User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 37

Your participation in mediation
Hello Andreasegde. In the past few days, we (the mediators of Requests for mediation/The Beatles) have noticed the increased tensions on the mediation talk page, and we are both of the opinion that some change is necessary to ensure that the mediation can progress smoothly. If participants are focused on issues of user conduct, rather than the content of the poll, then trying to find compromise between the parties will be both difficult and frustrating.

Unfortunately, after reviewing the mediation page, we feel that it is in the best interests of the mediation that you withdraw. It is not our place to judge user conduct, and this decision is not a reflection on you in any way. It is just that we think your withdrawal would be the simplest and most efficient way to bring the focus of the mediation away from user conduct and back onto the poll itself. We offer our assurances that your positions on the issues will be represented, and please do not hesitate to contact either of us if you have other concerns. Again, we must stress that we do not blame you for this outcome, and we will both do our utmost to ensure that the privileged nature of the mediation is upheld.
 * Signed: Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 09:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Co-signed: — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU
Wow, you got topic banned...? I don't suppose anyone checked on your edit history, or the article(s) editor totals, to see who put in the most effort over the course of the years...? Of course not! It is to the Encyclopedia's shame that one person who was unable to reconcile themselves to any consensus of editors, and who kept bringing forth attempt after attempt to fashion a change of titling to that of an a standardisation of style (!) which is not even mandatory, used the smokescreen of WP:CIVILITY and WP:DR to effect the removal of those of differing (and pervious consensual) opinion. When GabeMc provided notice on my talkpage of the proposed mediation - ignoring, like anything else not serving his purpose, the little matter of a big "RETIRED" sign on my talkpage - I responded that it was individuals such as himself, careless of the differing opinions of others, that had finally driven the fun and sense of accomplishment that I had derived from contributing to the project and had caused my departure. You will not be surprised that he simply reverted me with some arrogant summary. It should not surprise me that you have been topic banned, because you thought that caring about the subject matter and by arguing passionately over points of principle, guidance, rules, etc., was sufficient - rather than resorting to wikilawyering and recruiting, though I am saddened. No matter, he can never erase those days when a dozen or so editors became - for a brief glorious instance - a company of brothers (and too few sisters) dedicated to maintaining and expanding one of Wikipedia's flagship group of articles. We, at least, lived that fleeting dream of comradeship and consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We certainly did live that dream, and had fun as well. I thank you, LessHeard vanU.--andreasegde (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The New Wikipedia

