User talk:GRBerry/Archive 9

Q:Retaining Talk and History after an AfD deletion
Greetings. I've been involved (helpfully, I hope) with the article and now AfD for Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms. It looks like most people want to split the article into a Jewish and a Christian glossary. Toward this end, several people have voted to Keep or DAB the article -- apparently, only in order to make sure we keep the long Talk and edit history. Is such a DAB/keep the best way to hold onto the Talk and edit history? Or might the article be deleted and the Talk transferred to the split articles? I'd appreciate your input, either to me or, if you wish, at the AfD. Hope this finds you well. Happy new year, HG | Talk 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted material resurfacing on user page
An anonymous user has restored material deleted following an Afd to a user page. The original case is here, under "Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy – Deletion endorsed", and the User Page is here. I call this to your attention due to your comments on the previous case. Let me know what I should do next, and thanks. 271828182 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted the user page to the last version by that user. This is always safe to do.  Other admins had chosen not to delete the user page at the time of the DRV.  GRBerry 14:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
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/Palestine-Israel articles/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/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

care and feeding of categories...
I paraphrased my recollection of something I think you told me. Did I recollect correctly?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Queer Wikipedians
I believe you are mistaken at the DRV in saying there is consensus - I cannot see one, could you explain where you saw it please? I also question your suggestion to try UCFD - it was tried there, and then moved to DRV as it was suggested that that would be a better place for it. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus within is a DRV consensus - DRV can only either keep something deleted or undeleted; it doesn't usually have the luxury of compromising. (That is even more true for categories; as even a category rename requires creating a new category and deleting the old one while editing all pages in the old category to use the new category.)  In addition, consensus is always evaluated in terms of prior discussions on a specific subject and broader policy/guideline status.  Both the prior DRVs are the germane specific subject discussions, with the original UCFD also relevant.  All of these have come to the same conclusion, after evaluating much the same arguments - I didn't see a single new and valid argument in this discussion.  Similarly, there is a broad Wiki-consensus against demographic categories such as these, as demonstrated by the fate of Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians by sexuality, Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle, the zodiac sign categories, and the age specific categories.  User interest categories, like Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues are generally acceptable but user lifestyle categories are not.  Interest categories have more collaborative potential than identification categories, which is the best reason for preferring them.  Historically, some of the user identification categories were alleged to have been wrongly used for votestacking in XfD discussions, and the fact that interest categories are open to those interested in something due to opposition to it is another reason that interest categories are preferred.


 * The reason I said "UCFD itself, on the many categories that need review," (emphasis added) was that I did not in any way mean to recreate this category and take it to UCFD by itself. I meant that if consensus on the basic policy and practice against demographic/lifestyle categories has changed, that will be demonstrated across the many user categories that are regularly reviewed on UCFD day in and day out.  When demographic and/or lifestyle categories start routinely surviving UCFD discussions, that will be evidence that consensus has changed.  Location demographic categories are somewhat an exception to the usual rule, because being in a location allows you to do local history research (most libraries have more coverage of the local region than equivalent regions elsewhere, and local historical societies are easier to get to) or go take photographs needed for articles based in that location.  But even these location categories have struggled with consensus for several years; see the UCFD discussion of Category:Wikipedians by location on 3-21 January 2008 for a recent example and links to older discussions.  GRBerry 20:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are masses of "demographic" or "user lifestyle" categories (to use your phraseology) and it would seem to me that the broad consensus is to keep them - I have seen no compelling argument for singling out LGBT cats. If consensus is really determined by including all previous debates then it is effectively impossible for consensus ever to change, as the "votes of the graveyard" will still be counted, even when those who expressed those opinions are no longer interestred in a subject or even contributing at all. DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim that the LGBT cats were singled out is false, and has been known to be false since the original DRV for this category. Since Wikipedia's measurement of consensus is based on good arguments, and false arguments are not good, such arguments are completely disregarded.  Look again at the red links in the first paragraph of my reply.  All of those were deleted either by UCFD or due to all sub-categories being deleted by UCFD.


 * There are at least four routes to demonstrate a change in consensus. One, present facts (e.g. sources) that have come to light (or been published) since the prior discussion - sources aren't relevant to a UCFD, in theory there could be some facts missed in prior discussions, but I'm not betting on it.  Two, come up with new and compelling arguments - didn't happen here, and I don't now expect new good arguments after three DRVs.  Three, demonstrate that wider policy has changed - this is why I recommended policy page discussion and the daily grind of UCFDs.  Four, get the prior commentators to change their minds - didn't happen this time, and not particularly likely without new good arguments.  The fourth point is why Consensus says "A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one."  See more generally the WP:PARENT subsection of the Consensus policy.  GRBerry 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't answered my point that the broad consensus is to keep "demographic" or "lifestyle" categories. I also don't think you really addressed the point in the DRV that there was never a consensus for deletion in the first place, rather the then closing admin substituted their own argument and claimed that that was the consensus. The arguments that having a cat for queer wikipedians to self-identify does not enhance collaboration is specious at best - the ability to identify editors with a likely similar perspective is essential for collaboration, as well as for critical reading of contributions. The "Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues" category would naturally include wikipedians of an actively homophobic disposition (they are, by definition, "interested in LGBT issues"). To tell the truth, I have no expectation that you will change your mind, or that a satisfactory resolution to the problem will ever be found. Wikipedia is so bureaucratic - multiple overlapping and poorly defined fora, multiple overlapping and poorly defined policies and no clear process for doing anything, and (as you now tell me) graveyard voting - but I do thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning further, it is appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, I would appreciate it if you would please explain to me the error in the policy arguments that I advanced in the deletion review. I would also appreciate a response to the comments made by DGG. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You make several comments in the discussion. In top to bottom order.
 * You comment that the discussion should be closed in favor of a policy level discussion. I said in the close that a policy discussion page was the best forum to go do.  The close agrees with you, so I don't see an error in this.
 * You then made an argument for renaming a different category, which you didn't bother to link. If the category exists this argument is probably correct and should be applied to it in UCFD.  This is an argument for a different discussion that has no affect on this discussion.
 * You refute the notion that this category was deleted due to bias. The close agrees with you, so I don't see an error in this.
 * (Numbered point 1) You claim the minority opinion has been steamrollered and no compromise accepted. The history is otherwise; Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues was suggested in DRV#2 and has since been created.  It has more than 200 pages in it.  A compromise has been put in place and appears to be widely accepted.
 * (Numbered point 2) You link to a discussion in which the closer of DRV#2 participated, and then claim he didn't participate. The evidence you link to refutes your own argument.
 * (Numbered point 2) You also say that DRV is an appropriate forum for reviewing DRVs. Actually, it is not; DRV is intended to obtain cloture, not to be a court of infinite appeals.  As an example, see the history of DRVs for "The Game", which I detailed back in May 2007 at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 11 - lots of speedy closed DRVs for failing to offer meaningful new arguments.  On the same page see #User:UBX/Suicide and the following sections for comment on DRVs of DRVs.  (There was a battle related to this around that timeframe, which did end up going to one of last year's biggest failures by ArbComm.)  If you don't read anything else here, please read Xoloz's long post in Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 10 (which is earlier than the other linked discussions).  This post is the best articulation of DRVs basic process that I've encountered. Since the time of Xoloz's post we've moved somewhat away from a straight numbers based decisioning in DRV policy and practice, but DRV is still far more about the numbers than anything except RFA and the arbitrator's voting in RFAR.
 * (Numbered points 3 and 4). Editors personal experience of being LGBT, or experiencing homophobia is not valid for use in an article, and hence not a valid type of potential collaboration.  Their personal experience would be original research violating WP:NOR and WP:V, foundation level policy.  With such use ruled out, unless one intends to violate WP:NPOV, Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues is unquestionably superior to the category under discussion precisely because that category will include those who disagree with being LGBTR.  WP:NPOV is also foundation level policy, so these arguments are completely invalid.
 * (Numbered point 5 and the followup) Guidelines for user categories was never more than a proposal, and one that we know failed to gain consensus. Accordingly, it adds no weight to anything.  With a lot of rhetoric in this item, you don't actually make any new arguments.  The substantive arguments here repeat those in points 3 and 4, and fail identically.


