User talk:Bigtimepeace/Archive 2

Upstairs Recordings page deletion.
Hi, The Upstairs Recordings page was deleted by you. How do I get it back to revise it? Thanks. Buzz Rozwell (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Buzz, I'm pasting the entire text from the deleted article Upstairs Recordings onto your talk page. I would ask you though not to simply re-create the article. Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion, and we do not have articles for every musical act, album, record label, etc. The article on UR did not give any indication that the company passed our notability bar which is why it was tagged for speedy deletion and then deleted. You are going to need multiple reliable sources discussing Upstairs Recordings in order for it to be a viable Wikipedia article. Again the full text is below, but please consider whether this label really warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, and if you think it does at least gather some sources before re-creating it. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

IP Warnings
I noticed some threatening remarks on my IP talk page. Didn't even know I had one of those. But, in short... I've never heard of Tippiecanoe High School, much less been to the page, much less "vandalized" it. I would appreciate it if you would direct any comments to the appropriate person(s). This is your first and final warning. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.37 (talk • contribs)
 * My apologies if you were offended by seeing various warnings as "new messages." Presumably you are looking at Wikipedia from a shared IP address, and someone else who uses or has used that IP address has in the past "vandalized" Wikipedia - that is they have deleted information, inserted nonsense, etc. It is standard to warn such users to stop their behavior and then, if they do not stop, to block them from editing briefly. In the case of shared IP addresses, folks who did nothing wrong will sometimes see these warnings but I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that. You'll notice that below the messages I left (several weeks ago) there followed the phrase "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings." Sorry if this caused you can stress, but leaving messages like this is one of the main tools we have to cut down on vandalism to the encyclopedia. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny  23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats
On you successful RfA Britishrailclass91 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Hey there BTP, congrats on becoming an admin! (I think I supported you, actually...I'll be right back...) Ah, yes, #37! Anywho, on to business. I noticed that you closed the debate for Simsbury Public Library as merge and redirect (which is the right close BTW, nice work). If you'd take a look at this diff, you'll see that I made the redirect more specific, both by redirecting to a section of a parent article directly instead of to the top of the article, and by categorizing it as a "redirect to section". It's the preferred method of redirecting (or so I was told when I started closing AfDs. :-) Anywho, just pointing it out to you. Thanks for your hard work, hope you're enjoying your shiny new buttons! Wear the letters off 'em! Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keeper for taking care of that, I actually had thought about redirecting it to the section but did not, I'll make a rule of doing this in future AfD closes.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Summer's here
So I expanded the Kool Herc article. That's about all I know, short of the Chang book which is on my shelf, but which I haven't consulted, since refs to chang were already in there. I skimped on brilliant prose :P but it's a decent article now, with refs. i dunno if there should be more on the economic background or the various subtleties of the relationship with disco or what have you. i stuck with kool herc, pretty much. take a look at it. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work! That looks a lot better. I'm still a ways away from being able to work on this as I'm finishing the semester, but I think I'll be able to add some more detail. The Chang book is actually very good for that and I'm very familiar with it. I'll drop you a line on your talk page when I start in on it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I bookmark my contribs, so if my IP changes, rest assured I'll be looking in on my talk from time to time (that's my SOP as an IP editor). I don't think I'll be of much help, but if you do decide to try for GA I'll be there for any discussions that may crop up (for instance, if it is unclear what is sourced to what, or what source to use when Chang contradicts Toop, Ogg, or Shapiro etc.) 86.44.28.186 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you are looking for more ever: Black noise: rap music and black culture in contemporary America By Tricia Rose p35 Published 1994 Wesleyan University Press 0819562750 Reggae Routes: The Story of Jamaican Music By Kevin O'Brien Chang, Wayne Chen Enjoy, and thank you for your defense. I just wish others would see all of us New Yorkers were not the same person. Perhaps I will see you at the Wikimeetup. I think you might be humored by my job, and the similarities I share with some. User:Gr0ff being one. - IWritePrettyMuchEverything =)
 * p35 - DJ Kool Herc attended Alfred E. Smith auto mechanic school - Graf writer and dancer before DJ -
 * p51 - credited with innovation of using large speaker systems - Named his stereo system speaker Herculords - Made b-beats out of New Orleans Jazz, Isaac Hayes, Bob James, Rare Earth among others
 * p195 - Herc's style heavily influenced by Jamaican sound systems - Herc claims he could not get the crowd to respond to Jamaican music - Left hip hop after being stabbed multiple times during one of his shows
 * p72' - Herculord speaker name - crowd did not react to Reggae music -Herc began to focus on mixing and left DJ'ing to Coke La Rock - Herc would soak his records in water to remove the labels


 * Heheh, I'm currently reading the Rose book! And was intrigued by the reference to his speakers as Herculords, I'd never heard that before. Must mention that the Rose book should be of some interest to bigtimepeace, btw, an academic work with a little bit on hip hop coming out of a response to post-industrialisation (the context in which she mentions the auto-mechanic training mentioned above). 86.44.28.186 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Come join the party
Requests_for_arbitration Inclusionist (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Dr.
Hello again! I would like to thank you once more for your assistance and support in writing this article, and I'd like to let you know that I nominated it for Featured Article. If you haven't read it in a while, please do so. I would also appreciate your comments in the FAC process. You can find the nomination here. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Moni, other things have distracted me, but I'll definitely take a look at the article again when I get a chance and try to comment during the FAC process (though I'm new to that). I still would like to add some new interpretive stuff at some point, but it probably makes sense to let it go through the FA process first. Good luck!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious
You said you deleted the bio (Rotton) that I created because, it was not important enough? Am I confused, or what? I even put links in that bio, and was not fineshed. Will you please explained to me what I should do about that. You seem to be good at editing pages, maybe you can help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotton (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Rotton, I'll try to explain the situation here. Wikipedia does not include every possible article on every possible subject. We have certain standards for inclusion, key aspects of which are described at our notability policy. In order for a person, group, organization, thing, event, etc. to be notable, it must have received coverage in third party reliable sources. The article you started (which I assume is about yourself) did not give any indication that the subject was notable or had been covered in reliable sources. You seem to be an aspiring rap artist (and for that I give you props, I'm a big hip-hop fan myself) but there was no indication you have achieved any notability yet or been covered in secondary sources (simply having a web site or starting a company does not make one notable). If that's wrong then perhaps you could have an article, but you also might want to take a look at WP:FIRST and specifically the section on things to avoid, one of which is starting articles about yourself.


 * I hope that helps a bit, but if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

 * Thanks so much! I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that film treatment mildly amusing. It's funny because when I first saw your message and read it too quickly I missed the "as described on your user page" phrase and saw only "outstanding feature film project" which led me to think "shit, they left this message on the wrong user talk page." So the joke was almost on me! Anyhow, thanks for the barnstar, and thanks again for your work on that "minor Poe" page. I love it on Wikipedia when I think, "it'd be nice if someone here could fix up such and such an article" and then after one talk page note and less than 24 hours later it's done. Oh and you'll definitely have free tickets when the film opens, which it undoubtedly will someday&mdash;at a theater near you. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts). This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Communication
Hiya, just checking, do you ever use IMs? If so, feel free to drop me a line. I do a lot of work on history articles too, and love to have Wikipedia contacts that I can bounce ideas off of. :) --Elonka 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Elonka, I am one of those strange creatures who is under 35 yet never uses IM (or IRC, the existence of which I only learned about in the last 6 months or so). I don't know why, that's just how it is! However I'd be happy to try to help on history related stuff if you wanted a second or third pair of eyes. You can always feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or send me an e-mail, which is enabled on my user page (e-mail I can handle). Sorry that I haven't taken the leap into the 21st century yet! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I envy how much more peaceful your surfing must be, without IMs. :)  No problem, but I may take you up on that email offer!  :) --Elonka 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi. As per Talk:Elderly_Instruments, apologies for any snappiness at my part. I don't want to discourage you at all. I was reacting probably in too much haste (I have in fact been trying not to contribute to WP during the week) to some part of the barrage that has afflicted that article over the last day or two. Again, personally I think it'd be best if everyone laid off the article for now, at least until Laser has returned. In the meantime, I think it would be truly excellent if you were able to spare some time at FAC and FAR. I think that the defensive reaction on the part of people such as SandyG and myself honestly comes from a sense that we do want more people to be involved in those processes. I'd be very sorry if I had inadvertently put you off. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, and no worries, it's all water under the bridge. I can certainly understand your frustration with some of the previous comments on that article. I'll definitely make a point of commenting at FAC or FAR in the near future. Like I said it's something I've been meaning to do and I've even dropped in and read some of the discussions, but felt like I needed to read a bit more about the standards. Actually I fully intended on commenting on this offering from Moni3 (I did a small amount of work on that awhile ago) but let too much time go by before it was promoted (as well it should have been). Anyway you can expect me to turn up over on the FA pages sometime soon. Best, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I was mostly a little fired up by the claims that the subject of the article wasn't "notable." But there are so many different arguments swilling around following this particular article's unfortunate day on the main page, that everything gets confused.  I've been trying to clarify over on Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article, but to little avail, I feel.  I'm actually quite sympathetic with many of the complaints made, not especially about this particular article, but in general about articles like it.  I've expressed them myself at FAC.  But it really does seem to me that FAC is the place to make (most of) those arguments.  Anyhow, again, apologies; I didn't want to turn you off at all.  There's nothing particularly magic or special about FAC, but it is the place where people try to hash out the standards for Wikipedia's best articles, and so (at least at present) to figure out which deserve to be on the main page, and which not.  There's certainly no reason not to take part, beyond that is the inevitable pressures of time that we all feel.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

BigTime, thanks for your calm voice throughout, and my apologies also for any ungraciousness on my part. In terms of getting involved at FAC or FAR, here's a User's guide; hope to see you there! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry
It seemed centralizing the discussion made sense. My pet peeve, per WP:BURO, is deciding the fate of the content one article on the talk page of another article. As I had said, centralizing it seems like a good excuse to start the WP:CENTER page, even though I was wary that might look a little like I was forum shopping myself. I would have left you a note, but I just assumed you would notice pretty quickly. -- Kendrick7talk 07:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said it was a mistake on my part to not place notes on the other two article talk pages, but that was just an unintentional oversight and could have been fixed in about 3 minutes. Anyhow thanks for moving it back, and apologies if my tone was a bit snappy. It's just that editing that "Allegations" page is so unbelievably tedious and I was dismayed to see that a lengthy talk page comment I had left was somewhere I most certainly did not want it to be. Now we'll see if either of these two discussions get us anywhere. :)  --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Killing two birds with one stone tends to annoy the birds so I knew that going in. Anyway, nothing else can phase me this weekend, because it just occurred to me that I could do this. There's a year I'll never get back, so I'm not too keen to be sucked into WP:CENTER regardless. --- 08:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your talkpage has become apology central. You should rent out the space. ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! That's really funny because I was just thinking the exact same thing and chuckling about it. People who stop by here are really going to feel bad for me and the obviously shabby treatment I receive on Wikipedia. Why is it that I am constantly being wronged? What have I done to deserve this infamy? I am indignant! Indignant I say! I shall compose an ode to self-pity and post it post-haste. Actually it's probably just some strange karmic shift which portends a future in which I will be the one apologizing on user talk pages.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies
I just wanted to stop by to say sorry, too. I'm not sure why yet, but I'm sure I'll think of a reason someday. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this
. Saying it is deletionist v. inclusionist makes the protest against WMC make more sense to me and I can see that is a kind of content dispute. I struggle though with the rigth approach on the huge numbers of socks. On articles I watch closely I can and do spot obvious socks and indef block them. I don't think I am involved in a content dispute on those articles but it could always be argued that I am anywhere that I edit. But if I try to do this via ANI it takes me ten times longer putting together the historic diffs and getting pulled into a tar baby of an argument than it does for the sock master to create another account which seems disproportionate good faith. Plus no one has complained and many are confirmed weeks later when checkuser does another batch of them. So why not the same with WMC at allegations? Personally, I have to say I would run many of the edits I have seen the other way, but WMC is a consistent deletionist and there are lots of people's "pet" articles where his presence is needed. Also he seems to me to be pretty fair in general (again, he has unblocked an account I blocked correctly once). So lots of shades of grey in my view. --BozMo talk 20:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine by me if admins block folks on articles they have watchlisted and even make some edits on. But the block policy is fairly clear about not blocking folks with whom you are disputing. The article in question is one of the most contentious on the encyclopedia, and WMC has firmly allied himself with one camp. As far as I know he has only blocked users on the opposite side of dispute, though editors on his side have edit warred as well. Posting to ANI or the 3RR board might take a bit longer but is the way to go here. The fact is that editors on the other side of the dispute (many of whom are neither socks nor disruptive) do not view WMC as remotely impartial. The easy thing for him to do, and what he has been asked to do, is to lay off using the tools and let uninvolved admins take care of it. I would point out that there have been admins involved with this article in the past and they have generally refrained from using the tools. User:Tom harrison contributed regularly (coming from the deletionist camp) but I don't believe he ever took admin actions, at least since I first noticed the article almost a year ago. User:John (coming from the other side) has done the same. I've only been an admin for about a month but I would never dream of using the tools on this article (had I said I would I never would have passed RfA, with good reason). WMC's behavior is thus exceptional and I don't find it helpful in the slightest. I've expressed that and he rejects that view so if and when he employs the tools again I'll bring it up at ANI where I highly doubt that his behavior will be ratified. I don't want WMC to be sanctioned or anything like that (up until this point I'd only known him as someone who seems to do good work on the global warming articles), I just want him to let a neutral admin take care of any blocks, protections, etc. There's really nothing particularly difficult about that in my view and no one has offered any argument to the contrary which I find remotely convincing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "I highly doubt that his behavior will be ratified". Hmm. I think this issue even on this article as far as I can tell has been to ANI, RFC and Arbcom and he has had majority support from other admins each time, but always with a few outraged on the other side. Partly as a long standing bureaucrat he has a lot of community respect. Partly a lot of the time he is victim of many spurious timewasting allegations. Partly no one else has the appetite to take on the challenges in his place. But whatever the reasons I think if there is a need for him to change another tack is needed, however you choose your path :). --BozMo talk 07:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll see, ideally WMC decides not to use the tools any more at that article and then there's no problem. He has already had a couple of blocks reversed.. See this ANI thread where one admin unblocked because of WMC's involvement, and then another re-blocked saying "Wrong person, good block" (I think two admins disagreed with WMC being the blocking admin and one agreed, another admin complained about his editing over protection). Just a few days ago another block was reversed with this note. If it happens again I think it will be difficult for folks at ANI to deny that future blocks/edits over protection are not kosher. Some will of course, but this is pretty clear cut. Anyhow WMC recently reported an editor for a perceived violation rather than blocking himself which is good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep I saw those. Anyway I think if there are other admins around helping with the socks it will improve. --BozMo talk 09:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Notification
As one of the people who do like me (I think), I promised to invite two that do and two that do not, I am informing you of my appeal: Requests_for_arbitration. Your comments, negative or positive are welcome. - I Write Stuff / SevenOfDiamonds
 * I've commented. I would be fine with an unblock but I think you will have to agree to some conditions, and even with that there might still be some who oppose an unblock. We'll see though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is not allowed to be discussed. I hope you do not become overwhelmed by me posting articles here. I will try to keep them clean and behind a "hide" tag and in "nowiki" form, so you can just copy and paste. Odd, Merzbow says I am the one with a vedetta against WMC ... -SevenOfDiamonds/I Write Stuff/The Exiled —Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaRamos2 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