 * On this mediation page, the word "judge/judgement" is mentioned 20 times, including "a three-person panel of judges".
 * The phrase "the threshold for a decisive outcome be set at a minimum of 67%", is also there, as well as "list of editors who agree to be bound" (by the decision). Handcuffs, anyone?
 * It's sickening, and totally against the idea of Wikipedia. Hanging will be the next thing to be decided upon, by a judge deemed to be neutral.--andreasegde (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For all interested '99' watchers
No, I was not '99', am not, and never could be. Now take your magnifying glasses and go search elsewhere, especially Gabi and Eva. Satisfied?--andreasegde (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I remind you that yourself and Gabe have an interaction ban. That kind of remark breaches it. And yes, I have reminded him that calling you a sock is also a breach. I recommend you let it drop now, before this has nasty consequences.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that include him replying to my comments on this page? (at 21:50, on 9 September 2012) --andreasegde (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There you go; you get "nasty consequences" thrown at you, and when you ask for a reply, you don't get one.--andreasegde (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be if he had done so, but I can't see where he has. And it wouldn't excuse you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "I can't see where he has". Read the link above, perhaps? "it wouldn't excuse you". Is this a one-way street? He can reply to my comments, but I can not interact with him?Just a thought... --andreasegde (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your email
I extracted myself from the discussion because it wasn't productive. There wasn't anything further to state, so I ended the conversation. If Gabe doesn't wish to discuss things with me to my face, then nothing is to be gained from further conversation with him. To your point, I largely agree with you that his refusal to engage with a simple question is avoidance, but there's simply no point in persuing further. My time and emotional energy is valuable to me, and quite frankly, he's not worth a bit further of either. -- Jayron  32  18:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the use of time and emotional energy, and I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Your input may be beneficial here
We don't need any cries of improper voting! 99.251.149.32 (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 99, I am not really allowed to reply to your posts, because certain people think "I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together". They might even think (by my reply right now, and because we are probably both logged-on at the same time), that I am talking to myself, or you are talking to yourself as me, or we are talking to each other as one. I was born in Northern England, and that kind of thinking boggles my mind. I think you have to ask yourself if your posts are doing any good, because you have been branded a possible volatile disrupter of how consensus should be decided upon. What to do? I don't know, but you can post on my talk page whenever you feel like it. It's called Freedom of Speech, after all. Ho-hum...--andreasegde (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really, really apologize to you. I honestly had no idea what monster would rear it's ugly head when I blindly stumbled onto this crap in one of tThe Beatles Articles. I was inquisitive and until somebody (me thinks you) pointed out some history of this stupidity! I was happy to leave it alone but when editors start labels and insults I have a hard time letting it go. Bans only spur me on even more. I have n clue what bands are about except for lovinggood music and playing instruments in bands back in the 60-70s. I attempted to explain to DB that I have always hated lynch mobs and injustice to the detriment of my own mental and physical health. So many people have lost accounts and/or freedom in this issue all based on teh stupidity of some listening and reponding without spending one minute on understanding where the friction originates from. Of course others have different opinions supporting their views, so they profess. I have totally lost my last ounce (mg.?) of faith I had in the WP system. This fact radiates through the rest of the web in sites typically banned from appearing in WP. Go figure. Proves the website reports by proving the point, itself. If I gave you an example it would not even appear in the text. *SIGH* I have never been in the UK except from my G.G.G.G. Great Grandfather that came from Cornwall. He survived a shipwereck, swimming four miles to shore in Canada. Strangely enough we have produced an olympic swimming champ and many other swimming competitors in our family. My sons all have size 15 flippers...LOL Boy! can I ramble or what? Anyway, if you have seen the latest list of IP sockpuppets I have accumulated, it makes my head spin. I dont know how I would ever become 40 different IPs but not blaming them as one would be an admission of a problem with many editors that are pissed off to do this. The cummulative bad behaviour makes a bloke well worthy of banning forever and a good excuse for a "Wanted Dead or Alive" user page. LOL.All the IPs and they still haven't even come close to my real account name. The drama is great and I can only enjoy it as an observer as I have lost any hope of ever editing articles for a long time. As far as geography is concerned I always thought one of the problems with you UKers was that you were up in the wee hours of the morning and all exhibited burn-out characteristics... LOL I never thought about the 5 hour difference. Well I better leave some room on your talk page for somebody to respond and lay down his unsolicited opinions that normally follows other edits, everywhere. ( hi whiney OCD stalker(s)! ). Nice ranting at you. Why haven't you voted? 99.251.149.32 (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1: Don't apologise; everybody has an opinion, and that is to be defended at all costs. Your idea about "bans" supports that line of thought. 2: I also hate "lynch mobs", but I suppose that is what happens when people gather and decide who is the strongest and is supported the most; they fall into line. 3: I was in Cornwall this year, and even though I have been there many times, this time I visited a lot of wonderful places I had never been before. Look up "Cadgwith Cove" on Google Street-view. Nice... 4: Sometimes I am up in the 'wee hours', because it seems right, rather than keeping to fixed hours. It's the body clock, maybe. 5: I haven't voted yet, because I wanted to take a step back and see what would happen. My vote would only be one single vote, and I don't think (as a certain editor does, who hassles people to death if they don't like his shoes), that it would make that much difference. I believe in democracy, and not the "straw that broke the camel's back". Thanks for the post, 99. BTW, are you sure that you are not me/you/my sister/my half-nephew (once removed)? Nah, of course you're not; it's too complicated. :))--andreasegde (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The New Wikpedia
When I joined Wikipedia (in 2006), insults were thrown about all over the place (with humour, and malevolence), but nobody in the circle I was in thought about ANIs, or saying "Your comments are abusive and bullying". It was accepted that people would argue (even if they were wrong/right). This New Wikipedia has taught me a lot, because I never knew about this complaining process. After reading comments by people that say "He has bullied and harassed me for three years", without having any evidence at all (except for diffs that do not prove their case at all, but who reads diffs?) it is now a case of "The Squeaky Wheel Always Gets The Grease".

