User talk:John254/Archive 14

Question re block of Whig
Hello John:

I see that you have indefinitely blocked Whig, and I'm wondering what process led to this action.

I know there was a RfC-Whig 2, followed by discussion in the Administrator' Notices, but my impression is that that discussion ended inconclusively.

Please let me know what has lead to an indefinite block.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't block Whig, but merely placed an indefinite block notice on his userpage. Whig was blocked indefinitely by Adam Cuerden on November 15, 2007. Questions concerning this block should be directed to the administrator who placed it. John254 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. I was away the week of the 15th, so did not realize what happened.  Best wishes.  Wanderer57 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

revert
thanks for swift revert on my talk page. cheers! West Brom 4ever (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedster
If there was a Barnstar for the fastest vandal revert ever, I'd give it to you for reverting that last one on the WGA Strike. Great job! Snowfire51 (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidance needed on articles on legal cases
Hi, I thought you might be able to help me because you closed this AfD re Supreme Court cases. When doing New Page Patrol, what should I do with an article about a legal case, such as Commissioner v. boylston market association? Are there any notability guidelines for these? Thanks for any advice you can give. --Coppertwig 15:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any federal court case asserts notability, and should not be tagged for speedy deletion on notability grounds. The notability of such cases is usually determined by consulting the general notability guideline.  Whether there is sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources as to establish the notability of Commissioner v. boylston market association requires further research; however, as the case appears to set an important tax law precedent, it is quite likely that the necessary sources can be found.  In any event, the present form of the article is unsatisfactory: while the text of federal court decisions is in the public domain, Wikipedia articles should not be comprised entirely of verbatim quotations from the court, as Commissioner v. boylston market association appears to be. John254 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath
I think you are moving a bit fast with the RodentofDeath case. Dispute resolution is just getting started, and the weak response to the Community Ban suggestion (tho it was given less than 16 hours, on a weekend) probably contraindicates escalation to ArbCom. Also, you do not seem to have endorsed a position in the RfC. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The response to Administrators' noticeboard doesn't indicate that this user's behavior doesn't warrant sanctions, but merely that the case is too complex to be dealt with through a community ban. As for the timing of the request for arbitration, RodentofDeath's disruption should be stopped as quickly as possible. John254 21:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been at it since May. Maybe it becomes "possible" when the WP:DR process has been followed. I'm not saying don't do this, but I'm concerned that this will slow things down. For example, we are unlikely to get a Mediation going while an Arbitration request is still polling. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that mediation will resolve this issue. Furthermore, I wouldn't suggest mediation for the sole purpose of demonstrating that additional prior dispute resolution has been attempted. John254 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
I have filed a request for mediation on the Human Trafficking in Angeles article and you are invited to comment. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Human_trafficking_in_Angeles_City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanbryce (talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eso si que es
I've started a thread here in which I linked to your comments, so I thought I should draw it to your attention. As I say there, I'm neutral about the situation. Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing DRVs
Hi John. I certainly don't personally object to your closing the DRV of the photo of Emily Sander but you should be aware that DRV nominations should only be closed by an admin. We generally allow DRVs to run their full course unless there is a good reason to ignore this (ironically I'm one of the worst offenders for closing them early). Process is very important to many denizens of DRV and you may already be aware that lots of perfectly closed xFDs get reversed on procedural grounds even though everyone agrees with the outcome. I'm afraid that having a non-admin close a DRV early may well lead to more drama than strictly necessary. Please take this the right way but I genuinely think that you shouldn't close any more DRVs until you become an admin. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/John Buscema
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/John Buscema/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/John Buscema/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfD
You recently closed the AfD on Diane Garnick and removed the AfD notice per policy, but I didn't see a note on the article talkpage that it had passed an AfD, I don't know how to add one, would you be able to ? Mbisanz (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am currently adding the template:oldafdfull notices to the talk pages of the articles whose AFD nominations I closed. John254 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my haste in nipping at you.  Mbisanz (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Physchim62
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/Physchim62/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/Physchim62/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath
An Arbitration case involving you 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/RodentofDeath/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/RodentofDeath/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remove your comment from Articles_for_deletion/The_Nation_of_Gods_and_Earths
Your role as a closing admin is to interpret the discussion and determine if a consensus has been reached, not to add in your own two cents after closing off the discussion to everyone else. Thanks! - Chardish (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When closing an AFD discussion, it is a common practice to add an explanation of the rationale for the decision. John254 02:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, that is not an explanation of the rationale. It is a statement about your AfD philosophy in general. It was Keep because the nom was withdrawn; you didn't need to publicly refute the reason I brought the article up in the first place. - Chardish (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfAr edit
Normally, taking out those distracting underlines doesn't affect the viability of the links at all. Sorry if it did so in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't affect the usability of wikilinks using the link format; however, in the case of links using the external link notation, the parsing of the link is such that every character after the initial space is treated as a part of the title, not the link target.  In these instances, the use of the underscore character is necessary to preserve the link target, and allow the link title to display correctly.  For instance, if we substitute underscores for spaces in "On 06:21, 14 December 2007, Zscout370 undeleted an article...", the result is "On 06:21, 14 December 2007, Zscout370 Doran undeleted an article...", which will link to the log for the page Carolyn. John254 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted with interest. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mycomorphbox
Hi, it still says that the Mycomorphbox is up for deletion at Phallus indusiatus. Can you check it out? Thanks, Badagnani (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the TFD notice from Template:Mycomorphbox.  While I don't see the TFD notice in Phallus indusiatus, the notice will still appear if one is viewing a cached version of the article that predates the removal of the notice.  You might try purging your web browser's cache. John254 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An Administrator is I!
Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!

Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.

I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.

Thanks again.

An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear  22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
  

Dear, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. &mdash; E  talk 12:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RINO AFD
Hi John,

I was just curious how/why you decided on keep. You didn't leave any comments on the AFD page. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I closed Articles for deletion/Republican In Name Only (second nomination) as keep because there was significant support for retention of the article, and no support for deletion by anyone except the nominator. In no way could such a discussion indicate a consensus for deletion. Barring certain exceptionally compelling reasons for deletion, such as blatant WP:BLP violations or copyright violations, articles are generally only deleted as a result of AFD discussions in which at least one editor besides the nominator supports deletion. John254 04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand on WP:AN/I
Please do not reverse any of Betacommand's actions until there is consensus to do so. I realize that Betacommand did not discuss his actions first, but (1) an admin can rollback the edits much faster if needed in the future, and (2) reverting them at this moment may only lead to another reversal in the future, which simply wastes time and resources. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussions at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, User_talk:Betacommand and User_talk:Betacommand, there appears to be significant opposition to Betacommand's edits, and no support for them by anyone except Betacommand himself. Moreover, the edits are substantively harmful: the removal of the edit link discourages new users from expanding the stubs, for the dubious benefit of more easily finding other links in templates (which could be far more easily and less disruptively accomplished by simply modifying the link search script to explicitly exclude the edit links).  There is very little chance of ever achieving consensus to remove the edit links.  I would argue that reversal of Betacommand's edits is time critical, since we potentially lose content contributions for every day that the edit links are absent. John254 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is simply not time critical. There is nothing to suggest that the edit links at the bottom of the page are clicked enough to have a substantial impact on the number of contributors. There is, of course, an edit this page tab and section edit links. There is opposition to his activities, however I wouldn't say that the opposition is significant (in the sense that it's about five users). The "search script" is actually Special:Linksearch, and to my knowledge (which is pretty extensive when it comes to MediaWiki), there isn't a way to deal with this particular issue currently. For the moment, please hold off on the reverts. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Betacommand is obviously a talented programmer, having written the code for BetacommandBot -- he could simply write a script to parse the output of Special:Linksearch, then remove the edit links attributable to stub templates. There's no need to remove links from the stub templates themselves merely for convenience in searching for links.  While I can't prove that the edit links in stub templates are used frequently, I, and, it seems, many other editors, reasonably believe that they are -- and a reasonable belief is often the best evidence we have to make decisions on Wikipedia.  Nonetheless, as there is objection to simply rolling back the rest of Betacommand's stub template edits, I won't revert them tomorrow.  Instead, I will write a formal proposal that Betacommand's edits be reversed, publicize the proposal at template:cent, then permit the proposal to be discussed for a reasonable period of time before performing any more cleanup of Betacommand's edits. John254 06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, as one administrator has requested that Betacommand reverse his edits, and another administrator had described NOT reversing the edits as "definitely unhelpful", I'm going to continue to reverse his edits now. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; Betacommand cannot unilaterally alter thousands of stub templates in a manner opposed by many users, and supported by no one but himself, then claim that, because of the sheer volume of his edits, that no one can reverse his edits without a formal proposal and several weeks of prior discussion. John254 14:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that Betacommand appears to have stopped making these changes for the time being, and that they get in the way of the stub expansion process, I see no reason not to start reverting the changes. Grutness...wha?  20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath
The above Arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed at the link above. RodentofDeath are now banned from Wikipedia for one year, and Susanbryce is reminded of the prohibition on using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny  00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi John, thanks for taking the initiative, and opening this case. Addhoc (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions
I have answered your questions on my RFA|. Thanks! --Ohmpandya (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wtf is that John? Wikipedia Croni-ism?
You give me a warning of reverting edits in the manos page? Wtf is that? It's my godamn edits that are being reverted!!! And if user levin reverts them again it will be his third time not mine... 91.132.224.196 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have removed the same content from the article "Manos" The Hands of Fate three times  .  In this context, repeated reversions are disruptive.  Instead of continuing to unilaterally remove the content, please post a request for comment on articles to invite other editors to participate in the discussion on Talk:%22Manos%22_The_Hands_of_Fate  If the disputed content really needs to be removed, another editor will be willing to delete it.  Note that I have also issued a 3RR warning to Lenin and McCarthy . John254 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

