User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 10

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

Thanks,16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

SA forgeries
Hi. Could you point me to diffs talking about these so-called IRC forgeries by SkepticalAnonymous. That would help me understand what you are taking about. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant diffs have been oversighted (not by me), actually, due to their potentially-libelous nature. It was essentially an unblock request alleging that I had I had said exceptionally horrible, abusive things to him on IRC, to the point where if such a thing were associated with my real name it could have had real-world consequences. Needless to say, that IRC exchange never actually happened. If this becomes an arbcom issue I can provide the diff in question, as well as refer arbcom to a number of other admins who have been treated similarly, but as far as discussing it on talk pages right now, that is all the information I'm able to provide. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're not saying there exists any forgeries of any IRC logs, but rather that this user interpreted comments made in IRC differently than another user? Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that he literally wrote an IRC log from scratch and proffered it as "real" in an unblock request. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's odd behavior. Did he add timestamps, server names, and all the other elements?  Could anyone tell it was fake?  Did it look real?  What was his motivation? Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, I'm not providing details of this behavior here. They're available to arbcom if necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think SA and the IP are the same person based on the use of IRC logs in disputes? Is it your opinion that no such secret IRC channel exists? Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that checkuser-confirmed socks are usually socks. It is also my opinion that I am not a checkuser, nor do I have a crystal ball. I have no way of knowing whether the alleged channel exists, and I'm not sure I care all that much, considering I'm not involved with Wikiproject Conservatism. Now, I've provided you with all the detail I'm willing to about the "falsified logs" issue. I would suggest you pursue the matter of IRC/wikiproject conspiracies, etc, to a body that can actually do something about it if they exist. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an odd response. I'm not pursuing any such thing nor all that interested.  What I was asking for was your personal opinion on the matter, an opinion you already shared in part on ANI. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I've just noted this on AN, but the logs ArbCom received were independently reviewed by myself and another arbitrator. We both very quickly came to the conclusion that the logs were very blatantly faked. In addition to the issues we noted, which I won't note here for the same reason we don't usually detail a sockpuppeteer's "tells" at SPI, Demiurge also noted further inconsistencies with the logs when he sent them to us. Some of these obvious errors are consistent with the faked log entry Fluffernutter refers to in the oversighted diff. Please stop this line of questioning, as it is not serving any useful purpose except to lend credence to these obviously false claims. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only problem, Hersfold, is I have not, at any time, lent "credence" to these claims. I didn't even participate in the ANI discussion until I was drawn into it when Arthur Rubin threatened to block me as a proxy to a sock.  As I said then, "there is no indication of authenticity".  Thanks for proving I was correct. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ken Sibanda thing
Hey there. Just to let you know, though you've probably already taken it as read, I don't consider you to be a sock!

It's very rare that I undo a salting protection on an article, but clearly the circumstances in this one were that it had been through AfC and so I considered that it was a reasonable request and that you would have done it yourself. I try to look for reasons why it was protected in the first place and might there be information that I wasn't aware of that means it should still be protected. In this case it seemed a cut-and-dried reason why you salted it in the first place, and that those concerns had been addressed by it having been through AfC.

