User talk:Tznkai/Archive 5

Obsolete topic ban
Hello, I saw the topic ban you gave Jalapenos do exist.

"one revert per 24 hours, on any edit concerning Israel or Israelis, Palestine or Palestinians, or the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed"

This topic ban you gave him is obsolete as all Arab-Israeli conflict articles are already on a 1 rr --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidences to support my request for an interaction ban with unomi
I could have go on with the evidences, but I believe it is enough. I am writing articles and uploading images, unomi spends most time on different boards, he wrote only one stub. He will not suffer from this ban. We do not edit in the same areas, except his occasional trolling on the articles I started. Could you please do me a great favor and notify him yourself, although I am very sure it is not even necessary. He has your talk page on his watch list (he posted here) and he wikihounds me, so he would know. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Called me He called me a "psychotic bitch"
 * 2) Started a campaign to topic-ban me on I/P conflict that was opposed by all decent editors. Although it was closed as "no consensus" it is not right. There was consensus 17 to 3 not to ban me. Some editors suggested banning unomi. After that I was very tired because those AN/I threads are so depressing. I said I retired, but then unomi stopped contributing and I came back.
 * 3) Recent episode on AE. You saw how much he wrote about me on the request that has absolutely nothing to do with me. Please see here, and there was more! This thing alone should be enough to grant interaction ban.
 * 4) He is wikihounding me around. For the last few days since he started contributing in a full speed, he edited in at least 6 places out of 9 I did.

