was such a good idea, there is a context that needs consideration when applying a source.
To answer your original question, once it can be determined that the source - which appears to be a generally RS - was used appropriately then I or another admin can issue a warning to Christo not to remove WP:RS without consensus. You can then return it, providing there is no other revert by you in 24 hours before hand. Then we wait.
...but first, provide me with a response from CLA68 where he agrees the source was appropriate for what it was used for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I`ll have to wait for him to come online. I did not ask if it was reliable because national newspapers are reliable, am i meant to ask cla about every source i use? even one already considered reliable? mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just closed the Probation enforcement request that instigated the mentorship, so I can answer that, no, you don't have to get CLA68 to okay everything... but that you cannot revert back without a talkpage consensus for any source that is removed, even a reliable one. Therefore it makes sense that you already have CLA's nod before you use a source, because other people who are not under your restrictions can remove good cites (with the risk of being warned and then sanctioned/restricted subsequently) and it is best that you already have CLA's rationale to use in your move to get consensus. Again, a reliable source such as a mainstream newspaper is only good when used in context - in this matter, whether it is as a review of the book. That is also where a consensus is required. CLA68 is excellent at teasing out the correct WP policy to determine where consensus should lie.
Yes, it is a pain, but with practice and CLA's guidance you will be more able to use the correct source and note policy in your edit summary so your edits will only be reverted under risk of warning and sanction, and preferably not at all. It is why there is such burn out around such topics, you have to recross the t's and redot the i's on a regular basis (and also why co-operation works so much better than competition). I find adminning, with all the invective that it comes with it and other delights, easier than content work in disputed areas - and thus supporting all and any content contributors so rewarding. There you go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok mate, thanks, when cla is about i`ll ask him what he thinks of the source chris removed and go from there. mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this source from the BBC has been removed from the [[Bishop Hill (Blog)] article several times by, User:Yilloslime User:KimDabelsteinPetersen and User:ChrisO This is what they keep removing. Cla has also put this back btw as well as two other users. Roger Harrabin writing for the BBC on when the Parliamentary Committee investigating the Climategate Controversy published their findings said, sceptics on the Bishop Hill website ridiculed the MPs' findings. One asked: "Is it April fools already?" With another commenting, "No-one with half a brain cell will view this conclusion as anything other than a hasty and not very subtle establishment cover-up." Now i hate to be a pain but you did say to ask if a source has been used properly and if it was still reverted out to ask you to review it. mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely protected the page until there is an apparent consensus on not only the appropriateness of the source, but also the suggestion of the article being merged or deleted. I have made my suggestions regarding a fresh RfC, inviting outside comment, or perhaps a third opinion on the question of the source, and commented that there would need to be a new AfD with fresh arguments to overturn the last one which resulted in "keep". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Yugoslavia article protected for 3 days

(Its not the Yugoslavia article. I've been stalked to five other smaller articles I'm working on. Everything I do on Flag of Yugoslavia, Flags of the Yugoslav Republics, Coat of arms of Yugoslavia, and Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia is instantly removed by this person's sense of "revenge".)

I'll be frank: I am at my wits' end with this person. How am I supposed to remain civil with this account harassing me, following me around and reverting whatever I do out of some sense of "revenge" for my opposition to his edits at the Draža Mihailović article? You instruct me to discuss. Do not think me unwilling, but you seem to have missed one major fact: this account arrived to the articles in question with the intention to revert my edits whatever they may be, and regardless of any arguments. That much is obvious - I've been working on the articles for days and have introduced several (unrelated) improvements, but this user who, I stress again, just "happened" to arrive there seems to amazingly be opposed to each and every one of them on each and every article in question. His opposition is based on who makes the edits, and not what the edits are.

And now this old cheap ploy of his. He reverts all my hard work and quickly alerts you so that you may freeze his version in place. For some reason he seems to think he "wins" if that happens since he already did that on several other articles. I'm sure you can see how this repetitive pattern can be infuriating. I'm being harassed on no less than four articles and cannot get any work done around here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Less, I´m not sure you saw my last message...

Regarding the article:

• 1) He "made his hard work" on the article having faced oposition from the beggining.
• 2) He completely ignored the requests of other editors.
• 3) What is wrong with his edits? Well, the country had two historical periods, Monarchy (1918 to WWII) and Socialist Republic (WWII to 1992), each one with a different flag and coat of arms. Each one deserves EQUAL status. Direktor gives all importance to "Socialism" leaving completely the monarchic flag and coat of arms in the background since he increadibly and racistically considers the monarchic period as "Serbian nonsence nationalism" only because it was the Serbian dinasty that ruled the Kingdom. Everybody, except direktor, wants to have the chronological perspective (as in all other articles of former countries with several flags) giving SAME importance to all flags (not prefering ones over others, as direktor is doing). It is even quite an insult to see that he removed all the other monarchic flags and has put the official national flag of the K.of Yugoslavia in same level as the one of the Yugoslav Communist Party, at bottom of the page!
• 4) I am not following him, I am even avoiding him! But that is no reason for leaving him vandalising articles. He seems to be used to editors giving up on his uncivility (that is why I consider him, and all the ones deffending this, harmfull to WP) and he just seems extremely upset when someone stands up to him. When that happends he desperately starts accusing people of every insulting thing that comes to his mind (that was what I was saying "I´m fed up"). His acusations are extremely insulting (please, Less, if you have time, just see what all nonsence things he has acused me just over this, here Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia).
• 5) He disrespects every single one that disagrees with him (even you in this case, you politely spoke with him and gave him advice, but he seems to be owner of the all reason).
• 6) All me and other editors want is to have good articles. The article was almost perfect before he started excluding the monarchic period. He is just making trouble where there was none.

Sorry for this, but since we don´t know that well I felt better telling you my reasons. He is being the most disruptive as possible on this one. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• There are dispute resolution processes, and there are article talkpages where consensus can be achieved - use them and not edit summaries while revert warring. If the edit war resumes when the protection expires, then I shall reprotect indefinitely - and I will protect in whatever version it is in without reference, so any editor involved in an edit war needs to realise that the "other side" may have the article in their preferred state when it happens. I may also sanction the editors involved. I have indicated that Wikipedia articles need to be sourced from reliable third parties, so all those involved have to do is find the references and then apply them per Wikipedia:Due weight. Be encyclopedia editors and not special interest contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But Less, regardless of everything, you have protected the wrong article... It is the Flag of Yugoslavia, not Yugoslavia itself... :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"I was wondering when someone was going to notice that...!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing, could you undo the edit by "User:Butler.banana"? The account's a sock of User:Ragusino, and I do not think that guy's fanatical "devotion" to enWiki should be encouraged. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit, and indef blocked the editor as a disruptive SPA, but note that it does not mean that the version now shown is approved or is otherwised not subject to normal WP editing when the protection expires. The issues are still to be discussed, or otherwise resolved by WP process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know... What I don't know is how I'm going to solve this. I think there ought to be an infobox in the flag article, since its for FIAV flags like that of Yu, Fkp disagrees. The reason why he disagrees, however, is what tics me off. Namely I'm convinced he's against it out of personal reasons (he dislikes me intensely) and that's a very discouraging thought for anyone hoping to resolve this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you imply that this is an issue mainly between the two parties, why don't you agree to a binding third opinion? Present your rationales per policy and practice and avoiding any comment upon the other editor, and see what transpires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I need to understand what is the standard procedure you use to ban users for sockpuppeting. I need also to notice you that User:DIREKTOR is accusing me to be a sockpuppet, so that, after several trial to dialogue, and several advice not to use this terror strategy i opted to noticed him here. I'm an honourable wikipedian since 2006, active on en., it., fr., es., and other and my contribution to the project MUST be respected. I look how easily you, sir, follow Doktor's indications, and reminding you what happen to User:Crisarco, i wonder if this is the right method.

Best regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerns or allegations of sockpuppeting should be reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, where you should also find guidance. As regards being accused of socking, when no process has been instituted, then your referral to WP:WQA seems appropriate - although they may suggest you take the issue to WP:ANI. As for respect regarding a contribution history, I have also been editing since 2006 and am uncertain I am content to have my actions described as "follow Doktor's (I presume you mean DIREKTOR's) indications..." I only changed the version of the protected article as the last editor was a clear SPA intending to disrupt the project - I do get things wrong on a regular basis, but I think I am certainly correct in my actions there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Theirrulez. When an admin does something somewhere that I do not personally approve of I do not immediately try to discredit him/her with nonsensical half-insulting insinuations. LessHeard vanU, if it makes you feel any better, you're now officially a part of the evil admin cabal that I control. Congradz :) Ged UK, AniMate, and a whole lot of other veteran Wikipedians will keep you company. You'll be glad to know that to ease your transition into my servitude (LoL), our initiation ceremony will include quantities of half-dressed, easy women. ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If they aint serving pasties, they can put their clothes back on... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I mean "Direktor's", sir. Thanks, I'll follow your suggestions to try to solve this unsafe situation. Best regards, sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cough cough

[16] As far as I know violets are hardy perennials... --BozMo talk 07:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am, my friend, an administrator upon the Wikipedia project - and thus facts are alien to me! LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... another one

Ragusino is really spawning them by the dozen these days. Somebody REALLY needs to block his IP. Anyway here he is, "User:Kancetha" have fun blasting him away :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FootballPhill, Cows, Milk, and a quacking IP - again!

Hi, 82.1.157.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), previously blocked by you (probable FootballPhil sock) is back and carrying on much as before. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jacksisco

User:Jacksisco has begun recreating his page. It was blanked by you (see User_talk:Jacksisco#ANI_Notice). I don't understand this user at all. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours and page reblanked. They were likely just checking to see if anyone was still watching. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Prot, why?

Other than "MN asked me to do it" I can't see any reason for protecting that. The level of edit warring looks far too low to justify the prot. Please explain yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw a slow edit war. Reverting was taking the place of discussion, which had stalled, in what is primarily a content dispute regarding the eligibility of a source. In protecting the article, I have hopefully forced people to come to a consensus over the matter. On such a small article, any non controversial edits may easily be requested via the talkpage. I also noted a couple of editors commenting in such a manner as to indicate they were prepared to disregard the consensus of the AfD, so I have also noted the requirement for a new consensus in that matter also while ensuring compliance with policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that anyone other than MN agrees with you. Please reverse this pointless prot William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

LHVU, once you removed the protection, someone blanked most of the article and then, almost immediately after Mark was blocked for an unrelated offense, another editor involved in the content dispute redirected the article, which is against what the AfD decided. I've taken away the redirect and restored the text which was blanked and request full protection for the article again. I may file a formal enforcement request about the two editors who did this as it looks like bad faith/POV editing to me. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Or, put another way, you've edit warred over this article in direct contravention of "Please do not start revert warring, no matter how slow" without even troubling yourself to discuss your reversion on the talk page. Now of course your view is that you are right and therefore *you* (but not the "other side") are entitled to edit war back to your preferred version William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your input in needed on the article's talk page. Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

dave souza

Looking at the editor history are you sure it wasn't ChrisO you meant to block? AFAICT Souza has only done one edit on the page? Your call, not got time to check properly and action was needed. --BozMo talk 15:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Since cakes seem to be the order of the day, have some flies cemetery. Hope you enjoy! . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I took my time responding, I have been reviewing the issue; yes, I meant to block dave souza for removal of content without a clear consensus. I had protected the article because of the number of times an action was taken without discussion which also resulted in a revert of a recent edit, and lifted it upon request when it appeared that everyone was discussing matters. All three actions that I blocked for were fairly obviously not according to consensus, including ds's. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog

Understood, and thanks for the note. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see some correctly referenced material was reverted without discussing it first. [17] I'm reluctant to revert back. What are the rules of engagement? :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, ChrisO violated NPA [18] [19] [20] on the talk page and removed a link to the article from the "see also" section of another article. As soon as I can get to it today, I'll be filing an enforcement request on Chris. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is ChrisO seriously accusing Cla68 of collusion with SlimVirgin? Or Lar? Either way, that has to be the best bit of unintentional Wiki-humor I've heard in months. ;-) ATren (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And via offwiki communication, no less. Plus on the talk page I find the august and ancient Daily Telegraph being dismissed as a fringe source. I fear we've all dropped down the rabbit hole. I fully expect the Cheshire Cat to appear any minute. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Now practically all the material I added has been removed. [21] [22] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: YS restored what he removed (running commentary). :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the real issue: Sure, there has some discussion of whether newspaper associated blogs are RSs for certain things, but the major objection to the content is one of WP:WEIGHT and relevance. Just because an article in a RS mentioned the blog in passing, that doesn't mean we need to mention that mention in the article. That's what this argument is all about, not whether the the Telegraph is generally reliable. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a WP article about X that's practically empty, and you have X being mentioned by very mainstream reliable sources in a way that's quite unusual for members of the group that X belongs to, then there's no reason within policy not to include those mentions in the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Welcome, SV, to the delights of editing Climate Change related articles. There are some issues relating to the editing and reverting of articles between some editors who regard Anthropogenic Global Warming as a scientifically sound theory and are wary of the preponderance - as they see it - of the quantity and quality of articles which reflect the sceptic or denialist viewpoint (which they consider WP:FRINGE scientifically) and those who feel either that the wider world debate should be better reflected (i.e. political and other considerations as opposed pure science, which they assert is not the case in the WP coverage) or are indeed trying to promote those agenda's in an effort to deprecate the science. There is an unfortunate tendency to both insert and remove content that might be considered as being orientated toward one or the other of the viewpoints without engaging in discussion or seeking consensus. Regrettably, this has resulted in the raft of articles being placed under probation and egregious examples of poor conduct being reported to an enforcement page. The page that you edited is not, unlike some, under a 1RR restriction so there is the potential to revert back - however, I had previously protected the page against a slow edit war and had only lifted same upon some indication that discussion was preceding reverting; although I then blocked 3 editors who swiftly took unilateral action to remove and then revert the removal of some information. I suggest that you review the article editing history, the talkpage history, and engage the existing editors in trying to find a consensus (based upon WP policy) regarding the use of sources... if you are inclined to continue editing the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I have reviewed the "discussion" regarding and involving you. I was not impressed, even by the low civility standards that are apparently endemic in the article covered by the probation, by the belligerent lack of good faith shown toward a new editor to the article, and have warned one particular editor and made my view clear on the article talkpage. I am somewhat mollified that one or two of the editors are managing to discuss some of the issues, in a manner approximating politeness, with you now, but I should have hoped there might have been an apology for their earlier tone taken. I am grateful that you do not appear to have been prejudiced (or simply put off) by the reception you received, and that you have continued to try to come to consensus by reference to policy and practice and by engaging the other parties. I wish you well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Discussion is continuing more calmly now about whether to merge, and if so in which direction. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"As Marknutley will be unavailable for some time, it might be wise to see if Cla68 (whose block has expired) wants to comment."