I admit to using (recently) this new tactic myself, but I find it to be uncomfortable, because it limits the openness of the conversations that I was previously used to having. If anyone disagrees with this, I suppose I should say, "Stop posting on my talk page, because you are harassing/abusing me, and I am scared". Is this what Wikipedia has become?--andreasegde (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read LessHeard vanU's comments above.--andreasegde (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi andreasedge. Did you see the suggestion at Feezo's talk page that I linked to with the talkback template here? It doesn't matter whether you think it would be a good idea or a bad idea, but it would be very useful for the mediators to know whether you would be willing to abide by it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a certain editor is not abiding by it in any shape or form, it seems redundant at this point. It was ignored by said editor as soon as it was proposed.--andreasegde (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The New Wikipedia
Case proven. Fixed, and ready to boil-in-the-bag. Admins protecting a wild child, and ignoring all the rules. No wonder so many people are leaving. Very sad.--andreasegde (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andreas, will you please explain what your sentence means. It has many elements only understandable to insiders, and I haven't been following this, so I need it broken down. Please give me a short primer of what this is all about. To make it easy, I'll number the parts so you can just refer to the numbers, and explain each one:


 * (1) Case proven. Fixed, and ready to boil-in-the-bag. (2) Admins protecting a wild child, and (3) ignoring all the rules.


 * Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply from Andreasegde: I was commenting about the retention of editors here. I know of two admins that have left (and at least five editors), because of their dissatisfaction with the process. It seems that 2006-2008 was the high point for them (read LessHeard vanU's comments above). Why is Wikipedia losing so many contributors?--andreasegde (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the comments on this page. It's scary.--andreasegde (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please revert
Please revert your RfC notification on all of those article talk pages. There is no reason to believe editors on those articles would be interested...in fact, while I don't know your position in that RfC, I find it a bit worrisome that you've chosen to notify a whole bunch of pages which conform to a specific result in that RfC (capitalized "The"). At best, you've spammed a bunch of pages that have no connection to that RfC, and, at worst, you're trying to votestack. The best course is for you to remove all of the notifications. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusations of spamming are just nonsense. The mediation is requesting it and you are only acting as a tool to the mediation. Vote stacking is definitely another matter and should not be done intentionally. It could be argued by many that bands beginning with "The" will be the potential casualties of the current mediation as its outcome spreads like a plague from one band article to the next of 1000s quoting the current Beatles mediation outcome as a weapon. These will be the people that will be concerned then and affected and should be the ones notified. To balance the scales I include, below, another editors notification histories of The Beatles RfC and it should be noted that it includes absolutely no band articles, that are not Beatles related articles, containing a leading "the" or "The" in their bandnames.

01:02, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Cold Turkey ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:58, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Plastic Ono Band ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:56, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Nick Drake ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:56, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Nine Inch Nails ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:55, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Frank Zappa ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:55, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Uncle Tupelo ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:54, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:David Bowie ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:36, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Steve Lukather ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:36, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Silverchair ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:35, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Pearl Jam ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:35, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Pixies ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:34, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Eric Clapton ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:34, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Bob Dylan ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:33, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Joy Division ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:32, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Powderfinger ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:32, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Kylie Minogue ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:30, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Wilco ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:29, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Gwen Stefani ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:28, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Insane Clown Posse ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:28, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:John Mayer ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:27, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Rush (band) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:25, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Sex Pistols ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:24, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Motörhead ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:24, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Mariah Carey ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:23, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Janet Jackson ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:22, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Michael Jackson ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:21, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Godsmack ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:20, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Tool (band) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:20, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Slayer ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:19, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:R.E.M. ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:18, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Radiohead ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:18, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Elvis Presley ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:16, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Aaliyah ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:14, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Roger Waters ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:13, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Nirvana (band) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:12, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Audioslave ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:10, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Alice in Chains ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:09, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:AC/DC ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:06, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:U2 ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