Anyway, hope this addresses any concerns you had with my unprotection. Ged UK  07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is actually a weakness inherent in AfC - that there's nowhere to really note the previous history of an article. If there had been information available to an admin who looked at the AfC regarding its persistent sneaky recreation over more than a year, or a way to note that I and other reviewers had already analysed the sources on the AfC submission and found them to be unreliable, or a way to note that I had previously declined to unsalt the article title for this AfC draft due to the sourcing/notability issues, etc, you would presumably have made a different decision. However, since AfC has no concrete guidelines, and no "note-taking" space, so to speak, you were sort of adrift - there's no realistic way to trawl through a combination of my contribs, the submitter's contribs, and other reviewers' contribs and come up with a coherent picture of what's gone on regarding the article. I personally feel that the poor sourcing and lack of asserted notability of the AfC draft ought to have been enough for any attentive reviewer to fail it, but everyone who does AfC does it differently, and we all pass and fail according to different mental criteria. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's a very valid point. Basically, with your knowledge you wouldn't have unprotected it, and I second guessed you (because, as you rightly said there's no sensible way to check through everything). Basically, it's a lesson learned for me to continue to refer people requesting unprotection to the protector even in AfC circumstances, as I do for just about every other request! Ged  UK  11:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Shirt58 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fluffernutter. Best outcome of the situation.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One question added after your vote
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, let's talk about what we'd like to see happen in committee work and about "another argument", and other things if you like ... on-wiki, email and voice all work fine for me, whatever you like. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe that sounds ominous, I'll just start talking. I can't fault you too much ... your argument is similar to arguments I've made for years, typically at WT:RFA ... and btw, that's why I've been putting a lot of energy into PC. I know that that may be a little hard to swallow for the supporters at this point, because I'm definitely not neutral as long as the current version of PC/2 is on the table (though there are versions that are closer to PC/1 that I'd be fine with). Once that gets off the table, then I'm back to feeling strongly that it's mainly listening to the supporters (and to anyone else who has thoughts about what to to, as opposed to what dangers to avoid) that will get us where we need to go ... we've had about 5 years of "no, no, no" whenever the community tried to tackle big issues, and some of the PC supporters have kept hope alive that we might be able to break that cycle. (The opposers do however make good points about dangers which, at a minimum, will have to be monitored, and changes that may need to be made.)
 * Back to "another argument" ... I appreciate that it sounded like I was assuming the worst, and that's quite a persistent problem on Wikipedia ... our community is bright, but there's a tendency to have negative expectations that aren't always warranted. That was part of the reason I pushed to launch this RfC, btw (the main reason was that we simply needed a wider range of input) ... PC arguments have been a mess, and people had grown to assume the worst ... I thought there was a reasonable chance that people could do better now, and they have, and that's good for setting a tone and higher expectations, I think.
 * Having said that ... I don't understand where you're coming from. I run across Wikipedians pretty much every day who I know have a tendency to misbehave, and I don't even work the noticeboards; these guys must think there's some payoff to bad behavior, and they're smart people, so they're probably right ... maybe acting grouchy does succeed in driving away the people they'd rather not be dealing with ... but at the moment, I think they're mostly deluded, there's no consistent payoff for grouchiness that I can see. If grouchiness is going to lead to their opponents being demoted in some way on what their opponents regard as "their" articles, then we've just dramatically increased the payoff for being grouchy. (Of course, we haven't specified what PC/2 is or when it's applied yet ... so I'm assuming here that we're talking about a time when we have decided what triggers it, and what triggers it is some general misbehavior that's right up the alley of some of our more "determined" editors.) And that's just for good faith editors ... this is a tool intended as a defense against bad faith editors, so we have to consider them too. Other people have said they're aware of bad-faith editors deliberately trying to trigger protection ... I'm not, but I'm aware that it happens all the time that people deliberately act up knowing it will probably lead to some response, such as protection. And that's even when protection treats everyone the same ... anyone can edit a semi-protected page in 4 days (zero days in most cases), and no one can edit a full-protected page. If we start applying a form of protection that allows people to demote their non-reviewer "competition" (as they see it) at will ... well, I can't predict the future, but it sure does increase the payoff for bad behavior. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess my point was that it's a very large leap with very little evidence to go from "Wikipedians are prone to misbehavior and grouchiness" to "Wikipedians, who are prone to grouchiness, will turn their grouchiness into a laser-target weapon and misuse a specific tool as a bloc in a specific way, in a manner that hasn't been observed previously." Yes, lots of Wikipedians are grouchy, and yes I suppose they do get something out of it (god knows what...). But I'm not onboard with us assuming that grouchiness is or leads directly to active, conspiratorial malice they way you seem to be assuming. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking about either malice or conspiracy (Yes, you'd need a conspiracy if it's hard for someone acting alone to escalate an ongoing conflict up to PC/2 ... but since we haven't decided yet what triggers PC/2, we don't know that. Certainly, some of the supporters are proposing PC/2 on pages with infrequent, intermittent problems. We'll have to see.) I'm content to drop the point for now, if it doesn't resonate for supporters; we've got more than enough to talk about. - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan Davey
Hi mate just noticed the Alan Davey page ongoings if you following this link you will see that Alan davey did infact claim to have become a muslim in 2001..... http://www.starfarer.net/adintv01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANKO TUNESXX (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The link you offer does not appear to be a reliable source. Even if it were, it does not support the accusations that were being made on the article until I protected it. Might I also ask if you're associated with any of the IPs or blocked users that have a history of inserting such content into that article? If so, you'll want to read our rules about multiple accounts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okeyes (WMF) (talk • contribs) 18:07, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
The Obama quote that you deleted is around somewhere, because I read it, earlier. I think it needs including, rather than deleting. If you didn't like the source, or thought it was misquoted, how about you track down the quote, with a good reference?