This is an interesting comment. Are you suggesting that they should be considered as a team? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 has previously edited the article, in supporting the sources and - per Marknutley's comments in the section above - had as Mn's mentor "approved" their insertion, and might be considered as someone whose views need considering. My consideration is, as always, that all viewpoints are gathered to ensure that consensus is soundly gained. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

discrimintn ofde disabld

canwetalk pl?--pl.note:i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear[sven70=alias (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• fe here +aldetime o/en.wt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to speak with me, I am contactable on Skype (markjamesslater1959), Microsoft Messenger (markjamesslater@live.co.uk) and Yahoo Messenger (markjslater@yahoo.co.uk) on audio. Evenings, Western European Summer Time, are best, since I may be away from the pc during weekend daytime and am unavailable most of the working day. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ta+aded[sk/msn-utc8tho..--pl.note:i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear[sven70=alias (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Matematicus

...is the latest sock of User:Ragusino, in case you want to lend a hand... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it is Ragusino, although it is certainly someone's sock - and the username does not register on meta also - that appears to be orientated toward a Croat nationalism pov. I would however note the "poor English" exampled in the article edits but the correct grammer on the user talkpage, as well as the familiarity with WP editing practices. It may be our man attempting to disguise themselves. I am inclined to let you keep an eye on them for the time being. Once they either prove to be a POV SPA or take up the usual Ragusino interests then I will block.
As regards the user talkpage mentioned, never remove content that is not vandalism, libel or copyright from another editors talkpage; it is for them to decide if it is kept, per WP:TPOC. This is an official warning, and since it will not be recorded in your talkpage history for other admins to note it is a level4im one - if I note you doing it again I will block your account for 24 hours. I suggest that you tag the accounts page as a likely sock of Ragusino, and note your concerns on any editors talkpage they edit - but leave it at that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So socks can edit talkpages? Well anyway warning duly noted, but its him all right: Matematicus' edit, identical IP edit, Matematicus IP restoring the edits of "User:Culiao" [23]. The Matematicus IP is Ragusino's variable IP. Check its edits [24]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, socks can - A sock isn't an example of vandalism, but of disruption or ban evasion. Warning someone they are talking to a sock (even if it is likely that they are aware) allows them to take whatever action they choose. I will check your evidence re Ragusino. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, the ip and Matemeticus' similar edits on Ragusino's ip. Will indef block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI#Disruption at Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools. Thank you. It was started by a user you blocked 4 months ago. --Elvey (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - I had already found my way there. My block seems unrelated to the issue at hand, other than it involves you again. Also, the other party does appear to be following the conditions for unblock in that they have taken the matter to ANI. I don't believe I can provide any more assistance than any other admin/editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "other than it involves you again"? I think you're mistaken; I had no involvement with [25], which I think it what led to the ban. I don't recall prior involvement with Hm2k at all. Apologies if there's a connection I'm not aware of. --Elvey (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jacksisco

User:Jacksisco has again put material back on his user page. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User indef blocked and userpage content replaced with block notice. Thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Blog again

Despite clear consensus for a merge, Cla has reverted to the article. This looks like edit warring to me William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC's typically run for 30 days and WMC is involved and therefore is inappropriate for him to close (see discussion). At least three people have voted [26] [27] [28] since WMC tried to prematurely close it. Two of those were against the merger. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reviewing Doctor Connelley's talkpage and the article talkpage I see no direct request to undo the merge (and thus no refusal to do so), but then again I saw nothing from Doctor Connelley acknowledging the concerns regarding an uninvolved party closing a RfC after only a few days. I recognise that the issue was previously discussed, but would note that the AfD was closed as no consensus which defaults to keep (thus no delete, redirect or merge). In which case I suggest that a new consensus is required, and that the RfC should run longer to ensure that the opportunity for a wider gathering of views is allowd. To answer - in that Doctor Connelley prematurely closed a RfC in which he is involved, and following protestations from the RfC filer and others, and Cla68 undid that action - I do not think that Cla68 was edit warring against consensus, because consensus had not been clearly formed. As, until the last couple of commentators, the RfC was moving to where and what manner a merge should take place I suggest that it continues and the merge is enacted by an uninvolved administrator (I am disregarding the Doctor Connelley is no longer an admin, and non admin closures must be noncontroversial - since the admin requirement is only as a level of experience) when there is agreement on the manner of the merge and it taking place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Which part of RfC rules say that it needs an uninvolved admin to close it? I agree WMC is not in a position to close it. Cla is not in a position to close it either. The RfC should be closed after 30 days or earlier by SlimVirgin. However, it is within normal user rights to enact a clear consensus on the merge and an RfC has no power what so ever to hold up a merge which has clear consensus. If RfC had that sort of power Lar would not be allowed to act as an uninvolved admin right now and that is clearly ridiculous (I think he shouldn't but just having an RfC does not invoke those sorts of powers). RfC is not AfD and should not be treated as such. It cannot be used by one or two users as some major delaying tactic, stagnating development for a month. An uninvolved admin should do nothing more than enforce consensus and the clear consensus is currently for a merge. RfC should not hold that up. Polargeo (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

LHVU: if you want to be snarky, try to do it right. The correct title is Dr, not Doctor. And the correct spelling is Connolley. You're havinf trouble; use WMC, it is far easier. edit warring against consensus - interesting moving of the goalposts. You previous instructions, and blocks, were for edit warring - not "edit warring against consensus". Is that the new test you're applying? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No snark intended, Dr Connolley; I noted your preferences at your page and followed them, and I refer to you as WMC in the third person but in full title to you since that is the polite form of address. You are perhaps too imbued in a culture of belittlement and derision to believe that some people may actually make an effort. If you would prefer me to refer to you as WMC in all instances, then please make that request. To make myself clearer regarding my understanding of Cla68's actions, it was not edit warring. Period. It was not correct, since there had been no formal request to you to revert your action or consensus otherwise, as your action in improperly closing the RfC and making the merge was also incorrect. Therefore, I decided that no action was to be taken in this matter.

(resp to Polargeo) Policy pages are descriptive, and therefore may lag behind actual practice, and not prescriptive. Practice is that uninvolved admins close RfC's, except where there is obvious and consistent consensus. That there is current clear consensus, which is not the case as you wrote that, after a couple of days is the reason why there is an extended commenting time - it allows for fuller considered discussion, and for uninvolved editors to fully review the history before committing comments. Like I said, policy is descriptive and not prescriptive, but 30 days down to 3 is a little too loose an interpretation of a reasonable period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use my name and title, then get them right. You've read User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats, you know what it says. AGF has run out; I don't believe that no snark was intended.

Onto the blog: you've now reverted to your preferred version, which is clearly not the one that has consensus on talk, you've protected your preferred version, and you've purported to ban another admin from the page. These actions are not acceptable. You can't be an editor on that page and act as an admin too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And you haven't even bothered explain yourself on the article talk page. Calm down, realise you're wrong, stop abusing your powers. You need to undo one of the prot or the revert, and preferrably both, and withdraw your threats to PG William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noted my actions and requested review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of actions, then noted this at the Climate Change Probation requests talkpage, and same at the article talkpage. You may wish to comment at ANI. I would note that I have not threatened Polargeo; I have banned them from editing the article page for the duration of the RfC. I also refute your suggestions that the article is now in "my" preferred state - as far as I am concerned it is now broadly compliant with policy. The protection will be reverted when I am confident that there will be no interpretations of consensus that is not demonstrably agreed by a significant number of editors over an extended period. If that means the conclusion of the RfC, then so be it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

[29] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, and can I have chocolate sauce as well? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As I noted over at the enforcement request, the RfC regulation states that the nominator can close a content RfC before 30 days. WMC was not the nominator of that RfC. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The action I reversed was an editor merging by redirect an article according to a "consensus" that had emerged prior to and during the RfC on the merge, not Dr Connolley's "closure of RfC and merge" which you undid and I forebear to sanction the involved party. Polargeo's reasoning was so out of step of any interpretation of consensus that I am aware of that it drew the article page ban, in that allowing such consideration of policy within editing would be disruptive. The protection re-instatement was, however, related also to the earlier redirect and revert, since it appears that talkpage consensus is not being properly applied. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain, in a different context, my rationale for my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting an RfC on an article weeks after a merge discussion had begun and the merge discussion was already at a state where consensus could be judged has NO bearing on whether the article can be merged or not. You are totally utterly out of line here. Polargeo (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

edit warring

How the fuck can this be edit warring. [30] when I have never edited the page before? You are so far out of order it is getting silly. Polargeo (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you just trust me a little as a fellow admin you will find me very reasonable. Polargeo (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Hi LH, regarding the CC articles, I've only been involved for a few days, and only at a couple of side articles, but already I've seen some very poor behavior, which in my view makes it inevitable that the situation will come before ArbCom again before too long. Certain editors will try to cause a problem for any admin or editor who opposes them. My advice to you therefore is to find a second admin—someone fair-minded and if possible experienced—who has never been involved in the CC disputes. And then the two of you confer before taking any action. That protects you against allegations in the future.

I'm not advising this because I think you've done anything wrong; on the contrary, I think you're acting correctly. But you'll be attacked no matter what you do, and having a partner helps to keep you safe. I did this recently on a protracted dispute that I was adminning—acted together with a second uninvolved editor, actually not an admin but a mediator—and it worked out pretty well. Feel free to ignore this, of course. I'm just jotting down some thoughts in case they're helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin. I strongly suggest your involvement has increased the gaming and the general mess in these articles. I know LessHeard was trying to coach you into supporting his viewpoint based on previous conversations between the two of you. There is no need for a warning. All LessHeard needed to do was undo my edit and advise me why, you obviously realise that he was wrong in using his admin tools and you are trying to warn him against such a course. thanks Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear above and elsewhere that I think LH is behaving correctly. I made the suggestion above in his interests only, because it's clear he'll be attacked for being even-handed. He would be less exposed to that if he had a second uninvolved admin to confer with. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird. You really think reverting to his/your preferred version and then protecting it is "even handed"? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think you may have missed some of the nuances of the past relationship between me and SlimVirgin - if there is respect now, it is because we have battered it into each other over the course of some rather heated exchanges. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I second Slim's advice, particularly her observation that "Certain editors will try to cause a problem for any admin or editor who opposes them." I've seen this happen before with other admins -- Tedder and ArnoldReinhold are two I know of personally, who acted against the wishes of "certain editors" and who subsequently had to defend their actions against a barrage of accusations. I suggest you try to find experienced admins who have absolutely no history with any of these editors or the CC topic, to help you out with enforcement here. Though to be clear to anyone reading this, I have absolutely no issues with LHvU's actions in this enforcement -- this is simply larger than any single admin can handle. ATren (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't an even handed action. Although please note I am not trying to use it against LHvU in any sort of battle I am simply trying to clarify if he is correct in banning me from editing the article and requesting that he does not use his admin tools to enforce his individual version of consensus, such as he has done here. Polargeo (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Case in point. ATren (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LHvU undid my edit and then used his admin tools to protect the article at his preferred version. I had made only a single edit to the article which I thought enforced consensus. I unprotected the article because using the tools against my single edit with no warning was so disproportionate that my unprotect should not need further explanation because I would never edit war. LHvU then explained to me that his protection was not against me and I restored protection to the article on his request. I think he made a mistake but am not prepared to wheel war as that is disruptive to wikipedia. If anyone is edit warring on this article to keep it against consensus it appears to be LHvU. If this incident has taught me anything it is that next time I get involved with an article LHvU is dominating as an admin I will avoid discussion on the talkpage and come straight in as an uninvolved admin myself. However, I am unlikely to ever do this because I have principles that I stick to. Polargeo (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As part of the Auld Alliance, I think both SV and LHvU are acting in good faith. LHvU is giving priority to stopping edit warring over dealing with article content issues, in my own opinion it was unwise to restore dubious content, but justifiable in terms of protection policy. I don't have an opinion on whether or not the article should be merged, but do think that standards of sourcing have been reduced in an attempt to keep the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you were one participant in a brewing edit war, on a page where edit warring over this very issue was prevalent recently. LHvU reverted to the state it existed before the recent flame-up, and to the version which was being discussed in the RFC. It was quite a reasonable action. What was unreasonable was an editor who freely admits to being heavily involved in this debate using his admin tools to wheel war on LHvU's protection. I was fully prepared to take that very serious transgression to arbcom except for the fact that you reversed yourself 15 minutes later. But your continued battlefield behavior directed at the admins in this enforcement is becoming very disruptive, and if it continues then I think a very compelling arbcom case can be made that your wheel warring is part of a larger pattern of disruption. I think you should take a step back from this topic area, because your passion is starting to get the better of your judgement, and if that causes you to take another admin action like you did here, there's a very good chance you will suffer a very serious sanction. Arbcom does not look kindly on wheel warring of any kind, especially given the level of hostility you showed towards the other admin during and after the wheel war. ATren (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Very funny, you won't get rid of me that easily :)Polargeo (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also threatening to take me to ARBCOM is a little battleground don't you think? I never threatened to take LHvU anywhere, I never threatened to report you either. If you are going to accuse me of battleground mentality I advise a good look in the mirror. When any complaint is made against the actions of your favourite admins you jump right in there and defend them with every threat and tactic you can muster no matter what the evidence is. I am sure LHvU is quite capable of defending himself and his actions. Polargeo (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you can take whatever you want from the advice I gave you above, but wheel warring is a clear offense, and so is using your tools when involved in a dispute. Admins have been desysopped over such actions. If your passion for this topic is such that it causes you to cross the line in so dramatic a fashion, then you probably need to take a step back. And incidentally, you should probably thank LHvU for not escalating this himself. He could have reacted as badly as you, wheel warring back, and you both would be in jeopardy of severe sanction; or, he could have simply reported directly to arbcom on you wheel warring. Instead he chose to discuss with you and you (wisely) undid your actions. But you have a funny way of showing gratitude for the leeway LHvU extended to you, by trying to make a big deal out of his action, which was completely within his discretion as an uninvolved in this topic area -- or do you dispute that too? In any case, I've said what I needed to say here, and now I will disengage. But I suggest you be more careful in the future, because there are a lot of eyes on these pages and another transgression like that is likely to get you in serious hot water. ATren (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I third SV's advice. I think having a backstop would take a lot of the steam out of the attacks directed at you and help facilitate your role as an admin in this area. Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been considering this. To be blunt, I would not care to be responsible for placing some other admin or editor into this situation. Anyone is welcome to assist, as long as they understand what they may be letting themselves in for. It appears that if anyone varies too far from the views of certain long time contributors to these articles as to what constitutes both encyclopedic npov and adherence to Wikipedia Policy and practice, then you are immediately cast as being enablers of vandals, pov warriors, sinister interested parties, and likely to have channels of communication with the disparate ne'er-do-well's that ceaselessly try and deflect the pure and unsullied truth that would be apparent if it were not for these nefarious efforts. In short, having a second party assisting would not halve the invective received but more likely see it doubled to ensure both accounts neutrality, professionalism and integrity are equally and fairly maligned. I am willing to stand or fall by my application of policy and practice, but think that I should not seek to recruit anyone to take the blows directed at me. I have just come from reviewing an essay I wrote back in October 2007 regarding the editing of controversial subjects. I have not changed from the positions I advocated then, long before I became aware the editing climate change related articles might be included within that remit. I am quite happy to retain having the sole responsibility is trying to admin this article, as I am in having the guidance and experience of another admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Talk page blanking

Back in April I reported that User:Ruin Cireela had blanked the page Talk:List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes two times, and had made disputed edits to List of Adventure Time with Finn and Jake episodes. I also warned the user not to blank the page.