HG2TG
Funny, I was musing earlier today about this edit and wishing I had added "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea" to the list of possible definitions. I didn't know if anyone would get it though. -- Kendrick7talk 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI
Follow the edits in case you weren't aware. Not cool and he may listen to you. --DHeyward (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Giovanni should stay away from that article since you've edited there for quite awhile and I'll leave him a note to that effect. However this was not particularly helpful on your part. I don't know how you would expect Giovanni to be aware of previous oversighted edits and whatever harassment was going on (since they were oversighted I obviously don't know what happened either). The content over which you are disputing is rather innocuous and certainly has nothing to do with harassment or the BLP policy (I understand some other content did, but that was not what Giovanni was talking about). Rather than insinuating on his talk page that G33 was taking sides with an editor who has harassed you or Scarborough or whomever you might have just said "I've been editing this article for a long time, we don't get along so please don't follow me there." Bringing up the oversighted edits only escalated the dispute when it could have been fairly easy for you to defuse the issue. One of the reasons I de-watchlisted the "Allegations" article is that too many folks on both sides are trying to escalate disputes, report for 3RR, start AN/I threads, etc. rather than just talking to one another (and obviously this spills over into other articles and parts of the encyclopedia). It's quite depressing. Anyhow I'll leave G33 a note and suggest he avoid the Joe Scarborough page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect him to know about anything. That's why I left the note.  It's the third time he's claimed ignorance about harassment and for someone who obviously follows my edits quite closely, I find it hard to believe he was unaware considering he picked that article to revert me on and support that editors edits.   Nor did I believe that he was simply trying to end an edit war by reverting me without an edit summary.  Nor was it coincidence that after I explained the situation that he immediately filed a 3RR.   I rarely edit the state terrorism article nor have I watched it for quite a while.  Giovanni is well on his way to being banned for reasons such as this.   He creates and escalates conflict.  Before he arrived at Scarborough article, this was low-level BLP violations that were being handled by rollbacks.  He escalated it to full protection which seems to be what he's best at.  I don't think I've ever filed a 3RR on Giovanni or even an ANI.  He seems to find me though.  He harbors an animosity that is inconsistent with our interaction which is why I think he has many sockpuppets.  At the very least, Giovanni3 should have assumed that I was using rollback appropriately and asked what was up if he had issues with the content on the Scarborough page.  Since he didn't made any content arguments (just took a position opposite to mine), his real purpose is painfully clear.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * G33 was not supporting the editor against you DHeyward, he was supporting the inclusion of the content itself - which is the way things are supposed to work. There is no BLP violation here as several editors have pointed out to you.  If you had used the article talk page in the first place to explain your rationale for removing longstanding material - none of this would have escalated as it has into an unnecessary edit war. I don't think this was personal  at all - originally. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I forgot, G33 has a history of editing Joe Scarborough and has a history of supporting your edits. Oh wait.  he doesn't He has a history of harassment and wikistalking my edits though.  I wonder what motivated him then to show up and revert me .... --DHeyward (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such history.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much took Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb amd Mar off so after 4 months of being off, heres what I returned to:
 * Stalking
 * Mistaking me for someone else with a threat
 * Fishing for a block, sound familiar? BTW, that fishing excercise is what brought WMC to the State terrorism article.  Law of unintended consequences.
 * Forgets to apologize to me after his fishing excercise shows that he's wrong
 * Mystery puppet restores invalid warning even after dismissed by WMC. Still no sign of Giovanni33 to correct his mistake.
 * Right after admin semi-protects page to stop IP editor warring, giovanni33 jumps in to revert me and continue the edit war.] Literally the first edit after protection to stop the edits he reverted to.
 * More defamation and policy violations. Didn't Gio just claim last week that he knew nothing about this. Hmmm.
 * fixes the lie but keeps the polciy vio. and then repeats polivy vio and repeats the lie about my block log and makes up other nonsense about blogs (hint: ED has an account with my name, not me though).
 * Immediately after posting that nonsense at Arbcom, the Scarborough IP (formerly known as Kek15) starts posting information about my email address and other info in edit summaries and other nonsense. And lo and behold, Gio show up at Scarborough to support the editor that propagates his nonsense once again claiming ignorance and innocence.    There's more but it's late. --DHeyward (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sure there's "more" diffs into which you could read some sort of nefariousness on Giovanni's part, but for god's sake don't post them here. Perhaps you find this utterly fascinating and a good use of your encyclopedia writing time, but I am not interested in your catalogue of perceived slights from Giovanni (though I do find "forgets to apologize to me" - is that in our civility policy? - mildly hilarious). You asked me to say something to Giovanni about the Scarborough article and I did and now it's done. DHeyward, G33, and IP 72.92.4.157 can all consider this thread closed. Argue somewhere else if you must, or better yet quit sniping at one another, stay the hell away from each other, and go work on an article or something. This talk page is no more a battleground than any other page of this encyclopedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere you have an amazing ability to see bad faith conspiracies, and a strange way to spin each of these differences in a quite misleading way. Here is my account of your differences:
 * You seemed to be harassing this editor by edit warring on his own talk page. I was standing up for the guy and telling you to leave him alone. His talk page is his own. If he reverted your warning then we can assume that he read it. Restoring is just harassment in my book. Also, I was not following you but watching that editor since he was making good contributions on the article, and agreeing with me. Naturally I am interested in following his other edits.
 * Not mistaking you for someone else. You were blocked for making more than one revert and are on some kind of 1 revert parole. I just did not know it was only for some subjects in particular. Instead of explaining this to me, you simply reverted my message to you under the very uncivil edit summary "removing trolling.' I'm no troll.
 * Since you didn't have the civility or courtesy to explain anything to me, I logically asked someone else about your restriction because if you are violating it, stopping you would be good for the article since your very disruptive there in my view. Unfortunately your 1 revert parole was not for all articles.
 * Why should I leave another message on your talk page to apologize to you after you called me a troll and reverted my message? That is not logical that you expected me to leave you another message! hehe If you acted like a decent fellow then I would assume you would be open to more messages from me. Why would I give you another reason to call me a troll again?
 * Nothing mysterious here, and nothing to do with me. You were reverting this editors talk page, after he has reverted. I guess you taught him that bad lesson since he did the exact same thing you did to him. Again, nothing to do with me.
 * This is a simple content dispute on an article I’m much more active on than you are. Calling this harassing or stalking is absurdly ridiculous.
 * No defamation at all. These are facts and I saw nothing wrong here. No, I never claim last week that he knew nothing about this. I‘ve always said I did know, but I never know anything about privacy issues. You stated that you changed your user name to your real name. So, again, how am I supposed to know this is a privacy issue? More bad faith violations, and twisting fo the truth.
 * I adjust my comment but there is no policy violation and never any lie.again, this is not a policy violation. and You do have a block log that is cleared. There is no lie. No basis to continue to allege I know all these things of which you speak, the contradict what you yourself said about your account before. You never mentioned it to be before, either. Also, I know nothing about ED, either. Sometimes the non-conspiratorial, simpler, explanation is the true one. Sorry to disappoint you.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bigtimepeace, I only now saw your message. I consider this closed, as well. It is truly nonsense, however funny in perverse way. heheGiovanni33 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ali Faik Zaghloul
It appears that I misread the last section. I was going through May 29 and misread your relist and comment as June 3 rather than June 8. I thought no one new commented in 5 days so I closed it. I'll reopen it. Wizardman 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Thank you for making a commitment to preserving order and stability at the Barack Obama article.

I would like a commitment from the involved administrators that they are going to monitor the conduct of a small but determined group of exclusionists on these articles.

User:Life.temp gutted the article, removing a total of 732 words in two consecutive edits: I placed the following warning on his/her Talk page and on the article Talk page:  He/she removed the warning from the user Talk page with a personal attack in the edit summary  and discussed this warning in two edits on the article Talk page, proving that he/she had seen the warning and was aware of increased concerns about edit warring. Nevertheless, last night Life.temp again gutted the article, ripping out nearly 1,000 words this time: None of these edits were accompanied by anything resembling consensus.

Now, everyone is signing up for Wikidemo's offer of a truce. 

Except Life.temp. 

It is obvious that Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article. I request a block of at least 24 hours for Life.temp, plus a topic ban. Kossack4Truth (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Kossack, I agree that Life.temp's recent conduct has not been particularly edifying. I do not see a need for a block at this point but I directed a comment toward that editor on the article talk page laying out some concerns. However I don't see the problem as "one group of editors," and you yourself need to check some of your recent comments and behavior. Talk page sections headed "Massive POV push by a handful of exclusionists" are never going to be constructive, and there is almost never any benefit in commenting on the supposed motivations of other editors (about which, for the most part, you are just guessing). You say "Life.temp's goal is to expunge any controversy from the article" and that editor says "Certain editors are attempting to wage a political campaign in this article." What good does it do to hurl accusations of nefarious intent at one another? In the end neither of you come out looking very good. Please focus on edits, not the "goal" of other editors as you see it. I will try to keep an eye on Life.temp and future problematic behavior will likely result in a block, but I'd like you to alter your approach as well (and I'm not singling you out, there seem to be a lot of problems over there, but you just happened over to my talk page so I'm letting you know my view).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * BTP, I would again like to thank you for stepping in on that article over there. I have discussed this via email with WorkerBee74, who agrees that your presence is needed and asked me to pass along WB74 gratitude as well. JJB said something over there that I think cuts right to the core of this matter: Of course, the Ronpaulicans capitulated for quite a bit more space being devoted to the controversy than the Obamanators are doing. The Obamanators simply refuse to compromise.


 * This refusal to compromise is essential to the edit war, and "the removal of the refusal" is what needs to happen here, in order for the edit war to end. The only tool that WB74 and I have had at our disposal is the revert. Now that you have stepped into this article with your admin tools, you have far greater ability to deal with what I see as the problem. This means that WB74 and I will feel no need to revert.


 * In particular, the Rezko matter needs to be sprinkled through the article, like the Ron Paul newsletter stuff needs to be sprinkled through the article. I know about the newsletter stuff and in the end, I can see that it was well handled. Jimbo said in one of the many essays that were cited at Talk:Barack Obama is that the goal is not to remove the criticism. The goal is to spread it evenly and proportionately through the article. It must be proportionate to its presence in the mainstream news media and other neutral, reliable sources, but we got plenty of that to support our debate in favor of inclusion of Ayers etc.


 * WB74 also offers his/her comparison with the other Wikipedia biographies of major politicians such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. WB74 zeroed in on this major point:


 * ":We should follow a format established in other Wikipedia articles about similar people: George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Kerry and Tony Blair, for example. When I review those articles, I am impressed by the broad and diverse array of names and political expressions I see in the Talk pages and histories of article edits. They form a very broad consensus of editors. Their consensus is as follows: critics of the politician who is the subject of the biography should be quoted and cited frequently in the biography. Controversies regarding the politician should be described in substantial detail in the biography, including bold headlines that clearly identify the controversy, such as 'Whitewater,' 'Keating Five' and 'Iran-Contra Scandal.'"


 * "In those articles 'summary style' hasn't been used to hide controversy elsewhere and make the politician look perfect. The opposite in fact. Controversy is dwelt upon at length. Critics are named and their criticisms are extensively blockquoted. Summary style is being used as camouflage here for an agenda: to systematically expunge any mention of any controversy from this article."


 * WB74 says that the biography style has been established in other biographies. He/she pointed out that until just a few short days ago, Hillary Clinton was involved in an active political campaign just like Barack Obama; and that throughout the primary campaign season, her Wikipedia biography contained entire sections that had the section headers, "The Lewinsky scandal" and "Whitewater and other investigations." Obamanators claim that those controversies were more important or more damaging to Hillary, and I would respond that this sounds like WP:OR to me. It is evident that the expert political commentary on the Wright and Rezko matters finds them to be potentially very damaging to Obama. These are reliable, neutral, solid gold sources available that say these controversies are notable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Erosion of neutrality
When the "edit war" blew up on this article recently, I was the first editor to volunteer to avoid Obama-related articles in an attempt to diffuse the argument. Although I had not, strictly-speaking, participated in edit warring (as my record shows), I was accused of "contributing to the poor atmosphere." Evidently, my strict interpretation of WP:BLP was viewed by some as a hostile position.

I have chosen to post this message here because you, like Josiah Rowe before you, are one of the few administrators who have taken a refreshingly-neutral and active role in the "stewardship" and development of Barack Obama. The noticeboard farce still leaves matters unresolved, with certain administrators apparently caught up in the nuances of process instead of solving the problem.

I've been happy to step back, but after a short wikibreak I have returned to discover that editors from the "other side" of the argument, particularly the single-purpose account "WorkerBee74", continue their activities relatively unchecked. They did not see fit to take voluntary breaks, and so it appears they are using their greater number to push their skewed point-of-view. If proposals like this, which clearly violate WP:BLP by using guilt-by-association to give undue weight, are accepted by the current editors then I will feel compelled to return from my self-imposed exile to try to redress the balance. I would appreciate you thoughts on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Scjessey, thanks for your note. I'm going to jump back over to the talk page and review what's going on there, but WorkerBee 74's proposal to which you linked still seems problematic to me, though the discussion has gone further since then. The good thing is that there is discussion happening. I definitely don't want to see anything pushed through without a rough consensus and will work to prevent that from happening. Personally I feel some of the criticism of Obama can be expanded a bit, but not to the point that WorkerBee74 is proposing. I think the real issue here relates not so much to the BLP policy, but rather to NPOV and the notion of undue weight. We can and should talk about Rezko, for example, but it can't take up a disproportionate amount of the article. I'm also aware that WB74 may indeed be a single purpose account, but for now I'm trying to assume good faith of everyone there, regardless of past behavior, so long as they are working constructively.


 * I appreciate your willingness to take a break from the article, though at least recently I did not really see a problem with your editing (I haven't looked into anyone's history too much, so aside from warning a few people about recent edit warring I don't really have any comment on past activities). The fact that you were willing to leave off editing for awhile actually stands you in good stead (at least in my book) so I would recommend you continue to avoid the articles for a little while (I think you said a couple of weeks). I don't think anything too drastic will happen there, and while I can't be watching the article all or most of the time, I will be checking in at least a couple of times every day in an effort to help us get to some form of consensus on various issues, and to make sure that radically new stuff is not being added without discussion. Not sure if that's reassuring or not, but I will do my best to keep the article NPOV.