Amandajm (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the cited source, that quote came from either "the Romney campaign" or "the U.S. Embassy", depending on how you parse the document. In no reading is it attributed to Obama, so to attribute it to him in our article is indeed a factual error. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

WT:PC2012/RfC_1
There will be a short story in this week's Signpost (and perhaps another next week, if there's a lot of feedback at that link and not much space in this week's "News and Notes"). Constructing the story will be a group effort, come join us! - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I mention you in the section below that one. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding reverts
Can I ask you a question regarding reverts? I'm not looking to make a report at the EW noticeboard, nor am I seeking any admin action (no blocks or warnings, please!) Instead, I'm seeking a technical interpretation on whether or not four particular edits constitute four reverts on a given article. Would that be copacetic, or would you rather not get involved in rendering such an opinion? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Azure. I'm pretty sure I know the case you're referring to, and since I have a definite opinion on that editor's habits, I'm not able to get involved in this. I'm going to see if I can get another admin to come by and help you out, stand by. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the case (non impediti ratione cogitationis), but keep in mind 3RR is only one form of edit warring. Certainly, four reverts in some fashion could be considered edit warring even if not passing the WP:3RR bar. tedder (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for popping in, tedder! Azure, tedder is also an admin and he should be able to give you some input if you want to give him the specifics of what's going on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger that and thanks, Fluffernutter... Tedder, here are the four edits which I believe constitute four reverts: 1, 2, 3, and 4. This discussion is about clarifying that this really is four reverts instead of three, not an attempt to trigger some sort of admin action.  Thanks and sorry for the trouble...  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That would qualify, barely, for 3RR. Specifically, this edit is certainly a revert no matter if titled as such, and this edit qualifies as wP:DUCK, if nothing else. Generally, it may be an indication of WP:TE/WP:OWN. tedder (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So is it "barely 3RR" meaning three reverts total, or "barely 3RR" meaning it's four reverts total and hence "barely in excess" of the 3RR rule?  AzureCitizen (talk)
 * "barely 3RR" meaning it's somewhere between 3 and 4 reverts, so "barely in excess". An argument could be made it's passing 3RR, but I wouldn't be surprised if a regular at the EW noticeboard rejected it. tedder (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger that... as mentioned above, no plans to take this to the EW noticeboard, the clarification has more to do with the editor asserting it's really three reverts (or that the fourth doesn't count, etc). I wanted to make sure I wasn't misconstruing the situation when I previously told him or her it was 4RR.  Thanks for entertaining the discussion and rendering a candid outside opinion...  Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is interesting. Just a few minutes ago, an IP editor did a drive-by revert of the text I inserted earlier today with the edit summary "Whatever happens doesn't matter because we're all dead in December. Mayans Rule!" I note that it's a word-for-word "undo" of my edit that appears several entries down in the list. Just a coincidence? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are some translation issues there..."where the thus created" (appears a couple of times) doesn't make any sense. Ditto "passive Sichterrechte". I'm not sure what kind of input you're looking for there from me or others, but you'll probably get more of it if the translation is fully comprehensible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not looking for input at all really. It's just there as a reference to how another Wiki does it. Considering I'm bilingual, lets not split hairs over the minor cognates ;) Personally, for a user right where their threshold is relatively low, I found it unnecessary complicated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions clarification