 * DGG's appears to have completely missed DRV#1, which wasn't linked in this discussion, because he speaks of "the DRV" - singular, when there were two. How he missed it when the close of the most recent prior DRV begins "Deletion endorsed again." is beyond me - but it doesn't speak to a solid examination of DRV#2 on his part - or to memory of his participation in DRV#1.  When he missed such a basic point, it is hard to take his evaluation of the close of DRV#2 seriously.  Since the "interested in" category was created immediately following the close of DRV#2 and had been suggested and argued for therein, it's existence is as close as possible for DRV to come to a compromise on a category.


 * At the core, DGG is questioning the overall consensus about these policies. (This is incidentally not a new opinion from him; in DRV#1 he said "Overturn there is no consistent consensus about these categories.")  Again, the close reflects that what the policy is and should be is a legitimate question for a policy page discussion or policy change can be evidenced at the daily grind of UCFD, but it is not one that can be resolved at DRV.  As far as I can tell, there is a settled consensus here, which consensus is reflected in the many endorse deletion opinions in the DRVs and in Xoloz's, Chick Bowen's, and my closes of the three DRVs.  Evidence of any change in that consensus was not offered in any of the DRVs.  GRBerry 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the close too, because I think it violates WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS. This debate is being bounced from pillar to post in something resembling classic bureaucratic style and people's opinions are being ignored in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 17:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the reply to Jay*Jay, your arguments are addressed therein. After DRV#2, Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues was created, and absent a massive change in practice across a wide spectrum of user categories, I can't see any arguments that would say this proposed category should be used instead of that one.  GRBerry 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A "massive change in practice across a wide range of user categories" - but there are already many "demographic" user cats eg users by religion. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) That boatloads of stuff gets created is not really what I consider relevant; the effort to create something is much less than the effort to get rid of it. And with userboxes that include categories, many people end up in categories they never chose to join.  What I consider relevant is what happens when it gets discussed - meaning at UCFD after a nomination for renaming or deletion.  GRBerry 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you support deletion of all the other "demographic" or "lifestyle" user cats? Or only those relating to sexuality? DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, all subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by lifestyle (and it's subcategory Category:Wikipedians by sexuality) were previously deleted. I didn't care enough to participate in the relevant discussions, but also don't object to them being deleted.


 * I think most demographic and lifestyle categories should be renamed or deleted under current best practices. The exception that I'm aware of is location categories (location being demographic data).  Editors in a location can take photos relevant to local articles, and can research in their local historical societies and libraries much more easily than other editors can do the same.  (In theory, I could have flown half way round the world to Burma to get a picture for Zayat; instead I requested a picture.)  There are limits to this; Category:Wikipedians in Hibberts Gore, Maine (population: 1) is an obvious example of a category we don't need.  And I'm aware from recent UCFD discussion that the location categories don't have a clear consensus in favor of their existence, but also don't have a clear consensus against their existence.  GRBerry 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Wikipedians by religion would be the place to start if you think that lifestyle usercats should go. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as I didn't participate in the UCFDs for the lifestyle categories, I won't be making UCFD nominations for any of the subcategories there. I rarely participate in CFD, and user pages and their issues are far less important than article pages.  GRBerry 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did read it, and it doesn't. This issue is being pushed from pillar to post in something resembling classic bureaucratic style and people's opinions are being ignored in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. There is nothing in your response to Jay*Jay which addresses the bureaucratic nature of the whole issue. In fact, reading your reply to Jay*Jay indicates to me you believe Wikipedia is a bureaucracy.  I doubt that is your belief, but that is what I infer. Hiding T 10:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, a compromise was put in place following DRV#2 and that originated therein. So you are just wrong when you claim people are being ignored.  That a compromise is not everyone's number one choice as to the outcome is inherent in the nature of it being a compromise, but their desire for something different is not evidence that they have been ignored.


 * Wikipedia is not many things, including a bureaucracy, an anarchy, and a democracy. It is also not an infinite debate forum nor a system where whoever persists most tendetiously in their complaints is supposed to always get what they want.  Especially when they fail utterly to supply facts or compelling arguments to support their views.  GRBerry 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be disagreeing with our policy at Consensus. Ultimately you are stating that we have binding decisions. I would also appreciate it if you did not characterise me as tendentious, since I do not believe I am. I have tried to avoid personal attacks in this debate and would like to be treated the same. Thanks, Hiding T 11:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. I appreciate you providing an explanation of the interpretation as you see it. I find it interesting to see you view the purpose of deletion review as not involving the review of failures to apply policy, or of admin errors, but rather as a pseudo-vote. I have not been around particularly long, and have no reason to doubt that your view reflects standard practice. Nevertheless, to me this simply indicates that the "review" is nothing of the sort, and that substantial change is needed to this process. Consensus is fine, but should not trump the dispassionate application of policy principles. Hypothetically, if I could get enough people to support me, I might be able to claim the George W. Bush article should be deleted as non-noteworthy and claim consensus. Now, suppose only one person at the AfD disputed me. Surely the closing admin should still not actually delete it because that action would violate policy, consensus or no. I see this issue in the same way. The notion that lots of people agree is irrelevant, as none of that consensus changes the fact that the decision was unsupported by policy. The fact that accepted practice means the principle is irrelevant simply means accepted practice is also wrong. Now, I'm not asking you to do anything, as the resolution of this situation will occur by other means. However, I do feel the need to respond to one substantial misinterpretation of the argument I advanced, and then to make an observation.