00:00, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Metallica ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:58, 23 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+551)? . . Talk:Pink Floyd ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:51, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Geoff Emerick ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:50, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Brian Epstein ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:49, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:George Martin ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

21:59, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:James McCartney ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

21:59, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Sean Lennon ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

21:58, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Julian Lennon ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

21:58, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Zak Starkey ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

21:57, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Dhani Harrison ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

21:57, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Alfred Lennon ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

21:49, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Mimi Smith ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

21:49, 22 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+577)? . . Talk:Julia Lennon ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:08, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Something New (album) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:06, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:The Beatles' Story ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:06, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Beatles '65 ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:05, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:The Early Beatles ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:04, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Beatles VI ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:03, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Yesterday and Today ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:02, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Magical Mystery Tour ? (??Beatles RfC: new section)

23:01, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Hey Jude (album) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

23:00, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Let It Be ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:59, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Abbey Road ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:58, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Yellow Submarine (album) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:57, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:The Beatles (album) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section)

22:56, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:52, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Revolver (album) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:51, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Rubber Soul ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:50, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Help! (album) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:49, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:Beatles for Sale ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:49, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:A Hard Day's Night (album) ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

22:48, 17 September 2012 (diff | hist). . (+582)? . . Talk:With The Beatles ? (??Beatles RfC: new section) (top)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.149.32 (talk • contribs)
 * If the articles are related to the Beatles, they fall safely under WP:CANVAS. However, those other articles cannot be effected by that RfC, as it has no authority to extend beyond the topic in question, nor could it possibly extend that way. The question at issue is specifically how to name the band "T/the Beatles", not how to name bands beginning with the word "the". I'll see what others at the mediation say. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Andreasgde, we really must insist that you remove the notifications. There was no consensus for this, and there were legitimate objections to it. I strongly suggest you reconsider this approach. For the mediators, Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 07:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It was said that the poll should be open to as wide an audience as possible (by both sides).
 * I used the wording on the poll's page, which was written by a mediator. Another editor has done exactly the same thing. Are we both wrong? I refer you to this: "the point isn't to rally the "entrenched editors" on both sides, but to seek wider community involvement", which is here.
 * I did not post the above mentioned notices on people's talk pages, but only on article talk pages. Many of them use both versions of "the".--andreasegde (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * At least two other editors have extensively posted notices on non-The band pages. I say leave them all in place, as long as the neutral wording is used, and get the wide audience that we were supposed to be seeking. Tvoz / talk 08:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It was far worse for those editors to post notifications on user talk pages without that being discussed.    Hot Stop     (Edits)   12:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I am speaking explicitly as an uninvolved admin, responding to both the actions you've taken to notify a clearly "partisan" group of articles under false pretenses, along with the explicit request of the mediator above: roll back the edits, or expect that there will be consequences. I may act directly based upon your response, or I may request further input from ANI, but if I do it will only be to determine whether a full block is required or a simple extension of your topic ban to include the mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not asked to get involved in the notifications, I saw a few of them and decided to help out, so all my edits were of my own accord, just for the record. I am now wondering if Publicizing an RfC should be adjusted, it was easy to validate the notifications because all rock, pop and genre related articles could be considered closely related in this instance, do to the widely exception that the Beatles were involved in the birth of the genre groups.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 15:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the Publicizing an RfC guidelines:
 * Talk pages of closely related articles or policies
 * "When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC." I did exactly that, to the letter.--andreasegde (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the basic problem is that the idea that "all rock, pop and genre related articles could be considered closely related" is, frankly, nonsense. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Is it allowed for another editor to publicise the poll (about 160 times) on pages as diverse as Nick Drake, Nine Inch Nails, and Frank Zappa? Only a question.--andreasegde (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note: Please lets not go off on a wrong direction with this, I did not and I firmly believe that any other editor involved with posting these notifications was doing these with nothing but the highest regard to policy and good faith, there was no intent of canvasing, !vote stacking or any such form of malice.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 16:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So what happens now? I thought bands with "The" in their name were as closely linked as they could be to the poll.--andreasegde (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone seriously believes that it is in WP's best interest to extend an obsessively trivial dispute in one article into thousands of other articles, then I really do despair for the future. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at the talk pages of Nick Drake, Nine Inch Nails, David Bowie, Steve Lukather, Frank Zappa, and many others. I didn't post anything there, and nor would I.--andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't criticising you - I was commenting about how this is increasingly spiralling beyond any reasonable limits and into utter insanity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thank you, Ghmyrtle, and I mean that. The only problem (for me, at least), is if it is allowed to publicise the RfC on "Talk pages of closely related articles or policies"? I thought that articles of bands beginning with "The/the" should be included, as they might be affected in future discussions. (Having said that, I actually agree with another editor's posts that would open this up to everybody). Am I wrong here?--andreasegde (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The more that this can be contained within a diminishing group of squabbling pedants, the better, so far as I can see. The rest of the world will carry on regardless.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is losing editors. People should be encouraged, and not be tainted with a comments like, "The more that this can be contained within a diminishing group of squabbling pedants, the better". C'mon, be nice, no?
 * Having said that, I ask if you agree that 'the poll' should be broadcast to a select few, or as many people as possible.--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am currently investigating the other editor's notifications. In the meanwhile, whether or not the other notifications were appropriate, yours clearly and obviously were. Are you explicitly refusing to remove them? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You said that my notifications were appropriate.--andreasegde (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure Qwyrxian meant "were NOT" appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is correct, it was a typo/grammar error on my part. I meant "were not appropriate". Because you notified a class of articles which the mediator explicitly told everyone not to notify, there's really no way that we can consider those notifications appropriate. Please state clearly whether you will revert, or whether I should instead determine which action is most appropriate to protect the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was acting in accordance with Publicizing an RfC guidelines: "Talk pages of closely related articles or policies". I find it very confusing as to why very diverse pages are allowed to be notified, but not any band that has a direct link to the poll question.--andreasegde (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps OxyMoron should ask Gabe what he wants to do and just do it. Maybe Gabe's hand came out and he is like a ship without a rudder? 99.251.114.38 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