Since then, the editor was engaged in an edit war, as a result of which List of Adventure Time episodes was briefly protected. I thought the problem was solved, but happened to notice that the user partially blanked the talk page again yesterday, and seems to have resumed making controversial edits on the article page.

You may respond to this notice on my talk page if you are so inclined. Cnilep (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

See also this, though as vandalism goes it's not very interesting. Cnilep (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for contacting me via my talk page. Regarding your questions, the short answers are: other editors have expressed concerns about this editor's pattern of editing and page blanking, and yes, the editor has offered some explanation for why the talk page was blanked the third time, but then vandalized my talk page saying, "I don't care fool".

The much longer answers are:

1. Are you the only editor on the article talkpage who has expressed concern regarding the blanking and the controversial edits?

I reverted the talk page content with this and this edit. Assuming good faith, I merely suggested in my edit summary that talk pages should not be blanked. The user again blanked the talk page, so I issued a caution.

Another editor, User:AdventureTime, "applauded" my revert and asked me to do it again after Ruin Cireela blanked the talk page a second time. I did on 25 April and told the offending editor to please stop, and then reported his behavior at ANI. You suggested that I should report any future blanking to "AIV" (I'm not sure what that stands for) (Got it: Intervention against vandalism).

As far as I know, only AdventureTime and I have objected specifically to blanking the talk page. However, in addition to AdventureTime, User:Nicklegends and several IP users, notably 129.65.227.106, have objected to this user's changes to the article. I don't actually edit the article and don't have a position on its content.

2. Has Ruin Cireela ever tried to provide a rationale for their actions?

The user in question has offered some rationale for the changes to the article page, primarily in the sections Talk:List of Adventure Time episodes#I'm Not Ruining It, I'm Helping It and Talk:List of Adventure Time episodes#Potential new format to solve episode pairing woes.

The user suggested on the talk page, "Delete the list of episodes on the talk page [unnesessary]. Delete all the old stuff and keep new. I'm going to do that." [sic] He then partially blanked the talk page. When I reverted that edit, added an internal link to Help:Archiving a talk page on Talk:List of Adventure Time episodes, and added {{uw-delete4im}} to User talk:Ruin Cireela, my talk page was vandalized.

Sorry if this is more detail than you wanted. Cnilep (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for not responding, I have been busy elsewhere. Can we put this on hold? If it continues or restarts please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. The editor doesn't appear to have made disruptive edits in the past few days. Cnilep (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jose Fadul

Hi LessHeard vanU, do you know what to do for a repeat sockpuppet offender? I was following the Fadulj sockpuppet investigation and I noticed that he's up to the same thing again. I recently removed some references to him from List of chess historians and Experience, among others, and he's gone and put himself back on with the same kind of defense as before. 112.205.158.76 is a Filipino ISP making edits mostly on pages related to the Fadulj account. Ditto with user FadulJA. I'm not even sure how to start a sockpuppet investigation, or even if there's something else that should be done first. Can you help? I've posted this on User talk:Freqsh0 too. Thanks! Kleptosquirrel (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The simplist and most effective, but not necessarily the quickest, action would be to add this account to the Fadulj sockpuppet investigation you linked to - the instructions on how to note fresh incidents will be found on that page. This would allow investigators familiar with this issue to make the necessary blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mark

Can you please provide me the MSN adress of Sven70 by mail? THX in advance. --WizardOfOz (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it not in his signature? I will send regardless, cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy

Bad idea. This is an abusive editor who has misused the email function to abuse an editor, and whose recent history is relevant to a number of current issues. The original speedy was already undone by another admin. DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dunc, but... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy has been way out of order ever since he lied when reclaiming his tools. He's been deliberately stoking drama, and now he resorts to both off-wiki attack pages and abuse of the email function. Deletion just makes it look like he's some poor winged bird needing shelter from the storm. He ain't - he's a troublemaker who can't take what he dishes out. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting development; my first instinct was to redirect his talk page to the user page, but figure you know more and I'll leave the notion to you and will just lurk.

As a side note, it seems that deletion clears protection (right?). The page was protected and now the red page is open to recreation...

Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
you'll get my vote once I read those pages ;)

doh; it's red, too ;> Jack Merridew 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just the infantry, Jack. If I got it right, the generals get medals. If I got it wrong, I get shot (and the generals get medals). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you got your 'orders' somewhere... If the plan is delete-all, there's still stuff about:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=User%3ATa+bu+shi+da+yu&namespace=0
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Ta+bu+shi+da+yu&namespace=3
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=User%3ATbsdy+lives&namespace=0
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Tbsdy+lives&namespace=3

There's also User talk:Ta bu shi da yu, which is nominally a CSD but has a huge history, and is a user talk page, of course.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we chat at User talk:Jimbo Wales? I'm sure it will be quieter... Things are likely to be sorted out in the next day or so, but I saw something I felt needed doing fast and did it. If you are going to vote for me, then you have to realise that you are going to have to trust me not to tell you why. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anything productive ever occur on Jimbo's talk page? Not that I can recall. Anyway, I have my own views on what happened, mostly due to having talked to people over time and having a fucking clue, and don't feel a need *to* ask. If you told me what you know, you might have to shoot me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To all concerned: Please leave the page in question deleted at this time, notwithstanding any guidelines or standard course of action to the contrary that might otherwise apply. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that a talk page that is NOT deleted has a note on it saying "keep it deleted"... its not deleted if you've gone ahead and created it just to put that note there... I could start a whole new thread on there if I wanted to and wouldnt have to do anything but hit the new section button.Camelbinky (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you could, but if you were to then your bones would crumble and red headed infants will demand that you buy them steak dinners. Thus is the power of ArbCom. Trust me on this, I am an admin! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what is a "steak dinner"? My memory doesn't go back that far. I have seen steak, of course. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One does not have to be an admin to know the power of the banhammer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the word "responsibility" to "power" in this context. One admin cannot necessarily impose a ban, although an uncontested indef-block may de facto amount to that. The issue of bans only arises in somewhat different circumstances. Rodhullandemu 00:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I primarily use my banhammer to tenderise my steaks/mistakes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

@ya both; I was referring to the AC's bannhammer, not the mere infantry. Not knocking the responsibility aspect, though; I said as much to AniMate the yesterday. @Rodhullandemu; not sure if you know my history; I was whacked.

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew 00:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that because I am silent, that I am ignorant. I see many things here that do not require my involvement. However, congratulations on your "rehabilitation", however unjust your ban might have seemed. Good editors are, if not scarce, at least not obvious. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't assuming, just unsure, as I've not much encountered you before. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What I dont understand is the wording on the page- it says for you to not create the page again, that it is deleted... but by having the words on the page that means it does exist and therefore not deleted. It was in fact deleted, but then recreated just to put that message on it.. it just is weird wording I suppose. Can someone explain to me what is going on? I happened to have his talk page watchlisted and saw all this stuff going on and just curious as to the inner workings of why and how.Camelbinky (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Best to not ask, you might get shot. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume NYB means to its former state, with full history - rather than the version now showing. I would also point out that if I commented on the reason why - or at least what I understand to be the reason why - then there may not be any point in it being deleted, and since it is deleted, sorry, no can do. If in the fullness of time there are explanations that can be given then I am sure that they will be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Just was curious why such language and seemed like a contradiction. Sorry I waded into this! Thank you for taking time to help.Camelbinky (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pages that say this page intentionally left blank are in fact not actually blank. See also this for more information. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

Should this article Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future fall under the probation? Should i add the probation template to it`s talk page? mark nutley (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, right now - the article, and presumably the subject, do not focus on the environmental effect so much as the proclaimed inefficiencies of "green" energy against fossil and nuclear power production. If, however, this article comes to the attention of editors traditionally arrayed within CC article editing, and manifests the same type of issues, then my opinion might be revisisted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks mate just wanted to be sure mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems at Fred Singer

Would you mind taking a look at this, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please ask SV to attend to this bit The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Then you might ask her why she has escalated this dispute without making the slightest effort to resolve the situation on talk - unlike me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(resp to SV) Since this is an Probation enforcement request, I shall respond at that venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(resp to WMC) I presume SV will have read your comments, and hasten to fulfill the requirements of making a request at that page. As an editor new to the intricacies of the Climate Change Probation, there needs to be some leeway given when formulating their first request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, SV is a bit of a noob, though I wouldn't have dared use that phrase myself first. She still hasn't got it right; I've left her a message. These things are so difficult, don't you agree? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Me? Who divides the day by the number of mistakes I made? I was noting that AGW articles and the attendant processes to restrict the level of sub optimum discourse that occurs there is very unusual within the WP editing environment. Those of us who are comfortable in our thickened and calloused skins should remember that most editors sort of assume that reliance upon policy and civil discussion should suffice - well, I think I am flexible enough to recognise it, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Help at Syrian Arab Airlines

There's a user, whose IP constantly changes, who is continuously reverting the fleet of the airline to a very large - and unsourced - one which he seems to like more. Can you help? Ciao e grazie. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look. From my brief review it appears that most of the ip's (which GeoLocate to different parts of the world) are involved in enlarging the fleet count - and not only to this article. Is there much evidence of ip editing being non-vandalistic? If the only or large majority of ip edits are vandalism, then protecting the article from editing by ip and new accounts seems reasonable. I await your response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed

I always thought you were basically neutral, if a bit of a loose cannon and someone who (like me ;-) does not easily acknowledge being in error. But this has me deeply disappointed. It's well-written, so you obviously spent some time on it. But it is full of bad assumptions and bad reasoning, and sets a really bad precedent. I would have expected that from "neutral" Lar, but not from you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

