User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2016

Your control is required
Hello. At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, you have redacted a comment from User: MarkBernstein. For what I have understand, this was in application of an interaction ban. But this has left an unsigned piece of the original comment (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=697946165&oldid=697945206). I have tried another redaction (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=698212896&oldid=698212830). Feel free to modify as you see fit. Pldx1 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Big red stop signs
The ACN thread is unwieldy, so in response to this suggestion - I did think about proposing that, but it's just not practical. It doesn't make sense for arbcom blocks - the ones we'd come down like a ton of bricks on an admin for reversing - to be the ones with the least conspicuous notices. There's also the issue that block logs are inconvenient places to record information; they have limited space, and can't be amended without adding a new entry or using revdel. Using normal wikitext to link relevant information and blanking it when it's no longer necessary seems better.

No objections from me if you want to start clearing out the red warning icons from the block/ban templates, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. The reasoning presented here doesn't really hold up to scrutiny for the simple reason it's expected admins will not revert AE blocks -- past arbcoms routinely desyopped editors for that -- and there was never any suggestion that marking up a user page was necessary to maintain that expectation. NE Ent 21:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I seem to remember disagreeing with at least one of those... ;)
 * I don't think the AE analogy is quite that strong, though. Most AE blocks are still relatively short-term. The point of the templates is longer-term collective memory, not serving as a deterrent today from reversing an action from yesterday.
 * I don't like these tags, I especially don't like the practice of blanking the user and talk pages when adding them, but if you need to record more information than will fit in a block log - or if new information arises after the block - where should that information go? A central log of arbcom-initiated blocks and their sequelae? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you put a wikilink in a block entry like you can an edit summary? e.g. WP:BANREVERT . Clerk would say "Blocked per WP:ARBCOM BAN, see http://blah-blah"; ARBCOM BAN could shortcut to Arbitration_Committee/Procedures NE Ent 03:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you get 255 characters per block log entry, total. And they're rarely revdel'd if a mistake happens, and they can't be edited, and they can't be previewed either. Regular wikitext is a much more flexible solution, which is probably where this system of tags and templates came from in the first place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The system of tags and templates came about by someone just doing it, and then the fact that it was "current practice" became the justification. See Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_6 (I was using Nobody Ent back then). You seem to have an Intelligent Design theory of wiki-practice, when a more critical view of wiki-practice will show it's much more political, and very few people are going to burn political capital advocating for respecting the wiki-unclean. NE Ent 15:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have. The pushback I got from even editing the templates to make them less of a Scarlet Letter was extreme. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What were the arguments for keeping them? NE Ent 17:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, current practice evolves when someone just does a thing, and then others follow along because it seems useful, and eventually there's enough critical mass that it's just the done thing. So changing practice means separating and preserving the useful part. And I think it's more to do with time investment than political capital... you know, there are two open threads on the template's talk page about its wording, preceding the recent bans, and nobody other than me has commented ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Campus Accountability and Safety Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Higher Education Act. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

On second thought
I've revised my original response, blatantly violating guidelines about changing other people's posts in the process. But the now-deleted "Hiya Ent, haven't seen you around in a while. Hope all is well" still applies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! NE Ent 15:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

In case you were sleep-typing
You just filed an ARCA! Was it wrong with you, don't you have anything better to do with your life??? NE Ent

Consensus? and clarity
First of all, there was no consensus. Consensus in Wikipedia does not equate counting !votes, so I'm really confused on how you arrived at such a conclusion. Secondly, what you wrote for the close is really, really unclear to me (even beyond the less than accurate grammar usage). Can you possibly revise it to be more clear and concise? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I just got it. My Asperger's keeps me from seeing humor at times and causes me to take the world too seriously more often than I like.  April Fool's contribution, right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just seen your reason for closure - fair play NE Ent :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been reversed. Softlavender invoked WP:IDLI.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Social work
FYI. BTW: the answer to your question would seem to be "yes". Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing, edit-warring, and vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India. Thank you.