 * I know the editing over there has been frustrating, but when you come back do your best to keep your cool (not that you were not before as far as I know, though you should avoid unnecessarily inflammatory language like "skewed point-of-view" above) and work with the editors with whom you disagree. Again, I view it as a very positive thing that you were willing to step away from the article for awhile.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by User:Fovean Author
FYI, User:Fovean Author from Talk:Barack Obama has edit-warred with you in the past under an IP address identity. Please see Suspected_sock_puppets/Fovean_Author for more information. Shem(talk) 02:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was taken care of with a six-month block. Fovean Author has been mostly disruptive from what I've seen, so I'm not surprised it came to this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama - again
I would like to request your assistance at Talk:Barack Obama. After a good start, the conversation has once again deteriorated into petty bickering. There has also been an unwelcome influx of single-purpose accounts (some of which may or may not be sock puppets) to add to the hostility. I beg you to intervene with some form of mediation, or perhaps some guidance as to how we can move forward constructively. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been a bit absent, I'm teaching an intensive summer class and have been busy with various social commitments as well (the fun kind, not the annoying kind). I'm taking a look at the talk page now. The conversation moved so quickly I could not keep up with it given the small amount of time I've been on Wikipedia the last few days. Anyhow I'll weigh in over there - it does look as though things have got a bit out of control which I suppose is unsurprising. Hopefully we'll be able to get things back on track.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please - if you could. A couple editors, including a new IP editor who we strongly suspect is a sock of a banned user, are filling the Obama talk page with argumentation.  I can't promise that our responses have always been the most diplomatic, but it is hard.  I am going to caution one or both of them to stop because I do not know what else to do, but they have turned this around to make this an issue about me, so my ability to make peace here is quite limited.  I appreciate all your efforts to date; if this is too much for you maybe we should appeal for some additional help as well.  Thanks,  Wikidemo (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully by tomorrow night I can weigh in in more detail on the Rezko issue and other problems on the talk page as well. Luckily the heated talk page rhetoric has not yet migrated to edit warring on the article which is a good thing (which is not to say that the talk page discussion is not a problem in and of itself). I see that one or two RFCU's have been filed on the new IP (who certainly does seem problematic) so let's see what comes of that. Anyhow I'll try to offer some help in the next 24 hours or so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your help is still needed at Barack Obama
Please take a look. Scjessey broke his word: his two-week voluntary topic ban lasted only four days. He constantly misrepresents the facts and Wikipedia policy, and when called on it, he complains about "personal attacks." In general, they're trying to shove through a watered down version of the Rezko matter before Andy and I return. Noroton, WorkerBee74 and a few others are arguing in favor of more criticism in the article. WB74 makes an excellent point about WP:WEIGHT here: The prevalance of criticism against Obama for his involvement with Rezko is overwhelming, as Noroton has proven with exhaustive research. WB74 also makes a good point here about the Tony Blair biography containing a very large amount of criticism the day it became a Featured Article. As he pointed out a bit earlier: "The evidence shows that an extensive coverage of controversy is not inconsistent with FA status." Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you lend a hand?
Hi, could you take a look at this and lend a hand, or offer your opinion. I'm pretty sure something is messed up with this. Thanks so much. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please look over the current options for Rezko language and pick one to help us get to consensus
This is a form notice, not a personal message. I'm sending it out to the most recent contributors to the Rezko discussion at Talk:Barack Obama. Sorry if this is inconvenient, but we may be close to consensus if we can get your help. Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

your view
If you have time, I would appreciate your view here, as i'm unhappy at the small number of us commenting so far. Thank you. 86.44.17.205 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to comment when I get a chance, I've been busy and my Wiki-motivation has been low as of late.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review
Bigtimepeace, Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who were keen on the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. We'd very much welcome a peer review from you to help us iron out any problems before going to FAC in the near future, all else being equal. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd noticed some of the work on that in the past and am glad it's being prepared for FAC - I'll try to head over and take a look at some point but my Wiki-activity level is very low right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Park Slope Food Coop
Hi, GJ. Check out my work. I look forward to your thoughts.Dave Golland (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jheri Curls
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jheri Curls, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

By the way, I did not propose to delete the article, Mynameisstanley did, but he did not have the courtesy to give notice to you. - Mafia Expert (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for your comment
Here. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict resolution
A user has asked for some help in a dispute resolution situation which is clearly out of my realm. Would you be able to provide some advice for them in this situation? See also Talk:Kathleen Battle and the associated archive and the referenced discussion on the BLP notice board. Thank you! -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment
Here (and also, if possible, ) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

recovering a page?
Hi I understand you're willing to help recover a page? If so, I'm trying to restore and/or recreate (or do what is appropriate) a page on the pioneering punk band, The Consumers.

I was a bit surprised and taken aback when the page received rapid removal. I don't think there will be much question about the historic nature of the band, despite the fact that they are currently fairly undocumented on the net. Such noted rock critics as Greil Marcus, Bart Bull, Brendan Mullan, Kickboy Face (Claude Bessy) have acknowledged them to be notable and influential, as well as essentially culture pioneers. Rather, however, than making these arguments, I'd just like some help understanding what is necessary to create a proper page for them.

Thanks, Ta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taratata (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT


 * Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
 * Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project


 * 349 W. 12th St. #3
 * Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
 * By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,
 * Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A newbie request.
My friends and I were trying to learn to wiki, and we were making a fun little page using material that's just fictional...and I didn't realize that it would REALLY go up on Wiki...and then get deleted, before we even got started with our fictional wiki page.

We were just trying to toss some content up there wo we could check out the features. I guess we should have been using the sandbox? If it's in the sandbox, though, can multiple people work on the page?

Anyway, can we get the page back and then we can play with it in the sandbox?

The page is called suedressel. (It was rejected as unintelligible...which it may be to you, but it isn't to us.)

And if I get it back, how will I know that? I guess I will check this page.

Sorry to bug you, but all I got was a link to a page of admin names. I had to pick one, with nothing really to go on.

Kemscm (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neverrrrrmind. Kemscm (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy Requested of Speedy Deleted Article on The Grooveblaster
Hello. I just started a page today for the musician, The Grooveblaster, who released his second album this week. Its come to my attention that music sites, such as lala.com, link directly to Wikipedia for the band bios. As The Grooveblaster has 2 albums on lala, it would seem necessary to have a Wiki entry. However, within the hour, some guy speedy deleted it! His comment said I could request a copy of the deleted article from a list of users which you were on. I looked at several users and you seemed like one of the cooler ones. I hope you can help me sort this out. I know i am still pretty n00b, but I am really trying to learn the ins-and-outs of the rather snobbish society of WikiPedia. :(

--Chillcuts 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)User:Chillcuts (talk) 11:33, 27, October 2008


 * Undoubtedly the coolest but not this time the quickest. Your text is at User:Chillcuts/The_grooveblaster --BozMo talk 19:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ooh cool AND quick. i think i like you, BozMo! --Chillcuts 1:10, 27 October 2008

NYC Meetup: You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman/Weather Underground Biographies
As someone who has been a helpful discussant and editor of previous entries on things historical and political, you might be interested to know that a set of new or expanded entries will be posted this week for the following individuals associated with Weatherman/Weather Underground: Scott Braley, Brian Flanagan, Linda Sue Evans, Mark Rudd, Ted Gold, Robert Roth, Robby Stern, Susan Stern, Cathy Wilkerson, Mike Spiegel, Dianne Donghi, Howard Machtinger, Diana Oughton, Eleanor Raskin, and Mark Naison. If you should have the time to give these postings the benefit of your review, I heartily invite you to do so. --Historytrain (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I have replied at the article talk page soon after your note. As usual, this is all about sourcing. There are sources (please see the links in the diff) that justify using the image provided by Muscovite99. If you can justify using any specific alternative image by sources, please do. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, and I have replied in turn. Let's keep the conversation over on the article talk page from here on out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting 5 articles which were deleted
Hello Bigtimepeace, it has been a long time. Remember the Firestone article that you so masterfully negotiated? I have always been happy that such a liberal minded editor was promoted to administrator. I think I asked for articles from you before Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

I am requesting 5 deleted articles, pretty, pretty please :):
 * Paul Pantone
 * Wesnoth AI
 * Fair Online Network
 * Terry Stembridge, Jr.
 * Golden Age Cartoons

From: Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

If I could please also get the creator's name and date it was created?

You can add all 5 pages to a userspace, lets say User:Inclusionist/Paul Pantone, or you are welcome to email me the information.

I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Inclusionist/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user yesterday.

Hope all is well. Thanks big :)travb (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Trav, I'm a bit busy at the moment but I'll get around to this in the very near future. I'll probably just userfy all but the first one in your user space. The Paul Pantone article seems to have had some BLP issues associated with it, so that should not be posted anywhere in Wiki space. It's actually probably even better that I don't e-mail you the content because I like to steer way, way clear of any possible BLP issues (they don't seem to have been major here, but better safe than sorry). If there is a different article from that day's deletion log you'd like me to retrieve let me know. I'll wait to hear back from you for a bit before doing anything with these.


 * I'm not sure what the "Firestone article" situation you refer to was (it might well not have been me). If it was me I'm sorry I forgot about it as I love doing things in a "masterful" fashion. Plus that happens so rarely!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: Liberia, Sorry, I got you confused with Bobblehead :)
 * I understand about your concerns with BLP. I got nervous a couple of days with the subject of a AfD called me after I posted on his webpage, and said he was angry about comments in the AfD. BLP = lawsuits.
 * I am just interested in what editor created the Paul Pantone BLP page, and the date and time. You don't have to send me the anything in the article.  I was going to check what you already confirmed: if the article "deserved" 100% to be deleted. Obviously it did.
 * Looking forward to that material ! Thanks a lot. travb (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I keep forgetting to do this but I will get to it soon.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can ask someone else, another admin added 5 other pages to my user space, which was nice. Ikip (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked someone else today Ikip (talk)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page. Hope that helps.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dani Pacheco
Hi there. Just to let you know, there is confusion about this, as there are now two people with a very similar name (Danny and Dani), neither of whom are notable. Danny (musician) failed recently I believe, and Dani (footballer) was AFD a few months back. I've already mentioned this to another admin (MGM), and i'm sure we'll thrash something out! --Ged UK (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it's being discussed on your talk page so hopefully it is worked out. I did note the previous AfD but was under the impression that since Pacheco now played for a professional team he was now notable. Were I went wrong was in assuming that Dani was an alternative spelling/nickname for Danny (I should have looked at that more closely), but it seems at this point that this article should exist at Dani Pacheco.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

lucan girls
Hello Big Time Peace,

you recently deleted my article on Lucan Girls; all the information contained therein was entirely accurate and not in any way nonsensical, can you explain why it was removed? can you let me have the txt of the article- i wont re-upload it

thank you and have a good weekend, assuming it is indeed friday in whatever part of the world you live (Ostdete (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Hmm, well it was a bit nonsensical if you ask me, anyway certainly not a Wikipedia article. I don't want to re-post the text on your talk page because it was vaguely defamatory of a certain geographic class of Irish women, however if you enable e-mail on your Wikipedia account I can e-mail the full text to you. If you can't figure out how to do that you can e-mail me (see "e-mail this user" link) to the left as you read this) and then I'll have your address and can e-mail the text to you. This was obviously a joke article though so that's as much time as I'm willing to spend on this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article
Hello,

I see you deleted Trinity Communications. Can you let me know exactly why this entry was deleted? Thanks Service brand (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is what Wikipedia calls notability, a specific guideline for what topics warrant articles and what do not. The article on Trinity Communications did not really even assert notability, i.e. it did not suggest or imply that the company has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Since there was no assertion of notability the article was "speedily deleted." Now, if you believe/know Trinity has been covered/discussed in secondary sources you are welcome to re-create the article and add those sources, while ideally explaining on the article talk page that the article was deleted before but you are trying to demonstrate notability. If Trinity is a relatively small company that has not really been covered in business or other presses, then it probably does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Hope that helps but feel free to let me know if you have other questions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doh !
Hi

I thought that page was the right place to continue the chatting about the next stage in trialling FR

so many pages and so much to wade through looks like i got it wrong lol - ill redirect from my comment on Jimbo's page

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Telegraph article - clarification required
Hi, BTP. I notice you've been commenting on a matter raised in this article - or at least one similar to it. I've tried to work out what the situation is, but after looking on the various pages relating to Flagged Revisions I'm not sure if the changes described in the Telegraph article have been implimented, whether they're proposed, if the proposal is for something else, etc.

As you seem to know what's happening clarification would be welcome. Please reply on my talk page if that's ok. Thanks. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting comment
Given your interest in this area: User:Fritzpoll/BLPFlaggedRevs - need some help editing it up as a compromise to the compromise Fritzpoll (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Made me smile
I forget what page spawned the link I idly followed to Requests_for_comment/Giano_II. I was scrolling through the reams, wondering what these people had been smoking (and if they had any left), when I came across your outside view. Thanks for making my day :) Cheers, Basie (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Front Desk
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Front Desk. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Floridian06 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbanned Vandal
I am aware that the I.P 137.52.208.139 has numerous vandalisms and has not yet been blocked... Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Park Lane (band)
My article Park Lane (band) was deleted. How do I get it back?

djspinalot14@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djspinalot14 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coke La Rock
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wale
Please see our ongoing discussion here. Is this how you properly send a message? ELiTe185 (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, talk page message sent and received, but we can continue the conversation over on the other page now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Humorous
You do realize that marking the thread as resolved when nothing has obviously been resolved, is funny? I mean, seriously, you can't just say "RESOLVED!" and think no one is going to reply to the personal attacks and lies that keep getting posted. Just my observation. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I marked it "resolved" well over an hour ago, before the discussion flared up again (either people did not notice it had been marked resolved or they ignored that). "Resolved" in that context obviously meant, "we're done, nothing productive happening here" as I noted in my note at the top. If you think something productive was happening then I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree about that. In my view the last 8 or so comments added after I marked the thread resolved only took the "discussion" further south, which I think is pretty good evidence that it was a decent idea to put an end to it an hour ago as I tried to do. If you folks still want to keep fighting perhaps one of you can volunteer your talk page for that. Better yet, go present evidence at the currently open ArbCom case that is designed precisely to deal with these kind of problems (I understand some of your problems with C of M do not relate to Obama articles, but this most recent flareup obviously does, and the committee can certainly consider that editor's overall behavior there). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted in the edit summary, I wrote my comment below before noticing this section so sorry if it does not directly acknowledge what you say above. What flared up, I think, was my noticing that COM was making accusations out of the blue against me.  I had not noticed that the thread was resolved - I didn't read it from start to finish and frankly did not have anything beyond the most cursory interest.  If there had been no open AN/I thread I would likely have just added it to the Arbcom evidence, or perhaps responded where the claim was made, which COM would have deleted as trolling and likely left another retaliatory civility warning on my talk page, which I would then move to the section where I have started to collect all of COM's warnings.  This is all rather futile until and unless someone actually does something about the problem.  The pointlessness comes from the lack of action, not from editors explaining what is happening.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you really going to let the editor get away with this again? ChildofMidnight is already emboldened by the closure, and sees it as vindication, as happened with all past AN/I incidents that did not result in action. The matters covered by the initial AN/I report were petty and trivial, but ChildofMidnight's abusive attacks against me (and I assume if I actually read it from start to finish, others) are not something we can accept around here. Their standing in a "resolved" AN/I report is also objectionable. Yes, it is normally best to have a thick skin and ignore misbehavior. But some kinds cannot be ignored - harassment, deleting one's comments, edit warring, and in this case false accusations. There is a saying in politics, which is probably true everywhere in life, that you cannot allow a lie to stand because repeated often enough, people will start to believe it. The reason I answer ChildofMidnight's misstatements, rather than ignoring them, is that people on AN/I sometimes believe them. Admins get some deference but I am not an admin so I have nothing but my reputation. There's a cloud of suspicion in some people's minds from the false accusations last fall by the sockpuppeteer BryanFromPalatine. They don't remember quite what the context is, they remember only that I often get accused at AN/I of filing false reports / edit warring / POV / etc.