In composing your response point 7, you have not understood the point I was making. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, in which case I am sorry for that fact. However, LGBT editors have experience which cannot be suggested to be equivalent to those of people "interested" in the issue. I was not suggesting that those experiences should be incorporated in violation of WP:NOR or WP:V. However, those users are more likely to have read extensively on such subjects, to be aware of suitable reference material and of its content, and to be aware of WP:RS perspectives necessary for genuinely making a WP:NPOV article. By the way, the supposed "compromise" in the 'interested in' category is way way smaller than the much younger present category. Perhaps its potential to include the homophobes who are interested in LGBT issues might explain its unpopularity with LGBT editors.

My observation is that the refusal to consider the implications of WP:IAR in this case (and not just by you) will lead to far more disruption. Note the comment from DuncanHill. What do you think will happen if this issue ends up with a deletion of category:Christian Wikipedians and category:Jewish Wikipedians as not useful for collaboration (just to start)? Jay*Jay (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the first half of your first paragraph, I need to correct a misconception. The mechanics of DRV approximate a vote. The valid opinions/votes must attempt to apply policy.  So the purpose of DRV is to determine if 1) the correct result has obtained (endorse outcome), 2) a different result is clearly correct (overturn outcome) or 3) more discussion in an appropriate forum is needed (relist outcome), but this purpose is reflected in the job of the opiners far more than in the role of the closer.  The opiners in a DRV are expected to dispassionately apply all the site policies to the facts of a case, and the closer is expected to determine what the decision of those who have applied policy is.  If it is at DRV, it is assumed that there is the potential for legitimate disagreement about what the policies and facts require, so it is extremely dangerous for a DRV closer to believe that they get to substitute their judgment on policy for those of the opiners.  But the DRV closer should ignore or severly lower the weight assigned to sockpuppets and potential sockpuppets, those who are wrong on the facts, those who are contradicting policy, and those who are emoting instead of applying policy.


 * IAR is not meant as a tool for disregarding the opinions of those with whom one disagrees. It is meant as a tool for disregarding the minutiae of policy in order to efficiently improve the encyclopedia in ways that would receive wide and clear consensus support if we took the time to discuss them at length.  If there is one thing that was clear when DRV#3 started, it was that prior discussions had demonstrated no such wide and clear consensus in favor of the existence of the category under discussion existed.  If the religious categories are deleted, or more likely renamed, that won't matter much.  Some editors will feel that their feathers have been ruffled, but the vast majority currently in the categories won't notice or care, because they are only there due to the category being coded into a userbox that they have on their page for reasons other than category membership.  GRBerry 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See: Deletion review/Log/2008 January 21. Could you please address the following issues? Also, could you please count for me the number of votes opposing and endorsing the Jan 8 review and this one? Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does not state anything explicit regarding this category or similar ones
 * 1) No harm is shown being created by the category
 * 2) Most importantly: the closure of the previous review


 * For point 1, you are wrong. WP:NOT says "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. ... The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.  ... User categories are to be used for collaboration on Wikipedia articles only."  This explicitly says that any user categories, which appear on user pages, must provide a foundation for effective collaboration and must not be used for other purposes.  William P. Coleman's argument in deletion review directly contradicts the last sentence of this policy, which you added to the explicit text on 20 January but which also reflects long standing practice in interpreting this section.


 * Neither significant benefit to the encyclopedia nor significant harm to the encyclopedia from this specific category was demonstrated in any of the three DRVs. Slight harms and benefits have been argued for.


 * The closure of DRV#2 reflected first and foremost that it was in fact DRV #2, which is why the closure begins "Deletion endorsed again". Since it was DRV#2, the WP:PARENT portion of the consensus policy indicates that DRV#2 should not get a different outcome than DRV#1 absent clear evidence of a change in consensus, which did not appear.  I see in DRV#2 no new arguments in favor of overturning the close that weren't presented in DRV#1.  I see in DRV#2 no user who endorsed deletion in DRV#1 changing their opinion to say they were wrong then.


 * Counting bare votes, without regard to whether the arguments are any good, in DRV#3 I see 5-6 editors in favor of at least relisting (fewer in favor of a straight overturn) and 7-10 who opposed. When I look at whether the arguments are valid application of policy to the facts, I disregard your nomination as contradicted by the self-evident facts (the only argument therein being that the consensus of the prior DRVs weren't documented, but both of them have clear and unambiguous closes in the log), William P. Coleman as directly contradicting policy, Jay*Jay because his arguments for overturning contradict fact or policy.  The three of you were given  essentially no weight.  DGG was given limited weight, because he produced no evidence that consensus had changed and appeared (see above) to have completely forgotten about DRV#1 (in which he participated) and to have missed that the close of DRV#2 began by referencing DRV#1.  Hiding mostly attempted to apply policy, but appealed to disregard DRV's purpose of reaching cloture and relist for the sake of testing whether or not consensus had changed - contradicting DRVs purpose of reaching cloture.  This is not a compelling argument, especially in the absence of any evidence that it had already changed, but in combination with the concerns of others did merit that my closing statement give direction on how a change in consensus should be evidenced.  I do not see a single opinion for endorsing deletion that is wrong on the facts or wrong in policy.  So when I look at the good reasons within just this debate, there is a clear consensus to endorse, and the close reflects this.  When I look across all three debates and the UCFD, the consensus is even more clear to me than it is from just the third.  GRBerry 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please could you elaborate on how you allocated "weights" to various editor when "counting" the number of people either for/against the decision. In particular, I would like you to make clear reference to Wikipedia policies for this. All that I see is a "subjective" process, rather than an objective one.  I have never read anything in Wikipedia policy about being able to "disregard your nomination as contradicted by the self-evident facts" or"The three of you were given essentially no weight.".


 * Your basis appears un-sound and suugests that you have a higher ranking or weight than many other editors, which is the sign of a cabal in operation. Olana North (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also quote the following from "Jimbo" Wales "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy ...".


 * I judge that your behaviour appears to be in direct contravention of Wikipedia's highest policymaker ... Jimbo Wales. Olana North (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the positions we have reached is broadly that editors who publicly identify as LGBT think the cat does provide a foundation for effective collaboration, but that the "community" (ie the tiny minority of editors who participated in the various debates) don't. The question then is, does Wikipedia allow editors to decide for themselves if something is enabling their collaboration, or are certain forms of self-identification to be censored (and "Wikipedia is not censored" is always a lie - Wikipedia is explicitely censored for BLP concerns, copyvios, abuse, etc). I think it is legitimate to bring the "real world" into the debate here. Organizations which suppress public expression of sexual orientation always fewer LGBT people than organizations which allow it. This is why many western employers now encourage self-identification and self-organization, as the recruitment and retention of "the best" requires that no sector of society is caused to feel unwanted or excluded - this is a matter of "good practice" in employment. Volunteers are "employees" (in "real life" I manage volunteers) - does Wikipedia truly want a broad spectrum of experience and outlook from its workers? The Wikipedia "community" is, in my experience, reluctant to counter homophobia, and this has the effect of preventing some editors from contributing to the full extent possible. This damages Wikipedia. A usercat allowing those editors who so wish to self-identify as queer (or LGBT, or whatever their preferred designation) enhances and promotes collaboration and effective editing by shewing a visible presence and likely network of support. It also discourages homophobic actions by the simple fact of visibility. So, to conclude, the bureaucratic process (and the Wikipedia is massively bureaucratic) may well have been followed correctly - but it has had a deleterious effect on the operation of the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply say what I said before--the discussions everywhere all indicate that there is no consensus. The   close  at DRV1/2 showed total disagreement. The close on that one was a total and explicit refusal to follow consensus at the DRV, but saying it was following consensus at the original UCfD, which is preference of ones own view about the issue & misunderstanding of the role of DelRev. The latest DRV was less of a mistake--it merely claimed a " clear consensus," which seems a clear misreading of the discussion, but in GF. However, GR also said that a policy discussion page would be the best place to revisit the entire issue, and he is right about that. (as for  the one at which I did not comment--I do not comment of every DRV, wanting to retain some degree of connection to the outside world.) DGG (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry, though I sympathize with you in that you feel supporters of undeletion made the wrong vote, the definition of "consensus" isn't "correct". Hyacinth (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