Thank you for explaining to me your reasoning behind the restrictions imposed. While I largely agree with what you said, one thing was incorrect. You stated that the restrictions were "also making it harder for people to remove content that has prior consensus." In fact, they only address future additions to the article and make no such encumbrances on content removal. If the restrictions had also applied to long-standing material in an equitable manner, I would accept and support these restrictions. But they don't - they only inhibit article expansion. In any event, I have sought clarification here. 'Ankh '.Morpork  21:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I've commented a little there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Shawshank Redemption
Darkwarriorblake and a host of other editors such as the "OldJacobite" feel they own the film articles and continually revert any real progress to film plots etc. I saw your dicussion on his page, please go to the Shawshank film talk page and see if you can add anything to the discussion, I tried to argue to include "sexual assault" and other edits to the plot etc but they effectively tag-team edit.ing and reverting. Thanks --JTBX (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's an extremely unpleasant ownership atmosphere going on on that article. Unfortunately, today I'm not really up to sallying forth to discuss the stuff that should be there but isn't with the people who want to make sure it stays not-there. Hopefully I'll have some more energy to look at the article again next week, but in the meantime you should remember that DR options like a content RFC or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard exist to help with stuff like this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza cheese
Arg - I've written about thirty responses to your comment, none of which I'm terribly happy with. Closing an XfD involves weighing both the strength of arguments and the strength of numbers; in the former case, the factual accuracy of the premises of the arguments must be considered, and arguments based on wrong premises cannot be given any significant weight; they're bad arguments. That they would be good arguments, if they were true, is neither here nor there. It's not a supervote - it's just the consequence of AfD not being a vote, either. Facts, policy, precedent matter. Wily D 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose my point is basically that your close statement reads as "There were links to things people called sources, therefore merge voters are wrong". That leaves it looking like you closed more based on "if someone links to something they call a source, all non-keep votes are invalid." A close that said something more like, I don't know, "While arguments exist that some of these new sources are not about the topic at hand, the bulk of them do support the notability of 'pizza cheese', as pointed out by these other commenters" would be an explanation of how you reached your conclusion, whereas a close that reads closer to "NA1k presented sources and everyone else was just guessing" sort of comes off as if you didn't consider all the arguments, but just judged the sources on your own and reached a conclusion. What I'm basically asking is for you to explain what arguments you found to be "factually incorrect", so it's easier for the reader to see why you closed the way you closed. Doesn't have to be in huge detail or anything, but something other than "No, you're all wrong!" or "there were factual inaccuracies...somewhere...but I'm not saying where" would make it a lot easier to both understand and address the close. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pizza cheese
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pizza cheese. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

You are getting this notice because you commented on the result of the AfD at the closing admin's page p  b  p  19:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you coming to the meeting?
Are you coming to the meeting on the 15th? --Pine✉ 17:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I plan to, why? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was surprised that your name isn't on the signup sheet! <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 07:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pizza cheese merge discussion
There is a merge discussion in which you may wish to participate.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Burden analysis table
I don't know if you saw the link at the Signpost talk page, so I thought I'd let you know: Ambassadors/Research/Spring 2012 burden analysis is the page where I'm building the burden analysis we discussed. Would you mind taking a look at some of the diffs I've posted there? I'd like to know if (a) the way I've set this up makes it easy for other to check my evaluation, and (b) if you agree with my evaluations so far. If I am not providing enough (or accurate enough) information, I'd like to fix that before I go much further.