ChildofMidnight is becoming increasingly problematic, misbehaving yet again minutes after the AN/I closure and using the closure as an excuse. Yes, we can hope Arbcom will deal with this. But administrators have every opportunity to do something, and that is one of their roles. Arbcom is a slow process - the case is five weeks old and we are at least two weeks away from any conclusion. By closing the discussion you tell people AN/I will not deal with ChildofMidnight. ChildofMidnight has demanded that editors not discuss behavior on his own talk page, and another admin is backing that up. Article talk pages and process meta pages (e.g. AfD) are explicitly not places to talk about editor behavior. That leaves only Arbcom. Is that a 2-week pass to make personal attacks against anyone and disrupt any process? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fed up with this as well. Some of the things CoM is accusing me of are ridiculous, and the ludicrously-spun "evidence" he presented at ArbCom makes me look like Jack the Ripper or something. His current modus operandi is to use article talk to bait editors he doesn't like, then complain loudly about soap boxing from atop a pedestal if there is a response, then accuse people of stalking or harassment if they try to take it to his talk page. The current solution is to wait for this nebulous future event when ArbCom makes everything better, so he just goes about his baiting/complaining/lying/edit-warring/POV-pushing in the meantime. Sorry to rant on your talk page, but I need somewhere to vent or I'm likely to ram my car into a tree or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking Wikidemon's last question first, no, absolutely not. I'm not saying that if C of M does something egregious (or even semi-egregious) you should not bring it up on ANI, or tell me for that matter. There's no "free pass" because there's an ArbCom case running. That said, I just don't think it's appropriate for me (or any other admin) to take some major action with C of M while there's a case that could/should deal with that editor's behavior one way or another. This is kind of standard in these situations (i.e. once it gets to ArbCom, we wait and see what comes of that, even though it can take awhile). If there are personal attacks and such I won't hesitate to block, but the problems here as you well know are a lot deeper than that and I think it's better that the committee deal with it in the case on the Obama articles. I don't think a lot of evidence has been presented about C of M, and if you think that's worth doing I strongly recommend you (or you and others) do that. It would serve as a record not only for the ArbCom, but also for admins in the future if the committee does not take any real action.


 * I can understand your anger over this comment, and I'll just say a couple of things about it. 1) I had already marked the thread resolved prior to you bringing that up, and obviously did not know about the comment since it happened on a user talk page. I think closing the ANI thread at that point (i.e. the first time I did it) was completely appropriate, as there really was nothing worthy of a block or some other sanction at that point and the discussion had devolved into recriminations and the like. 2) While from your perspective it makes complete sense to be angry about someone accusing you of "abusive" or "bogus" ANI reports, those kind of accusations are not really block worthy in my view. I might (and probably do, I just don't know all the specifics) agree with you that C of M is way off base in saying that about your activities on ANI. But what would I do about it? C of M is entitled to the view that you "abuse" ANI even if that is completely inaccurate or wrongheaded. It's not really a personal attack, it's just a highly subjective description of your behavior. Again, I'm not excusing it, I'm just saying it's nothing I could/would really block over.


 * ArbCom is not particularly fun, I know. And I know you've already spent time on other evidence there and it's often frustrating to wait for weeks for a result that may in the end be in inadequate in the views of many. But I think that's where this whole situation needs to go for right now since it is, in effect, already there. If you come across particular instances of disruptive editing, personal attacks, etc. by C of M or anyone else in the meantime don't hesitate to bring them to my attention (the next couple of weeks are extremely hectic for me so I might not always respond right away, but I'll check in enough to see roughly what's going on). I just don't see any admin actions to be taken out of this most recent dustup, which is not to say that I remotely approve of what was going on there. This was an explicit warning to C of M that a block could be right around the corner, and I also warned Baseball Bugs and Allstar to tone down their comments which were doing nothing to help matters. In no way was closing the thread meant as an endorsement of C of M's behavior to that point, and I think my comments on ANI should reflect that.


 * And Scjessey what are you doing driving a car? That's terrible for the environment, especially if you drive it into a tree. Anyway hopefully the above comments address some of your concerns as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like to drive cars because:
 * I am horribly overweight, and walking/cycling makes me exhausted after just a few moments.
 * I like driving. When I'm angry, I like to drive really fast in the dark with my lights off and the music way too loud.
 * Buses are for poor people.
 * I'm a megalomaniac, and need to be in control.
 * -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, there's the humorous part of the thread from which its name derives. I figured if I kept typing I'd come to it eventually. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The constant accusations, though perhaps not blockable each time they are made, are insidious and take their toll - on my time, my wikipedia reputation, on any hope that discussions and process will be productive, and my goodwill for contributing to the project. Not every offense is so terrible.  But I do see the most blatant examples as simple disruption of the sort that administrators can handle.  Let me use an analogy.  You are not supposed to slug people, right?  Not as adults, anyway.  Let's say you're now in a trial, on charges of assault for slugging people.  If you slug someone in a crowd the police will arrest you.  If you slug someone in the courtroom the bailiff will stop you.  They don't say "no point doing anything, there's already a trial and the judge will decide."  To the extent COM's incivility and accusations against other editors are at issue in ArbCom, one would hope that COM would have the good decency to stop doing it while the case proceeds.  I think your earlier warning to COM is about something slightly different, and COM did not get the message anyway.  As far as I can remember no authoritative administrator has even asked COM to stop.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The insidious, long-term stuff you describe is, in my view, exactly the kind of thing that should be addressed at ArbCom. I just cannot wade into hundreds of diffs and months of history to deal with that, but ArbCom certainly can. As to the slug-to-the-face analogy, if C of M does the equivalent of "slugging" someone, do let me or another admin or ANI know. I don't think the activities today rose to that level, though as I said I do think they were problematic (also there was too much piling on by other editors at C of M's talk page over what was, initially, an extremely trivial issue - that only served to escalate the situation unnecessarily). Finally, acting on the possibility that C of M did not get my warning on AN/I, I have made it more explicit, and C of M "noted" the comment and then promptly deleted it (which is entirely within that user's rights, obviously). I'd like to consider this affair closed for the time being, I hope some good comes out of ArbCom, and if further trouble comes up you can let me know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wheeled my bicycle from one end of the apartment to the other with the intention of taking it out for a spin, ostensibly to burn off some of my incandescent rage. I got as far as the sliding door that leads outside, and then I had to have a bit of a sit down. It's so heavy to move. In stark contrast, my car keys weigh next to nothing, so I was able to drive to Burger King without difficulty. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I haven't commented before, but I find it disappointing when an editor feels the need to comment on other editors instead of content on an article talk page. I think discussing your personal politics isn't helpful. But that's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. :) Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the second sentence and generally agree with it, with the occasional exception. Obviously you're referring (indirectly, for whatever reason) to a comment I made earlier on the Obama talk page where I (very briefly and generally) referenced my own political beliefs, which in my view was an appropriate thing to do within the context of the discussion. Sorry you disagree, but I don't think there's anything more to say about it, and quite frankly it's a rather odd thing to bring up.


 * I'm afraid I have no idea what you are referring to in the first sentence, so perhaps you can elaborate. You are welcome to comment on my talk page, but please try to address specific concerns or issues you have rather than making vague, general comments. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. The editor focused comment was made by someone else in the thread. I apologize.
 * As you've taken an interest in this "case" I hope you'll keep an eye out. The more eyes the better as far as I'm concerned. Things have improved little by little, but it hasn't been easy. I guess nothing worthwhile ever is? Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, getting drunk is usually pretty easy, and often totally worthwhile! But in seriousness I do intend to keep an eye Obama-related stuff when I can, and indeed first started doing that about a year ago. I just haven't been as active since last summer or thereabouts. Come late May/early June (after the semester is over) I should actually be able to devote a significant amount of attention to this stuff. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you possibly include ChildofMidnight in your purview when examining Grundle2600's editing problems? ChildofMidnight just blindsided me on AN/I with a repeat of the falsities that editor has been promoting for some time about me.  It's part of a much bigger problem that I hope will be resolved by Arbcom -- edit warring, obstructing article probation, personal attacks and accusations, coaching and inciting problem editors (see the Grundle2600 talk page starting with the "April, 2009" notice) -- but for the meanwhile can we please encourage ChildofMidnight not to launch collateral attacks on other editors as a way of disrupting process?  If you parse it, it's a statement that I am an "offender", an WP:SPA (? strange), that I should not be patrolling Obama articles, and lobbying to have me topic banned (not to mention garden variety accusations of incivility and POV).  It's a free world and we can't stop ChildofMidnight from holding that opinion, however far-off.  But hounding me across the encyclopedia and launching these attacks when I try to appeal to other editors for help is unpleasant to the extreme.  I should not have to face that as a cost of editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikidemon needs to stop using ANI to settle content disputes. Period. The personal attacks also need to stop on those article talk pages as well as the harassment of editors he disagrees with. SImple as that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought very hard about the right way to approach Grundle2600 in order to keep the calm on the Obama articles, something I have been doing effectively for some time. The reason to deal with Grundle2600 at that time was as stated in my AN/I notice - the editor was making a mess on the article talk page, inflaming other editors with accusations of censorship, among other things, and refusing to stop after repeated warnings.  I came to AN/I because upon considerable reflection that seemed like the right place to post my notice.   I am operating in good faith, for the betterment of the project, and very conscientious not only to do the right thing but also to avoid inflaming ChildofMidnight to make an attack on me for the umpteenth time.  All this pestering I get in response is weird and ill spirited.  It obstructs my efforts and those of administrators, and it is very disheartening.  Perhaps a warning to ChildofMidnight to stay away from me pending resolution of the ArbCom case?   Wikidemon (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't get a chance to respond to this or the ANI thread yesterday, and it seems the latter has been marked resolved which is probably for the best. First on the issue of Grundle2600 and the ANI thread. In my view there were some real problems with comments Grundle was making on the article talk page and that user's overall approach to editing on Presidency of Barack Obama. Perhaps that was more a function of frustration. In any case I commented on this to the editor here and hopefully at least some of what I said will be taken to heart. I noticed soon after that Grundle was debating with another editor about a particular issue in a civil and largely constructive fashion, and so long as that continues I don't think we have a problem (if the prior behavior continues then it is a problem).


 * So I don't see anything really wrong with Wikdemon's ANI report - there was an issue with an editor's behavior which was above and beyond the content dispute, so taking it to ANI was not out of line nor harassment. That said I do think ANI gets used too often with respect to these larger issues over Obama articles, and the ANI threads that involve Obama-related editors tend to be rather unpleasant (I think that's why few admins weigh in on them). To the extent that ANI posts complaining about user such-and-such can be limited I think that's a good thing.


 * I'd also like to make a suggestion, and perhaps it's something you are both already trying to do. For whatever reason - let's leave the particulars and the "he said/she said," so to speak, to a side for a moment, not to say that those are not important obviously - you two are not getting along at all. Maybe you've already tried this, but my suggestion is to avoid one another as much as possible, certainly while the ArbCom case proceeds. You have some mutual interests and I'm not suggesting you stop editing an article just because the other person is there too, but rather try not to engage one another directly, or if you must do so, comment only on the content and say nothing about the behavior of the other editor. The one exception to this would be the ArbCom case, where obviously it's fine to describe problems with each other's editing as you see it.


 * If the ArbCom case does not result in workable solutions to the dispute we can think about other approaches, but as I've said repeatedly I think we should try that route for now, and while that's going on I think both of you should try to avoid the other as much as possible, and likewise avoid ANI reporting and the like. If there really is a major problem either of you can feel free to leave a note on my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Figured you should probably check out this. Thanks,  Grsz 11  19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that and almost fell off my chair. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All that was missing was how many times he passed gas.  Grsz 11  19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm addressing it, just give me a minute, please don't start a big to-do on the user's talk page in the meantime. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Since some of you find humor in my addition to the article, I'd like to point out that when I added those three things, I forgot to add this fourth thing - which is about Obama having two chefs fly round trip from St. Louis to Washington D.C. just so they could make Obama's favorite pizza. But it's too late now, and I won't be adding it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're not going to add it, because of course it would be completely inappropriate to do so. The news article is about how Obama ordered pizza from St. Louis (personally I think that's ridiculous, but that's beside the point). That's all it's about, so it doesn't belong as a factoid in a sub-sub-section of the article on his presidency which deals with his environmental policies. When you try to suggest that Obama ordering pizza from the Midwest has something to do with his policies on the environment - and when this comes from your own head, not from secondary sources - you are engaging in original research. Future additions along these lines will earn you a break from the article(s) in question via a short topic ban or brief block.


 * It is true though that Grsz11's snarky comment above is not remotely helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Userification
Or is it userficiation? And I suppose I should have been able guess on its most logical location. :) Anyway, thanks. Now if I can just get you to wield your mighty banhammer on my harassers... Well, one can dream. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I'm very concerned about your aggresive behavior towards a good faith contributor. You've issued very stern warnings where no policy violation has taken place. Meanwhile, you've been MIA on numerous talk pages where clear violations of policy are taking place.

It's not an editing violation to add content that you don't happen to agree with. You are welcome to revert these additions and take them to the talk page.While you may not think something is notable or worth including, another editor acting in good faith may disagree. It's a judgement call whether content is important and worth including, and given your open expression of your peronsal viewpoints, it's especially troubling that you would take such an aggressive stand towards someone who has a different point of view. I find your actions to be very inappropriate and I hope you will act more prudently in the future. Disagreements over cotnent don't require admin threats and interference where there is no inappropriate behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, I strongly disagree with your description of the situation. First of all, I do not know which pages you refer to on which I have been "MIA." I've commented (with followups) twice to User:Grundle2600: once responding to an ANI post, and once responding to a post on my talk page - i.e. I only warned the user because I heard about it from other editors. If you think there's something else specific (as in not a general problem, but rather a specific incident) I should be looking at then you should let me know about it. You have not done so. I'm one editor - one who happens to be rather busy for the next couple of weeks - and cannot find every possible problem.


 * And to the specific issues you bring up, I'm afraid you are severely distorting the matter (the lack of diffs and the overly general nature of the comment is an indication of that). I am not in a content dispute with Grundle2600 and have never commented on the issues which were being debated over on the Presidency of Barack Obama page (I don't know that I've ever commented on that page). This is my first major interaction with Grundle, and as you can see it is specifically about editing behavior, not about content. This is the second one, and it's primarily about the failure to discuss changes before making them. After Grundle replied, I followed up with more information, explaining why this edit was a problem because it was violating WP:OR. If you don't see the addition of that material as a WP:OR problem, then you simply do not understand the policy, and my recent comment on Grundle's talk page was simply an attempt to explain the way that policy works. Doing that does not involve me in a content dispute with the editor in question.


 * Describing my behavior as "aggressive" is a bit out of line in my view. There is nothing discourteous in my notes on the user's talk page, and indeed I've written lengthy comments explaining in detail the problems with the editing as I see it, following up on a couple of occasions. I've offered suggestions for ways which the editor can proceed in order to be more effective in trying to make the type of changes they want to see. I have not suggested that the editor is not contributing in good faith, and have said repeatedly that there's no problem and no need for me to leave notes (or block) so long as the editing behavior changes for the better. I don't think there's anything remotely aggressive in any of that. Furthermore it takes up quite a bit of time and believe me I would rather not be doing it, but there were problems here and I am trying to help deal with them.


 * The Obama article probation gives uninvolved administrators broad remit to deal with problems on these articles. Note that: "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute)." I am in no dispute with Grundle (or with you), and indeed had never heard of the editor until a couple of days ago. If you have a problem with the conditions of article probation (i.e. that they give admins more latitude in dealing with problematic editors) so be it, but the actions I have taken (the sum total of which consist of saying, "there's real problems with how you are editing on this article, and if you keep this up you risk sanctions" on a user's talk page) fall completely within the parameters of article probation.


 * I welcome your criticism, but you have not convinced me that there is anything remotely improper in warning a user who accuses of others of bad faith and censorship and inserts OR material without talking about it on the talk page that they need to change their behavior.