encouragment
John,

I think it is very important that we proceed very slowly on these BLP items. Now I want you to know that I mean nothing about you personally on that debate, however, I am only addressing the arguments you presented to me. I believe you are a good editor, and I want you to continue to do what you do for this project. Very warmly, M ercury  01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
-Djsasso (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

 * -- AKeen (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: J Bar-
Why are you saying my message is a personal attack when it wasn't even in English and you can't even read Spanish?

I would like to get a reply.

--220.239.180.212 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is incorrect, as I can read Spanish. I'm not going to translate your severe personal attack here, however. John254 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think that you're so smart, translate what I said then!

P.S. That message wasn't a threat, I was just returning what he said to me. I have had some other serious problems with him in the past over some neutalitiy issues. Can you please warn him?

--220.239.180.212 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRV
Thank you for informing me, I appreciate the notification. You are of course, most welcome to comb my deletion logs, if you feel the need. Thank you also for your helpful comments in my RfA. Warm regards, Keilana talk(recall) 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD
At this point I will support any change to greatly restrict or eliminate CSDA7 if you can find a way to still let us delete the articles on people who think that facebook type information makes them notable. Suggestion: eliminate organisations, companies, and groups other than musical groups and clubs. DGG (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that restricting the class of subjects to which CSD A7 applies would resolve this issue:, for instance, would still have been improperly speedily deleted, even if we confined CSD A7 to people, as in its original formulation. Alternatively, if someone were to write a biography of their pet hamster, without an assertion of notability, the article would be properly speedily deleted, though not within the letter of CSD A7.  For that matter, though geographic features are not within CSD A7, an article concerning a  pebble in someone's yard would be legitimately subject to speedy deletion if it lacked an assertion of notability.  Anyone who has participated significantly in newpage patrol knows what articles legitimately deletable per CSD A7 actually look like: they're blatantly non-notable material such as vanity autobiographies, and articles concerning garage bands, personal webpages, and companies run out of people's basements.  Perhaps we need to describe this issue bluntly, rather than equivocating with subjectivities such as "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant".  I will make a proposal for such a change to the policy on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.  We also need to recognize that, no matter how clearly CSD A7 is formulated, some administrators will continue to apply it inappropriately.  Such deletions need to be regularly brought to deletion review; in egregious cases of a large number of reversed deletions by a single administrator, the dispute resolution process concerning the inappropriate use of administrative privileges should be pursued. John254 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see guidelines to decrease the amount of matters that had to be taken to such levels of appeal with the consequent drama. DGG (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request For Rollback
Hi John254. I have fulfiulled your request for rollback, after discussion with other admins. Nest Wishes. Pedro : Chat  13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:AIV removal
I removed your report because in my opinion it was premature, and I don't think any administrator would block a user that quickly. VOA bot supplied a first tier warning; you jumped straight to a fourth tier warning. Please try to be more patient, as we're not seeing who can report IPs the fastest; instead, try to supply as close to a full range of warnings as you can. Anyway, I'm sorry if you took offense to my removal of your report, but I hope you understand why I did so. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many administrators will block users reported under the circumstances described -- see, for example, User talk:74.222.194.50. A rapid and effective response to vandalism is far more important than quibbling over levels of warnings. John254 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When vandalism is clearly malevolent and the user is highly unlikely to stop on their own, then yes, a quick block is a good idea. However, it's still good to go through the warnings; try to assume good faith and let users have a chance. I've found that some IPs will just stop of their own accord after my third warning or so. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  04:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Assume_good_faith,"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism..."Therefore, if a user has engaged in at least two acts of vandalism, the minimum level necessary to satisfy the description "repeated vandalism", he is no longer entitled to an assumption of good faith. Thus, a harsh warning can be issued, followed by a block if the user engages in further vandalism. John254 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess our definitions of good faith are different, then. Next time I'll put a note next to the report. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfDs
John, there's been something of an issue today with a pile of notable articles nominated for deletion. See. I've put the worthy articles among them for speedy keep. See the current AfD log. I'm not an admin, but I think if you quickly close the lot... AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Closure of AFD nominations as "speedy keep" can often cause more problems than it solves, because the retention of the articles can be appealed to deletion review on the grounds that the discussion wasn't open for the usual ~5 days. Even if the retentions of the articles are endorsed, disputes over speedy closures ultimately consume more resources than if the AFD discussions were permitted to run for usual period of time.  Closures as "speedy keep" are best reserved for situations in which an individual AFD nomination is extremely disruptive, for instance, nominating a featured article for deletion while it is on the main page, nominations by banned users, and nominations, on notability grounds, of articles concerning major public figures such as presidents, prime ministers, and elected members of national legislatures.  In egregious cases of users who disrupt the AFD process by making large numbers of inappropriate AFD nominations, and who persist after being asked to stop, the offending users can be temporarily blocked to prevent further disruptive nominations.  Such an action, if necessary, can be requested on WP:ANI.  However, reviewing 's contributions, it appears that he has stopped nominating articles for deletion. John254 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards
An editor has nominated List of promotional Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. John254 03:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
John Carter (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes arbitration
Hello John. I noticed you started the most recent request for arbitration. With regard to Scrubs episodes, I just discovered the following AfD discussion regarding these that took place in October 2007 - Articles for deletion/My Mirror Image. The result of the discussion was to keep these articles - however they are now all redirects - I think this overriding of consensus may be relevant to the case you make. Catchpole (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your WP:BLP expertise requested
Hi John254. I noticed that you know your way around Wikipedia's BLP policy. I wonder if you could have a look at Alex Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, and Tri-City Skins. I believe these articles were frought with rampant BLP abuse. I tried to clean it up to the best of my abilities but I am not a BLP expert. Compare this version with Alex Kulbashian with the current version and you get the picture. There was a fair bit push-back for the changes but I wouldn't put it at the level you normally see at some of the other articles I've been involved in. However AFD's for these articles seem to be frought with vote stacking. See the AFD for Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, the AFD for Tri-City_Skins and also see the same people involved with votestacking in another article of the same category|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Canada for Us]]. What I see abusive in these articles is that the subjects are barely notable and they are only notable for one thing, that they were involved with 1 or 2 antisemitic websites that are now defunct and these websites were fined in a Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal. This was referred to in the press as precedent setting however some might argue that the precedent was already set in a previous case Zundel v. Citron. In reality we shouldn't have four articles about these subjects when they are all about the same thing and are only notable about one thing. I think we should have one article called something like Kulbashian v. Warman. Another thing I should add that it seems these articles use tabloids like Now Magazine as there third party sources. Can you help? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any unresolved WP:BLP problems here. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal isn't traffic court; individuals who are the subject of judgments by the Tribunal are probably notable as major criminals.  While I observed, in quite a different context, that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP ordinarily require biographies of living persons to be "fair and balanced", this is quite another can of worms altogether.  People who have run neo-nazi websites, and have been fined by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for doing so, would probably qualify as people notable for only negative events, with respect to whom our coverage need not be "fair and balanced".  Articles which focus on the negative events for which these people are notable are, in context, consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  The fact that these people have been the subject of extensive newspaper coverage further supports their notability. WP:BLP enforcement, in this context, is probably confined to ensuring that the articles do not contain any unsatisfactorily sourced negative information, assertions of opinion, or outright vandalism. The deletion of articles concerning people who are clearly notable on WP:BLP grounds is generally limited to the avoidance of harmful publicity concerning people who have a derogatory notability thrust upon them through no fault of their own -- see, for example, the sort of articles that formed the basis of the dispute in Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.  Operators of neo-nazi websites, however, have no one but themselves to blame for their own infamy. John254 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst I don't disagree with the fact that these articles don't need to reflect any positive coverage, I don't see why there is four articles about pretty much the same thing. These two people are notable for only one thing so per BLP should the article be about the thing that they are notable (namely the Warman v. Kulbashian ruling)? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion
Dear John254, as you can see, I compiled a chronology of events regarding the history of that dispute, but I also have two suggestions that you may wish to consider: 1) as the previous arbitration case also included fictional characters, you may wish to retitle the case to include this related dispute over fictional characters and maybe even include a 2 or 3 in the title to acknowledge the previous case(s); 2) you may wish to expand the involved party list by looking here and here, as the discussions I have observed involve more than just those currently listed in the current request. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think it a good idea   to confuse the matter beyond the present state. The case is already complicated and divisive enough. But probably someone will extend it, unfortunately, and then we will be faced with a long arbcom case, evoking further bad feelings, resulting either in a decision according to their own point of view, or, more likely,  a repeated injunction to decide the matter ourselves.  DGG (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a larger dispute among the same editors over popular culture and fiction articles that is really not just limited to television episodes, but is about what Wikipedia is and is not. If we do not deal with the larger issue, than we may just end up with a case on episodes, followed by one on fictional characters, and so on.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
A belated thank you for your RFA support! Archtransit (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orion (constellation)
Hello. I wish to nominated the article Orion (constellation) to be semi-protected because of the extreme number of anonymous vandals editing that article. Considering it's a high profile article, an article children would be likely to look up, the detrimental effects of the vandalism to how Wikipedia looks as a whole, and the proportion that most edits are vandalism and reversions, I think semi-protection against anonymous users would be appropriate. Since the process requires a consensus on the article's talk page and you are one of the registered users who have reverted vandalism recently, I am writing in the hopes that you will go to the talk page and agree to the semi-protection. If we can get a convincing consensus, we can continue the process to the next step. Thanks for your time. --Bark (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2
An Arbitration case involving you 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/Episodes and characters 2/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/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly 100 diffs! :-) Since you took the time to find those diffs (an impressive feat), do you think you might consider organising them by type? Does TTN revert with helpful/unhelpful edit summaries, or are there other patterns? Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the immense scale of TTN's edit warring, helpful edit summaries would have little redeeming value. In a situation of this nature, edit summaries would only be useful if they indicated that the reversions did not constitute edit warring at all, because there was no active dispute.  For instance, although I recently reverted over 1000 of Betacommand's removals of edit links from stub templates, the edit summaries clearly referenced a discussion in which there was significant opposition to Betacommand's edits, and no support from anyone other than Betacommand himself, and as a result of which Betacommand had stopped removing the edit links.  TTN, however, cannot avail himself of that sort of defense -- there clearly was, and is, an active content dispute concerning the redirection of television-related articles. John254 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. There must be some way, though, of making the 100 diffs more, well, palatable? Is anyone ever going to click on all of them? Carcharoth (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, one could verify the diffs through a random sampling method -- if one were to, say, view ten arbitrarily selected diffs from the set, and found that each indicated a reversion in a content dispute, one might reasonably conclude that all of the diffs were valid. John254 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange comment
subst:Vangel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nburden (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck!
Good luck with your RfA! I hope you will be succesful after all the great effords you've done! You might have noticed my support was "weak", but it is nothing personal. I just wouldn't give you a "complete support" and sadly enough, there is nothing inbetween the both options. 18,000 edits in just 18 months is very impressive. Enormously impressive. I therefore wish you the best of luck. Yours sincerely, Ramtashaniku (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks!
What a great surprise to find the digital phase converter page cleaned up! I had every intention of trying to do more, but looks like you beat me to it. I also wanted to express my appreciation for your support in keeping the page as well. Soothsayer2 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User subpage deletion
Just to let you know, I deleted User:John254/Public health effects of pornography as per your request. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. John254 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