DRV
Note I replied to your comment. Secret 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP
I'm looking forward to the immensely high standards of civility that will result when you also redact all the attacks on Mantanmoreland, Samiharris and Weiss from that debate. Might take a while, it's all over the place. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE
Re: Diff, you have there a warning from to, and comments from  and. So when you said above: Both editors should probably be advised to behave civilly toward one another... - I do not understand why you had to phrase this as "both editors..." when clearly the issue is with the one editor,. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And as has already been warned by, I do not see what another note on his talk page would really do to curb this sort of behavior.  Cirt (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: "Thoughts", I am concerned at the way you are phrasing this: "dust up", and such. This was not a matter of a "dust up", this is really just obvious one-sided harassment, which  called and "Obsession" that "must end".  Cirt (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not realize that WP:AE was not the right place to post about this, and for that I apologize. Did you not see 's comment about that at WP:AE? Cirt (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am curious, do you give no weight or concern to the comments by and  about this user, or do you merely view this as a "dust up" between two parties?  If so then perhaps you do not realize that it is, not myself, who has been placing notices and complaints at 's talk pages and at WP:ANI...  Cirt (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Response
 * Did you see that I posted a comment at WP:ANI, that I reposted the complaint there, because of your comment? Again, I apologize if WP:AE was the wrong place to bring this up, I will not bring this up there again.  If this harassment continues, what is the next proper venue??  Cirt (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, which was part of why I took an educational tone. WP:DR gives the guidance on dispute resolution.  The general order is 1) negotiate civilly directly with the other party, 2) avoid each other, 3) get outside help.  The details get tricky; for getting outside help the COI noticeboard, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User, and mediation appear to be at least reasonable places to consider, once you get to the third phase.  GRBerry 19:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again,, will you accept my apology for posting to WP:AE and believe me that I will not post there again about /? From my perspective, I have been avoiding him, and yet he continues to post harassment at WP:ANI and 's talk page, among other places including the user page for User:JustaHulk and User:Justanother, where it still says "propagandist..."  and no one has done anything about that, even though this is at least the 3rd time he has used the wording "propagandist..." with zero action taken.  Steps 1 and 2 have been attempted, what is the proper path for step 3, if no Admin will take any action save for an equally measured warning to both parties, as if we are both equally responsible for his harassment and for his "Obsession" that "must end", as  put it??  Cirt (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, so the user is allowed to keep the inflammatory remarks "propagandist..." up at both User:Justanother and User:JustaHulk, with zero actions taken? Cirt (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Timing
Do you feel that your timing with respect to the Science apologist probation action left something to be desired? PouponOnToast (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Poupon, I don't follow your question. Are you commenting on the time GR took to investigate or is there some issue going on in parallel that the block impacts? From my perspective, it seems like GR evaluated the case fully and acted after due consideration. Ronnotel (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that investigations should be transparent and the parties should be given the oppourtunity to respond, apologize and moderate. It does not appear that either of you were granted that oppourtunity, that there was a 48 hour lag time without any sort of update. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not to retry the case, but there is black-letter policy that equates use of the term POV-Pusher with incivility, a clear violation under SA's ArbCom restriction. That alone should be enough to support GRBerry's action. However, GR went further and investigated my claim that SA assumed bad faith when he called me a POV-Pusher. As he determined from the history of Cold fusion and the mediation page, nothing could be further from the truth and I appreciate that he took the time to verify that. I see nothing fishy whatsoever in the investigation. And as you can see from SA's talk page, SA seems to have taken little away from this episode and continues his crusade to label me as some sort of kook. Ronnotel (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)If I didn't think the delay "left something to be desired", I wouldn't have said "Apologies to all for my delay in returning to this". Frankly, I was surprised that no other admin had closed out the report previously; there is no expectation at that board that the first admin to comment will also make a final decision.  You can look at the last four reports involving him for examples; in three of the four reports multiple admins commented before the resolution.  GRBerry 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. For future reference, I find that if an issue has resolved itself, taking action seems punative rather than preventative. I am hopeful that your block will make SA realize that it is imperative that users of this encyclopedia couch their disdain for the utter crackballs that edit here with the intent to push their innane theories in third-person terms (like I just did!) and by reference to their despicable disruptive disreputable actions rather than their vlie and heinous motives. It seems to me that he could use assistance from editors who support the encyclopedia over a bunch of total nutters who believe the moon is made of green cheese that lets off energy as opposed to constant reproachment massively after the fact. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Judging from the e-mail he sent to me, I highly doubt that he will correct his actions in the future. "Guess what? Because of your little comment, I now cannot take part in the conversation for a week." He considers disrupting Mediation with edit warring and etc. to be nothing more than conversations, adding to the fact that he did not participate in initial discussions or Arguments at Mediation, and only began POV-pushing when the lead began to be edited. Please move on, you are doing nothing more than forum shopping for support.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My administrative action is being questioned, I consider my talk page a suitable venue for that, and don't view this as forum shopping. GRBerry 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to request that SA be unblocked. If he made such a request, I'm not entirely certain what I'd think of it. I wish GRBerry had taken action earlier, or asked SA to apologize for his inapropriate remark before taking action. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I saw nothing to make me even suspect the situation has resolved itself. No apologies, no acknolwedgment by SA that he had done anything wrong.  SA has a history of this sort of behavior, and had been explicitly warned on 7 February against some of the specific words he used in the diffs in the report. If he repeats behavior he was warned against only a few days later, there is absolutely no reason to believe that his behavior patterns have been resolved.  And the point of the arbitration remedy is to get his pattern of behavior to change.  Until his pattern of behavior has changed, the situation isn't resolved, and we shouldn't pretend it is.  GRBerry 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe if you engaged in a substantial review of SA's behavior over the past 4 weeks you would find significant improvements (though not complete) in civility. SA, and others who support encyclopedic content against crackballs trying to push their raving kookasaurus theories on the encyclopedia are often left out to dry and leave the bounds of civility behind. It is indisputed that SA, when he is not off the rails, is a substantial benefit to the encyclopedia, defending it from total fucking nutters. I believe that consistant support and assistance is the solution, not to slap him every time he jumps off the track. I look forward to your support in helping him take right actions to get rid of the plague of monetarily-influenced pseudoscientific fraudsters that is infesting our articles on science and technology (and economics, and buisness, and politics, and pretty much everything else.) PouponOnToast (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Poupon, you seem very well versed in WP history and SA, more so than your three weeks or so of WP editing would suggest. Is this your first account? Ronnotel (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, his first edit was in February 2007. Looks like a year to me.  GRBerry 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)  However, this is known to be a second account for this user, see User talk:PouponOnToast.  I have no clue what the prior account was, nor do I particularly care to learn.  GRBerry 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not my first account. My other account was too closely linked to my real life identity, and I vanished it in the summer of 2007, scrambling the password. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have filed a case at WP:SSP. Ronnotel (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, your ability to deal with disagreement is refreshingly mature and appreciated, GRBerry. PouponOnToast (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland
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/Mantanmoreland/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/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your timeline. It really helps people like me, who are only aware of Mantanmoreland's more recent work. Cool Hand Luke 05:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This evidence section is really interesting. I didn't notice the drop in edits for last November until you drew my attention to it (it's not as obvious as the India shift). Anyhow, perhaps you could also supplement it with this table: Granted, I can't figure out why Samiharris almost stopped editing in April, but I still think it's notable that November was the only month where either editor had only single digits. Cool Hand Luke 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I didn't produce the table from my own research, I shouldn't put it into evidence. Feel free to yourself.  GRBerry 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In your section? Cool Hand Luke 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd add it to yours, with an explanatory note, just as you would any other reply to someone else's evidence. Since I was just looking at the chart by eyeball and hadn't pulled the data, the closeness of the dates is particularly striking.  GRBerry 04:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've now linked Wannabe Kate in my evidence, which provides the same data from a tool that the arbs should already be familiar with. GRBerry 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, wannabekate's. That's good. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hi - thanks for looking at my WP:AE filing regarding. The issue of whether his ArbCom sanctions applied to talkspace came up before; Thatcher commented at the time that talkspace disruption was included, though there would be generally be greater latitude there than in articlespace. I'm not sure whether this has any impact on your feeling that no action is required, but I thought I'd mention that it had come up before. MastCell Talk 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, the thread that Mastcell started at WP:AE includes discussion of Thatcher's comment.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes; that discussion took place after GRBerry commented. I was unsure if he was aware of the fact that your talk-page behavior has come up before, and if this would affect his opinion in any way. If the answer to #2 is no, then I'm done. MastCell Talk 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have much influence on my opinion. It was after I posted, but not after my last review of that page last night.  I'm at least as influenced by Kirill's clarification today that "'Page' (as opposed to the narrower 'article') applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)".  Since Kirill is an abritrator, and Thatcher isn't (though he is more experienced in WP:AE than I am), I consider Kirill's comment more accurate.  There certainly is a level of talkspace disruption that is actionable; but my read of this particular case is that such action would be ordinary administrative action, not arbitration enforcement.  (Much as someone on civility parole can be blocked for violating WP:3RR without it affecting their civility parole.)  There is also a lesser level of disruption that might not itself be actionable but merit a request to the committee to expand the remedy.  My comment last night mentioned the latter possibility, but was meant to be read as saying that I didn't see evidence presented or logged in the obvious place of a pattern of such behavior.
 * Also, note that I didn't close the report, I made a recommendation. I, as an admin, have been a DRV specialist.  As I move to WP:AE I'm consciously choosing to comment first, and if no other WP:AE admin closes or comments for a while then I may come back and close the report.  If another admin closes it, I'll try to learn from what they do.  GRBerry 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't mean to press the issue, only to ask whether you'd seen Andrew c's note (which you had). I hadn't seen Kirill's comment you pointed out, which is obviously relevant here. I'll take it over to request an expansion of the ArbCom remedy; I think that's a good suggestion. Thanks for your response. MastCell Talk 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to user identity warning
I listed that particular user by their username, it just happens that that user says on their user page that it also happens to be their real name (which I don't know if it's true or not). I've added that comment back in a clarified form. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood your pronoun antecedent, I had thought you were referring to Whig. With the clarification, there is no problem.  Thanks.  GRBerry 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem...I hope it was OK to repost the clarified version of that comment. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. If someone says they have a real name, it is ok to use it.  Literally no problem.  It also helped make it clear to me that this report should be closed.  GRBerry 18:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't see it
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry, but I don't see the error you refer to. Could you quote it to me? Feel free to respond here or on my talk. alanyst /talk/ 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB
They're discussing it at WP:RfA... And while I'll have to admit that I haven't always agreed with your opinions/perspectives, I was rather impressed with your comments after an incident involving a DRV closure. I think that you're a "thoughtful" (as Shakespeare used the word) individual, and you should easily be trustworthy of the "extra tools". Would you be interested? - jc37 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now is not the time. I am too angry with the current power structure right now to get any closer to it even if you could guarantee an unopposed candidacy.  And I've probably pissed off too many players of wikipolitics, many of them admins, to have a chance at any time.  GRBerry 11:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed, but I do understand. I wish you well : ) - jc37 18:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Time for coding
Thank you so much for stepping in. I'll defer to you as a deletion review expert. Have fun, and try not to get Abd banned in the process? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) And now, back to wikidata-api