 * As I said if you see other specific problems happening right now (with other editors) feel free to let me know. Things have been fairly calm over at Barack Obama - which is basically the only page I have watchlisted - and as such the editing of Grundle2600 is the only specific issues I've seen in the last couple of days. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The bits that the editor tried to add were perfectly reasonable. Their sourcing could have been stronger, but they were sourced, and I don't find them to be worth including there, but apparently he did. Although the Wagyu beef bit in particular looked like synthesis (not OR mind you), you don't seem to be disputing its factual basis. Reasonable people disagree on what content is notable and what content is worth including. You clearly have a COI because, as you've made clear, you have very partisan political views. That you or I don't think Obama's fuel consumption on Earth Day is relevant to include in that particular article is neither here nor there. It was factual and sourced, so there was no violation in trying to add it. The problem here is that you've taken it upon yourself to issue stern warnings to a single editor where no editing violation has taken place. In fact he's a prolific contributor and was clearly adding material in good faith. You need to assume good faith and to behave in a more respectful and collegial manner. If you or someone else doesn't deem the content worthwhile, it can be removed in good faith. Edit summaries are useful, discussion on the talk page is fine, and courteous explanations on user's talk pages are all perfectly okay. But what we have are political partisans ganging up on that editor and seeking out a sympathetic admin to fight their content battles. This is GROTESQUELY inappropriate and abusive and contrary to our editing guidelines. If other editors didn't like the content added, all they had to do was remove it. That's it. I do it all the time. I don't file ANI reports and give a bunch of warnings and try to find a sympathetic admin who agrees with my politics and who will take my side. Those actions would be disruptive, abusive, and contrary to our guidelines. Please excercise better judgement in the future and refrain from issuing warnings and demands to editors whose viewpoints and content contributions you don't happen to agree with. Cheers. There are standard procedures to follow where there are content disputes and they should be followed.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't deign to lecture me, and don't attack my motivations. You'll notice I have not, and will not, attack yours. The implication of your comment is that no one with a political view can edit and/or admin on any of these articles. Obviously you don't really believe that (the editor you are defending has proclaimed he hopes Ron Paul beats Obama in 2012, and thus clearly has a view), and obviously you yourself have strong political views. On the Obama talk page I mentioned, in the interests of transparency, that I voted for Obama. You will not, and I cannot stress this enough, find that a useful club with which to prevent from intervening as an admin on these articles. Almost everyone here has politics, in pointing out mine I am acknowledging my views at the outset, which I think is the right thing to do. What's hilarious about you bringing this up, is that I pointed out my political beliefs in a thread I started called "concrete proposal for adding in a bit of criticism." If my supposed pro-Obama bias is such a problem, why would I start a discussion about including some criticism? Why would I suggest possibly mentioning the "tea parties" in his article? Please don't ever again question my neutrality because you know who I voted for in the last election - we don't do that on this project. In order to question my neutrality you will need to point to some biased behavior on my part, and you have not.


 * Otherwise your comment is a rehash of the first one. You add in complaints about other editors going to ANI, but that has nothing to do with me. You are completely leaving out the personal attacks and the accusations of bad faith for which I originally warned the editor. Do you think it was wrong of me to do that, i.e. do you think admins should not warn other a user when they say ""you people are hypocrites, and censorship lovers?" I disagree with your comment in other ways but why don't you answer that direct question before we take this any further.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't suggested you can't or shouldn't edit those articles. On the contrary. I said if you don't think content belongs in the article: revert its addition or remove it. What I object to is issuing a warning and unilateral editing restrictions on an editor because they added content that you didn't happen to like or agree with. That's a content issue and there are appropriate protocols for dealing with content disputes. There's no rule that says Obama's burning a shitload of gas isn't worth including and there's no reason to warn and threaten a user who chooses to add it. I recall Earth Day used to be about the planet and planting trees, so I think the information presented in a neutral way about some of this type of irony and personal abuse of the planet by people preaching conservation is probably well worth including in the encyclopedia. If I knew where to add it I would do so. As you are experienced and knowledgeable, maybe you can work with Grundle to help him add content in a useful and less partisan way. But if you're going to come down on him for good faith content additions when there's the gross personal attacks and harassment I've given you examples of going on right under your nose, then I'm going to let you know that you are way out of line. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try again, as I said above:


 * "You are completely leaving out the personal attacks and the accusations of bad faith for which I originally warned the editor. Do you think it was wrong of me to do that, i.e. do you think admins should not warn other a user when they say ""you people are hypocrites, and censorship lovers?" I disagree with your comment in other ways but why don't you answer that direct question before we take this any further."


 * So please answer that, thanks. Then I'll address your most recent comment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Grundle has only done this once or twice that I've seen and the statements seemed to be fairly mild and generalized as reflecting his being frustrated. When he did so I made a point of posting a note on his page reminding him to focus on article content rather than other editors. So I think my actions speak for themselves as far as my opinion on that goes. But the warnings and editing restrictions you're imposing on him don't relate to that issue. So let's not obfuscate the point. The means for dealing with content disputes is clear. And frankly in a case like this where he is so outnumbered, your concern should probably be about content added by the side that has the numbers in their favor. What's to stop them from adding what Bill Clinton's speechwriter thinks of Barney Frank to the second paragraph of that article for example? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion raises concerns in light of the above. Together they seem to repeat claims made in this exchange. I will try to say this as neutrally as I can - Grundle2600 is getting a mixed message. Wikidemon (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * C of M the "editing restrictions" I have "imposed" on Grundle are as follows: 1) Don't attack other editors and assume bad faith of others' motivations; 2) Talk about changes that will be controversial before making them, as the article in question is a controversial. Those rules apply to every single other person working on that article, so I fail to see how they are "restrictions" in the slightest. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the reason Grundle is "outnumbered" is because there was a problem with their editing. It's not my job to stick-up for the person who is "outnumbered" (who may be right, or may be wrong), but rather to make sure our editing policies are being followed. Grundle was not following them (though I still can't get you to admit that, which is telling I think). Per the article probation guidelines I thus warned him or her, just as I recently warned you for your own problematic editing.


 * You say above, "There's no rule that says Obama's burning a shitload of gas isn't worth including." Well, yes, there is&mdash;it's called WP:WEIGHT it's one of the most important content policies we have. If you are seriously claiming that you think it makes sense to mention (in the article about his entire presidency) that Obama flew a plane on Earth Day and it burned gas, when that has received almost no attention whatsoever (the source cited just mentioned it - there's no controversy or no big discussion about it) then I'm not sure you've internalized WP:NPOV as much as you need to, or perhaps you've lost your perspective a bit here, or perhaps you did not read the actual article Grundle was citing.


 * I have no idea what Bill Clinton and Barney Frank have to do with anything (and who are "them" in "what's to stop them?"). I know there's been some sort of dispute with the Barney Frank article with which you are involved, but we're not talking about that and I'm not going to get sidetracked from the issue at hand.


 * C of M's comments on Grundle's talk page are perhaps sending a mixed message, but there's not much to be done about that. I've warned Grundle twice and I'm not retracting that, and quite frankly ChildofMidnight's view on the matter is not particularly relevant. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (out of sequence)What concerns me is that if an editor in need of guidance is told that Wikipedia is divided into opposing camps, that there is a double standard with respect to pro and anti-Obama material, that he/she is unfairly targeted, that liberals / censors / Obama supporters get away with things they cannot, that other editors' motivations are bad, that I and other editors and are the enemy, that their own actions are laudible, and that administrative intervention directed at them is improper, they may be inclined to develop a bunker mentality rather than taking to heart any advice or instructions you give them. The longer-range issue is a matter for Arbcom.  I'm just concerned that your immediate efforts here could be undermined by direct opposition on the editor's talk page.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they could, but again there's not much I can do. C of M has every right to post on Grundle's talk page and say "here's what I think of the situation." Though I disagree with C of M's view I can't make that not happen, and I think it would be a bit heavy-handed to go over there and repeat myself to Grundle by saying "I meant what I said earlier, don't listen to this other editor." I think I made it pretty clear that Grundle needed to take a different approach, and if that user doesn't do that there will be consequences. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The earlier of the two examples was far more extreme, but I do not believe CoM has the right to call the editors who left warnings on Grundle2600's talk page (that would be me, you, Scjessey, The Magnificent Clean-keeper, and a hectoring IP), most of whom have been repeatedly subject to these accusations, collectively "some of Wikipedia's worst POV pushers and partisans" and referencing unspecified other editors who "will get away with behavior that is clearly inappropriate" and "helping to trip you if they can". What kind of message does that send?  How will Grundle2600 react to me - one of the "worst" - next time, out of the helpful presence of a neutral administrator?  At this point the discussion may be over so nothing more to be done.  But I hope this kind of incitement does not continue, particularly not at the expense of me or anyone who is trying to help.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I can see how this discussion could make any reasonable person in his position feel put upon. I'll plead with the editors involved to give him some room.Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a controversial edit that wasn't discussed on the talk page before it was made:. It removes the entire section of discussion about the Obama administration's involvement in the auto industry. If you are going to pick on a single editor and do the bidding of notorious POV warriors who abuse notice boards and seek out admins to do their bidding and who make personal attacks again and again without you taking action, then you're in the wrong. The single edit you've cited about Obama's personal environmental practices was sourced and certainly not a bad faith edit. There's no policy to suggest it shouldn't have been made, including weight. Those are guidelines and they require editors to use their judgement. Imposing editing restrictions on a single editor who has faced harassment and inappropriate over-the-top warnings needs to stop. You need to be fair in enforcing our guidelines. You can't just single out those you disagree with. It's as simple as that. Thanks for your time and consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation....Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". Here was the original addition (which I don't think was discussed), here was the removal with the comment "I'm not opposed to adding this information, but it needs sources." So, no, that's not a controversial edit, the "controversial" edit was the one that added material without discussion. Incidentally I think it's a good idea to add something like that to the article, though I also think it needs to be sourced.


 * You're kind of grasping at straws here I'm afraid. And if you're going to continue to throw dirt around without backing it up (e.g. a reference to me "pick[ing] on a single editor and do[ing] the bidding of notorious POV warriors" - which is an incredibly serious accusation) and repeating the same thing you've said four times already, then perhaps we've exhausted this particular conversation. Feel free to ask for review of my terrible actions over at ANI (so long as you direct them to this talk page thread), though I don't think much will come of that since all I've done is twice warn an editor to reign in their problematic behavior. Admins do do that from time to time. Sorry you don't like it, but you seem to be out of arguments. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And one more thing, which applies to ChildofMidnight and anyone else reading this. If I'm going to continue to do admin-type stuff with some of the Obama articles, I'm not going to tolerate personal attacks and bad faith on this talk page. If you feel you must talk about "POV warriors" or attack the motivations of other editors, then don't bother to post here. If you have complaints about particular edits or a pattern of edits then I'll certainly listen. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing violations
Admins are needed where there are disruptions and personal attacks. Here's an example: "ChildofMidnight is twisting this to get support for his pointless, policy-violating, category-reinventing, template-reinventing, self-referencing coatracky listcruft. It's all about creating as many links to the birther/Ayers/Wright/teabagger/whatever stuff as he possibly can in order to give them more weight than they deserve. Best to just ignore him. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) "

The comment has very little to do with content and is mostly focused on attacking another editor. It violates basic policies like assuming good faith and makes accusations saying someone is "twisting" something and that their contributions are "pointless" and they should be "ignored". This is the kind of inappropriate behavior that needs your attention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that that comment is inappropriate (particularly the term "twisting"), though not to the degree that the behavior exhibited by Grundle was. The comment was made nearly three days ago now, so a warning now is beside the point. Feel free to tell me about things like this and I will warn the user in question to tone it down, and if it continues they could face a block. I've already warned users on the "other side" of this conflict from you, and indeed first started doing so nearly a year ago. I'll do so again whenever I see other problematic behavior. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:
replied Thanks.--Caspian blue 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockery
I noticed that you suspected some sock activity. Are we thinking along similar lines here? If yes, please feel free to delete that section from my sandbox if you are already investigating it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have it exactly - I'm on the verge of blocking the lot (just compiling a few things and making sure) and I guess at that point you can delete that, or sooner if you like. So far I've found the exact same accounts as you have, if you come across another one let me know. It's fairly obvious (and egregious) so I'm likely going to indef the whole lot of them, even though sock investigations are not generally my bailiwick. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

TFD
I've speedily userfied it along with the other pages. I initially recused because I figured we could let the TFD run then I re-read your nomination statement and saw the template had been added to our (arguably) highest profile BLP. It needed to get out of templatespace, and then TFD was no longer really appropriate. Hope that's ok. Feel free to MFD per my closing statement. –xeno talk 01:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't know jack about templates so I was not sure how to go about this, but I was fairly certain we needed to nuke that one. I'll admit to being a bit taken aback at the number of editors who viewed this thing as pure comedy when it was actively used to vandalize a featured article, but perhaps they didn't bother to click on the diff in my nom. I don't think I'll put it up for MfD right now because quite frankly that just doesn't sound like very much fun, but really I don't think it belongs in user space either. FYI, though you'll probably see it, I stuck a note in the ANI thread even though you had marked it resolved (which I think was a good idea on your part). I thought a little bit of explanation for the TfD was needed before the thread went into the archives. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to suggest to the editor that he puts the article inside his mock page, because it maybe only a matter of time before somebody does this again. Ikip (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, and I don't necessarily think these should stick around, but satire is fairly common in our humour drawer. I've written a bit of code into the template so it won't be used in the mainspace again. My goal was to get it as speedily out of templatespace as possible and closing the TFD seemed the best way to go about it. –xeno talk 02:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron
You said you don't know much about ARS.

Article Rescue Squadron is a group of editors who attempt to save articles from deletion by adding references to the article. There are over 200 members now.

I support the project because 76.5% of all articles deleted are articles created by new users and editing has dropped since 2007, in which some scholars and journalists argue is because of deletion policies. I would like to think that I help new users stay on wikipedia, making wikipedia stronger.

Your explanation made sense on the ANI. If I would have read it more carefully, I would have voted for delete for that template. Thanks for the clarification. Ikip (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I figured it was something like that but had never really investigated. There is a definite tendency for editors to put up for speedy, prod, or AfD new articles that look like crap but probably deserve to be here, and definitely some of those slip through the cracks and get deleted when they shouldn't (though others slip the cracks the other way and end up staying here for months when they had no business being created in the first place). So it sounds like a useful project to me. To be honest I've always found the whole "deletionist vs. inclusionist" debate to be semi-ridiculous and wildly oversimplified. Many of us might trend one way or another, but at the same time I think most editors generally tend to be quite deletionist about some things, quite inclusionist about others, quite "ehh...I don't know or care, so whatever" about others, and quite "I have no idea because I'd never heard of this before and even after reading it still have no goddamn idea what it is" about others. So the image of two big, warring camps (Little, Very Traditional Encyclopedia vs. Big, Everything in the Universe Encyclopedia) is a bit goofy in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest obama flu flap
Just a note - if you were not watching the article I would probably take the initiative and close the flu discussion myself because the proposal is not going to gain acceptance, the discussion has become uncivil on several fronts, and further discussion is unproductive. However, I don't want to step on your toes in case you were going to try to jump in and say something. I do think the editor's contributions smell of trolling / bad faith (especially given their first edit a week ago), but assuming good faith they may simply be a newbie with an opinion. Meanwhile, Grundle2600 is promoting yet more poorly sourced negative trivia... I've appealed for calm from Thuranx, and I think we might need to make the same request of Scjessey. They don't seem to realize that aggressively confronting editors they suspect of bad faith makes things worse rather than better. Wikidemon (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I teach Monday nights so I had to step away from this, but I went ahead and closed the thread. In general definitely don't worry about closing threads if they get way out of hand like that - I doubt I'll ever be offended even if I did have something to say. I have to run right now but I'll drop a note on Thuran's page later tonight about the whole situation, though that editor and I just might not see eye to eye on these kind of issues (I obviously agree that shouting back at problem editors does more harm than good). I also agree that the new Obama editor is likely not here to be productive, but barring egregious violations I'm not one to block an editor without at least one warning (which they now have). If they are just here to cause problems we'll have definite proof of that soon, and if they just go away then who cares.