LHvU, I suggest you don't respond to this baiting. Your record is clean and the comment is quite reasonable for everyone but WMC's supporters. ATren (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not baiting, it is Stephan's opinion. He disagrees with my central point, in that WMC bringing his AGW editing viewpoint into BLP matters is inappropriate - regardless that WMC castigates anyone who is not a scientist that edits CC related articles in a manner which does not reflect the science consensus as being incapable of editing to NPOV - in an area which is supposedly scrupulous in adhering to WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:COI. That is his right. Plus, StS is not a "WMC supporter"; from what I have seen he has arrived at much the same opinion regarding AGW as WMC independently, and has sought to protect good CC related articles from being deprecated by skeptic or denialist inclined editors for the same reasons WMC has and does. He just goes about it with a modicum of respect and civility. He recognises WMC's knowledge of the subject, and supports that viewpoint - but he is no cheerleader or camp follower. Nor is he infallible, but like me he does take a bit of persuading. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He disagrees with my central point, in that WMC bringing his AGW editing viewpoint into BLP matters is inappropriate - not quite. I think there is no evidence in the current action that this has happened to an inappropriate degree. If Singer himself calls himself a global warming sceptic, including this is at least open for debate, not for enforcement. And I agree with WMC that we need to avoid to give undue weight to minority and fringe opinions, i.e. that if we include them, we have to clearly label them as minority or fringe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite wrong: it is not permissible to mention that Singer is a skeptic; SV says so [31]. Nor can we mention that he is retired, either. Perhaps it is a secret or something. Of course, there is no obligation on SV to explain this at all William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned the same thing on Bozmo`s talk you may have missed my reply Singer has been involved for a number of years as a skeptic in the debate on climate change—The New York Times writes that his supporters and critics call him the dean of climate contrarian That is right there in the article mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, WMC is correct that skepticism and certainly denialism is a fringe view as regards the scientific consensus - but that support of a "fringe view" is not the main claim of notability for this particular BLP (nor that he is retired). He seems, upon my scan of the article, to have had made major contributions to science in the latter part of the 20th Century, and that is the basis of his notability. His subsequent adoption of some of the arguments advanced by Climate Change skeptics, and his published arguing of the case, as noteworthy is testament to his standing in the scientific community from his earlier work. There is no indication that the community is swayed by his suggestions. All this is can be incorporated into an article which reflects the proper due weight of his achievements in his specialist fields, and notes his subsequent contributions to the CC debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, in the words of the BT/Maureen Lipman advert, "...if you have an 'ology', you are a scientist!" and that those letters after your name do not get taken away after a certain age or you no longer practice that discipline - as you will be aware, Dr Connolley. The subject is a scientist, albeit one who draws a pension rather than a wage. As I have suggested to StS, although latterly possibly better known as a skeptic (I wasn't aware of him at all before his article became the fulcrum of another referral to Probation enforcement) his claim to notability is his body of work in his specialist field. Per WP:UNDUE, reference to his published views on Climate Change should not only note where in the debate he stands, but also the attention provided by them is in relation to his standing because of his earlier achievements. Simply, his views on CC would not be notable if it were not for his contributions previously.
I see SV's edit as a plea to stop edit warring (by edit warring, but that does appear to be sop around here). She is, as I am aware, rather difficult to get to change her mind or to accept another pov might also be valid. Well, welcome to my world! I haven't given up yet, and I am surprised that you appear to be considering that option. Talk to her - politely, of course - and see if there is not an option that satisfies the both of you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you repeated this wrong argument twice. First page of GHits on Singer: All climate change. GNews hits: All climate change. GScholar: 6/10 climate change (and one more fringe paper on ozone and UV-B that is tangentially related). And yes, Singer is independently notable to some degree. Interesting side note: In 1974 he considered CO2 a pollutant per [32] But even scientific nonentities like Tim Ball or Pat Michaels become notable as deniers, per "man bites dog". There is little evidence that Singer would even have an article without SEPP (which does not mean he could not have one, just that no-one would have bothered). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, is it true that in the past WMC has edit warred to keep information in the lede for Singer's article to make it look like he believed in martians? Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but I've not followed either WMCs edits nor Fred Singer religiously. William has, as far as I know, kept Singers opinion on the possible artificial nature of Phobos in the lede. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that he's kept that misleading factoid in the lead, but you deny that it makes it look like Singer believes in Martians? Even though one version WMC added actually contained the word "Martians"? Interesting interpretation -- are you contending that WMC meant Singer believed Phobos was built by Martians but simultaneously didn't believe in the existence of Martians? ATren (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, this edit by WMC where he openly states that he is purposely putting information he considers embarrassing into the lede followed an edit of yours by one hour, and you didn't notice? Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So then your argument is that all embarrassing information be removed from BLPs? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not; rather that material should not be included solely because it's embarrassing. This fact was completely trivial, yet WMC reverted it back into the article FIVE TIMES, twice reverting Fred Bauder (then an arbitrator), once using the word "Martians", and several times in the intro. All sourced to a single article from 50 years ago and for a fact which was made moot by more accurate measurements made soon after his statement. The only reason this was included is because it was embarrassing. ATren (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Has Cla68 authorized you to reply on his behalf? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Atren gave the answer I was going to give, but beat me by a few seconds. The reason his answer is the same as mine, is because it's completely obvious. When someone openly admits that they're trying to ridicule someone using their BLP, how can any of us find such behavior defensible? If WMC was working in academia, he could very well be facing an ethics review board for such behavior. Don't you agree? Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Even your assumption is wrong. You seem to fall victim to your own spin and fail to assume good faith. William stated that the material was embarrassing - but then so what? We do not exclude things that are embarrassing. He did not state that he wanted to ridicule someone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So what was the reason for inclusion in the intro? Was it notable, recent, or relevant to Singer's career? The only justification given is it was embarrassing, yet you continue this Irwin Mainway Bag-o-Glass defense against the patently obvious. ATren (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil in your responses; your last clause is unhelpful to maintaining a collegial editing environment. With that out of the way, it's worth noting that both you and Cla68 have distorted WMC's words to give them a meaning that differs from their original. He did not say that he was including the material because it was embarrassing; his edit summary was an objection to covering up things for the sole reason that they are embarrassing. Big difference. Note that WP:CIV specifically calls out "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold" as conduct to be avoided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then show me the merits of inclusion of that statement in the intro, and presented in such a way that implied a belief in Martians. I'm failing to see how a 50-year old qualified statement that was made moot by better measurements a few years later, should be in the intro of this man's BLP. We already know WMC considered it embarrassing, but your thesis is that he didn't revert 5 times because it was embarrassing, so my question is: why did he revert 5 times a claim that is 50-years old, moot, and completely non-notable if not to embarrass? Maybe I'm just missing the good faith interpretation you're seeing, so please enlighten me. ATren (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it constructive to speculate on the motives of other editors when those motives are left unstated. You appear to disagree; presumably, you will then have no objections when others speculate about your motives. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but you are defending the 5 reverts, so on what basis do you believe they were good? ATren (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not defended the 5 reverts. I must say that your habitual tendency to impute things to people that they did not actually write is at best unhelpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you were defending them. Perhaps you can give us your opinion on those edits then? ATren (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My goal here was to discourage the misinterpretation of others' words, whether accidental or otherwise. Debating specific content is best left to the article talk page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, are you aware that O J Simpson was once the highest rated sportsman of his genre and that he still holds some records? You very well might, but in the matters of Ghits and news he is the guy that got away with murder - allegedly. However, to be blunt nobody would give a damn about a guy with brown skin who may have killed his wife if it wasn't for the fact of who he was originally. Now, as WMC and you rightly point out, if anyone has heard of him here it is as a skeptic, but WP:Recentism is no basis to write an article; all the sources need weighing. SV has her position and WMC and others have theirs, so lets see what reliable sources from over the period the subject has been working has to say (and don't forget the explosion of publishing over the last decade or so does tend to sway simple numbers). I mean, that is the way it is supposed to work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I know that OJ was some kind of sportsperson, but I don't even follow European sports, much less US sports. I understand the example, but I don't see how it helps your argument. Yes, there are some situations where previous notability leads to undue prominence for later actions - if Brad Pit takes a shit, some magazine is probably going to make it into a story. But likewise, there are situations where the act itself makes someone notable. I gave you the examples of Ball and Michaels, much more apropos than some sportsperson. So indeed, this is something that needs to be clarified by debate and consensus, not by banning one party from the discussion. And that's exactly what you proposed and what I object to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is to bar WMC from editing the article only, he would still have recourse to the talkpage and there will be editors with much the same general viewpoints as gis who can both involve themselves in any discussion and edit the article page - all without the "taint" that is associated with WMC. Part of that discussion that WMC might involve himself in, is would the subject be considered sufficiently notable, per WP:RS, for an article if there were not the matter of the CC comments and publications. If so, does the later attention to his climate/CO2 relate to his notability or do those comments promote his earlier achievements - and again those arguments need to be sourced. Per the current emphasis on BLP's and the scrupulous application of policy toward them, I should think that it would seem appropriate to diminish the "controversial" aspects of an article until consensus exists to what extent it should be included. WMC seems to act on the basis that the extent of the prominence of controversial material should be tested by seeing if its inclusion and its manner will be opposed. It certainly is not a WP:BRD if the content is continually returned despite the removal of it by many editors, including an arb (fwiw), on the same disputed premise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no such "taint", with or without scarce quotes. As far as I know, the only outside sources complaining about him in person are Solomon and the right-wing blogosphere. Solomon's articles are so wrong that it takes a whole lot of effort to think they are not deliberate lies - they certainly cannot serve to establish any kind of "taint". In the case of such a misrepresentation campaign I expect - and indeed demand - the support of the community against it, not a "well he's wrong, but let's give in just a bit for the sake of impression". That's akin to "Sure, nothing wrong with niggers sitting in the front of the bus. But let's not stir the pot right now". The correct way to deal with untruths is not to tacitly give in, but to confront and expose them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not in the business of confronting and exposing lies. This misconception that there is a duty to determine a truth and use those sources that support that viewpoint is, perhaps, at the heart of much of the issues surrounding the editing of AGW/CC articles. If an otherwise notable individual talks poppycock upon a subject, or poppycock opinion drives some debate, then WP's remit is to report the poppycock without comment, and any refutation again without comment. I am aware that this neutrality of reporting can, and perhaps is, gamed to provide a veneer of respectability for these views. That is not a point that WP concerns itself with, it is only concerned that there are reliable sources reporting the comment - as it is in paraphrasing the reliable sources that report upon the exposing of lies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Great. It is good that you recognise this. I now look forward to you putting it in to practice. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to you indicating that someone may in good faith be presented with the same information as you see and come to a different conclusion that is not wrong because it is not the same as your determination. I come to different conclusions to many of the admins taking part in this Probation enforcement, and elsewhere in the project, but I try to see where our disparate views hold commonality and where compromise may be possible. I do not hector them for not agreeing with me, or take every opportunity to emphasise how wrong they are in acting upon their honest conclusions. I would think it unbecoming. Very. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I was talking about our internal dispute resolution, not about article space. Solomon is wrong, badly, and everybody with a minimum of Wikipedia knowledge can see that. We do not report this (for one, since we do not discuss his individual articles at all), but we are not forced to accept this known wrong information as a given for determining how to edit the encyclopedia. "We should ban X because someone without a clue has said something about X that we know is wrong" is not an acceptable argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are arguments being made here and on other pages that WMC cherrypicked comments, and edit warred to retain them, which cast the subject in a poor light, and these are being presented by editors of some experience and standing. That they are being refuted by other editors of equal experience and standing does not negate them, nor the concern that allowing this situation to continue while the matter is being resolved is not prudent. The fact that a questionable third party source may have denoted WMC as being one or a major editor indulging in alleged biased editing is really not the point, although it may point toward how obvious it appears to what itself may be a non neutral entity. The fact is that there are some diff'ed examples of edits by WMC that appear to cause concern regarding impartiality and motivation. Until it is resolved I suggest that there is no further potential for any misunderstanding (if that is what it is) by having WMC withdraw from editing the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a point about the Martians; it's also very poor editing because it removed the context of what Singer was saying and the thrust of his argument. This is apparently what Singer wrote in the letter that WMC used as a source (my bold, and I'm copying this from another WP article, so I've not seen the source myself):

[Phobos'] purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in Mars' atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet.
My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big 'if' lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them.

Singer was arguing "if-then," and it turned out apparently that the measurements were indeed in error. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - the entire thing was made moot by observations made soon after (a possibility Singer himself accounted for in his "if-then"), yet WMC and others insisted it stay in and that it remain prominent. It was not only non-notable and moot, but presented so as to maximize embarrassment -- mitigating details were kept out, embarrassing details were kept in, and attempts to fix it were thwarted. ATren (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was interested to see that WMC even reverted Fred Bauder, who I believe was on ArbCom at the time, and Fred was there only because of the Solomon article in The National Post complaining about WMC's editing.

So we have (a) material being used out of context so that it's misleading; (b) it's added to the lead of a BLP with the acknowledgment that it's embarrassing to the subject; (c) this is done by an experienced admin; (d) a national newspaper publishes articles complaining about it; (e) an Arb tries to fix it; (f) he is reverted by the same admin. Although the material eventually got removed and that person isn't an admin now, (g) two years later he is still allowed to edit the BLP, even though (h) the subject himself has now complained about it in print too. And then (i) every editor and admin who tries to sort it out is attacked. How could this situation have continued for so long? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Note also the comments of this blog post where Fred defends Wikipedia but later admits WMC's revert was "a nasty piece of work", that his edit comment was "symptomatic of the problems he has in being courteous", and that he doubted any comment Singer made on Phobos "has significance". Bauder had identified this problem two years ago but WMC wouldn't let him fix it. ATren (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SV, would you be willing to step aside whenever there are objections raised about your actions in national or international media, or when the subject of an article complains about your actions? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the Climate emails scientists?

I believe that there are certain scientists involved in the Climate emails controversy who received a majority of their press coverage in the context of that controversy. Should we put Climategate in the lede of those scientists as well? By the logic of WMC and Schulz on Singer, we should. ATren (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because a 20 years sustained voluntary effort someone proudly proclaims is equivalent to being the victim in a one-off hack? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding AFD closures

AFD closers are able to mandate one, and only one thing - should this article be deleted or not. Sometimes closers go above and beyond, and write things like "merge" or "smerge," or "redirect." Those are non binding, but can be taken a a gauge of consensus. "No consensus" however, does not mean "no consensus to do anything," rather "no consensus to delete, defaults to keep." I recognize that you are not an experienced AFD closer, so you might not understand this, but it is imperitive that if you are going to use your tools to enforce things about AFD, you understand what those things mean. While I don't dispute that in this case there was no consensus to merge at the time, the reason I believe that is because the talk page and editing history evidenced a lack of consensus, not because of some beurocratic requirement that some process happen after some other process because thems the rules. I'm taking this to your talk page because I'm strongly concerned you don't understand how AFD works, and I'm hopefull that after the explanation you will no longer assume that "no consensus" is not nearly as strong as you believed. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, since my only experience of AfD's is commenting on a few and opening a couple. I am aware that despite its title the participants can argue for a result other than keep or delete, like "redirect", "merge", etc, and that sometimes a consensus will form for one of these options. I am a little surprised that the only mandated decision can be either keep or delete based on a judgement of the consensus existing, since the last sentence of the first paragraph of WP:AfD notes the other results that may have consensus following an AfD. It is certainly my belief that AfD's have been closed with the consensus shown as being something other than "keep/delete" - it may be that these are simply not as binding as a delete (I am aware that keep is not a permanent result, since articles may be renominated, and even with delete there is DRV).
My understanding, therefore, in regard to a closure of "no consensus" is that it is a simple statement that no decision could be made in respect of the available options discussed. That may be because an option was not presented. This does not prevent a consensus forming later, although for delete it requires a further AfD.
In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog), however, I note that merge - with a couple of candidates - was presented as an option. This result was not adopted, since the closing admin found no consensus for it or any other argued result. My point, in a nutshell, is that there was no existing consensus for a merge provided by the AfD discussion, so one was needed to be found for it to be effected. It is suggested to me that one was formed subsequently, but I remain unconvinced that this was the case since some editors were actively arguing for inclusion of sources which they believed conveyed independent notability for the subject and the few or less editors agreeing that the content should be merged included one who proposed it at AfD, and others who shared that editors viewpoint regarding AGW and the validity of skeptic comment and the manner in which it is published. WP:Consensus is not an agreement between likeminded editors, it is the agreed conclusion how best WP policy relates to an article, or part of an article, or a discussion.
In conclusion I was not enforcing the AfD decision of no consensus, I was enforcing that there was no consensus for the merge to be found - anywhere. I saw a legitimate process (the SV initiated RfC) where consensus was, hopefully still is, forming which I felt was being disregarded by individuals who argued that their limited and narrow series of agreeing statements with each other sufficed. I hope I have explained that I was not imposing an invalid interpretation of a AfD result of "no consensus", but rather preventing another invalid understanding of consensus from being enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Suspect editor

Hi LhVu! Could you take a look at todays mass of edits by G.-M. Cupertino. He is a returned editor, following a 12 month block, yet appears to be asking for a username to be unblocked, which may have been one of his sockpuppets. Some of the dits he has done have been reverted, including one I have reverted where he put that Prince Harry of Wales is of Armenian descent! I am not qualified to say if or not the majority of his claims in edits are correct or not! Richard Harvey (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be able to link to the ArbCom case under which he is originally blocked? My view of what G.-M. Cupertino is doing is requesting unblock of an ip (used by the pc he edited from), and to transfer his sole editing account to that of SavetheArchDuke. I am suspicious why an ip should be blocked for over a year, since autoblocks are for 24 hours and the only ip's that blocked for longer than 12 months are anonimysing (?whatever) proxies. I certainly wouldn't be keen to see a returning sockmaster given access to a proxy ip. Anyway, since much of his editing now is in the same manner as that when he was ArbCom blocked I would prefer to review the history before commenting further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom is at:- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino, he now appears to have an indefinite block by Kww from 18 May 2010. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw the ANI discussion, looked over the ArbCom linked, and supported the indef block based on my review of the above request. I think that resolves it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reappearance

Hi. You commented on ANI here a couple of days ago, noting the editor had stopped editing and recommending to let the matter archive itself. I posted a reply agreeing with your recommendation, after taking all considerations into account, and even included a comment the thread was closeable.

Since then, the editor reappeared, spending a large chunk of Sunday making further attacks, more unrelated comments, wrongly claiming I'd done a number of things I had not, with further accusing of malicious bias -- essentially continuing their same established pattern of activity.
Although I saw the comments, quite aside from it not being something I wanted to occupy my Sunday afternoon, I chose to respect the earlier decision, and so did not reply. Another was added later. Today they've logged in to post yet more comments accusing me of bias and a vendetta. What do you reckon, should I respond there, again? 92.30.111.99 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that they have been given a warning regarding making personal attacks against you. If they resume the attacks you could notify the warning admin, or me. Any problems with edits to Goldsmith related BLP's and articles should be addressed civilly, and if unresolved taken to dispute resolution. Eric144's attitude regarding anon editors needs addressing, but they are likely to provide the scenario for that in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer again

I'm withdrawing from the article for now, LH, because life's too short for this kind of thing. I've left a request on the probation page. [33]

I want to draw your attention to this discussion, which Stephan Schulz tried to collapse, [34] about the use of primary sources in that article. Back in January, a little-used SPA and climate change blogger, Eli Rabett (talk · contribs) added one of Singer's tax returns to the article, with Singer's home address on it, to show that he had received a certain payment. I can't find a secondary source that discusses the payment, so I removed it a few days ago. This was a violation of the BLP policy, which says primary sources like this may be used only if secondary sources have discussed the issue; see Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse of primary sources.