An Open Poll?

 * Comments have been made here about an ANI/a block because I posted RfCs on band's pages that contained the word "The/the". They are closely related to the poll, but please tell me if I am wrong about that.
 * Another editor has posted RfC comments on numerous band's pages (and on personal talk pages), that have nothing to do with "The/the".
 * Question: Why have warnings been issued on my page about what I thought was pertinent to the poll, but on no other editors' talk pages?--andreasegde (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tagging
Andreasegde, given your central role in the dispute, I don't feel it is appropriate for you to engage in sockpuppet tagging. The spa template, which you have not used, is intended for obvious cases. There is no support for what you're doing. The closing administrator, or other neutral editors, can deal with any sockpuppetry. Please stop, and revert what you've done. Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why was it not done before? Some of these are obvious socks. Even Evan asked you about it, so you can't say there is no support. Why was nothing done? Why am I only getting warnings, and no answers?--andreasegde (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * SPA and sockpuppet are not synonymous. Maybe a typo? Just sayin'... -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban extended
After discussing the matter with the mediators, and looking at the history of the situation, I have decided that the special exception to your topic ban on the t/The Beatles is now extended to include the mediation and the poll. You may no longer have any involvement with t/The Beatles anywhere on Wikipedia--in any talk page, on any project page, in mainspace, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that if you wish to challenge the matter, you should open a thread in WP:ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem.--andreasegde (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In reference to your question on my talk page, your analysis is correct--you cannot vote in that poll. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. :))--andreasegde (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "...your analysis is correct..." - where do they get these people? I’d be tempted to go ahead and vote anyway, and let the world see the kind of lunatics that run this asylum now. Although, I would keep a very close eye on my bollocks afterwards.--Patthedog (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazing isn't it? A supposed mediation/poll is set up, people are ignored when they complain about editors being vigorously bullied, obvious socks are not investigated, the thing is not allowed to go public, and an editor is forbidden to vote. I don't think they're lunatics, because they know exactly what they're doing, and they don't care. No, like any kind of officialdom, they don't have to care, and they know it. Ho-hum... --andreasegde (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The in-crowd
Freedom of expression is the paramount of all civilisations, and when it is curtailed, there begins the downward spiral. Wikipedia is down that path, as evidenced by the falling number of editors. It has become a private club, where the giving of Barnstars and adulatory comments brings one "friends", who fall into circles of defence with each other, and resist any changes that they, and their circle of "friends", have not personally sanctioned. The officials are now in control, and you have no voice with which to disagree, by order of the council. Case closed.--andreasegde (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As evidence of this, I ask you to read the above post/posts, which were written after I wrote this one, as one is not allowed to vote anymore. Isn't that refreshing? Such a relief, no? Now, to which admin can I send a Barnstar? Preferably with the words, "Thanks for your great advice; I'm still learning, and thanks again. Thanks. BTW, could you look at this page, because a cyclist is threatening to kill my small dog." :))--andreasegde (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh Henry!