Don't know if you were aware
Kim is a he. --Kbdank71 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure I'm not a dog? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC) w00f!

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

TV case
I think there should be a clarification on the TV episodes case. THe "currently existing clause" can be interpreted different ways. You may be techinically correct but the spirit of the ruling includes new articles. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to request expansion go ahead. I read the spirit as trying to put an end to the warring.  Blatantly poor brand new articles may well need to be deleted, merged, or redirected.  ("American idol, season N, episode X is the episode when we finally got rid of A and B, both of whom are atrocious and fat and can't carry a tune in a bucket...")  And editors that know about the case should not be creating articles.  If you can see an expansion that will help, propose it.  But the fourth arbitrator to support the injunction explicitly noted new articles as a loophole, so I feel the position I took is the likely outcome of a clarification.  On the other hand, adding the report to evidence could influence the case outcome - or not - I'm not following that one closely, but it sure looks like the Arbs are coming down on 1 editor who is not a party to the report and not on any other individual editors.  GRBerry 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

DRV
Hello My Friend,

I did something you probably didn't expect and closed straight away with a reopening. Unless he's having an unusually nasty day, Kim is good-natured, and should take any result that ultimately saves time in stride. The point of retiring ought to be that one wants to avoid these messes anyway; ergo, I am moving things forward as if the MfD closure never happened. If nothing else, Kim was wrong to take B's arguments so lightly, but that is a perfectly nature thing for a "retired" fellow -- who has never worked with B, I assume -- to do. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson
I was unaware of a prior ArbCom decision concerning him until now, and I wish I had known when I approached him on his user talk page about his actions on Trent Green yesterday. His attitude is completely unacceptable. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE closure
Hi - I'm a bit confused by the closure of the Ferrylodge AE thread, and was hoping to ask you to clarify and/or review it. The guidance in the Ferrylodge thread leaned toward applying his sanction to all namespaces. I think I understand your reference to the Macedonia finding. In light of your closure, I asked User:Rlevse to re-open my request for an explicit amendment extending Ferrylodge's sanctions to all namespaces, because I think it's important, if the sanctions against Ferrylodge are to have any positive effect, that they be applied in talkspace. Rlevse responded that "It applies to all namespaces". I'm confused.