 * Incidentally I'm going to sign off Wikipedia for about a week or so very shortly - I have a ton of shit to do in the next week and really can't be distracted so I won't even be logging in - which could possibly be a problem. Things seem to be a bit more calm since I've been keeping a closer eye on this, but honestly I have no idea if that's because of the steady presence of an admin or just happenstance or a little of both. Anyhow I don't want craziness to ensue so hopefully a couple of other admins can keep an eye on things for a week or so, though I know there are probably a couple watching the page already. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is completely unacceptable that you should have any sort of life outside of Wikipedia! Surely this is grounds to have you stripped of your administrator powers? Stripped, I say! I'm going off to WP:ANI to file a complaint about how your "off-wiki activities" are encroaching unreasonably on your proper and necessary life as a stick-wielding admin dude. I shall have to seriously consider boycotting Wikipedia until your return, forcing me to face up to my own "life" outside of the project. My God - it'll be like taking the red pill! What if I don't like it? Can I be reinserted into the project without remembering anything? I'm scared and I want my mommy! -- Scjessey (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought you were a bit mysterious and hard to decode, but your last comment suggests that you're even more of a cipher than I thought! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and also this will be a pretty short break, and then I'll actually have a fairly long stretch where I can keep on eye on the Obama stuff and hopefully do some actual article writing stuff too. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the first person to ever call me mysterious, but I do love to paraphrase movie quotes. On a serious note, I look forward to your speedy return and calming influence. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back to the happy and serene world of Wikipedia. I told you that you would be missed! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed concerning ArbCom evidence
User:Wizardman has kindly agreed to add to the list of named parties in the Obama-article ArbCom investigation. As I understand it, I must now prepare some "evidence". Given that you have been involved in some of Grundle's editing issues (including issuing warnings), I was wondering if you could give me any useful advice as to how to proceed. Should I focus on recent edits, or should I look at the complete editing record, for example? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at that editor's contributions in detail, but I would say the best bet is to focus just on Obama-related edits (i.e. if there is some problematic editing in another part of the encyclopedia don't worry about it) and to carry it back as far as possible. If there is a long-term problem in terms of the editing pattern it's probably good to demonstrate that rather than just focusing on the recent issues (I'm only familiar with the latter). But of course in the end it's up to you, and part of the issue simply relates to time invested, i.e. it can take forever to put together ArbCom evidence and you might find that presenting evidence about more recent activity is all that you have time for. I'm not sure if any of that is very helpful but those are my basic thoughts at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. Although a prolific editor, Grundle has not been on Wikipedia for long enough for there to be an absolutely enormous body of evidence. I will do as you suggest and focus on only the articles directly related to Obama (makes sense, given the scope of the ArbCom investigation), and perhaps only the most egregious article edits (rather than talk page stuff). I never really wanted to get involved in this "evidence" thing at all, to be honest. I've always thought that a properly-enforced article probation would be enough to do the trick. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in here, but here is my thought on the matter. Grundle2600 is (probably) a good faith editor who is having trouble with neutrality, relevance, and some other content policies, and seems predisposed but not destined to develop a paranoia about article ownership, liberal / pro-Obama Wiki cabals, etc.  He (she) seems a perfect example of an editor who could go either way - who, if not dealt with correctly, will flame out and either voluntarily or by administrative action take a permanent break from Wikipedia or the Obama articles.  On the other hand, he/she seems genuinely to listen to advice from different quarters, and to try in a civil, even friendly way to get along with other editors.  Grundle may always maintain a fascination with minor negative material about Obama, and may never introduce any "pro" Obama content... but such content exists and is encyclopedic.  With some courtesy, patience, understanding, and collaboration, Grundle could make valuable contributions in that regard.  I don't think it is Arbcom's place to block, ban, or exonerate Grundle.  It makes no difference if they do.  Grundle is just one of many editors.  If Grundle is gone, every week we will get another editor who presents the same challenge, how to deal with inappropriate content suggestions from an (assumed) good faith editor.  The best help Arbcom can offer is to set some standards for how we should deal with these things - both proscriptions on how far is too far in rejecting unwanted conduct and content, and a safe zone allowing experienced editors to push new arrivals gently (and if necessary, not so gently) towards productive work here... without being frustrated each time by those opposing article probation.  In other words, Arbcom can set the rules of the game better than it can make individual decisions on the dozens or hundreds of participants.  In that regard, I think it's most useful to introduce evidence about how Grundle2600 has been handled this year.  I've already introduced evidence current as of early April showing that Grundle2600 was incited to incivility and disruption, and efforts to deal with him were openly sabotaged (see here).  I'll probably have to pare that down and take the focus off Grundle, but that's a start.  That his edits are inappropriate goes without saying.  What to do about them is an open question.  Do you think he would be doing what is doing now if we had dealt with this constructively back in October '08 or March '09?  And how should we have dealt with him?  Wikidemon (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are solid points from Wikidemon, and I should say that personally I am completely agnostic on the question of what to "do" about Grundle2600 or indeed if anything should be done at all. My experience with the editor was seeing some problematic editing, warning them about it, and basically getting a positive reply. No big deal there, but to the extent that it's part of a larger pattern then obviously it would be a problem.


 * I have no idea what the committee will do with the case at this point, partially because it's actually been a lot quieter than they perhaps anticipated. Upon accepting it they may have envisioned laying out a number of topic bans but I'm not sure that will happen at this point, or if it does I'd guess it will be a relatively limited number. The case obviously opened in the midst of some craziness and the craziness has now basically died down which means there probably will not be a lot of specific remedies. In terms of setting the rules of the game I think what we have in terms of article probation is fairly effective (so long as there are multiple admins to help out), but perhaps ArbCom can reinforce that or provide some general thoughts/comments on how the probation has been working to date.


 * Ultimately the Obama articles are going to be permanently problematic, at least while Obama is president, and there's not anything that can really be done about that. Whatever the committee says in the end they obviously won't be able to provide a magic bullet to handle these difficulties, and I'm guessing to a significant degree we'll all just be plodding along as before. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification. I didn't mean to imply that "what to do" about Grundle2600 involves a decree or sanction, only that it would help matters to know the acceptable range of responses to article edits and talk page posts that on the face of them seem nonconstructive.  Without that guidance, some go too far pouncing on unconstructive edits, while others either hold back unnecessarily out of caution or get attacked and hauled into process games for trying to help.  As one routinely subject to administrative reports, disparagements, profanities, accusations of bad faith, calls for blocks and bans, and occasional endorsements of the same from passersby, I would welcome some clearer rules on what I can do.  And hopefully, some backup from administrators or some other way to deal with things I am not allowed to do.  I agree 100% about the fact that the undercurrent of passions, disruption, and just plain bad editing is unlikely to change.  We can't fan against the wind on that one.  What we can do is decide as a group how to respond.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been a very interesting discussion, and Wikidemon's comments have left me a little confused about how to move forward with respect to evidence. I think that Grundle2600 has the potential to develop into a truly valuable Wikipedian, and an asset to the project; however, his current behavior/approach is seriously disruptive. I am hoping that ArbCom will recommend that he receive some sort of mentoring, rather than any kind of block or ban. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Play art
Just a note to say that the AFD closure header ({{subst:at}}) should go at the very top of the discussion, above the section header. This is different from most other deletion fora for no special reason, but doing it the way you did confuses the bot that maintains WP:OLD. I've fixed this one. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder and the fix, that was just sloppiness on my part. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Content issues
I believe you are editing in good faith, but you have made some serious mistakes that need correcting.
 * 1) Criticism articles were only deemed inappropriate for presidents very recently after Obama was elected. Here for example is the criticism article George W. Bush as of March 18, 2009. It was created January 2, 2006. So objections to it are very recent, it stood for years, and the timing of the objections coincide with the election of a different president. Furthermore, the article content wasn't deleted, it was mostly moved elsewhere to a new name.
 * 2) WP:Wikipedia is not censored is a real guideline. So pointing out this page and the related guidelines is perfectly legitimate. Using an example of a place or organization that is censored or biased is also legitimate. You are welcome to point out flaws in the argument if you don't like an example given, but your threats are disruptive.
 * 3) Conflating and misrepresenting an example given by another editor is disruptive. No one said anything about North Korean policies supporting forced prostitution except you. The discussion was about censorship and abiding by guidelines that indicate a variety of notable perspectives, including controversies and criticisms, should be included in the encyclopedia.
 * 4) Issuing warnings to one side of a discussion is disruptive. Twice now an editor has used a specious argument conflating notable criticisms with what type of condiment Obama likes on his burger. And, as I've pointed out, you twisted the words of other editors to conflate a discussion about censorship and inclusion guidelines into a suggestion these editors were making personal attacks about support for child prositution. These statements are disruptive and unconstructive. Please focus on article content rather and enforce the probation guidelines rather than engaging in smears.
 * 5) Your involvement was solicited by an editor who uses administrative threats and actions to settle content disputes. This is highly disruptive. This editor gave up on another Admin after that Admin suggested keeping the focus on content and working through it together.
 * 6) I've made a number of general and specific article related suggestions and comments. Yet you've engaged in rhetoric and threats. This is very disruptive and totally inappropriate. Trying to intimidate editors with whom you have a content disagreement is wrong. Please don't disrupt the discussion with this abuse of your administrative powers again.

I hope you'll carefully consider why these actions are very disruptive. You've made it clear that you are politically liberal, and that's fine. You're entitled your view, and while I've suggested I think it's best when editors keep their political views to themselves particularly on article talk pages, it's unacceptable to let your personal politics interfere with your administrative duties. I've discussed this with you before and I am letting you know again that you need to act appropriately and in a way that is consistent with our guidelines. Thank you for your kind consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not "using" anything for any ulterior purpose, just doing my best to keep stability, civility, and orderly editing process on the encyclopedia. I'm bending over backwards (possibly, walking on eggshells) not to say anything to provoke the editor, which is okay in the short run but not healthy for long.  The last time I asked them not to use an article talk page to complain about other editors, the response was rather vexatious and uncivil, leading to an AN/I report and a short block for the editor.  It's pretty normal for a blocked editor to vent, which is why I did not complain at the time that the editor was vowing on their talk page during their block that they "will not remain silent" about my "Capital V vandalism".  But it seems that after returning from the block they're actually carrying that vow out on the Obama talk page, accusing editors (and me presumably, as one of them) of vandalism, and after you cautioned them to stop, accusing editors of bad faith, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, specious arguments, censorship.  That's a direct challenge to the terms of article probation - either we can keep people civil or we can't.  If this comes up again do you want me to bring concerns directly to you, or post a new AN/I report?  Or should I be patient and assume you are watching the Obama articles?  Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again Wikidemon, please focus on article content and abide by our guidelines rather than attacking other editors and using administrative processes and sympathetic admins to settle your content disputes. These actions are highly disruptive and against policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Case in point there. How am I supposed to respond to this kind of gratuitous public accusation?  Obviously you can see accusations made on your own talk page, and the above comment is hardly the worst attack after calling me a vandal, censor, and bad faith editor on three pages in as many days.  I've compiled a sample for ArbCom to examine.  The editor's been pulling this for five months now.  If and when the editor does it again in article talk space or meta-space, should I bring it up here, bring it up at AN/I, or assume for now that you're keeping an eye out?  Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again Wikidemon, please focus on article content and abide by our guidelines rather than attacking other editors and using administrative processes and sympathetic admins to settle your content disputes. These actions are highly disruptive and against policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI to Child of Midnight, in your above comment you accused me of being "disruptive" exactly eight times. In one comment! That's quite a feat, but I did get the gist of your view after the first three or four uses of "disruptive," just for future reference.


 * I still disagree with your view of this though, obviously, since I am acting as an admin enforcing article probation and think I am pretty well within the rules of how that should proceed (you might want to take a look at this talk page section, I think it's the last major warning I issued and it seems to have been to an editor from the "other side" so to speak). And I believe we largely covered this topic in an above section of the talk page. I stand by this warning to you which is obviously what provoked your stern admonition above. You compared the editing practices on the Obama page to the government of North Korea. Would you compare them to the Nazis? Of course not, because that would be too inflammatory, but in a way conflating what is basically good-faith article work with Kim Jong Il is just as bad and that was what your were doing, even if only implicitly. That is just not acceptable discourse and quite frankly you should know better. I warned you for that and so long as you don't do that kind of stuff any more that's the end of it from where I sit.


 * You seem to be laboring under a number of misconceptions. No one "solicited" my involvement in the Obama article and I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about when you refer to that. I first did some admin type stuff there nearly a year ago before you were on Wikipedia. I started paying attention again about a month ago I guess, I'd have to check, and weighing in whenever I felt it could be helpful. No one has solicited my general involvement over there. Some editors, including you, have brought specific problems to my attention, but of course there's nothing wrong with that. I encourage you to continue to point out problematic editing to me, and in doing so you will not be soliciting my involvement since I've been involved with the article for many months.


 * Despite what you seem to think, you and I are not in a content dispute (I believe I've mentioned this before). This is part of what makes this discussion more than a little silly. I have seldom weighed in definitively on truly controversial content issues, and the only time I've recently commented on an article edit you made I agreed with you. Whether you (or I) agree with it or not, there has been a decision to avoid "criticism" articles about figures like Obama, as evidenced by the fact that George Bush no longer has one. I did not decide that, I was just pointing out that it has apparently been decided (for now, maybe we'll change our minds later). I specifically encouraged you to make suggestions about adding more critical views to the Obama article throughout the article, but to not accuse other editors of censorship or North Koreanesque behavior while doing so. So how are we in a content dispute? If you have specific suggestions for improving the article I remain open to them but I just have not seen any recently (it's entirely possible I missed something). I'm actually going to propose some expansion of the presidency section soon, as I've already done, so maybe we can work on that.


 * I'm not a "liberal" and never said I was, but I won't bother elaborating on that further since it makes no difference and the distinction might not matter to you. Above you accuse me of acting in an overtly political manner as an admin. Do you have evidence to back that up? Because it's an incredibly serious charge&mdash;if true I should not be an admin. If you don't have any evidence, I ask that you refrain from making those kind of accusations. At no point have I attacked your motivations as an editor, and I would appreciate it if you would extend me and everyone else the same courtesy. You say you "always try" to assume good faith, but as Yoda would say it's more a matter of doing rather than trying, particularly on the Obama articles. That's hard for all of us, but it doesn't make it any less important to assume&mdash;except in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, and there's none of that for anyone here&mdash;that other editors are acting in good faith just as we are.