Rabett also uploaded other primary sources about Singer (e.g. a deposition) to a website Rabett controlled, then linked to his website in at least one of his edit summaries. I'd prefer not to post that diff here. When Tony Sidaway and others removed yet another personal website that Rabett added (someone ele's this time, not Rabett's), e.g. [35] WMC restored it. [36] Only one person, User:2/0, said anything to Rabette about the BLP policy that I can find, and no one removed the tax return from the article, which meant it sat there for five months.

The bottom line is that the BLP policy was ignored by a number of editors and admins who were experienced enough to know better—and this was after Lawrence Solomon had written three articles complaining about the editing on the page, so it wasn't exactly an obscure corner. Something happened on this article that made our BLP safeguards not work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed {{User}} above, hope you do not mind. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment/Climate change probation

I have started working on a Request for comment on the Climate change general sanctions to follow through on the opinions rendered in the establishment discussion that the probation should be reviewed after a few months; the working draft is at User:2over0/GSCC RfC. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate if you would review the statement of concern with an eye to quickly bringing uninvolved editors up to speed. I would like to take this live by the weekend. This is an open invitation, and you should feel free to edit the statement as you see fit and notify any editors you think would be interested. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall look over it, but doubt that I will be editing it much - I wasn't around when the Probation was put in place and wasn't aware that it was to be reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance required for user in clear violation of Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy

Hi Mark. Need assistance with distruptive/openly biased user Gwillhickers whose admittance of national bias and disproportionate national imagery on the Alexander Graham Bell article is a breach of WP:NPOV. Had to point out to him that Bell invented the telephone as a British citizen (which is dealt with in the article intro). Inspite of having advocated fair/balanced/proportional representation that meets neutrality standards (ie.equal national commemorative images from Scotland, US and Canada), the user has continued to be disruptive and breach fundamental NPOV wikipedia policy. Furthermore commemorative image placement is in the legacy/honors section (of which there is one from the US), so placing disproportionate images with no relevance to the text in other sections is also breach of WP:MOS. Thanks for your assistance.Gold coast surf (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should direct this matter to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where the regular participants are practiced in teasing out the correct application of npov and removal of bias. In the matter of the centenary postage stamp, since the image (which may be copyrighted!) largely duplicates the one already shown I suggest it has no benefit to the article - but may be an effort to promote Bell as an US citizen. Anyhow, I think you will get a more definitive response from WP:NPOV/Noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Siouxsie and the Banshees

There was a problem generated by user ericorbit yesterday. He undid some on my contributions which yet improved the readability of the article and avoiding useless repetition. I open a subject on the discussion page. Could you give your point of view ? Carliertwo (talk) 19 may 2010 17:44

An interesting fact

http://www.virginia.edu/registrar/records/98ugradrec/chapter14/uchap14-2.28.html William M. Connolley (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Beware the word "Emeritus" I always say. It sounds like the Christian name of a very dull great uncle, and usually might just as well be.  Giacomo  18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC's interesting fact is irrelevant to the use to which he wishes to put it. The most this demonstrates is that Singer is retired from the University of Virginia, NOT atmospheric physics as he wants to claim. --FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You wouldn't want them all to turn up for the Founders Dinner, would you? I mean, who would cut up their meat and puree the vegetables for them all? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me try again. On the probation page you carefully explain Professor Singer remains a Professor, until and beyond death. But - link above - that the U of which he is prof regards him as retired William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is likely a Professor of Environmental Sciences who gets paid to lecture students as well as gets to eat dinner in the Hall, and that is no longer Professor Singer. He has retired from that post, but he has not necessarily retired as a Professor. He has likely not stopped thinking about the subject, or reviewing data, or having his views sought, he just does not have a post where is paid to pass on his knowledge to a regular class of students (well, certainly not in the Univ. of Virginia, anyway). I see no source that says he has stopped being active in his chosen and related fields. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Emeritus" is not the same as "retired." Doc Edgerton was named "emeritus" at MIT in 1966 - but continued teaching undergraduates until 1977, and others still later. As to anyone saying he was in any sense "retired" a hearty laugh would have ensued. Collect (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your input sought

I draw your attention to [37], following [38]. I hope that you can agree that, whilst you may personally have been in favour of the substance of the close, that close did not reflect consensus and should not have been made. Rather than a messy appeal I think the simplest solution would be for TW to withdraw his close; and this is most likely to happen if he receives good advice William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct in that consensus was not established for a topic ban, although there was a significant support for such a restriction. However, there is no provision against an administrator unilaterally acting to enforce a solution to a Request. I am willing to note my concern regarding lack of consensus for the action, but I would also ask whether you would be willing to undertake a voluntary withdrawal - in the interests of reducing "dramah" - from editing the article page (which was indeed my preferred option). I could then make the argument that the Request be closed on the basis that you agreed voluntarily to cease editing the article page, and that there would be no need to log a sanction, and The Wordsmith might redact the ban. If this is agreeable in principle, I would then ask The Wordsmith if they would also be willing to accommodate this action. If you are not willing, I would still voice my concern over the lack of consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. As to your request, I regret that I am not prepared to make any such commitment prior to resolution of this issue, or in any way as a condition to resolving this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I shall, as commented, note my concern regarding the lack of consensus for the action by The Wordsmith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making those comments; hopefully they will help lead to a peaceful resolution William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, LHVU of the instances SV found of WMC readding material that violated our BLP policy to the Singer article, material that included private information. If WMC has admitted that he was wrong and promised not to repeat the behavior, then a lifting of the sanction might be ok. Has he done this? Otherwise, we need to protect real people from harm, which I think is the most important consideration here. Cla68 (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether there was consensus for the ban and whether a ban is justified is two separate (but related) matters. There is nothing to stop The Wordsmith enacting the ban for a perceived violation - but it has become practice to have a consensus first so all admins stand behind the decision (i.e. shared responsiblity). This is what we are discussing here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess what I'm saying is that consensus may be required in most instances, the obvious exception being when BLP is involved, because protection of living individuals is more important than compliance with WP's internal culture. Cla68 (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I understood SV noted WMC's return of BLP violating material as something that happened historically (the "Martian quote" issue) rather than the noting of skeptic affiliations which have been accepted and remain in SV's userspace version of the article. There is now something of a discussion at the Enforcement request page on whether sanctioning for pre Probation violations is sustainable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to try?

TW seems to have disappeared again, no doubt on urgent busines as before, so I wonder if you'd care to have a shot at User_talk:The_Wordsmith#Your_close.2C_again? @Lar (since you're watching): you can have a go too, if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have done what I feel I can, and as noted I am inclined to open a discussion with a view to vary the close if there is no response. I am prepared to wait later this evening UK time to enact the latter option, allowing TM to see the comments and decide upon a response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the close; that seems correct. However, you seem to be acting with indecent haste to close the new discussion. Flonight has flung a pile of mud; do you not think that even a token of "due process" would require giving me a chance to respond? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The content of FloNights comments, regarding the comments about your general conduct within CC article space is outside of the remit of the request - as I have noted - and might usefully be further discussed. The purpose of the re-opening of the discussion was to take us from the point we were at, in the "interrupted" discussion, where, as I see it the uninvolved admins were arriving at a decision. This is what I am attempting to conclude. My actions are in part because I am seeing the discussion that had already taken place being repeated, which I see as unduly extending resolution of this matter. Unless there is a sudden consensus, of which I would have no part, of banning you from CC related space totally then you should be able to address FloNight's comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to this [39] and the "!"vote; it is highly improper. Please revert your action William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note I left a very similar comment at FloNight's talkpage. Do you claim that that is not the gist of The Wordsmith's response in your appeal section? I am quite certain I have not misrepresented either editor. I placed the !vote at the straw poll since both editors had noted they were not certain they would be available, notified them and asked them to certify or amend as they saw fit. What is your precise objection? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, another uninvolved admin noted your concern and removed it - I have no objection to that and suggest that this discussion is moot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed note that; you should not have done that either; but she has corrected your error, so that is not worth worrying about. My objection is the entirely obvious one: if you can't see why voting for other people is wrong, you have a severe problem. I really don't think pushing this one is going to fly for you. As an additional note (entirely independent of the previous argument) I note that TW was quite explicit in his close that "counting noses" as he so charmingly put it was not the correct way to reach a decision. Therefore your certainty that "!"voting (which means, free of the play-acting, voting) is what TW would want is quite misplaced William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't vote on behalf of TW, I noted what they clearly said in another place before I found reason to section off the "casting of preferred actions by admins" section. However, AGK concurs with you and I am thus out!voted. I accept that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Beatling about

Just saw this question, and thought you might be able to help - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Beatles songs without Beatles playing, or only one playing. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, they were wrong about "The Ballad of John and Yoko" since Paul McCartney was already dead and replaced by Billy Shears... (joke). I have to admit I learned more in editing the Beatles articles than I ever contributed. I think there is a editor called PL290 (talk · contribs), who seems to have taken up the crown of premier contributor discarded by Andreasegde, who is likely to be able to help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Checking, before responding

Based upon indention, this appears to be directed at me. Is that correct?SPhilbrickT 22:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked if I could “point to that policy, guideline or essay” after I politely asked Weakopedia not to use “wiki” if “Wikipedia” was meant. I spend a fair amount fo time at the help desk, and it is a common mistake. Common enough that there is a template {{daw}} and a user box {{User notwiki}}. Here is the essay.SPhilbrickT 11:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A polite reminder or advice may usefully be placed on an editors talkpage; placing it immediately after they have used a single incorrect term in the midst of a debating point might be considered an attempt to deprecate the point made by example of poor grammar. I would further draw your attention to the first sentence at WP:TPOC, and although this deals with the alteration or deletion of another editors comments I think it indicates that latitude is to be given to other peoples errors. I do not think there was an issue with what Weakopedia was referring to in context to the discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lummee, when did it go Nuclear? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ragusino

He's "User:Kanalesi" now... Its gotten so I can smell him. Same edits, same articles, same POV, same (lack of) English skills. A mute guy walking around reverting me & "italianizing" everything in sight. Block? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as same. Please add him to the SPI listing at your convenience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, Less. Will do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Godrevy

I just happened to be looking at some articles on Cornish villages and noticed your name scattered among the contributors. I was particularly impressed with Godrevy, which I started. Very impressive! Do you live in Penwith? I'm originally from Hayle, which is also now a really good article, a testament to what Wikipedia can do well. Anyway, thanks for your work on the places where my heart, if not currently my body, resides. Grace Note (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently based just outside of Helston (my article on Carleen got redirected into Breage), previously Ludgvan. Born in West London, though, so I am a Grockle. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, me too. I moved there when I was two, so I'm a furriner. Grace Note (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A small doubt

Sock users, according to what you stated above are not vandals (or at least the sockpuppetry is not a way to vandalize articles and contents, but just a trick to evade a block) so they can post in talk page. I really don't know what's this user (Kanalesi) is and I never known the user:Ragusino, but I wonder if it's correct to cancel comments or sources posted in talk pages by this suspected user. Thank you if you'll be so kind to resolve my doubt. --Theirrulez (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits, and sources provided, may be taken up by legitimate editors - so that the "ownership" transfers. The actual edits are usually removed because the individual is evading their ban, even if the edits are otherwise good, so reverting to the version edited by the sock is not permissible. Take the good edit or source from the page history, and re-enter it as your own. Of course, the normal processes of consensus, etc. then apply in having the edits accepted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, last explanation needed: what about articles talk page? Theirrulez (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If a sock has made a point you think is valid, then bring it up again as your own (you will need to support it with your own refs, sources, links, etc. if challenged on it.) If it is a statement, though, be careful that you are not mistaken for proxying for the sockmaster. It is important to indicate that these are your concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is the link, the whole page is useful but this is the bit regarding reposting a banned users content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful. --Theirrulez (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

1RR

You've failed to read what was written, so I've written it out in more detail [40]. Curious how sometimes you dig down and investigate 1RR matters with no prompting at all, but other times you just skim the surface, isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed up the RFE page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

CC RFC

Hi. I'm not happy with your characterisation of me in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC#View by User:LessHeard vanU (2). You say, "In response to the view by Nigelj, above. The premise that there are editors whose expertise within the science regarding the issues should permit them to disregard policy and practice..." Where in my text do you find me expressing that premise? How useful is it to the RFC to begin your view by explicitly naming me? Am I meant to start a new view in response to your response, like a grand threaded personal discussion? If you cannot express your view without misrepresenting mine, how are we going to get to the end of combative behaviour? Please withdraw this unwarranted attack on me personally from your RFC view. --Nigelj (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your third paragraph, specifically the second and third sentences,"I remain amazed that the articles are maintained as well as they are. This is due to the tireless efforts of those editors in the space who know what they are talking about and what they are doing." when referring to the "scientific literate" - that is, those who edit in accordance to their belief of the scientific consensus is the only viewpoint that may be represented in article space - among whom I aver are those who stymie every attempt to indicate that there are contrary viewpoints (largely outside the scientific community) on many of the issues, practice ownership of some articles, behave appallingly to editors who express a desire to edit to a differing pov, and habitually demonise, deprecate, and dispute with admins who try to apply Wikipedia policy and guideline regardless of who is violating policy. (I would point out, very carefully, that presenting opinion and comment as "personal attacks" is one of the usual gambits used.) These editors are among those you so blithely championed as being the stalwart defenders of WP neutrality - and who I am referring to in my response.

Personal attack? Pah! A personal attack would be me making assumptions on why you did not feel like taking this issue to the RfC talkpage rather than here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of some editors is now clear; what is not clear is how how my premise is found to be that anyone should "disregard policy and practice". That's your take of what I said, put into my mouth by your comments. Just change your wording so that it is clear that that is your opinion, not my "premise". We can copy and paste all this onto the talk page of the RFC, if you prefer. --Nigelj (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You have endorsed their actions, which in some cases I have found - as an uninvolved admin - to have violated WP policy, in those sentences. However, since you are so sensitive that your sweeping generalisations have been portrayed as endorsement of some very dubious practices I shall review my comments to see if I can convey a little more distance between the praise and some of the practices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that sufficient, and if not are there specific suggestions you wish to make? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for the amendments. --Nigelj (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

<- Thanks for the heads up, I'm fine with the amended version.--SPhilbrickT 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes too, and I'll note that on the page. And your 20:15 comment above -- very well put. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical?

I'm afraid I don't understand the sense in which you are using "technical" 1RR violation. You appear to be treacting it as a well defined matter, so I invite you to lay out this well understood thing for those of us who don't.