Not too much sweetness but plenty of nuts! Evan you didn't catch on earlier to what was really happening behind the scenes. The casualties were worth shutting down possibilities of losing my outcome. Perhaps I may explain this to you once the mediation is signed, sealed and delivered. Más o Menos. The best part is I had so much support to remove all the ridiculous capitalizers. I have even reported my own sockIP and got it blocked. None of those wankers even possibly suspect my account after that cloaking. If I had a pound for every... These wankers are just so happy to block anybody they can and one got all the blame. Easy target. All the same sockpuppet and still blocked? jajaja! Better than BBC2! You really need IRC to survive here. It's a long and winding road. Cheerio! 99.251.114.38 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Was this message meant for someone else?--andreasegde (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Evan's page is semi-protected, so perhaps this is an attempt by the IP to make him see this message without having to log in? If you want to, you can remove this section and I can suppress the revisions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to have anything protected, as freedom of speech on talk pages is paramount (as long as it does not offend anyone). I thank you, nonetheless.--andreasegde (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but suppression would only serve to hide the evidence. There's no reason for that. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of WP:DENY. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 06:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you know that GabeMc and MlPearc were sockpuppets? Did you see how we did that mediation? Just wanted o teach some of you wankers a lesson. We don't mess around. We got most of the contenders in opposition banned, blocked, or indeffed and left the way clear for the sane clear thinking editors. You are slated for the trash heap soon if you continue to disagree with Gabe's ways. A few others are well on their way. We have so many backers in the admin crowd we are unstoppable and WikiProject is ours to command. Now we just need to stop this wanker bird from getting some crap out to the public.  There are too many of us to stop us now. We are the champions my friend. Now sit back, enjoy your bacon buttee, and on your bike. Dennis, you have been brilliant!  99.251.114.38 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think WP:DENY is applicable here. I'll talk to it when it gets an account. Not before. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Media interest?
I was recently contacted (per Wikipedia mail) by, "a reporter with Dow Jones/the [sic] Wall Street Journal in New York. I'm writing because I'm interested in pitching the paper an article about how complex and controversial the process of getting Wikipedia entries online can be and the folks on the arbitration committee pointed me to [a certain page one is not allowed to mention] talk page since they said that's one that has been the subject of much dispute. I found you on the request for mediation page and was hoping to be able to reach out to for a chat about the dispute."

It seems the media is hungry for negative stories about Wikipedia, but, you have to admit, there are quite a few stories, are there not? Why is this place being taken over by editors and admins that are members of a select Barnstar (I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine) club? They love to write about that sort of stuff, and they're closing in.--andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's more likely a planted request than a genuine one. Ignore. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Andreasegde, please note that your topic ban extends everywhere on Wikipedia, even to this page. Please take all of your interest in t/The Beatles and take it off site. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: However, if you are concerned about this message (i.e., you think it's either a phishing scam or that someone is trying to provoke you w.r.t. your topic ban), let me know and the issue can be raised at ANI. Even if the email is "legitimate" (and I strongly doubt that it is), if this person is widely using Wikimedia mail for this purpose, it may be something that the community needs to look into. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The mail was sent by Itinerantgirl, and it said this: "Hi, My name is Saabira Chaudhuri and I'm a reporter with Dow Jones/the Wall Street Journal in New York. I’m at Saabira.chaudhuri@wsj.com – or Saabira.chaudhuri@gmail.com. Check her out.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Her choice of username makes me suspect this is legit. She's quite the girl! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So will I get an apology for reporting something that was true? I suppose I won't, because I'm not allowed to vote on something I was involved in, and I'm not allowed to even mention the thing that I was involved in on my own talk page. In fact, I'm not even supposed to say that. What kind of place is this? Does anybody have any spare handcuffs for my keyboard?--andreasegde (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