 * Either of you, Wikidemon or Child of Midnight, or anyone else for that matter, can contact me here about problems on the article(s). I will also be keeping an eye out but will not see everything that happens so feel free to drop me a line. You both perceive that you are being attacked by the other and say this repeatedly. As ever this remains something for ArbCom to sort out and hopefully they can do that soon. In the meantime I continue to suggest, as I have earlier, that you simply avoid responding to one another, even when that might be incredibly difficult to do. Just disengage from one another, and if the other person will not, you'll still look better by not replying, and perhaps someone else will step up to defend you. --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a few clarifications. North Korea and China were used as examples of places where censorship occurs. That is all. Your highly offensive insinuation that there was some connection to child prostitution is completely off-the-wall and, you guessed it, disruptive, as is your now invoking references to the Nazis.
 * Wikidemon has repeatedly solicited your involvement in an administrative capacity and done the same with GTBacchus and other Admins (until they suggest focusing on content at which point he moves on to try find and someone more sympathetic to his positions). He's also made reports against me on Admin boards 5 times now, if I remember correctly. The last time he refactored his initial report, which was particularly preposterous, to add a content issue he wasn't even involved in, and some Admin blocked me for adding and then reverting a single addition that I had also added and reverted the previous day in a slightly different form. So his efforts finally yielded some success, but this type of abusive behavior should never be rewarded. Please consult wp:dispute resolution for the appropriate procedures.
 * Even those appropriate processes shouldn't be necessary because I make every effort to be collegial and am always happy to compromise. So if other editors refrain from making disruptive references to Nazis and child prostitution, and enforce the article probation instead of threatening those whose arguments they disagree with, and who have different opinions on content than they do, I think we'll be all good. It's not encouraging that most of the points I made seem to have been ignored. But I'm going to hope for the best. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't accept anything ChildofMidnight says without diffs. The diffs don't exist because ChildofMidnight makes this stuff up.  The nonsense he claims about you, Bigtimepeace, is a tame version of what he/she has been doing to me for five months.   That's particularly irksome after a 6-month article patrol effort to deal with a bunch of sockpuppet accounts that were doing almost exactly the same thing on the Obama articles, and survived as long as they did only with similar tactics.  The editor gave the same treatment to his/her blocking admin and before that other admins who dealt with disruptive editors ChildofMidnight was trying to defend.  If you want diffs for any of that I'll gladly provide them, they're ArbCom evidence.  This is not a "both of you" issue, or two sides fighting.  It's a concerted attack to harrangue other editors on article talk pages, edit summaries, meta pages, and user talk pages.  It is oppressive.  If ChildofMidnight were actually trying to be collegial and honor article probation, that would involve not making these kinds of edits, right? (from above diffs)  Believe me, I ignore plenty of random attacks and try not to take troll bait.  The reason why these are a problem is that they are discussion stoppers.  They stymie good work, and prevent calmer editors on the page from reaching an understanding.  I tiptoe around gingerly, making chipper statements like "let's stay on track" in hopes that ChildofMidnight won't launch a new series of attacks on the talk pages.  That doesn't stop the accusations; any disagreement from me is taken as an occasion for vociferous castigation.  At least I've done my best.  When that does not work I am free and should be free, as you said, to bring a concern up here or on AN/I.  If I look bad for being attacked by ChildofMidnight here or on AN/I, that damage is not self-inflicted.  It comes from the untrue accusations.  Yet the accounts of what happened at AN/I are as false as any of ChildofMidnight's claims.  Telling both parties to calm down and work it out in situations like this is a bit of a cop-out, and does not solve anything.  As an administrator working on Wikipedia process you are somewhat immune, and it is part of your job to have a thick skin.  Yet I see this affects you.  You take issue with the "serious" accusations ChildofMidnight has made up concerning you as an administrator.  If people believe those, they will cast enough doubt on your neutrality, judgment, and fairness that your effectiveness as an administrator is threatened.  You will think twice about an article edit, or explaining a content matter, lest that open you to criticism.  Most admins have been chased away from Obama articles at this point.  I'm sure you can take care of yourself and don't need my help.  I can't.  I need administrative help here.  As a nonadministrative editor I have a different range of choices, none of them good options.  I would be happy if ChildofMidnight stopped the attacks on others, and edit wars to mangle articles and talk pages where I edit.  That has not happened on its own.  I hope you're serious about enforcing your request that ChildofMidnight not make accusations on the Obama talk pages.Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking the last point first from Wikidemon, I'm quite serious about enforcing civility guidelines on the Obama talk page. Child of Midnight has been more than adequately warned about that issue. And I'm not saying that this is a "both of you" issue, I'm just saying it's best to try to avoid one another, and that personally I feel it's also best to let ArbCom sort through this case and come to some conclusions (if they are ultimately inadequate then we look for other solutions, but the ball is in their court right now). That's sort of been my line all along and I've not changed my view on that even though I understand the waiting is rather frustrating since there are ongoing problems.

C of M I'm singularly unimpressed with your last comment. Wikidemon did not "solicit" me to do anything before I warned you recently. You are making that up out of whole cloth. I read your comment and typed up a reply saying you need to stop accusing other editors of censorship (if you find the particular example I used to illustrate why it's inappropriate to bandy about "we are not supposed to operate like the North Korean or Chinese governments" on talk pages to be overly hyperbolic and troublesome then I'm sorry - and perhaps I could have phrased it better - but I think the point I was trying to make was quite obvious - in any case let's put that bit to rest shall we?). No one told or asked me to reply to your comment (in the thread in question, Wikidemon had not even commented yet, and my comment came immediately after yours before anyone else even said anything). My warning to you had absolutely nothing to do with any ANI report or with your arguments with Wikidemon (I have no idea why you are bringing those up). I'm keeping an eye on that page, I found your accusations to be problematic and part of a pattern for which you have already been warned, and I again warned you to stop. From my perspective the issue here is your editorial behavior on the Obama talk page and you again have done nothing to dissuade me from the view that that behavior has been problematic. Of course you're welcome to continue thinking that what I've done is problematic. Again, as I mentioned in a previous section higher up on this talk page where we had an all-too similar discussion, feel free to complain to an admin board about how I've handled this if you think there's a big problem here.

Otherwise I think this discussion has now largely run its course so let's all please move along, thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again we have a problem because Wikidemon engages in personal attacks, which you ignore, while warning me and ignoring my concerns. I was very clear in pointing out the problems with your one sided enforcement. Wikidemon says "It's a concerted attack to harrangue other editors on article talk pages, edit summaries, meta pages, and user talk pages." He says "I would be happy if ChildofMidnight stopped the attacks on others, and edit wars to mangle articles and talk pages where I edit." These are serious personal attacks that you've ignored. Perhaps you don't recognize the different type of treatment you are dishing out? Perhaps you don't recognize the difference between my noting that Wikipedia is not censored and that our guidelines indicate we include a variety of notable perspectives and Wikidemon's smears against me? Perhaps you didn't see the numerous specific recommendations I've made, while you and Wikidemon engage in rhetoric attacking me and making false and misleading insinuations. How dare you suggest I've attacked anyone with an implication of support for child prostitution and Nazism when that's totally untrue. And then you suggest I'm making things up. My description of Wikidemon seeking out sympathetic admins and making numerous reports against me is absolutely 100% true and I challenge you to provide a shred of evidence that it isn't. I'm outraged by this latest round of insidious attacks. Shameful. Shape up and do your job as an Admin. Stop attacking me by twisting my statements and ignoring Wikidemon's personal attacks. Let's focus on the content instead of getting waylaid by Wikidemon's ongoing disruption and distractions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take the cue and not respond in substance to that. It does not seem as if it will stop on its own, though.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear
This is the part of my statement that you object to:
 * There needs to be an article on criticism, a section of notable criticisms, and/or appropriate additions of these issues, and it's perfectly reasonable to point out that Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored per policy and that indeed we are not supposed to operate like the North Korean or Chinese governments in filtering news and content to suit our political biases. Consider this a formal warning that doing so violates the integrity of Wikipedia and is explicitly prohibited in the WP:Vandalism policy. 

A perfectly fair statement that accurately reflects policy and provides a comparison to places that are censored. Your response:
 * You might stop and think about what you are saying before you compare the collective work of the editors of this article to the governmental policies of North Korea (take a look at this article for example). The North Korean government forces young girls into prostitution, here we just have an argument about NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and such among a group of well-meaning folks who seem to have a fair amount of free time to diddle around on an online encyclopedia. This is not an authoritarian hellscape, it's a hotly contested Wikipedia article about a political figure where everyone needs to strictly abide by our civility policies and respect other editors. Like everyone else you'll have to check your assumptions of bad faith at the door or you simply won't be able to edit this article. And please note that you are not the only editor that I've warned about this, nor is it only editors on your "side" of the dispute who have had problems in this regard. 

Where do I "compare the collective work of the editors of this article to the governmental policies of North Korea"? When I say we aren't supposed to be censored? Are you serious? And then you go on to make these off-the-wall statements aboud child prostitution, an authoritarian hellscape, a statement that I need to check my "assumption of bad faith" or I won't be able to edit the article. Shame on you for engaging in this kind of fierce rhetoric and borderlines personal attacks in response to a perfectly reasonable and straightforward statement about Wikipedia not being censored. This is outrageous. And if you don't see it you need to take a good long look in the mirror. I tried to discuss it with you, but another editor has stuck his nose inm stirring up more trouble and goes on to make a bunch of personal attacks and smearing insinuations that you've ignored. I won't stand for it. Block me if you must. But your behavior and that of Wikidemon is wholly unacceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The clear and obvious implication of your statement is that Wikipedia is operating ("we are not supposed to operate") like the extremely repressive governments of North Korea and China ("like the North Korean or Chinese governments in filtering news and content to suit our political biases"). You have said similar things before (whether using the term "POV pusher" or whatever else), and your point is obviously that there are some editors who are consciously editing from a political assumption and trying to censor certain articles. That is an assumption of bad faith. WP:NOTCENSORED, which you keep invoking, is not a license to put in any content we want - it relates to the fact that articles might have images or text that some readers will find offensive (you might want to reread it because you are completely misapplying that policy). So saying "this article is censored" when you don't like what is going on there in terms of content is not simply an invocation of WP:NOTCENSORED (which is limited in scope), rather it's an assumption of bad faith relating to other editors. That's the problem.


 * As I already said above, I'm sorry if my attempt to illustrate why bringing the North Korean government into an argument is a bad idea offended you. Your comment clearly implied that some editors on the Obama articles were acting like the North Korean government (you might not have meant it that way, but that's certainly what it sounded like), and I was attempting to point out why some might take great umbrage at that and why that's a bad and inflammatory thing to say. Apparently I could have gone about it in a better way. Again, let's put that to rest since I've already apologized for offending you. Finally I don't want to block you, I just want you to assume good faith of other editors on the Obama articles - that's all. A simple acknowledgment that you will do that is all I've been looking for.


 * And again, I'm not intervening between you and Wikidemon - I think that needs to be dealt with at ArbCom. Obviously, you feel Wikidemon has attacked you and have said so repeatedly, while Wikidemon has said the opposite. I'm not ignoring any of that, I just think those kind of issues fit in well with the current ArbCom case. The issue for which you were warned had absolutely nothing to do with Wikidemon, it's just that they two have been conflated because he commented here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. The first line of the not censored policy states, "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer)". Obviously there are those who are offended and object to any criticism or coverage of any controversy involving Barack Obama or his administration. This policy does apply and I invoke it in good faith along with other policies indicating we are to include a variety of notable perspective so as to remain NPOV.
 * I think we basically understand each other and I hope you will make the effort to let me know if you think something I state on an article talk page might be poorly worded or misunderstood, rather than threaten me. I try to abide by policy and edit here in good faith and do my best to assume good faith in others. I also do my best to speak up when our guidelines and policies are being violated. I'd be interested in your opinion on content issues being discussed on the article talk page including the idea of a link to the "list of" article and the issue of whether "keeping (or not keeping) campaign promises should be covered. I much prefer to improve content and focus on content than to deal with these distractions and disruptions which is why I object to them so vigorously. Thanks again. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The NOTCENSORED policy just does not apply here, sorry. Otherwise it could be invoked to bring in any imaginable content (for example, things that would be BLP violations because Wikipedia is "not censored"). NPOV is the key policy that addresses your concerns so I would recommend you focus on that. And please understand that there is a difference between a "warning" and a "threat" so to speak. I do have the ability to block editors as an admin, but if you'll look in my logs you'll see I don't do that very often. I prefer to warn editors (sometimes sternly) first if I see a problem. I suppose there is the implicit "threat" of a block behind that but there's really no other way to inform another editor of a problematic behavior than by warning them. I know you make a lot of good contributions to the encyclopedia and that's very much appreciated, I just think you (and some others) need to change your tone on the Obama articles. As I said that has the added benefit of probably making you more effective in terms of pushing for changes. I think that's a good way to think about it.


 * And like you I'd rather actually deal with content. On the Obama articles I actually try to stay relatively outside the fray on that for the most part, though I am going to push for a reworking of the presidency section very soon so obviously please feel free to help out with that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTCENSORED applies to coarse language, pictures of sexual organs, etc. It does not apply to content disputes concerning controversy and criticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but WP:NOTCENSORED is a general policy that applies to all types of articles including political subjects and BLPs. The section even points to censored as a see also. There is nothing in it limiting its scope to pornography or vulgar subjects, even if that's often where it's applied. The same is true for WP:Vandalism and WP:NPOV.

I'm not sure if this is a good place to discuss it, but as it's neutral turf, can someone explain to me the opposition to having a "list of" or "index" article for all our Obama coverage? We have list of articles for all sorts of things, and as there are a huge number of Obama subjects this seems like an excellent way to make them navigable in a well organized format. The argument that the multitude of templates (often collapsed) and the jumble of categories at the bottom of pages suffices seems ummm... incredible to me. Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTCENSORED applies to all articles, sure, it just does not apply in the way you are suggesting&mdash;i.e. it does not serve as a rationale to include something when other editors offer legitimate rationales for not including said something. What you seem to be suggesting is that, when someone objects to inclusion of a certain sentence or phrase, one can simply say "WP:NOTCENSORED" and that trumps any objection. But common sense tells us that cannot be the case, and there is a policy-based reason for that if we want to get all wonky. You'll note that WP:NOTCENSORED is a subsection of WP:NOT. You'll notice at our policies and guidelines (see "Wikipedia policy" box at the top right") that "What Wikipedia is not" is listed as one of our overriding "Global principles"&mdash;it is not one of our "Content standards," which is to say it does not determine what type of content we include any more than WP:IAR does (another way to think about is that WP:NOT tells us what we don't do - it doesn't tell us what we do do). To cite WP:NOTCENSORED as a way to justify inclusion of certain material is just as mistaken as citing WP:IAR (that's actually a very good analogy I think, and you can imagine the problems we would have if editors added outlandish, off topic material to an article and then justified it by saying "ignore all rules"&mdash;calling out "Wikiedia is not censored" essentially works the same way). We determine what to include or not include with help from our policies and guidelines on Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, Biographies of living persons, etc. All of this is a long way of saying that you are just wrong in your interpretation of WP:NOTCENSORED. But don't take my word for it, ask a few other admins at random or post a question about this at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to clarify how we apply WP:NOTCENSORED Wikipedia wide.