While I'm here, you might care to comment on MN's accusation at User_talk:William_M._Connolley#1R. I'm afraid that I don't understand MN, but that is nothing new. Perhaps you do William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am using the language that Lar is using since it is his specific point I am addressing; I am not arguing for or against the definition of technical, only that there were 2 reverts within the 24 hour period regardless of "reasons". My understanding of the technicality is that Mn believed he was reverting BLP violations which does not count toward RR, which I further understand was not sustained. I shall review Mn's edit to your page, but may well sleep on it - being the hour that it is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

MN has now excelled himself with 1RR vio's to both Indur M. Goklany and its talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was established that one shouldn't make enforcement type requests to individual admins, but use the Enforcement page - after noting the alleged infringement and requesting self revert to the other party and not receiving a satisfactory response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The one-upmanship of trying to get people blocked for 1rr is stupid. Please someone be the bigger man. Hipocrite (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The diffs are on the RFE page, of course (I see H has added them too). I was only mentioning it since I was stopping by and thought you might be interested. Consider it struck from here if it has offended you. I think this little episode demonstrates rather clearly why the "no removal" sanction that H asked for is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

misc. comments

I don't know why anyone would ask for a self block. I informally self block myself every month. On the first of every month, I prohibit myself from editing for at least 24 hours, sometimes a few days. Then I often feel refreshed on return.

You wrote on ANI "The sanction can be lifted as soon as there is a reasonable undertaking to amend their approach to contributing; 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks... whatever" I don't quite understand. I thought that when people ask for unblock, they are usually refused. If they are blocked indefinitely, they will not have any proof of good intent or good editing. Please do not misunderstand. I am not supporting the person in question. I am just unsure of Wikipedia culture in this respect. Every website has a peculiar culture. Wikipedia is not immune to that. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people recognise that they are unable to resist returning to "just look to see if there are any messages..." and want to stop from being able to answer them - and then to look at their watchlist, and see a couple of things that they have to look at; having their account made inactive at least severely limits their ability to get snared up again. That said, I have had no requests.
As for appealing indef blocks, it is the level of understanding of the issues that lead to the block in the appeals or talkpage discussions that can provide the possibility of having the block lifted. If someone indicates that they are aware of how they violated policy, etc., and makes a believable suggestion in how they would not make the same decisions again then it may be that some admin would be prepared to lift the sanction. Sometimes all it takes is, "I acted like an idiot and got caught up in an edit war instead of discussing, and I will try and stay away from that subject were the block to be lifted." The admins patrolling block appeals are pretty good at telling when people are "getting it" and when they are just saying stuff to get them back in the game. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Any chance of getting this [41] knocked on the head? I`ll take a 24 hr voluntary block from all main space articles and just work on stuff in my user space, would that be ok with you? mark nutley (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If I were to act unilaterally it would be a 24 hour block. You might appeal an unblock on the basis per above, but you know that will be opposed by (Hipocrite?). Are you able to work off-wiki on stuff, which you can paste into WP space when the block expires? Might be the quickest way out? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, do the block mate mark nutley (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, what a touching scene of harmony amongst good friends that is. 3 1RR's vio's after previous blocks is 24 hours when negotiated with your chums William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley violated his 1RR restriction, so I blocked him 24 hours. The sanction is for violating the restriction and not how many times - and I originally was proposing 48 hours because of previous violations but other admins noted that these reverts may have been good faith misunderstanding of BLP and most were not inclined to block. That is my rationale, and I am not persuaded by comments on whether this "resets the standard" on block tariffs - and neither am I placing much emphasis on counting the number of specific instances of a breaking of violations, much like I don't count by how many single instances a civility restriction is broken (should one be reported) by counting individual words or phrases; it is the fact that the restriction has been broken that is considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, WMC, what a thick layer of snark you have there about a subject that you should take a serious look at. If, as C.S. Lewis once wrote, friends are people who often come together over a mutual interest in a particular subject, isn't it interesting how even people who previously bickered quite intensely have at least become somewhat friendly over the subject of ... the behavior of you and some other editors with whom you share your own scenes of harmony. You must be wracking your scientifically minded brain for what might possibly be the reason why SlimVirgin and Lar have come to such agreement, and SlimVirgin and Cla68. Personally, I've had quite ... strenuous discussions with both Lar and LHvU in the past, and yet I find myself agreeing with them at RfCs, for instance. Perhaps there are other examples of a newfound harmony among editors concerned about you. I wonder if you find in all this agreement a good reason to be a little introspective about your own behavior. I don't know of a grand unified theory that would explain the alignment of these particular editors other than a shared concern about this behavior. Do you? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar banned from WMC

LHvU, perhaps I missed something in the Lar/Polargeo request, but why are admins discussing banning Lar from requests concerning WMC? What does that case have to do with WMC? The conflict involved Polargeo and Lar on an RFE involving Marknutley; WMC was not even involved, so I'm confused as to why Lar is not simply banned from interaction with Polargeo? ATren (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I will raise it if not too late. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My moved comment

I moved my recent comment from Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Result_concerning_Lar_and.2For_Polargeo based on your reply and the fact that it was more a general comment than a results comment. However, Lar has posted to my talk stating I should remove the "placeholder" which I left so your response would make sense. As your response covered more than just my comment, there seems a need for a "connecting" point. Not sure why this bothers Lar, but if see a need, you are welcome to do as you wish with said "placeholder". Sorry 'bout adding to the confusion. Vsmith (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I support leaving placeholders when any reply has been made. Lar moved one of my comments on Nutley up without leaving a placeholder and threw the included revision of a previous view into the gallery because it included a reply. Leaving both a placeholder and my comment would in my view have been better. --BozMo talk 08:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a balancing act, I suppose. If someone posts in good faith in the wrong section (I assume Vsmith is too involved - having been an admin for almost as long as Lar and me combined) then leaving a placeholder seems appropriate, as the point may bear consideration and a reply. Someone posting with full knowledge of the inappropriate placement should be moved without comment, since it is likely to be a form of trolling. Perhaps, since there appears to be some sensitivity with these issues currently, next time instead of a placeholder just a note on the page of the admin being responded to that there is a reply to be found at xx section? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Late followup, that seems a good idea. Also, I've subsequently received advice that suggests people are placing things in the wrong section specifically to try to wind me up. That can't be right, can it? ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to let you know that I have read your comments here and appreciate them. I would really rather not get back into that discussion, but your thoughtful comments and analysis deserve recognition. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, that seems a long time ago - things have moved on. I am, however, grateful for your acknowledgement that you have noted my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank

You! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for ipblock-exempt removal

Hey LessHeard. I hope you don't mind me accosting you out of the blue, I just needed an active sysop and you popped up on the logs! As far as I can tell, I no longer have need for my ipblock-exempt flag. I needed it in the past in conjunction with the accountcreator flag in order to create accounts behind a soft block, but now that I am not involved in that area, there should be no need for me to have it. I'd therefore be grateful if you could remove the usergroup. Many thanks, haz (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hey... Sorry, saw the banner and looked and was going to ask for a link to the accepted request from when you got it - and suddenly had my attention distracted by a bauble. If your request has not been filled, can you give me the link to the request and I can check it out and do the necessary. Since I am about to go to bed, if there are other active admins you have asked then they might come through more quickly. Cheers, and sorry again! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked your rights; has this not been done already? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change probation Admin Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I appreciate your administrative services to The Climate change probation, requests for enforcements. Your contributions, closes in particular, are helping the project. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will go pin it on the wall. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yurazeleznik

Hi. As the admin who was looking into this before, I though I'd drop you a message about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#User:Mrzeleznik & User:Yurazeleznik. It appears the editor is still using both accounts based on the articles and is a bit confused about Wikipedia procedures. Unfortunately, he has not responded to any messages. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. The ditor has been blocked for repeated maintenance tag removal. - Whpq (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjustable gastric band page - Slimband

Hi. My enries were removed for unapproate reasons I feel. Will you look into this, please?

Here are the comments:

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Adjustable gastric band, you may be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

On the Adjustable gastric band page there is an entry for Swedish Adjustable Gastric Band. You may not know it, but this is a brand of gastic band - a distinct type of band. I put a listing for another brand of band Slimband - which is a distinct type of band. So, why delete mine and not the other entry? Or, why delete any, as these are types of gastic bands? I'm adding to the discussion of this field of medical devices. I want to contest your deletion of my entries as I think your claims are unfounded.

I added medical history and dates and information about doctors using these devices and procedures and those comments were deleted also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by sbta (talk • contribs)

From what I can quickly review, the Swedish Adjustable Gastric band is a particular type of gastric band (using a balloon method?) and is referenced by third party sources. The Slimband appears to be a similiar product to the standard type of band (and placing a "registered trademark" symbol indicates it as a product rather than a type) and has no third party sources - and the only reference goes to a Canada Health Authority site page with no mention of the subject. Furthermore there has been a lot of content written regarding the product and the individual(s) using it similarly unreferenced, and it should be noted that this previously unremarked product has been placed before those gastric bands that are apparently licensed and have good references. In short, it appears to be an advert for the product - and its users - rather than encyclopedic content. Should you wish to include the item in the article, you will need to produce reliable third party sources referencing its usage. Under the circumstances, I do not see a problem with Favonian's removal of uncited promotional content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Direct

Just a note to let you know I have emailed you direct. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed you have. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Care

Take care on the "odious," in that using a historical version from 2005 to justify a 2010 usage is probably going to get shot down and harm the rest of an otherwise strong case. Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Would "ArbCom singularly failed to deal with Giano's odious interactions with others in project space" do for you, then? – iridescent 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick "thank you", in case nobody else does. It is increasingly obvious that blocks made under "civility policy" are - more times than not - counter-productive. Your rationale for Giano's unblock was fair, and a sensible attempt to pour oil on troubled waters. I seriously hope you don't get too much grief from the unblock, and (for what it's worth) you have my appreciation of your action. It was the right thing to do. --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I already thanked you on Giano's talk but I would like to thank you here again. You also provided a great unblock rationale. Thanks LHvU. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hearty congratulations from me too, LHvU. We now all know that it's fine to refer to one's fellow editors as 'odious'. AGK 12:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) No, it isn't fine - but it is not blockworthy, and it certainly isn't sanctionable unless there is a consensus that there is a long standing problem of which this is an example and there is a further consensus for the action. There was nothing of the sort in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the sarcasm there, but I really am exasperated by this whole sorry mess :). Where precisely are you deriving your thinking from? The way we do things has traditionally been so: disruptive comment made; request for retraction made by administrator; request ignored; retraction performed unilaterally; retraction reverted by same user; user blocked for disruption. Administrators are empowered to stop disruption using their block tools. If my block was a long-term ban-type block of Giano for wider disruption or unhelpful communication, then certainly, I can see precisely why a consensus is needed. But a counter-disruption block does not need prior agreement (unless the administrator making it is an involved user, in which case he or she must recuse; but obviously that isn't applicable to me). AGK 12:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

History. I know that you made the block in good faith, but without knowledge of the past issues. Blocking Giano (II & GiacomoReturned) for "incivility" has previously been a method of attempting to silence his exposing of poor or abusive admin behaviour; because of those foolish and selfish actions, incivility block generally - and Giano in particular - need to be very soundly made and rationalised. The blame for Giano's "immunity" and the deprecation of WP:CIVIL as a sanctionable violation is in the hands of those who abused it historically. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The block was for a personal attack, and the restoration of. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The quickest path to undoing the historical abuse you elucidate would be to stop adhering to the imaginary special Giano rules and to start treating him like an ordinary user. Undoing a short block for personal attacks seems to run counter to that, wouldn't you say? AGK 13:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AGK you appear to be battling to save your pride now, not a bad block. You made it, went to be bed and then as so often happens after a long sleep woke up to find the world had moved on. It happens.  Giacomo  12:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My pride? That near-dead bloody pulp lying in the dumpsters over at ANI? No, that's long gone. I'm trying to understand LHvU's thinking, because it doesn't accord with common sense or site policy; and I'm thinking either that I've been wronged or that I have dreadfully understood how we do things on here (and when I say 'things' I speak generally, because the official line is still that there are no Special Giano Rules :)). AGK 12:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it personally; you haven't been 'wronged'. It's just that the sequence "offensive comment -> admin request to retract -> ... -> user blocked" sometimes isn't the best way to reduce disruption on the encyclopedia. When there is a troubled background in which the offensive comment was made, sometimes it's better not to escalate without considerable discussion of the reason for the comment. An editor who is aggrieved is more likely to cooperate after some sincere reassurance that the underlying issue is being addressed. I'm sorry that our civility policy doesn't document what I'm suggesting, but (as always) policies are not prescriptive, and should be capable of the occasional exception. Regards --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And who is addressing the underlying issue here? It shouldn't be too long before Giano continues making the same attacks (plural) on TT, once again, safe in the knowledge of his special immunity. Short of an arbitration case, just how is this being handled exactly, within our current, apparently unwritten, policies? You can see how the earlier warnings to Giano were recieved in this latest tantrum, rather predictably. Are we about to see TT and Giano sit down for a cup of tea? I very much doubt it. Nobody is handling it, nothing is being done here except not touching it with a ten foot barge-pole once Giano has duly been green-lighted once again, that is just the default cop-out for anything Giano. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

clarification

my comment was made in response to this comment [42] to make that editor understand that he was violating NPOV standard. He had previously made this comment on ITN/C [43] vast majority of RS consider the May 2010 Lahore attacks to be attacks on Mosques & not on 'places of worship' and calling these mosques 'places of worship' clearly is pushing a certain POV. I was just trying to help Yousaf understand that he was not being neutral here and help him being a better wikipedian. and certainly I am not alone in finding his edits troublesome.[44] Ina addition pointing out a POV to somebody who is being non NPOV is not against WP policy ( wahhabi's consider Ahmedi mosques to be 'Places of Worship' as they consider Ahmedi muslims infidels). In no way did I imply that having a wahhabi sunni POV is bad/good. I hope this clarifies my position some more and provides some context. have a good day. --Wikireader41 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am stating that placing a cultural or religious rationale on another's actions is unhelpful, and that you have history of making such judgements. Since most of the editorship on en-WP (white, western, "kwistian") will not be familiar with the various schools of Muslin thought, it would not mean much anyway. Under the circumstances, I strongly suggest that you desist in placing such tags on other editors purported motives. Also, emphasising a certain pov is fine, because it is the distillation of differing pov's that results in NPOV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

are you saying that WP:NPOV is not a core policy required of each and every editor & 'emphasizing a certain pov is fine'. could you please elaborate on that for my education. also I am not the only one here who was tried to identify another editors POV [45]] so hopefully you will let him know what you just told me also. Thanx--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that one editor having or advocating a pov is fine, because by discussing all the differing viewpoints is how we arrive at WP:NPOV - which is a core policy. NPOV is not just agreed as being one thing, and everything that is not npov is disregarded. Like WP:CONSENSUS, NPOV can change and that is by discussing new idea's and viewpoints (and revisiting new ones). NPOV is required in the article space generally, but that can be achieved by recording one or more viewpoints upon a subject. NPOV is not inviolate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sven70.