Disappointed
Ent, I've had a lot of respect for you in the past. Not sure why you had the brain fart with the "spouse" comment to KafkaLiz, but it really was a huge mistake and I hope you can make amends about it. Montanabw (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

New RFC dealing with WP:FAMILY section of WP:SOCK
Views are wanted at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldnt have put it better my self. I do think you owe an apology to a few people, both for the first instant, and for dragging up a dead horse a week later. You tried to denegrate editors to cover you own tracks, and that is rather pityfil. For shame man. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:
This SPI... I had suspected the account as also belonging to the other account you mentioned. I decided to let them play their hand a little bit more before opening an SPI. If they aren't the same, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Okay, I guess some already think I am, but you know what I mean. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓  06:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know and will leave it up to the SPI clerks to adjudicate. The important thing was to stop the disruption from the Purple Showers account. NE Ent 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Angry Young Editors
Nice reference! They say that these are not the best of times, but they're the only times I've ever known! It's either sadness or euphoria.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others date extensions
The evidence and workshop closing dates and the proposed-decision date have been extended to 6, 13 and 23 May, respectively. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request motion enacted
A motion resulting from your clarification request has been enacted and is archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI
Why on earth would you object to a template being put by your name in a ANI case closure? I always used put one in when I closed a case before I became an admin and other editors routinely include them. It's not controversial and it's useful to note when a case has been closed by an admin and when it has not, it matters to some editors. Liz Read! <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In order of importance:
 * 1) That was not a good thread. If it continued, someone could have gotten hurt. Given the original poster is a fairly new editor, but one who has contributed 4k mainspace edits, and, at 75% mainspace, is not a dispute resolution board regular, it was in the best interest of the project if he was gently firmly encouraged to move on. We didn't need more of a pile-on, and we didn't need him digging a deeper hole.
 * 2) Per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12, there is no particular significance to whether a thread is closed by an editor with or without a mop, unless implementing the close requires the technical abilities of the administrator WP:UAL.
 * 3) Because the editor was new, they could have interpreted your attaching the stigma of "nac" to the close as an invitation to the poster revert my close and resume digging, or another editor to revert to continue piling on.
 * 4) If you read the documentation of nac, it clearly says "This template should be added after the closing rationale when a non-administrator user closes a deletion discussion." While there's a metaphysical argument that closing an ANI thread is "deleting drama," we both not that's not what is meant by "deletion discussion" on Wikipedia. If other editors choose to misuse the nac template, it's not that important to me, but I'd prefer not to b perceived as someone who doesn't follow best practices.
 * 5) If it matters to an editor what privileges another has, they can use Special:ListUsers.
 * 6) Per WP:TPO, altering other's comments (except in the special cases listed), is kind of rude. Imagine if an editor went around after your posts adding (Woman) to your signature, because it matters to some editors.

P.S. The AC:A/N facepalm was totally unnecessary -- it wasn't logical to expect the committee to post a notice about Gamergate related decision on a case they're repeatedly saying is not about Gamergate. I only noticed because I had the page watchlisted. NE Ent 02:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Amendment at AE
Hi,, thought you might want to take a second look at your most recent edit to AE. Your "violation" diff points to Wordsmith imposing the topic ban and not to any edit by MB. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * oops, that was silly; fixed it, thanks. NE Ent 02:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

/* */ new section
There is nothing wrong with this title https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Legacypac/Godsymoves so why tag it for G10? Was that an error? Legacypac (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I did it by accident? Nope. Was it declined by the reviewing admin? Yes, so according to that individual the G10 tag was inappropriate. Doesn't actually matter to me -- I'm actually trying to help you. Of the five editors listed at, three are currently blocked. Having an open ANI thread with your name in it is a risk; up to you whether you want to face it or not. Rather than worry about whether a page with another editor's name on it is, or is not, appropriate, it is safer to have a non-descript name. Drafting it off-wiki, as BaseballBugs suggested in the ANI thread, is even better. My free advice to you remains to Db-u1 the redirect and work out of the sandbox, but that's entirely your choice. NE Ent 00:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

ty
just wanted to say TY for everything. — Ched : ?  03:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. NE Ent 10:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry
You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Happy that Kafka Liz is with us again, - I would have "swallowed" saying that if she had stayed away.

Happy also that I have no more use for your "template of insight". Made my own, which was deleted and userfied, but I can't find it any more, about talk before you block. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted
Hi NE Ent, in the open Gamaliel and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  13:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Danell Lynn
Hello! Your submission of Danell Lynn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ RobTalk 01:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Danell Lynn
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
 * 2) DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * 3) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
 * 4) For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
 * 5) Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
 * 6) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Words of discouragement
Regarding this revert. It is widely accepted that it is disruptive to bite the newbies. The talk page policy also allows for the removal of disruptive material. You may not be aware but this very removal was discussed here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and the result of the discussion was that my removal was appropriate.

New users should not be told that they are being treated unfairly, or are the victim of abusive admins, or that the admin does not want them to make an unblock request. You will see that not only did I encourage the user to make another request, but I accepted that request.

Please do not restore the comment again. This IP user has been unblocked, and they do not need any more discouragement. <b style="color:Chocolate">HighInBC</b> 17:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fucking Ent. You do pick the stupidest battles of any long term editor I've seen here. Doc   talk  07:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)