 * It's also worth pointing out that your interpretation of NOTCENSORED as applied to the Obama articles contains an implicit assumption of bad faith, though I'm sure you did not think of it as such. You said above, "Obviously there are those who are offended and object to any criticism or coverage of any controversy involving Barack Obama or his administration." Unless anyone has said explicitly that they object to any criticism, and I don't think anyone has, you simply do not have any evidence to justify making a statement like that. In so doing, you are assuming that other editors are acting in bad faith, because to object to any (your word) controversy relating to a certain subject is a bad faith position to hold which demonstrates a lack of respect for NPOV (since any topic could conceivably be controversial and since significant controversy would need to be covered in our article). So in explicating your view of WP:NOTCENSORED you actually get us back to the issue of assuming bad faith of other editors which is what kicked off these preceding two threads. I've gone back and forth with you about these issues repeatedly in multiple threads on this talk page C of M, and I'd really appreciate it if you could stop for a moment and consider the possibility that I keep harping on this assume good faith issue because there's actually something to it, and because there has been a bit of a failure there on your part. I've spent a lot of time trying to explain the problem here and it would be great to know that some of it is getting through to you.


 * I have no real view on the "list of articles" issue. It strikes me as relatively unimportant and I'll almost certainly be fine with having it or with not having it, with linking it in a "see also" section or not. Personally I just don't think it's a big deal either way. Right now on the Barack Obama talk page there's a discussion about a portal which seems constructive, so that seems like the place to discuss these issues rather than here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting interpretation on my comments and policy. Ironically, you seem to be assuming bad faith and twisting my views in way that isn't accurate and putting a spin on policy that is your own rather than indicated in the policies themselves. The not censored policy is quite clear, it links to the censored article, and it applies to content that people find objectionable whether it's graphic sex acts or criticisms of their favorite politician. There's no assumption of bad faith involved in pointing this out.
 * The vandalism policy also applies broadly and states that vandalism refers to edits that damage the integrity of Wikipedia. This applies to blanking pages and replacing content with words like poop, and to removing sources and content based on political values in a way that violates content guidelines and policies. There are many policies and guidelines and they sometimes compliment one another and are sometimes contradictory. This is where our judgement and reason comes in, but applying the guidelines consistently as they are written rather than arbitrarily based on our opinion is essentail. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry, but you're wrong about the vandalism policy too, and again WP:AGF comes into play. Note what it says in the second paragraph there; "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." So the only way it's vandalism is if someone is acting in bad-faith - i.e. they are literally trying to wreck the encyclopedia. As such you must be assuming that various Obama editors are acting in bad faith if they are "removing sources and content based on political values in a way that violates content guidelines and policies." But where is your evidence for that? You have not produced any, and barring evidence to the contrary you should continue to assume good faith of editors. I think it's incredibly important to bear in mind that basically all of the regular editors of the Obama articles, including yourself, are not trying to wreck the encyclopedia&mdash;there's just disagreement about how to implement our content policies and that's perfectly legitimate. Incidentally I'm not remotely trying to twist your views, and you are not explaining to me where I'm getting them wrong. If you think I'm mischaracterizing your view please explain how that is and I'll stand corrected&mdash;I really am trying to accurately represent your above comments as I discuss them and I'm sorry if I've misunderstood something you said.


 * I don't want to debate this any more but I again suggest that you ask any admin - pick one or two at random - to read over this thread and give you their views. Or post a notice on the talk pages of these policies and ask for a clarification from someone who edits them. I'm not asking you to take my word for all that I've said above, and I think you'll find that if you ask around that you've just misinterpreted these policies. That's fine since it happens all the time, but it's not good to go around editing with the beliefs about WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:VANDALISM that you seem to hold. And understand there's no "threat" there, I just think you'll just run into a lot of arguments with folks who have a very different understanding of those policies as not applying to normal debates about content among good-faith editors.


 * Finally I remember you mentioned in an earlier discussion about copy-editing other users' talk page comments that you appreciate spelling corrections and the like, and I've noticed for awhile that you use the word "judgment" often but spell it with an "e" between the g and the m. That's probably one of the most common spelling mistakes in the English language, but the word is in fact spelled "judgment," just FYI. You now owe me one grammatical or spelling correction at some point in the future! (You'll probably catch me doing an "it's" when it should have just been "its" or vice-versa&mdash;I do that all the time even though I should know better). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal counterproposal
Having said all that (my response at Talk:Barack Obama), no hard feelings, and hopefully now we see we're somewhat on the same page, and can discuss the salient issue(s). Abrazame (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries and sorry if my earlier comment distressed you in some way, also I replied on the talk page. But as I said I just sort of don't care about the portal issue because I don't think it's that big of a deal either way. Right now I'm more interested in trying to expand the presidency section as is being discussed at the bottom of the talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Play Art page deletion
Hi, you deleted the page about Play Art. I am interested in the contents of that page and would like you to paste its contents into my talk page. Thank you! Blackletters (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Done at User:Blackletters/Play_art --BozMo talk 11:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: FT and plagiarism
Hello Bigtimepeace. I understand the severity of the concerns that have been expressed - there does seem to be some inappropriate paraphrasing that has been done by FT. I wouldn't class it has full blown plagiarism (where full sentences and paragraphs are copied word for word), but it still obviously needs to be corrected. The place to do that is on FT's talk page - concerns could easily have been brought up with him and he's diligent enough to realise when he's made a mistake that he'll correct problems ASAP. I don't for one minute there was malice involved here - FT was trying to help the encyclopedia with his creations, but clearly there was a lack of misunderstanding of copyright policy.

I do however question the motive of many of the people who are kicking up a fuss over this (not all, but most). It would be extremely naive of anyone looking into this from a totally neutral viewpoint that they did this because they care about the issues at hand - it's political games that are being played because FT nominated neurolysis for adminship a few weeks back (something which a certain faction of editors didn't like) and because he uses IRC. Calling for administrators and bureaucrats to resign over this is ridiculous - and the majority of people calling for this are the people who are playing the games. Sorry, I don't buy the reasoning that they actually give a monkeys about the content problems - it's Wikipedia's political spin at its worst.

I hope you can understand a little better my original post to WP:BN. If I've come across as hostile in this comment, I can only apologise because none of it is aimed at you. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying Ryan. First of all I don't necessarily disagree about the politics behind any of this, it's just that I don't give a fig about them. I know nothing about the neurolysis RFA and why that was controversial and quite frankly I do not care. I intensely dislike and never use IRC but never bother saying anything about it and that issue is beside the point here in my view. I don't know whether the people complaining more about those things are just doing so for political reasons, because they are actually concerned about the content issues, or some combination of both. I'm not a mind reader obviously, and furthermore I, again, don't really care. Lots of other people might be interested in discussing this stuff, however I am not, and as such this is all I have to say about it. And obviously I did do precisely what you suggested and brought my concerns to FT's talk page where I am still waiting for a reply.


 * I'm much more concerned that in your first paragraph you simply reiterated the point you previously made which brought me to your talk page in the first place. You're a very experienced administrator, yet you seem to be operating with misconceptions about plagiarism. There is not really a meaningful distinction between "full blown plagiarism" and something else&mdash;there is just plagiarism. The fact that a "the" was dropped or the exact name of the subject of a sentence was replaced by an "it" does not lessen the severity of the plagiarism, and if you think it does I hope you speedily disabuse yourself of that notion. You don't seem to be the only one who is viewing what FT did as maybe-not-so-bad, but I find that sentiment rather shocking. And understand I completely agree, and have said repeatedly, that there was almost certainly no malice here. But with respect to plagiarism, that is utterly irrelevant&mdash;essentially ignorance is no excuse. And I'm not talking just about Wikipedia here, I'm talking about the real world to a large degree. My entire framing for this episode is that admins are in a sense supposedly representative of the best of Wikipedia, a project which is writing an encyclopedia (encyclopedias being things which should not contain plagiarism, one would hope). Thinking in that context, do you honestly think it's a good idea to have an administrator who plagiarized (not committed some euphemism like "inappropriate paraphrasing," plagiarized) to a rather extensive degree? Would you like to see a news story in a major paper about how one of our leading editors committed extensive plagiarism, the excuse for which seems to essentially be, "sorry, I didn't actually understand what plagiarism is," and then how the community's response was essentially "she'll work on that?" I'd like to hear an answer to those questions, because I think that makes us look absolutely ridiculous, given that we are putting ourselves forward as a group of people who are writing an encyclopedia. Maybe ut all the IRC/Giano/Peter Damian stuff aside (since it is not germane to anything I am saying here) and think about this situation in those terms. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA questions
Well said on WP:BN. Just to add, RfA questions should not be about just plagiarism, but about sourcing. The real problem with FT's articles were the acceptance of single sources without question, and not doing a bit of background research as to the plausibility of the source. Homeokinetics, now deleted, was a classic example of that. Stuff copied almost verbatim without any apparent sense of what was being copied. In this case, it seemed clear that Homeokinetics is a species of pseudoscience, and that the editor was copying over stuff under the impression it was respectable academic research when possibly it was not. I spend days of stuff checking this sort of thing out very carefully, using academic reference libraries with paper and stuff, and it incredibly annoys me that an RfA is parading these articles without any sense of what they were doing. Peter Damian (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I really think that there's a positive outcome to take out of this situation wherever we end up, namely that (at least some) folks are likely to look a lot more closely at article work of editors at RfA. Questions not only about plagiarism, but about how to use sources, what kind of sources are appropriate, etc., will seem a lot more germane now. If those get asked as a matter of course at RfA, and if some actual investigation is done into article work beyond clicking on a link, I think we'll end up with a higher percentage of admins with at least a half-way decent understanding of what it takes to write an article. In my view that's obviously all to the good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your question, if I had known about the problem while the RfA was open I would have opposed it. But fair's fair: wasn't looking (didn't even participate). Neither did anyone else see this problem until after the RfA had already closed legitimately. If FT had responded any less cooperatively I'd seriously consider RfC and RFAR. But under the circumstances, it seems fair to give her a chance. A lot of people at this site are shaky on plagiarism while sufficiently skilled to handle blatant vandalism. If that's all she uses her tools for until her understanding improves, then that's acceptable. Obviously not the kind of promotion we ought to let slip through again, though. Fair enough? Durova Charge! 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, and we're not too far apart here I think, perhaps the gist of the difference is that I think the problems here go beyond being simply "shaky on plagiarism" and that's something I think we need to take incredibly seriously as an encyclopedia (all of this also speaks to the general problem of RFAs not focusing enough on content contributions, but perhaps we'll see a real momentum shift with this which in a way would make the whole situation worthwhile). I've already asked FT if she would be down with an RFC and submit to the will of the community there (assuming it's discernible) so I guess we'll see what she says about that. And I will eventually help with WP:PLAGIARISM as you suggested to me on ANI, it just might take me a little while to get to that. Ironically this whole thing has already been a distraction from some article work I was planning to do late last night and today! --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a conduct RfC, especially if other unresolved matters are outstanding. On balance an RfC solely on the plagirism issue at this time may be unnecessary.  The key deciding is whether people have tried and failed to resolve the problem.  Since she's cooperative about resolving it, there doesn't appear to be grounds to certify.  And an immediate may turn into a staging ground for tangential grievances, which wouldn't be useful.  Apologies for the slow reply; I've been restoring a portrait of Ralph Waldo Emerson.  Best wishes,  Durova Charge! 22:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're at an impasse here which is fine, as I obviously disagree with you that being "cooperative about resolving it" means she should be an admin (I mean it's nice, but given the problems here I just think stepping down is the way to go). Unsurprisingly FlyingToaster has rejected my idea of an RFC so I guess I'll have to think about what happens now. I still think there are grounds for an RFC even without the editor's "consent" so to speak but want to see what others think. And it bears saying that, since some of us are calling for her to resign the bit or at least do something akin to standing for reconfirmation and since she is refusing to do so, there is still a dispute here, though I'm not sure I have the energy to do anything about it after all of this, particularly give the level of reflexive support for FT from certain quarters (not you at all, but some others) and off-topic complaints from other quarters which would make any dispute resolution quite difficult. As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." I know I know, that quote doesn't really apply here, but I've always liked that one and wanted to fit it in here somewhere, even though Emerson was a rank individualist with little concern for the poor (is that a BLP violation?). I'll conclude apropos your last sentence by thanking you for all the terrific image work you do, which as a non-techie I find incredibly impressive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama
Bigtimepeace You threatened to ban me for adding true, well sourced info about CAFE. But you didn't criticize Scjessey for removing my true, well sourced info, and replacing it with false, unsourced info. Bigtimepeace, this is proof that you are being biased and unfair. Please see the articles talk page for more on this. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied here and here and conversation continues on that talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of your Admin tools
There is a dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. If you don't like the content someone has added or dispute it, please follow the proper procedure. You've been asked repeatedly to stop making threats and using intimidation to go after those who you disagree with on content. Your decision to continue disrupting Wikipedia in this way and to attack good faith contributors with an excellent record of contributions is very problematic. Please shape up. There are lots of editors who add things in a one sided way based on their perspective. If you're not going to be fair and neutral you need to stand down. Your behavior so far has been outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Abusing my admin tools would suggest that I have used them to do something recently, wouldn't it? But of course I haven't, so the heading you've chosen for this thread is the first thing that is inaccurate. And we've been down this road before, haven't we? I assume you are referring to warnings I gave to Grundle2600, and you've made it abundantly clear that you think any warnings about that editor's contributions are inappropriate. I get it - you've told me off in this manner several times, and I've responded to you at length. You think my conduct outrageous, and I get that too, and there's multiple threads above on this page where we go back and forth about this. I have been eminently patient and responsive to your (quite hyperbolic) complaints, and now there's really nothing more to say here. Barack Obama articles are on probation, and that's the context for my actions, given that I am an admin who does adminly stuff on those articles from time to time. If you don't like the Obama probation then find a place to complain about it, and if you don't like what I'm doing in the context of the article probation then find a place to complain about that. This is the third or fourth time I've made that suggestion to you and I'm completely serious about it&mdash;please stop coming back here and telling me the same thing over and over again when you know I completely reject your interpretation of what is going on here and have said why at length. You are not going to change my mind with ill-worded notes like the one above. I utterly disagree with everything you say there (again, for reasons I have already explained repeatedly) and I'm going to leave it at that. I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested in continuing this conversation with you right now since we've already had it three or four times and I happen to be quite busy at the moment (I'm leaving town in a couple of days and have much to do beforehand).


 * You are right about one thing though. "There are lots of editors who add things in a one sided way based on their perspective." You're wrong in apparently thinking that that's acceptable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have Admin tools and you continue to use them to threaten editors with whom you disagree. That's not how we deal with content issues here. Shape up and stop trying to force your POV on others. If you disagree, work it out on the talk page or provide your own reliable sources or suggested edits instead of attacking the other editor with more of your threats. And if you want to do something about POV pushing editors, you're welcome to take the issue up with those editors who use their numbers to violate policy and push edits that remain in articles despite reasonable objections that have pointed out the clear violations of policy. Instead you are very aggressive with a lone good faith editor who's added notable content from perspectives that aren't always popular and that you obviously disagree with. This again puts you in a position of hypocrisy, accusing other of bias when you fail to recognize and correct your own. There are lots of edits IN articles that need fixing if you want to help. They're not those you find annoying to have to remove once in a while when a good faith editor comes from a perspective that isn't your own. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazing. Notorious bad faith POV-pusher defends notorious bad faith POV-pusher. It is astounding that Bigtimepeace has remained so patient and calm in the face of such audacity. The man should be showered with peace-related barnstars, not accused of admin tool abuse. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the third or fourth admin against whom ChildofMidnight has made these bombastic accusations. What about us non-admins who are repeatedly accused of the same bad faith, with all kinds of nonsense said about us?  We have no choice but to be patient, but it makes the editing experience miserable that it's allowed to go on for as long as it has.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)