I'm glad to hear that you are trying to help Sven70 resolve the comflict that he seems to have with the Wiktionary community. I'm currently also discussing with Xavexgoem on the issue, perhaps you'd like to give your opinion there. --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 19:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, regarding what you said in terms of the RSI being a CNS issue. The best advice I can give for communication on Wiktionary in the case that he ever does get unblocked is that he try and think of ways to phrase things in full words that are as short as possible, rather than the shorthand. That, and that the discussion boards on Wiktionary are not the know all end all of the project, and it is quite possible to continue to edit content without ever dealing with the discussion forums, if you abide by the content and style guidelines. I'd offer to communicate with him, but I also have pretty severe auditory processing issues. Additionally, has he ever heard of/tried Dasher? It requires less fine motor skills than actually typing and can also use things like an eye tracker, if he can get funding for something such as one of those. Also, you can reply here if that works best for you. --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what software Sven is aware of - I understand that he has been suggested to use voice to text software but his present situation (Belgian national in Taiwan, learning Chinese) makes the purchase of software (and hardware, he mentions) a bit difficult. The RSI makes internet shopping as difficult as editing... Anyhow, thank you for the efforts being made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the international issue does make some things more difficult. I do honestly wish that there would be some way to resolve the issue at hand, but no matter how much I think on it, the only way that I can think of would be for him to entirely eschew the discussion pages, as has been mentioned in the Beer Parlour. If, and only if, I can be reasonably convinced that pages of shorthand are not going to appear in the Beer Parlour and that he isn't going to email every admin he's previously harassed (and I have seen the emails) I might consider temporarily unblocking him as a grace period to see if things have really changed. But I am not exactly about to hold my breath. --Neskaya ^kanetsv? 23:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sven reads these pages, so I shall see what response I receive from him on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility: question

If you're *un*blocking editors who use langauge like the nasty winging little bully [46] of their fellow editors, would I be right in thinking that similar language would be acceptable within the CC arena? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you've been around long enough to know that Giano is a "special case" and the rules that apply to you and me and most other people don't apply to him. There's an unspoken agreement that blocking Giano causes more problems and drama than it solves. That's just how it is, and there's no point fighting it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(To WMC) You would be wrong, I'm afraid. Giano's use of the such terminology is wrong, but not to the extent that singular instances are sanctionable, and it is therefore wrong throughout Wikipedia. Within the CC article related space, it is specifically undesirable per the Probation. In respect of you, Dr Connolley, you are of course subject to a personal restriction against use of degrading and demeaning words and phrases and should not contemplate using similar language. Regardless of the immediately preceding, your recent uses of the terms "bozo" and "twaddle" has gone unmentioned until now in an effort to diminish disruption and engender a better working environment. Some lattitude is often given under certain circumstances, even in a heavily adminned area as CC/AE/E.

(To SBHB) Poorly considered blocking of Giano causes more problems and drama than it solves; if there was a concerted effort by which the community created an instrument of consensus which allowed Giano to "crusade" without resort to his colourful language or baleful depictions of some editors then I could see my acting to enforce it - all I have ever wanted is Giano to be afforded the same regard as other senior editors when they take a swingstumble, but past dubious use of the block button to silence Giano has rather made it difficult. Like perhaps another reader or two here, a long block history disadvantages the chances of subsequent errors in judgement being treated on its merits rather than being perceived as a pattern. I do try and be consistent in my approach to such cases, recognising that the surrounding issues are quite different... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I do think that blocking Giano -- even when deserved -- inevitably causes more problems than it solves, and as such is best avoided. Maybe I'm too pragmatic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He was placed under an ArbCom policed civility parole which, when the Arbs remembered to use the process correctly, meant that blocks were generally unchallenged - and it should be noted that there were not as many blocks as was previously the case. It may be that Giano tempered his commentary, or that blocks were not sought punitively, or a bit of both. Mind you, there was still drama and so forth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

The protection settings are wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... In what way? Autoconfirmed for 1 hour, move sysop only indefinite. That was my intent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (expires 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC))" ← The expiries are backward. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I chose 1 hour from the drop down menu - and, er, isn't 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) just over 30 minutes away? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"The expiries are backward." ;-). It's semi forever, move-protected till soon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh, best get it backwarded right! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I make such honest mistakes that I need to be taken back over them carefully and have things explained patiently before I see them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a beautiful example of "my main weakness is that I'm so brilliant, I sometimes inspire my co-workers to work too hard for the company" ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A canadian bonjour

Just wanted to introduce myself :) Hello, sir. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Help

Threaths by email + threathened disclosure of personal info. At the bottom here --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest forwarding the threatening emails to ArbCom, so they can check and deal with the sender - and ensure that any details noted are removed promptly - and you should put a block on those addresses in your email filter. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the Oversight list 3 times and heard nothing, and nothing has been done....is it normal to hear nothing or would I expect a response? Do you know? Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

When urgent I have emailed some of the listed oversighters and arbs, noting there is an urgent request. I usually get a response - an acknowledgement of receipt - in a few hours, and have only once not had a response (to a non urgent matter).
Are you using the email contact from the WP:Oversight page? Oversight has recently moved addresses, so if you are using one from your address book it might be going to the wrong mailbox (I understand that the old address will forward such emails for a while, but it may be the cause of delay). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I used the form on the oversight page. Thanks for your help. --HighKing (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion?

I'm sorry that you were not elected as an oversighter. There is a RFC about whether users, like you, should be appointed anyway by retroactively changing the election rules after the election.

There are some that say the need to fill the position is so great that retroactive rule changes are needed. Others say that a new election should be held. Some think that changing the election rules after the fact is wrong. I only see one compromise suggestion of appointing someone for a short term of a few months and having new elections. This is opposed by one senior user who believes that if someone is trusted to be a CU or OS, that trust is lifetime so a fixed term is wrong.

What is your opinion? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

While I have kept an eye on the RfC, and made a proposal earlier, I have deliberately not commented on the discussions regarding changing the rules upon electing candidates from the last election, since I feel it would be remiss of me to potentially effect a matter by which I may gain oversight responsibilities. Like the elections, I believe it is for other people to decide whether I may or may not be given the flags. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I voted for you. ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very responsible answer, Mr. vanU. If you are appointed despite losing, you will be appointed under a cloud. This is unfair to you. If this matter is resolved fairly and through compromise, perhaps with a new election and new election rules, you will be untainted. I hope for the best result for you. I welcome that you be more heard than me, not less. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Another request for opinion

Do you know of anyone that is good with fixing reference formats and can help me by doing a few. I am clueless and need help. The article is Nokian Tyres. I can do things manually but there must be a better, easier way. Lar, if you are watching, you may also answer this question. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is about reference formats? There is automation to help you do that... I will try to dig it up. But check Magnus's tools on the toolserver. Also look into Zotero which is a gadget you install in Firefox that may help. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

An excellent page to ask this question, since I may also learn something... I don't know, but perhaps someone reading (as well as Lar) might. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reflinks adds a title to a bare url http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks and there is a list of tools at Wikipedia:Citation_tools . Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki is available for firefox but still a bit experimental and not tested by firefox, it provides a cite web template to the clipboard of the web page being viewed and this can then be pasted to the wikipedia article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

pity

I am willing to write a draft version with your review input (RFC CU/OS election). However, if done, I should have an agreement of when the RFC ends so that it won't be a "RFC ends when I like the results, continues on if I don't" . I pledge to try to write a fair and wise draft version. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about my view[47], there did not seem to be much traction at the time - it was a suggestion on how to break the impasse- but you can proceed with it if you think it has any redeeming qualities. If you are talking about my review of closing the RfC, then I was not really serious when I said this... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself to be an open minded and fair person. I am willing to write a sample closing of the RFC IF you are willing to review it. What I seek is a "this draft was written by Suomi Finland 2009 and reviewed by LessHeard vanU but does not imply endorsement by him". The draft closing would be written in a very neutral way. Another possibility is for an administrator to just close it like an AFD, such as "the result is keep", "the result is delete". I think the unilateral closure described is not good. If I do anything, it will be based on comments present at the end of 14 June 2010 (2 weeks) or 30 June 2010 (full 30 days). I don't think it is fair to close it only when I like the results and keep it open if I don't. The 2 week proposal is only if there is so much itchiness to end it now. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I really suggest allowing it to run for the 30 days; ArbCom are not necessarily tied to the wishes of the community - part of the devolved Jimbo perogative - and may act unilaterally, and might make an early close look a little premature (especially if they decide contra the closers finding). If they have not acted within the 30 days, then I suggest that any close is valid whether or not ArbCom are guided by it.
I would be willing to review any proposed wording - including one for a 2 week close - and make suggestions, but I demur being named in any capacity; it will be your words, and my opinion is yours to weigh and accept or reject as you see fit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your wisdom. I will not support closure before 30 days because this is an important issue. After all, CU/OS are, according to FT2, appointed for life. I will try to make a very neutral summary and present it for your review. This is not so much to influence the issue but I would like a real life exercise in being fair and neutral and to have an independent opinion about my judgement. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Gushingness"?

You've successfully deprived the wiki of an indisputable fact (which, as such, needs no reference whatsoever); and we're all the poorer for it. Thanks, you tyrant... For shame! ;P Doc9871 (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Had they included the simple phrase, "...called Ringo Starr" in an appropriate spot then I would not have been able to remove it, per indisputable fact. Indeed, I may very soon amend my userpage to note that I am the world's foremost authority on Egyptian modern ballet going by the name of Mark Slater. Perhaps tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Heeeheee! "Ancient" Egyptian ballet is far superior: hate to break it to you, but I know this for sure. No citation needed. I smell an edit war on the horizon! Cheers... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean this Ancient Egyptian Dance? I think I will stick with Rite Said Feyed... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Un-freaking-believable! I'm going to have my own nightmares about that clip. I'm bowing down humbly on this one: edit war averted. All is well ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm there! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Suggested_topic.28s.29_by_LessHeard_vanU "4) Is there evidence of a concerted effort, including off site media, to diminish or deprecate the scientific consensus presented within AGW articles, contrary to WP:DUE and WP:V?", you also mean beyond the community of wiki editors, then the Science book review linked at Talk:Fred_Singer#Kitcher/ Conway, Oreskes may be worth referencing. RDBrown (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I was raising the issue of the possibility of a campaign to discredit AGW, both on and off wiki, as an area the case may review - since it is an allegation that has been raised during my participation in Probation enforcement. I am not familiar with any alleged examples personally, but if the Arbiters agree to investigate that concern, then perhaps the matter you linked to may be presented as evidence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Friendly notice

You are invited to make a comment at Wikiquette Alerts under Removing vandalism [[48]]. PYRRHON  talk   01:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, but I have nothing to add to the comments already made there. I would point out that again your interpretation of policy is being judged as faulty, and by a previously uninvolved party. You should consider the possibility that you are in the wrong. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow

a 6 to 5 majority indicates no problem worth discussing, especially when those supporting the position seem to be utterly misinterpreting policy. Just a super close.--Crossmr (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

and if you'd like evidence of on-going bad decisions look at what went on surrounding her unblock of Breein. She unblocks, not because he shouldn't be blocked, but just because the rationale didn't sit right with her. She could have altered the block for the right reason, but instead just unblocked someone who blatantly went out and harassed another user, for which several editors including other admins disagreed with her. That was only a couple days ago. But as I say, carry on us regular guys have no recourse.--Crossmr (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your understanding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I have read the ANI discussion pt.II, and now realise the issue. You do not understand what abuse really means; you seem to think it consists of a few examples of decisions and actions you disagree with, rather than a concerted effort to subvert a person or process for gain or willful ignorance of the intended purpose of something and its improper use to an unintended end. I make at least one poor decision a day, but the intent is to build the encyclopedia and assist the contributors. You need to show that GG's intention is to deprecate the project, or to continue to be in error generally despite efforts to make her more policy compliant in her actions. Until you are able, you are misapplying the term abuse - but don't worry, we all of us are prone to making mistakes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I never used the term abuse. I said on-going bad decisions. There was no clear consensus here regardless of how you have tried to portray it. The fact that she has taken no responsibility for her actions and continues to try and put the blame on the IP and fails to acknowledge her utter lack of understanding that OR, NPOV, etc are not talk page policies would show it would show she is going to continue to be in error. And also your bias is rather apparent by referring to those who disagreed as "a few" when they were nearly half (45%)--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not "abuse" but bias, now? Is it possible that having an opinion other than yours is simply that, different perceptions? I would point out that those who do not feel that there is any evidence of systematic failings by GG are also experienced editors and admins, but this discussion has become a closed circuit and you may have the last word if you desire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

PA: Q

I wonder if you agree with MN's interpretation that a PA cannot be considered to exist unless the person being attacked complains? [49] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you? It is always good to be part of someone's considerations when not interacting with them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Evasive, as expected William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First you appear uncertain as to my position, then subsequently you apparently had already concluded what it would be. I wish I were as certain - I generally only find myself in agreement after I have made a decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

unblock request

Can you weigh in here? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Matters had concluded before I read this, and my opinion would have been to the consensus, so my input changes nothing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blog in a BLP

I have removed a blog link in this article Raymond S. Bradley twice and it has now been reinserted by WMC and Atmoz, with Atmoz calling it`s removal vandalisim, you will i hope recall what was said to me for calling another editor a vandal. Could you please do something about this mark nutley (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the matter, and will be contacting Atmoz in due course. I would comment, in the knowledge that this talkpage is on the watchlist of editors involved in AGW/CC related articles, that I do not believe that your claimed "BLP exemption" in reverting within 24 hours is sustainable. Anyway, the Enforcement request page has little traffic these days - it appears other venues are found to be more productive - so I suggest that any explanation might wait for a filed request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And now he is post warning on my talk page saying i am a vandal [50] And is editing my talkpage edits. And whe ni reverted him he reverts me and calls me a fucking vandal again, [51] mark nutley (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:VAND is quite clear that "Modifying users' comments" is a form of vandalism. I thank LessHeard vanU for pointing that out to me on my talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How to to query misplaced in sysop only section

I started to respond to Hipocrite's query here, then realized it was in a section for uninvolved admins only. I think the suggestion is outrageous, so the best course would be for you to remove it, and tell Hipocrite to post it in the appropriate location, maybe with a hint that rethinking it would be smart.--SPhilbrickT 14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I moved it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--SPhilbrickT 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken section?

Please check out this, which I assume comes from a template and was accidentally left in.--SPhilbrickT 18:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Deliberately left in; I am placing more evidence in that section in the next couple of hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you happen to be familiar with WP:REVDEL?