Can I ask you to touch base with Rlevse? Either a) Rlevse's statement that Ferrylodge's sanctions apply to all namespaces is correct, or b) if Ferrylodge's sanction is being narrowly construed, then I need my request un-archived because I think it is essential that Ferrylodge's sanctions apply to all namespaces in order to have any positive effect. As a separate issue, if you feel (as I do) that there is actionable disruption by Ferrylodge, then would you be willing to act on it outside the confines of the ArbCom decision? I'm a bit frustrated, because he has repeatedly talked his way out of any effective enforcement of the sanctions, and the same problems which led to the case in the first place are still in evidence. MastCell Talk 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * May I comment briefly? Mastcell argues that I have repeatedly "talked" my way out of enforcement of sanctions, and Mastcell cites  an incident from last year in which he was not involved.  However, ArbCom has said that, "The restriction is meant to be imposed on a case-by-case basis by an admin. Ferrylodge is not under any general ban."  I do not understand how a case-by-case analysis is facilitated by dredging up past incidents.


 * Additionally, I am getting the sinking feeling that the present incident is never going to end. On 21 February, Mastcell said at the Administrator's Noticeboard, "I'm not going to shop it around - if GRBerry feels this is either passable behavior or outside ArbCom's remit, I'll accept that."  Subsequently Mastcell changed his mind, and decided to shop it around.  Arbitrators then commented on the matter, and eight days later the discussion returned to the Administrator's Noticeboard.  On 29 February, GRBerry asked Mastcell and me, "Do you both want me to apply my understanding of the case as I read it from the clarifications to date and then close out the thread?"  Mastcell replied: "Yes, so long as you feel (as I do) that there's been adequate guidance from ArbCom, that would be fine. This thread has gone on long enough."  But apparently it still has not gone on long enough, and still the decision is not acceptable to Mastcell, and still Mastcell desires to shop it around.


 * I would very much like to move on. However, if Mastcell would like to discuss the specific remarks that I made to IronAngelAlice that gave rise to this incident, then I would be willing to do that at my talk page or at Mastcell's.  What I am not willing to do is repeatedly get what purports to be a final resolution as to whether I will be sanctioned, only to have Mastcell talk his way out of that final resolution.  This all seems very unfair to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mastcell, please review Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, which was running on the page at the same time and received more arbitrator input. The arbitrators there came to a clear decision that they said should apply "to other cases with the same basic question".  That basic question is which wording covers which namespaces.  Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act.  Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page.  Since the thread resolved as moot due to article changes more than a week ago; there certainly is no ongoing disruption now.  GRBerry 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, Mastcell has informed me that he's bringing the matter back to ArbCom again.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like a unambiguous amendment/clarification, specific to this case, that the sanctions apply across all namespaces - if ArbCom is willing to do so. I think this is important going forward, whether or not one specific thread has become dormant. Your commentary at the WP:RfArb thread is welcome if you'd like to opine. MastCell Talk 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson
Thanks for your further consideration on the Chrisjnelson block. I think your ultimate resolution was a very reasonable one, and as indicated we do appreciate your putting some time in on Arbitration enforcement, which is the epitome of a thankless administrator task. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite To WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods
I am inviting you to WP:SKCN if you haven't already joined. We look forward to welcoming you to the project. Thanks. Mr. C.C. (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The MfD for WP:PRX, thanks
Thanks for your comment in this MfD, it, and a few others, give me some hope that there is intelligent life in this universe. When the smoke clears, we will begin laying the foundation for a better understanding of what the proposal actually was -- which has been radically mischaracterized as being about voting. I could simply ascribe this to a tactical error on Absidy's part, but he really did not expect the massive immediate rejection of what was to be a very simple experiment, changing no policies or procedures, merely testing what happens if proxy files are created. (Proxy file created by user in userspace, thus under direct control of user (no restrictions on undos, for example) and proxy table transcluding user proxy data, in WP space, in his idea, or where needed in mine. Both very, very simple, no bureaucracy, no privileges created by holding proxies, no voting.) The tactical error was that (1) he gave an example of how proxy analysis could help understand what was happening in an AfD, thus making it easy for charges to stick that this was about voting, and (2) the name "proxy" implies voting; plus most off-wiki proposals for this and similar have been about voting. But not my own work, which has actually been about "Free Association" applications, where, essentially, voting is as it is on Wikipedia: non-binding polling, advising servants but not controlling them. If the community were to use the proxy tables, however, something would be set up that creates consensus on a large scale, efficiently, at least in theory. It's never been proven. But, in an FA context, it is fail-safe. If it doesn't work, not only is no harm done, but very little effort was wasted. And the small effort is only invested by those who thought it was worth doing, it doesn't affect anyone else. This wasn't AMA and it wasn't Esperanza, but .... the intuition behind the claim is correct, i.e., if Esperanza and AMA had been organized this way, they wouldn't have failed and wouldn't have been crushed.