I'll keep working on this as I have time. I plan to do as many as possible of the forty-one classes listed here. As you know, my own belief is that the burden, while not zero, is low enough that the quality of edits makes this a worthwhile trade, so I'll be interested to hear your thoughts as the analysis progresses on whether you see the data as supporting your view. I'd love to be able to change your mind! But let's wait and see what the data shows. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Burden metric done
The analysis we discussed is done; you can see the results here. I can see you're busy, but I'd be very interested in your feedback, if you get a moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I need your urgent assistance
The Shawshank Redemption (film) is once again in flames. I tried to edit the plot and wrote on the talk page to reopen the discussion as it wasn't finalised. I personally believe that people who have watched the film and would structure the plot correctly with details weighed in accordance with Wikipedia plot policy should edit it, but darkwarriorblake is once again not having it, he refused to actually look at the plot's problems and simply reverts and warns me, then placed an edit war template on my page, naturally. As an admin, can you please weigh in on the talk page? Its pointless to even discuss with others like OldJacobite because they are of the same ownership flock, they come along, they see something here and there and hit revert, and support other reverters who do the same. I feel like I'm talking to myself on the page, what is the point of the discussion? What is the point of Wikipedia anymore if things like this can happen? Any help at all? Thanks for your time. --JTBX (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:The_Shawshank_Redemption, his exact edits were broken down and refuted by three editors then and he's just waited a period of time and restored the exact same changes that were unnecessary and explained why then. Then he tells me to discuss it. Jesus. And he tries to dismiss other editors. You are talking to yourself JTBX because people didn't support the changes you were making, not out of a grand conspiracy against you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to be bullied. Sorry. I waited because I had no other choice, none of you responded when I said I was leaving it open. It is frank from your behaviour that you simply wish to do what you please and to be left alone. Where did Masem and Jacobite break down my edits again? A conspiracy against me? I was merely commenting on their behaviour, I reached out to Fluff because he seems helpful, more experienced as an admin, and went through the same thing with you. --JTBX (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry guys, I don't really have time to go in-depth on articles this week (busy in real life - see the banner up top), so I'm just going to throw out a few thoughts and I encourage you to all consider them and maybe run with them if any resonate:
 * Dispute resolution. Learn it, live it, love it. It's clear that there's some pretty heavy disagreement between a few of the article's "old" editors and a number of "new" or "one-time" ones. Both sides are sure they're right, but every time the issue comes up things get heated. This is why we have dispute resolution processes to help us when we run into this sort of thing. An RfC or a WP:DRN thread may be necessary to hash out the issue of how tightly to restrict plot content, etc. You will need to be willing to compromise and discuss exactly what about the other side feels wrong to you for this to work, but the goal is then to kill the dispute and never have to worry about it again!
 * Ownership. The fact that it's extremely obvious to me who the "old" editors of the article are concerns me. Darkwarriorblake, I know I've mentioned this to you before, but you need to keep in mind that this is a collaborative project. That means that you don't always get the final vote on things, and your getting upset over the fact that someone wants to make/discuss a change you don't like indicates that you may be sort of emotionally involved in the article in a way that's problematic. This may go for others, as well. Strive to not care quite so much. Caring about an article is good, caring about it so hard that it sends your blood pressure skyrocketing and you find yourself judging or insulting the other person is...less good.
 * Humans are human. Everyone's upset and frustrated at this point. But please, please remember that you're speaking to other human beings. Human beings have feelings, and moods, and occasionally screw up or overreact, but that shouldn't mean you feel it's ok to treat them as anything less than human. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the final say, several editors got the consensus. He wasn't making additions he was restoring the version of the plot from before the existing version, which was not written solely by me and contained large portions of that previous plot that was not written by me, and making points that were not important no matter how much he may believe them to be that needed to be conveyed within the word limit. Myself and other editors agreed with that, I discussed your changes with you as well and explained why they were not appropriate. If I get emotional it's not out of OWN or a personal investment in the article at all, it's out of frustration at explaining the same thing literally a dozen times to the user only for him to come back at me with the same thing made differently in complete ignorance of the previously given explanation. In complete ignorance of the explanation given by 4-5 other editors. To this very moment he claims we are all wrong and all suffering from OWN which is ridiculous. He's also arguing with me that one edit should be made because it is the correct order of events and the current plot is not. So I turned on the film (already aware I was correct) and broke down the scenes order, which matches the current plot. Let's see how he tells me I'm