JCTribe
You can block him anytime. It's a vandal only account. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters
The Arbitration Committee, in Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

"For the duration of Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Swinford?!

 * How dare you! I did not add nonsense to the Swinford page! --86.40.102.175 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see . John254 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re
Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", is not simply a single study, but a review of the results from several controlled studies.
 * In that case, I think we can refer to several studies, but we really need to attribute the conclusion to this one review. I don't think we can conclude that one review is accurate, in such a controversial area - I have seen other examples of "review of studies" that seem valid, but have been criticised by other academics (one example problem is that the review only looks at studies supporting their conclusion, and ignores those against it). Mdwh (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll edit the article to describe the Zillmann study as a review. John254 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the quick vandalism clean up on my user and talk page. Much appreciated. Bashen (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
Can I ask why you routinely seem to file RFARs that you have no direct involvement in? Lawrence §  t / e  03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To stop users from disrupting Wikipedia. Now, obviously, if the Committee rejects my request -- if they find that JzG's comment wasn't actually a threat, and doesn't warrant immediate sanction -- this would imply that I have quite severely misjudged the situation, and strongly suggests that I shouldn't file any more requests. John254 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * May I make a small request? Could you please edit your comments to indicate that Giano II is also a user instead of was also a user?  Whether or not he decides to continue editing, he has not been banned, and even the most recent 50 or so edits he made are valuable contributions - in this case, largely an essay on how to develop a featured article.  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:OrthodoxJewAgainstRacism
Hi, thanks for the relief on my Talk page. But it didn´t help for long, as you see here. Could you help again? Thanks, --Joachim Weckermann (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OrthodoxJewAgainstRacism has been blocked indefinitely. John254 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Request block
Hi dude! I kinda wound up at u cuz I really don't know who to ask this. I want to request a block on a IP adress, but I don't really see where I can request a block. It's about IPs 65.164.151.75, they've been vandalizing a lot, by faking album sales without reference, and constant capitalization of words like "of", "in" and stuff in song titles , constanly removing pictures with good fair use with other picturs  on the article Empezar desde Cero, amongst others... (I'm just mentioning one/two examples of everything). Like an obvious one is the following, deliberately ignoring the wikipedia standards of having those kind of words in lower case. Now I can keep continuing to revert his edits, but after a while, I get sick & tired of it, and that point has come. So I would like to request a (temporary?) block on this IP. Can u help me with it? -- Luigi-ish (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the provided diff, it doesn't appear that has actually been removing images, but merely changing the filenames to identical versions of the same images.  Moreover, edits are not considered to be vandalism solely on the grounds that they are believed to be stylistically incorrect.  Do you have any evidence that 's updates of album sales figures are actually false? John254 01:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your questions - this is just a quick note to let you know I have posted my responses. Regards. GBT/C 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV and Betacommandbot
Hi John -

I have declined to act upon the AIV report that you entered for Betacommandbot. AIV is so for vandalism only (as defined by WP:VANDAL) - in this case, I think the report best belongs on WP:ANI. - Philippe &#124; Talk 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Albanians in Serbia (2nd nomination)
Hi, I noticed you closed this AFD as Keep. I'm not going to argue with your decision, but I'm not sure what to do now. While there is no obviously no consensus to delete Albanians in Serbia, there is also no apparent consensus to delete Albanians in Kosovo or Albanians in Central Serbia. As things stand now, the Kosovo article is up and being actively edited, while the Central Serbia article still redirects here. In any case, the material exists in duplicate form in two different places, which doesn't seem like a good situation. What happens next? Thanks, //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If Albanians in Kosovo does indeed cover the same subject matter as Albanians in Serbia, then the former article could be merged and redirected to the latter, provided that there is a consensus for this action. If there is no consensus for redirection, then we will have two articles. John254 01:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if they are essentially the same article? Should I consider listing the other two articles at AFD? //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 02:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)