Your objection about sock puppets is a common one. It's not actually a problem. Only if votes are made binding is there an issue; otherwise analysts can easily factor for sock puppet attempts to manipulate the measures generated by proxy analysis (which can include other data, such as edit counts or time since last edit). And, in fact, sock puppet proxy assignments would stand out like a sore thumb, it would be as if puppets were handing us the puppet master identity on a platter. (or at least connecting the puppets, something which puppet masters want to avoid, not to make easy). What's overlooked is that we suggested that, to be of significance, proxies must be accepted, which implies some kind of responsibility on the proxy for verifying that the client is real. My own standard would including having the phone number of my client (or my proxy, the relationships are actually symmetrical in certain ways), or at least a direct email address. Proxy tables, if used in anything like this way, create robust networks that can't be broken easily through any kind of central control. Those who can see this far, and who have some interest to protect, which might be as simple as a belief that if the great unwashed take over, it will all be ruined, may indeed feel threatened, though, in fact, there is no direct threat and what I forsee is not any sort of violent disruption, but orderly and cautious change. Delegable proxy collects trust, not votes, and that collection is, I predict, associated with wisdom.--Abd (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Game
Hi. Where should I list sources for The Game? Please can you tell me the correct procedure for re-evaluating whether this page should exist. Thanks. LoserNo1 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, now that you have created yourself an account, you can make a user subpage, like User:LoserNo1/Game Draft and try to write an article using only material sourced to reliable sources. I strongly suggest following the guidance at Amnesia test.  In particular:
 * Forget everything you know about the subject. If you cannot forget, act as though you know absolutely nothing about the subject.
 * Re-read the 'non-trivial published works' and 'press coverage' you found, and learn everything you can.
 * Start writing your article. If you find that you have nothing to write, don't write anything.
 * Make sure to cite the sources you used!
 * If you make sure that every fact you cite is from one of the reliable sources that contains a significant discussion of the game, you'll have succeeded in following this guidance. Then that user subpage can be nominated for discussion at WP:DRV.
 * Have fun, and be prepared to lose the game over and over and over again during this process. GRBerry 18:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Marsden article
I see a bit of the article history now. I'm not going to join in an edit war, so if someone else removes it I'll not restore it. I will not self-revert, for removing everything on this controversy regardless of its sourcing and shortness is censorship. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is asking you to censor yourself- merely to abide by wiki policies and NOT edit protected pages to advance your POV/how you think it should be.


 * But instead to hang out with us mere mortals and reach concensus for when the page is unprotected. Sethie (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment
''If I read Polish, I'd investigate the discussions with LUCPOL. If an uninvolved admin that reads Polish sees them, please take a look.'' On Space_Cadet enforcement page. He just made threats in Polish to Space Cadet.  Among other things he threatens " I guaentee. There is no place for Polish point of view on Wikipedia. I will revert it to the end of the world.". Keep your POV claws out of Silesia-piss off". "ale od Śląska POViaste łapy - wynocha"

"Jeżeli będziecie wciąż robić swoje w śląskich artach wspomogę innych w rewertowaniu was również w innych artach. Koniec pobłażania." If you will keep your work in silesian articles, I will help others in reverting you in other articles. End of mr. good guy".

"skończy się wasz polski POV w całej Wikipedii." Polish POV will end in whole Wikipedia.

To me those are serious threats. If you want some other Polish editor to confirm those texts are translated in correct way, I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tymek or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus to confirm this translation.

What can be done ?. --Molobo (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Thanks for closing this DRV, but I'm still confused. Based on his stature, I wouldn't doubt that JzG has in fact restored the article history as he thought appropriate, but it still doesn't jibe with my memory or my understanding of how restoring a history is supposed to retain attribution of all contributors. I was pretty sure I had edited that page and that it had a significant history prior to Feb 3. My suspicion is that the article was deleted twice, once before 12:22 on Feb 3, and again between 12:41 and 13:07 on Feb 3 (see its talk), and that the history restored was only that in between the two events. Could you please find out if it is possible to restore any history before 12:22 on Feb 3, or let me know if going to JzG's talk is the most efficient method? Thanks! The article is now in AFD by the same person who (apparently, at least once) got it deleted on Feb 3, and who ignored my plea for obtaining the history prior to initiating the AFD. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (It looks like it was deleted a third time at request of Nancy on Feb 3 13:18-13:57 and restored at that time by Od Mishehu. So I really think one more restoration will do the trick.) John J. Bulten (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no deleted history for this title at the present time. Admins can see the number of deleted edits regardless of whether or not there are any undeleted edits.  You may be remembering an article at some other title - but I checked your deleted contributions and don't see anything it could be.  GRBerry 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is . John J. Bulten (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

JW/RM
Thankyou for your comment. I agree that the UNDUE and BLP issues need to be weighed in the context of the subject of each article. However, I also believe that exactly the same conclusions apply to both cases. The matter is trivial, utterly, and violates policy for identical reasons in both cases. I posted my comments on both talk pages because I believe that readers of both pages should know about these violations. BCST2001 (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment requested
I would be interested in your input on this matter. I hope it is not too much of an imposition, and I do not want to say anything further to prejudice your opinion. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Traditional unionist
I take great exception to your claim that it is a content dispute, when it is nothing of the sort. As the diffs and examination of source material clearly demonstrate, the issue is with an editor with a conflict of interest falsely claiming material was sourced when it was not. The content itself was irrelevant, it's an editor conduct issue not a content dispute. I refer you to principle #2 of the ArbCom case, that all information be supported by a reliable source. Requests for sources were made, and a false claim was made that the information was sourced. It's a textbook example of disruptive editing, ie fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. It's nothing like a content dispute, it's textbook disruptive editing from an editor with a self-admitted COI with regards to that article which needs to be addressed in some form. Brushing it under the carpet as a content dispute fails to do that. One Night In Hackney 303  14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Forum-shopping?
Could you please clarify your comment here? It sounds like you're scolding me for forum-shopping. I raised this complaint directly with Martinphi on his talk page; finding his response there unsatisfactory, I brought the issue to AN/I for wider input. What forum-shopping are you referring to? MastCell Talk 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about ArbCom rulling
I am glad that ArbCom took the step I have erquested previous ArbCom which is to apply wikipedia policy to all all editors on he subject.

Over the past two years I have been editing under major restrictions - which many times have been used to place further unjustified restrictions on me (some of those unjautified bans/blocks have been removed quickly). Zeq (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My ban
Hi, per your advice I contacted Guy about what I could do to have my ban reversed and he seems to suggest that the AE board is where the discussion should take place and his last comments there were essentially that a ban's not a big deal and I should simply edit elsewhere. I still feel my ban is excessive and would like advice on what forum I should address. Thanks in advance for your time on this. Banji boi 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted
Noted, thanks for the heads-up. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

