User:The ed17/Archives/105

Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom
Please see the large instructions at the toon of the page"If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already have one). Do not edit anyone else's section." (emphasis present in the original) – Gavin (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm really not worried about wikilawyering bullet point two. I believe that Andrew will agree that it's a beneficial change, but if not, it'll take him about .5 seconds to remove. Apologies for editing your section, though. That was daft. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's nowt to do with wikilawyering: it has never been acceptable to add one's thoughts to other people's TP comments, and doubly so at ArbCom. As well as the quoted wording above, the instructions also reiterate that"You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned." If Andrew wants to subsequently add the comment, that is entirely up to him, but you cannot and must not change his statement. - Gavin (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2016
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Engleham
Just a quick head's up, I have just blocked this user for a month. You placed a similar block a few months back, suggesting the next one should be indefinite. I have stopped short of that for now, as I am cautiously optimistic that a month off will allow everybody else to get back to work, but have emphasised future blocks may well be indefinite. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems ... rather short, given my previous month-long block not even four months ago (where's the escalation?) and other blocks in the past ( as I said at the time: "Engleham's block log has three blocks for personal attacks, one for violating BLP, two for both at the same time, and one for socking to boot (another was overturned). Then this one today. Have we given [Engleham] too much rope?" ). There was also a developing consensus on ANI in favor of a community ban. Perhaps you closed the discussion a bit early? Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's my take on it. Engleham is a productive editor with a barbed sense of humour that gets him into trouble when other people don't share it. (cf: The Troggs Tapes). The ANI thread was trending in only one direction towards a full ban or indefinite block, and the conversation was approaching (but had not quite reached) a bloodbath - at which point I felt another admin would have placed such a sanction. Nipping it in the bud this way stops the immediate disruption and gets editors back to whatever they were doing, and it also provides Engleham with a route back into editing Wikipedia. The project doesn't have a good way of dealing with editors who make a lot of good mainspace edits but also cause disruption, so we just have to pick whatever is the least worst option at any time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's two problems with that approach. One, you're cutting the community out of the process. One could make a stronger argument here, but I don't want to unjustly ascribe motives to you; it suffices to say that we operate this site based on consensus, and you've deliberately circumvented that.
 * Two, while you're very right to say that "," you've unfortunately chosen to invoke the Malleus defense in response. In my personal opinion, that's an argument that should be immediately disqualified whenever it invariably pops up. No editor with an extensively invective and uncivil editing history should be allowed to continue using language that actively drives away other editors. It simply does not matter how positive their mainspace and content contributions are. Those are easy to count; the amount of edits lost from people who leave the site or decide to edit less aren't. That's one reason why there's no special provision for "but they've made so many other good edits" in WP:CIVIL. (Would you say that you wouldn't have blocked an editor making similar comments if they had only made a thousand edits?)
 * And just in case it isn't clear, all comments here are said in good faith and cheer. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally think things are more complicated than that. I can certainly imagine somebody kicking off if I closed the ANI thread as "no action". Cary Grant's article has been put through the wringer more than a few times, and a month's block helps get some stability on it. Beyond that, I think Engleham admitted himself he gets on better writing obscure topics and things only go pear-shaped when he works on things of interest to multiple editors. He also admits to liking Bill Hicks, which means I don't think he is deliberately and purposely setting out to offend. He might exhaust Collect's patience, but I can't see him quitting Wikipedia over it. Anyway, bottom line is Engleham is blocked, and if we're having a near identical discussion on ANI in late October, feel free to serve seafood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)