You're my go-to admin. (cause your name appears to be the most recently active on my watchlist) I've got an edit summary that may be of concern. It's in a twinkle warning I accidentally left for myself yesterday at 19:32. Please see this section of my talk page for more info. If you can help, thanks. If not, thanks...and do you know who might be able to? --Onorem♠Dil 13:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand the query; are you saying that an edit summary details remains in the history despite despite being revdeleted (it does not appear in any form now, but then you were talking about contacting oversight)? My only suggestions is that someone tried to rev/delete more than one edit at a time (which sometimes leaves edits untouched, but the log says they have been removed) or your cache had not cleared and was showing a historical version of the page history. I assume after these hours that matters have been concluded, but I hope I have helped a little. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't overly concerned, but didn't want to post all over the place looking for help either. I think requests like this are kind of sad when they appear on AN/I or similar pages. It looks like you've taken care of any concerns I'd have about the situation. I'm not sure if it takes care of the issue Graeme Bartlett had. Either way, thanks again...and I'll wait to see if more concerns are brought up. --Onorem♠Dil 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that I had already started on that page, I think I am pretty much in the "keeping an eye on what the others parties are doing, and commenting if felt necessary" phase myself... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarumio

I feel like I've enquired with you before, but I can't access your archives for some reason. Anyway, you blocked (account-creation) User:Sarumio indefinitely in January, but he's reappeared as User:MorrisSar (contributions) (see this edit, which was reverted by another member of the WP:Footy community). What is the next step to extend the block to the current account? - Dudesleeper talk 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would file a WP:SPI report on the current account (MorrisSar) noting your belief that it is Sarumio, and detailing how their edits are vandalism - this last is important, because it may not be obvious that it is; my review of some of the edits look as if they could be legitimate. It is possible that the Sarumio account has been inactive for too long for a CheckUser to see if it is the same underlying ip, so the reviewers will need to look at the similarity of style of disruptive editing for them to make a decision. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

your recent block of Atmoz

Whilst I fully concur that Atmoz can be very blatant and a little too open in his comments. I would appreciate some explanation of any warning you gave him before blocking him. I may have missed something but I am concerned that you appear to be using your admin tools first with regard to established editors and giving those editors final warnings later. Sort of "'BANG' stand still or I'll shoot" This is based on my own experience. Polargeo (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re warnings; both Atmoz and Marknutley had warned each other in regard to each others actions, and there is the general Climate Change notification which both parties receive. There is no requirement for uninvolved admins to warn parties that they are violating policy, although it is hoped that such a warning would by itself will prevent further transgressions; my reading of the matter is that it would have not stopped both parties, so I blocked them both. As for the analogy, I think it is more in the line of "CLINK! Stop or I will throw you in jail..." Nobody got killed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I still feel that if a firm final warning from an uninvolved admin does not work then block. Just throwing admin weight about does nothing to help make this a pleasant place, CC probation or no CC probation. Polargeo (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That places admins as being more authoritative than other established users, a warning is a warning which - if valid - needs to be responded to. Only when a warning, or sequence of warnings, has been ignored should the extra buttons held by an admin be required. Conversely, requiring an admin to repeat the actions of other editors before blocking possibly permits further violations before a sanction is enacted. The ability to block is provided to stop further disruption that warning has not or likely will not stop, and it is on that basis I took those actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you here about admins not being more powerful, however you stated that they warned each other. I think as an "uninvolved" person, admin or not, you might have made an attempt at a final warning. Anyway that is just my opinion, your opinion is that it would not have worked, maybe you are right but we will never know that. Polargeo (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, worse, one would resond to a final warning but not the other - and then I would block one for continued violations, and let the others past violations "not count". I am not insensible to the claims of bias, although I try not to let them influence my decisions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You have used the block everyone policy before. I would not accuse you of bias in the situation you describe but never mind it is done with now. Just one more point your statement let the others past violations "not count" suggests you think blocks are "punitive". Or maybe you just think they give people time to "cool down" :) Polargeo (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that other people might wish a block to be punitive; both editors violate policy 5 times, are warned and one stops and the other again violates (after sufficient time to read the notice) and gets blocked. I am aware that supporters of the latter are going to raise the issue that the other editor only violated one instance less (for much "naughtier" actions?) and is continuing to edit to their pov, and demand that they be blocked - with a possibly legitimate argument that it would potentially stop future disruption - or that their person should be unblocked since they were no more disruptive in the aggregate. Now, I obviously did not weigh all these issues in such detail as I am now doing - but sometimes you just get the idea is that the best response is to remove both parties from the area of contention; and if they both think you are wrong, then you have at least got them to agree with something... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Polargeo (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz Again

[52] He is closing this reliable sources noticeboard thread, what can i do about this as the issue is plainly not resolved mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A) nutley has no foot to stand on as he's claiming this article on scitizen.com is reliable, but this article on scitizen.com isn't. B) the noticeboards are pointless for this kind of dispute; they always end up in squabbling with no outside input (I recently experienced the same thing when I stupidly offered my 2 cents at ORN#Antisemitism in the New Testament), it's best to close the early and often and refer them back to the article talk page C) most importantly, why do you think one "side" always comes to you? -Atmoz (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I came here as he dealt with the previous dispute, I have said the post by pielke is probably ok as he is commenting on the IPCC, WMC`s blog post on stoat however is not as he is making statements of fact about a living person, and you should not have closed as you are involved and rns threads are not usually closed either are they mark nutley (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not know the premise of that board, but if it is anything like the other noticeboards then I would assume that it would have to be an uninvolved third party that would close such a discussion, unless there is a clear consensus. I suggest that neither is Atmoz an uninvolved party, and nor is there a clear consensus... I am not sure that there is even a discussion, simply the usual parties presenting their cases and disparaging the opposing ones. I think a post to the noticeboard talkpage, requesting an uninvolved party review whether the request was properly closed, would be the first option. Then perhaps the Probation enforcement requests page?
As for the point of the board, it may be best to at least wait for a clear indication that no outside party is going to comment; no comments after 24 hours - while other topics are actioned - would be a fair indication. As for Marknutley coming here, it appears that I am the only sysop who is prepared to try and act as an uninvolved admin presently, there being the matter of an ArbCom case, and who is regarded by some parties as impartial. You could always see if there are other admins who have previously acted in these matters who are also willing to review the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the board is outlined at the top of the page: "While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated WikiProject". Every time a global warming related topic is brought to a noticeboard, it delves into bickering between those who had already been bickering about it on the article talk page. Past experience shows that bringing these issues to the reliable source noticeboard or biographies of living persons noticeboard or any noticeboard really results in attracting no outside opinions. (E.g. see here.) I'm guilty too (e.g. here), but I do try to stay out of the noticeboard discussions about global warming (I'm not always successful, but I consider that a failure on my part). It would be extremely nice if an uninvolved administrator (perhaps you'd volunteer?) would preemptively apply liberal usage of the hidden-archive template to comments from involved editors as that is not the purpose of these noticeboards. This would help by soliciting input from external editors. A positive side effect is that it would increase congeniality among global warming editors as they would have less opportunities to engage each other.

As for the rest, I don't see anything positive coming out of it, so I'll drop it if that's okay. -Atmoz (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose of the board is to solicit other comments, then closing requests before third parties have commented seems counter productive. If a request gets no outside response, then I suppose the status quo remains and other avenues of dispute resolution should be sought. As for adminning the RS noticeboard, I am that uninvolved that I would likely not recognise non legitimate requests from a good one - I would not want to censure the wrong people for properly contesting a request. Some other sysop with better knowledge of WP:RS would be the person to review the legitimacy of requests and commentators. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is this Schultz guy?

[53] Apparently everybody knows him but me ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I would advise you that I am an Odmin and am perfectly entitled to rename anybody (but not, apparently, A Nobody (talk · contribs)) at my whim - and will respectfully request you to write up said policy forthwith... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Make it stop

Linkedin spam Bishzilla with "reminders". ROARR! Little Linkedin tired of life perhaps? Wish to be torn lim from limb? Spamming Bishzilla is very dangerous! bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

Oh... I shall see what can be done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot, really. My fault for giving access to my address list, but I am too tired to bother with guilt. Instead, I have a couple of suggestions; put the site in your spam filter, or sign up 'Zilla, or Little Stupid, and then ignore it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wondered about that myself; decided to ignore as I lack the energy for tearing limb from limb. It's too damn hot here. Bielle (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement Request

posting a source to a blog It was not a blog, the source is a book. (reliable BTW) Might i explain a few things here, i am currently unable to do any editing at all. I can actually do less than an ip editor. The sanction i have been put under goes against the spirit of WP, which is an encyclopedia anybody can edit, except me. I asked four editors between the 18th and 20th of june to the ref`s in an article. I am still waiting. The restriction has to be lifted. If people do not like a source i use then they can just revert it back out as usual. Look at this article and tell me i am using unreliable sources [54]. I have not used a bad source since the sanction was imposed. mark nutley (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to appeal sanctions you should do it through the RFE page, not via various special-pleading requests William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of following me around you should pay more attention to your civility parole and not call editors vandals [55] for what is obviously not vandalism [56] worry about your own sanctions for a while mark nutley (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me. But if you think otherwise, you should to the right thing: approach me on my talk page and try to sort the matter out politely William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (@LHVU: feel free to delete this irrelevance if you like) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have struck the bit about it being a blog, but as noted what the source is of is irrelevant; the requirement is that an editor in good standing needs to okay it first. If you want a different restriction wording, to that of "if there are no objections within 72 hours then it is permitted to be used", then I am certain WMC and others would agree - because every proposed source by you will be objected to within the time limit (IMO). Mark, sourcing is fundamental to the open editing environment and issues with using inappropriate sources or mischaracterising what sources say is one of the larger area of general editing concern and effort. You have been found to have not fully complied or indicated that you are sufficiently familiar with the criteria but because of your apparent good faith were provided with a formula that allowed you to find and propose sources, and keep doubters reasonably happy. Sticking with the criteria for some months and showing that you are familiar with the policies and guidelines is the way to have your restrictions lifted, not by getting impatient and "shortcutting" your restrictions. Also, per WP:DEADLINE, not getting the source in today, tomorrow, or the day after, should not be an issue - making sure that something is suitable so that it stays is more important. If Cla68 or Nsaa are unavailable, try finding someone who is. If no-one else appears, make a list of proposed sources on a user sub-page and let those reviewers go through them when they do have time. In short, stay within your restrictions if you wish them lifted in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

if there are no objections within 72 hours then it is permitted to be used", then I am certain WMC and others would agree you think :) setting up a subpage is no good, every time i edit an article i have to ask, even if said source was cleared before. The Guardian and Nature for instance, if i get an ok for them or one article i still have to ask for another. It is impossible to add content like this. Have you looked here? [57] Tenner you do not find a single bad source yet i have been waiting weeks for clearance. It is not fair on other editors to spend their time ok`ing obviously reliable sources. mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of how sources work. It's never possible to make a blanket declaration "X is a reliable source." The question "Is X a reliable source?" must always be answered with another question - "For what?"

The bottom line: a source that is appropriate for one subject or use may be inappropriate for another. If source X has been "cleared" for a certain use in article A that doesn't mean it must be acceptable for other uses in articles B, C, D and so on. It always depends on context and purpose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Tenner" in pounds or Euros? I saw several think tank publications, an unreviewed essay by Moore, OpEds by Frank Furedi, Andrew Bolt, Booker... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pounds Sterling Stephan, All those sources you mention are fine as they are attributed, whic his the correct way to do it right mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW the Moore ref, do you mean thomas moore? That`s a book ref Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. No. It's not a book, it's an essay [58]. You also reference a book by Moore. Unfortunately, that's not published by a reputable publisher, but by the Cato Institute, a free-market right-wing think tank [59]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The eassay is attributed though, ca nyou do me a favour and post on the article talk page exactly what you feel is wrong with it. I know the book is published by Cato that does not matter, who actually says they are not reputable? mark nutley (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would an unreviewed essay by an economist on a medical question be relevant. As for the Cato Institute, please follow the link. Cato is publishing to push it's well-known agenda. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, remember, we don't care about the motivations of the publishers of our sources. We don't take sides. All we care is if the sources meet our definition of reliable. If the Cato book is self-published by the institute itself, then I would say that it can only be used in an article with attribution to show that it is Cato's opinion on something. If the book is published by a third party publisher, then it is reliable but editors could still insist on attribution. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Moore essay is attributed, he is giving his opinion on the exaggeration of vector borne disease. As Cla says, the book is published by cato, they run a publishing business and what they publish is up to them mark nutley (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential COI violation

Could you have a look at User:RocktopiaTeam. Despite the inital warning, it appears he/she/them are trying to sneak links to the said Rocktopia website into Wiki articles. It is early days, but .... Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I could not see any specific reason for linking that site, so I have indef blocked them per WP:SPAM and invited them to provide a rationale by which they may be unblocked. If you see a similar name spamming links to similar subjects (i.e. the same lot under a different name), and they have not responded to my request, report them to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and will do.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

re The Muir Russel report - to TPW's with an interest in such things

100 interesting pages (out of 160, not bad!) in pdf form, and a little something for everyone... unfortunately. So, the science is sound, the scientists are conscientious and able in respect of their work, communications are lousy (and perhaps deliberately so) especially in relation to those of a skeptic viewpoint, and compliance with procedures set up to ensure equal access not understood, or ignored, or tardily provided, or any combination. You know, there is just something a little familiar with all this... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

List help

Talk: List of Masonic buildings is, from my perspective, a serious issue. It is a list of Masonic buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places (which confers notability, apparently, despite some really vague inclusion criteria). Problem is, we don't know how to qualify the list or write a lede, because we have no available actual info to explain why the buildings are on the list. User:doncram claims that a single cite to the DB main page is sufficient; it is clearly not. He knows how to rectify the problem, but insists others (who do not) do the work. The crux of the matter is that these buildings seem to have DB entries according to a search, but so far, none of the actual records called up on the buildings exist digitally (though URLs do). So I see this is an unsourced, unquantifiable list that should go back to AfD because we have no way to write an article that meets guidelines, though I'd like an outside opinion, if you don't mind. In short, since your experience is greater than mine, do you think we can do anything with this? MSJapan (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think doncram is correct, in that if a building is listed on the NRoHP then saying so confers notability sufficiently (as the NRoHR have already done the legwork) and that it is then appropriate for a cite to the mainpage of that database, because the reader can then do their own checks on individual buildings (like you can cite a physical register or similar), because it is possible to consult that entity - it might not be easy, but the rule is "possible"); that a statement is verifiable. Does this help? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

From the standpoint of accessibility, much of the online database is actually empty - PDF links point to blank pages. To get any useful information would require sending an email with property information to the National Park Service, and then that's only going to get a primary document (the nomination form). So I'm wondering if that's sufficient hardship to be considered inaccessible. The other interesting thing is that apparently buildings can be delisted, so maintenance of the list becomes an issue. It seems to me that the criteria for listing aren't objective, so maybe this needs to be revisited at a policy level. MSJapan (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)