still wrong somehow. JTBX likes to play the victim, but he is far from it. Ownership and making the right decision are not the same thing, and not every edit has merit by way of existing. If that were true this place would be a joke and all the "lol and they were gay" edits would still be in place across articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Fluffernutter. You are a long term editor and admin for whom I have a great deal of respect for, therefore, I feel the need to fill you in on a few things that have occurred in the last day or so. Yesterday I was contacted, out of the blue, by JTBX here . You will note that the wording of the message violates WP:CANVASS. I then went and examined the situation, in depth, on the article and the talk page for The Godfather and posted my thoughts at this thread Talk:The Godfather. I was then made aware of this thread Editor assistance/Requests where "a group of editors" were being accused of "not looking at the proposals for plot changes" and "bullying" and "hypocrisy". Oh and we are also bringing "shame" to wikipedia. None of this is supported by proof and is certainly not true as far as I can tell. Normally, I would let things take their course but I felt the need to let you know that you seem to be mentioned in this sentence "Their hypocritical and WP:OWN violating behaviour has also been pointed out by other users who have come across them" as someone who has agreed of JTBX's assessment of the situation. Then you are definitely mentioned here User talk:MisterShiney as a reason (among other things) that MisterShiney's comments should be discounted. You are perfectly free to disagree with any of my posts in this situation but I do not think that comments that you have made should be used to justify actions towards other editors without you knowing about it. Cheers and continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My response is here --JTBX (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your impressive work on the GA Quality article, R v Baillie. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Measured
I read your measured approach on DYK. We agree about a lot. The Government don't want these DYK placements, they have no commercial value as far as I can see - and there are assessments that conclude this. The problem is that we have enthusiastic editor who like doing DYK. The placement is intended to be via plaques in Gibraltar. Those people (local and visitors) will be interested in the history of a little church, an unusual gun or a local hero. My interest here is well known (and misunderstood), but in this debate I want to retain the editor enthusiasm. DYK exposure is not important to the Gibraltar project. Victuallers (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's not really a solution here that's entirely fair to both Wikipedia and the editors participating in GBP. Unfortunately, I think the enthusiastic editors who meant nothing but good are going to have to take the hit here of losing the fun of DYK. In theory, the prospect of prizes from Gibraltar should provide the excitement they wouldn't be able to get from DYK. In practice, I know that's not perfect, because it feels like being "othered" on Wikipedia...but I don't think that's something we can avoid at this stage. There's enough mass of community displeasure about these appearing on the mainpage that the authors are going to feel othered even if they get mainpage placement. Have you considered other ways to help the editors feel like their work is highlighted? Perhaps Gibraltar could, in their space (internet-y or real), maintain a list of "best new articles about Gibraltar"? Or a leaderboard? If, as you say, the main goal for these projects is for someone touring [city] to have easy access to Wikipedia articles about stuff they're seeing (rather than someone not touring [city] to see articles about it and want to tour it), then it shouldn't be much of an issue to set a restriction ahead of time for future projects that articles created for this sort of stuff don't get mainpaged. Since we're mid-run on Gibraltarpedia, it's obviously going to be more uncomfortable to do the switch on this one, but I think it's the sort of situation where you have to apologize to your participants and tell them than unforeseen issues arose and the game has changed slightly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate link detector
I've become almost evangelical about this tool, it saves masses of time in manual checking. It ignores the lead, captions and infoboxes, and because it just highlights, it gives you the option to keep a link if it's worth doing so, or if it's picked up a dup link in a reference. One current FAC had over 100 dup links, so having only two in a long article like yours showed really careful editing. To install the script, add: importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks to Special:MyPage/common.js. Clear the cache (it will tell you to do that on the common.js anyway). There will now be a link "Highlight duplicate links" in the toolbox on the left on every mainspace article. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Medicine
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The RfC close reminded me
I asked you to look at some data I put together about the education program outcomes a couple of weeks ago, but I think you were busy at the time and weren't on wiki much. Are you still interested in that? If so I'll find the link for you; I'd still like your take on the data. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you! I had a move, and then a hurricane, and I'm just now trying to regroup and pick back up all the tasks/discussions I had going a month or so ago. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm post-hurricane myself -- just got power back last night (I'm in central Long Island). The analysis I did is here.  Let me know what you think -- I tried to structure it with diffs so you can spot check my assessments of the quality of each edit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)