SA's block
The issue of whether you considers the apology acceptably contrite is entirely beside the point. It doesn't change the fact that the block is punitive. Can you please explain how a punitive block issued several days after the event is permissible? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SA is an exceptional case and requires exception remedies. GRBerry has been extraordinarily restrained in the circumstances. Ronnotel (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And how, exactly, does that change the fact that this appears to be a punitive block? Guettarda (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with SA's ArbCom restriction? I believe the block is entirely justified under that guideline. Ronnotel (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) SA is under an Arbitration remedy. The block is not punitive.  The case remedy, and the enforcement of it, is intended prevent the recurrence of a long standing pattern of unacceptable behavior.  This was his fifth block for violating the arbitration remedy, and the arbitration remedy was imposed because of a pattern of behavior that predated the case.  Long standing patterns of behavior are not changed overnight.  I hope that he can find a way to avoid repeating this behavior pattern.  Some backsliding along the route to reform is only human, and there is some evidence that he may be making progress overall.  Reinforcement is important to behavior modification, and the block is intended to help him reform by giving negative reinforcement for poor behavior.  If SA could find a mentor who would work closely with him at all times and give him the needed reinforcement that would be good and might eliminate the need for further administrative action.  I'm not aware of anyone who he'd listen to that is willing to give the needed feedback. Certainly, as an admin enforcing the case, I normally get responses to my actions from those who disagree with them instead of from those who agree with them.  This is the expected feedback cycle for all admins working in arbitration enforcement.  GRBerry 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For "negative feedback" to have any educational effect, it has to follow soon after the infraction, otherwise it only inflames. I think your block was ill-timed and ill-applied. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, deigning to talk to your fellow editors might be useful. Making pronouncements ("the apology isn't good enough", "the block isn't punitive") really isn't very helpful.  It's only marginally less rude than SA's comments.  Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what assumptions underly this query. It sure looks to me like I responded above to you, within ten minutes of your post despite an edit conflict.  And you clearly are also misquoting a reply that I had made elsewhere, so you know that I had also participated in other discussion venues.  How you interpret this as not "deigning to talk to your fellow editors" is beyond me.  What do you think this whole thread is but talking with my fellow editors?   GRBerry 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI. This block was brought to WP:AN, where it has already been overturned apparently without even making you aware of the discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies if you were not aware of the discussion at AN, I mistakenly presumed that you were. My unblock is not a reflection of your block, or because I thought it was erroneously applied&mdash; your judgment is not in question, and I'll make sure this is also made clear on that thread.
 * The reason I unblocked is that I see a glimmer of serious hope in SA taking the time to apologize, and I wanted to make certain that this was not shortly followed by what would certainly be perceived as a punitive block (regardless of your intent; SA's talk page already shows signs that it was perceived that wa). &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute - you blocked against consensus at AE? And you're complaining about your block being overturned? Wow. Guettarda (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, you are misevaluating what happened. Read the report summary at WP:AE more carefully, and you will find that the diff being discussed there was not the primary trigger for the block.  It merely triggered yet another review of his recent contributions.  He has been getting reported there about once a week; sometimes the reported diffs merit a blocking, sometimes they don't, and sometimes the reported diffs by themselves probably doesn't merit a block but other of his contributions do merit a block.  Nor are you accurately evaluating the discussion that had occurred at WP:AE - which isn't even about the diff that triggered the block.  John254 had reported and asked for a block (though I think he is a bit hair trigger in his requests, there usually some issue around) John Vandenberg had said the reported diff was problematic but not bad enough for a block, and the third commentator explicitly disagreed with Mr. Vandenberg.  How you find any consensus there is beyond me.  With Arbitration Enforcement, the Arbitration Committee has already determined that an editor has a problematic behavior pattern.  That finding isn't subject to debate in any venue short of the Arbitration Committee.  If you made arguments that were more closely connected to the facts, they might be more compelling.  But arguments that demonstrate a lack of relevant knowledge on your part are not compelling.  GRBerry 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your block was reasonable and justifiable under the terms of the ArbCom case, and I also think that admins should have significant discretionary leeway in enforcing these kinds of remedies to make them effective. I saw it, I thought the block was reasonable, and I wasn't about to unblock or protest. On the other hand, the first admin to review the complaint found the diff supplied not blockworthy, and you then found another diff, blocked ScienceApologist, and archived the thread more or less at once, thus forestalling further discussion on the AE board. Under those circumstances, it can't be surprising that someone else undid the block.
 * You've no doubt noticed very frequent reports on ScienceApologist at WP:AE. Some of this is because he really does continue to be incivil, though perhaps overall moving in the right direction. Some of it is because other editors run to the noticeboard continually to play admin roulette and get something to stick, a strategy which, while disruptive and WP:GAMEy, has zero downside for its practitioners beyond the few minutes it takes to copy and paste a diff.
 * I take your point about the need for reinforcement, carrot-and-stick, and so forth when attempting to positively influence someone's behavior. The problem is that the civility remedy is unevenly applied - some admins hand out 96-hour blocks for things other admins have dimissed as frivolous complaints. The end result is a seemingly arbitrary process which, far from having a corrective effect on someone's behavior, simply embitters them through its apparent capriciousness. This is in no way your fault - it has to do largely with the fact that civility parole is an insane notion - but there it is. MastCell Talk 22:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Arb case
Hi; thanks very much for your comment - I'd not picked up on that otherwise I'd have noted it too!! —TreasuryTag —t —c 17:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Log
Hey,

You stated in a statement that Will e-mailed you a log. Would you please e-mail me this log as I'd like to know what I've apparently said. Matthew (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer not, as I don't use gmail or the like. Do I have your permission to post what is being attributed to you here?  GRBerry 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what he's saying that I've said prior to making anything public (which would surely sway opinions). I know what I said to Will, and I'm quite sure what he's saying I said and what I actually said differ. I don't keep logs personally but I know exactly what I said.
 * Frankly the impression I get is Will is attempting to change the topic: the fact that images are violating policy. Matthew (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ours is not an oral culture, and most of our memories become less reliable over time. You might wish to reduce your version to writing sooner rather than later, and in a form that will evidence when you did write it.
 * We seem to have a conflict of desires here. I desire to preserve my privacy, you desire to see the contents of his email without them being publicly displayed.  There is one other source available... GRBerry 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no desire to transcribe the single word I said to Will, and I've no intention of attempting to prove it either as there's no need. What Will claims I've said isn't the main issue and shouldn't be; that said I hope he has something better than logs if he intends to make something more of this. Matthew (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rambutan
Just a handy tip: Rambutan is now TreasuryTag. Who did participate in the PiC edit war. And, between you and me, I think people are using the phrase "blatant violation of NFCC" (or derivatives) more than it should be used. Sceptre (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me... do you think I could ask what this is about? —TreasuryTag —t —c 15:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty please? :-) —TreasuryTag —t —c 20:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can ask, but I can't enlighten you, so I don't recommend that you ask me. I don't know what PiC stands for.  GRBerry 12:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:King Vegita/Hermeticism and other thought systems
Seeing as you were the only other person to support keeping the article originally, I was wondering if you wanted to assist at all in cleaning it up. KV(Talk) 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said in the AFD, "I'm way outside my fields of expertise and reliable knowledge on this specific religion". You'd do better to find an editor that is knowledgable in the subject to work with.  GRBerry 12:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: RM
Heh, I'm fully aware of the history of the article (I was the last person to stub it down and kill it). A little humor from time doesn't hurt though. east. 718 at 21:08, March 4, 2008

WP:AE
Hi. I was just reading the discussion at WP:AE and I noticed your comment that 1) after arbitration, enforcement is left to administrators that are not arbitrators, 2) enforcement of arbitration decisions is left to uninvolved administrators. (1) is patently absurd. Arbitrators are normal users who are voted for a high level of trust by the community for diificult decisions. It has never been the case that they are prevented from taking particular actions by this position. Indeed, it is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that users who are particularly trusted should be restricted in this fashion. I don't know where this impression has come from, but it is not a useful one and has never been the case. On the other hand, (2) is, of course, true, but like any admin, being an arbitrator is in no way "involvement" in a case. All administrators examine evidence of conduct and can decide to block for it if standards are breached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)