They eyes have it
60 watchers on this page. What's so interesting?--andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Only 60? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You've got 146, but we don't know who they are... :))--andreasegde (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech
Is it allowed on one's own talk page, or is it to be censored?

Where is Wikipedia going, when it specifically demands that editors not express their opinions on their own talk pages? Could I be blocked for saying something like this? Watch this space...--andreasegde (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are free to express any opinion you wish. Wikipedia is, however, in no way obligated to offer you a platform for doing so: communication here is limited to that which is useful in building an encyclopedia, and is subject to a number of rules and restrictions.
 * If you feel the need to express yourself beyond these boundaries, you may freely exercise your right to free expression in some other – appropriate – venue. There are a number of social network and blogging services available where you could go.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ta very much, but I was talking about building an encyclopedia, and how it is to be/being built. I can't think of anything more important than that.--andreasegde (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk
I think extending this topic ban to a user's own talk page is over-zealous and wrong. Not allowing two editors to interact is unfortunate, but not totally unreasonable when those editors have been accusing each other of harassment, etc. And you could, I suppose, say that editor A cannot mention editor B and vice versa anywhere other than on a noticeboard or the like. You could even say that he is banned from discussing the specific mediation topic - that is, the capital T. But the topic itself, The Beatles, writ large? Banning his input into Beatles articles is, in my opinion, a mistake, and damaging to the encyclopedia, based on his extensive positive contribution to them over many years. To extend that to his own talk page, to say that Andreasegde can't celebrate John Lennon's birthday next week here on his talk page is an unacceptable application. Indeed I think disallowing a vote in an ongoing mediation is also wrong - Andreasegde could be allowed to place his vote and then not comment further (which had been suggested early on for all parties involved, but was promptly ignored by everyone). But then to say that he can't even mention their names here, on his page, is unreasonable, perhaps unprecedented. I would urge a reconsideration, and amending, of this. Tvoz / talk 21:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Think what you like, but topic bans almost always extend across the entire site. Very occassionally we have special topic bans limited to article space, but allow the person to comment on article talk pages (i.e., where the person edit wars but does have useful information and can contribute constructively to a discussion). But please note that I didn't extend this topic ban to this page--it was also a full Wikipedia topic ban, it's just that it had an exception for the mediation; all I did was revoke the exception. I didn't participate in the original discussion, but I do know what the outcome was, which was a 100% ban from discussing anything related to the Beatles, period. If you think that is "a mistake", you'll have to ask for a change to the ban conditions at [{WP:AN]].  Finally, if you wish to discuss this further, please do so on my talk page, because putting this here just makes it harder for Andreasegde to comply with the ban. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am having no problems at all complying with that ban, as anyone can see by looking at my contributions. Out of interest, I wonder where it does say it was a full topic ban (including this page), because all I can find is this: "lay off editing articles relating to the Beatles, and from direct interaction with [editor's name witheld]... the best way forward is for you to lay off editing articles relating to the Beatles... A one year topic ban from articles related to the Beatles, broadly construed..."--andreasegde (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the closing note from Coren in the ANI archive: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive760. Use of the phrase "broadly construed", with no specific indication it's only on articles, means that it follows standard topic banning rules, which means every namespace is included--from Wikispace, to Wikiprojects, to article talk pages, to even this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I promise not to "Nibble around the edges". BTW, Happy Birthday Johnny.--andreasegde (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Qwryxian, I did read that before I asked my question, which I am asking here because interested and involved admins and editors read here who might shed a light on it. "Broadly construed", I believe, means any and all articles, their talk pages, and other pages that are at all, in any way, related to the Beatles, beyond the obvious ones and stretched far. I don't see anything stated in WP:TBAN that talks about a user's own talk page, or in Coren's ruling as long as the interaction ban is also upheld, and I'd like clarification on this. Thanks Tvoz / talk 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll ask Coren. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TBAN actually uses "discussions or suggestions about [the topic] anywhere on Wikipedia"" as exemplar of what a topic ban entails, and there is very little vagueness about what "anywhere" might mean. That said, discussion on one's talk page is sometimes tolerated provided it does not otherwise continue the dispute that led to the topic ban in the first place – but that's neither a rule or a right.  You're right that "broadly construed" applies only to the scope of the topic but without and specific exception any topic ban always apply to every namespace.
 * As for reconsideration of the ban itself: I'm not inclined to lift it at this time. The mediators having seen fit to remove the exception of dispute resolution is indicative of further problems justifying the original ban.  I haven't looked at the specific incident or the discussions surrounding it, but I have no reason to doubt that the members of the mediation committee would not have taken such an exceptional step without good cause.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Coren, for coming over and clarifying (and thanks Qwyrxian for arranging it). Please understand I was speaking for myself, not at Andreasegde's request about any of this - but I've worked  congenially with him here for years and know the care he has put into it and the quality of his contribution to the encyclopedia, which is why this whole matter is disturbing, as LessHeard vanU indicated up top of this page as well.  I guess that this topic ban policy matter is unclear to me because I don't think of user talk pages as areas that are "broadly related" (in the words of TBAN) to anything, and it just seems to me to be too restrictive and punitive. I didn't mean to suggest that it was a right or a rule, but that giving an editor some space - having a conversation about the weather, to use the TBAN example, or mentioning the rain, even that you don't like the rain - is a lot different from arguing an editing position about rain that is in dispute, especially since reading here is voluntary and easily avoided.  In any case - I apologize if this is hijacking Andreasegde's talk page - that was certainly not my intention. I would be interested in continuing the conversation, though. Tvoz / talk 00:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No apologies needed, Tvoz.--andreasegde (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Any complaints?
If you have dispute with an editor's behaviour send it via email (so the public can't see it) to one of the offending administrators. If we have a dispute with your behaviour we will be sure to block you with no explanation. Welcome to WickedPedia! jajajaja!!! That should get you indeffed! We are the champions, my friend! As they say in America "Your goose is cooked!" Signed SickOfTheCloakAndDagger 99.251.114.38 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have grave reservations about private Wikipedia mails. (When was it introduced?) Anyway, who needs talk pages anymore when you can talk/persuade/cajole privately without being accused of anything untoward at all? I truly believe every conversation on Wikipedia should be open to scrutiny, which is why we have "History" sections of talk pages. Nothing is lost. (Yes, I have also used Wikipedia mails on at least five occasions, but I never felt very comfortable doing it).--andreasegde (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Barnstars and slime have worked their magical charm. The end was predicted, because the end was what was planned before it was started. May it sleep easy in its bed. Long live !votes, and may consensus sleep an easy peace.--andreasegde (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah Butt I am sure things will be fine in the end. The SLIME demonstrates a huge need for some attention. Hard to believe how the Sins were sanctioned by the Overlords. Some of them probably need some attention moreso. Help! Now the stalker is putting nother notch in his belt! His page banners tell it all. I wanted your contact info. It's a Long and winding road to Get Back 72.136.50.42 (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

After any kind of victory, the victors will turn against each other, because there is nobody left to destroy. This is history, as it has always been. I will enjoy watching it.--andreasegde (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why I'm getting the sinking feeling that a lot of comments by people admonishing editors sound like a teacher's report: "Should try, unwilling to, must start, stopped from, a nuisance, distracting, wasting resources/time"...--andreasegde (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I did enjoy reading this so much. At last, someone has seen the blatant misuse and abuse of respected guidelines.--andreasegde (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia
A person (quite forcibly), disagrees with someone who has made a judgement, but then the person who is being accused posts a notice on the accuser's page saying they hope the user wasn't being harassed by other people, because they were looking after/watching their page. How does that pan out? "Yeah, you can slap me to death, but I'll still look after your kids".--andreasegde (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)