One more thing please. You have all the authority to add this interaction ban to AE decision concerning Jalapenos. After all you noticed "battleground" behavior of both of us although IMO what I said and what he said cannot be compared even remotely. If you will not issue this ban using the AE as a venue, may I please ask you do not post it to any other boards? I really do not like administrative boards. I have got so much of those that it is more than enough to last for the rest of my life. So, if for some reason you will find it impossible to go ahead with the ban, I probably would have to to consider retirement once again. I simply cannot go on like that, I mean constantly be a subject of trolling and wikihounding.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, you must notify Unomi and invite him/her to comment on this issue.--Tznkai (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, will you go to the talk page of a user, who called you a "psychotic bitch"? But OK I did it, and now what?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now been notified, I ask for a proper venue to answer these charges. I would suggest that Mbz1 takes use of one of the dispute resolution options available to her - I can make no suggestions of which one but I do know that ANI, AN, RfCU and even AE are venues that are sometimes used for this. From this point on I would hope that she refrains from appealing to admins directly, especially using non-neutral language. un☯mi 05:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please understand that this is not an attempt to stonewall or wikilawyer, I am quite happy to answer the charges, but I would prefer that it is in a venue that can be considered final and binding in this matter, as I tire of having to answer the same allegations again and again. un</b><b style="color:#541">☯</b><b style="color:#441">m</b><b style="color:#341">i</b></i> 05:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Tznkai, I assume there was some offline communication behind my back. Anyway... I see no need to go to a different venue and create absolutely unnecessary drama. I'd like to remind you please that this recent AE you took no part in and that was about Shuki did result in 4 users (no Shuki btw) being put on interaction bans. This edit about me on the AE that has nothing to do with me should be enough to impose the interaction ban, even one sided interaction ban, but I am not asking about one sided interaction ban. I am asking for the same editing restrictions for both of us. The project will benefit from this.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is my distinct impression that the project would not benefit from an interaction ban between us, for the very reasons outlined in the second diff you provide. That Diff was a direct response to this accusation of problematic behavior by Gatoclass. I believe that I gave sufficient evidence of your accusations being without merit and that your article is indeed deeply problematic, displaying the same problematic approach to editing displayed in articles such as Yolande Harmer(documented further down in the 2nd diff), Maimonides_Synagogue(interpreted as a coatrack by other editors), Robert_Kennedy_in_Palestine_(1948)(again understood to be a coatrack and its proposed hook speaks for itself. Recent articles such as Egyptian shark attack conspiracy theory doesn't indicate that you intend to change your ways, here you base an article on sensationalist journalism, while a careful reading of the sources indicates nothing more than a throwaway remark about not ruling anything out when prompted to comment on the theory in a live phone-in interview, the same governor, and other officials, were repeatedly reported to mention only the sheep carcass hypothesis both before, after and on the same day - and this is used to push It is not the first conspiracy theory about Israel circulating in Egypt. Israel was falsely accused with infecting Palestinian children with Aids virus, with bringing down EgyptAir Flight 990 and so on. José María Aznar a former Prime Minister of Spain says: "It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East", as the lede . It is deeply ironic that the only reason I became involved in I/P was because I commented on a random ANI thread involving you, and that I tried to help defuse the situation.
 * In no way should the above be construed as waiving my request for a proper venue to discuss possible sanctions, it is merely an attempt to explain to Mbz1 the conduct that I take issue with, should such behavior cease we would likely not have much occasion to interact. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#871">u</b><b style="color:#770">n</b><b style="color:#670">☯</b><b style="color:#570">m</b><b style="color:#470">i</b></i> 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tznkai, you see that once again the user is talking about content of the articles I write, and that has nothing to do with the proposed interaction ban. And wikihounding continued. The user tagged my new article just a few hours after it was written. The user admits he started wikihounding after he "commented on a random ANI thread involving" me. The user view of "diffusing" the situation is wrong. The user is trolling  and  wikihounding me. It has been going on for a long time, and it ought to stop.  --Mbz1 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No offline communication, will deal with the rest later. Unomi, you always have the right to raise an issue on an administrator noticeboard, but unless and until I propose to take some sort of action, it is probably premature. I'm just trying to get a grasp of the situation before figuring out what to do next.--Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tznkai, it has been more than a week since I asked for you help to issue an interaction ban between unomi and me. May I please ask you to at least respond my concerns at your talk page. The hounding has continued. Today the user posted 3 times to my talk page after I asked it may,many times to stay off my talk page. The user discusses me with others. Please also see here; The user discussing me with others; inserts itself in practically any discussion about me; starts new discussions. All those examples are only from the last few days. If it is not wikihounding and harassment I am not sure what is. More evidences could be provided by request, but I believe it is really should be enough to issue the ban. We do not edit in the same area. I have some problems with other users, but they do not hound me now. unomi does. The project will benefit from the ban. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 of those edits were to help you with archiving, acting on a request for help from your side, I meant it as a means to start mending the fences as it were, the 3rd edit was regarding your response to me helping you. If you believe that you have a case then I suggest, as I suggested previously, that you take it up at a more suitable venue. In the case that you may find it helpful and in the interest of full disclosure, I also discussed you here. We do most definitely edit in the same topic area, unless you have stopped editing relating to I/P? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#676">u</b><b style="color:#575">n</b><b style="color:#475">☯</b><b style="color:#375">m</b><b style="color:#275">i</b></i> 05:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1, I will repeat what I told you at your user page. You need to drop this. Draw a line and move on. Holding grudges will not work out well. Try to look for the best, not the worst, in posts. Your taking umbrage at Unomi trying to help you makes you look very bad, it's just not appropriate. You asked me to be your mentor, and I gave you advice yesterday to let this go. Earlier, you told me you were going to stick to editing your own userspace only, yet here you are. Drop it. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the latest example of wikihounding and trolling. The user tags my new article written just a few hours before as "new unreviewed article", but the article was not only reviewed, but edited by 2 other editors, but me, before the tag was added. If it is not a trolling, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought that the tag could be used to ask a third party to review it, I hadn't seen either that Brewcrewer and BorisG had made edits to it nor that the tag is only for articles that no one but the original mainspacer had edited. I felt that such outside attention would probably go over better than I writing my comments on the matter. Quite honestly, I was trying to be as non-confrontational as possible in seeking outside attention. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#715">u</b><b style="color:#614">n</b><b style="color:#514">☯</b><b style="color:#414">m</b><b style="color:#314">i</b></i> 19:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at this this weekend, if meatspace work doesn't bury me first. Oh, and the good tidings and joy I'm sharing with my loved ones.--Tznkai (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tznkai, I have a great hope (it is so easy to hope for the best on New Year eve :)) that after my today's communications with unomi, she understood that the farther apart we are the more we will love each other. So at that point I believe we could leave it here, and it is not necessarily for you to loose your time over New Year weekend looking over my evidences. I wish you a Happy New Year, and hope there will be no need to discuss that matter ever again.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Really, that's more important than any of this. Happy New Year. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

JDE AE closure
I've sent you an e-mail, regarding your closure of the JDE AE thread contrary to consensus and apparently without consideration of the alternative/counter-proposals. AGK [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied.--Tznkai (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"similar whether or not access is restricted"
It's not 100% clear if you're going to have more to say about this. Advice would be appreciated. I don't think a POV tag would remain for long if I installed it, though I cannot imagine a better case for one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I move your contributions on the talk page down to the "uselessness of abortion laws" section do keep the discussion together? - Haymaker (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay with me if it's okay with Tznkai.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to keep it where it is, and point from the other section, but I don't feel strongly about it in any particular way. So, whatever works.--Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to summarize, I continue to feel that the sentence in the lead, bereft of all context, is simply there to convey the message that abortion laws have no other effect than to kill women. This is about as extreme as POV-pushing can get, it's not what the cited sources addressed, and it's contradicted by many reliable sources in the "Uselessness of abortion laws" section.  If Tznkai can resolve this mess, that would be most appreciated (and most amazing).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The dispute can only be resolved if we begin by searching for the best available sources and then following where they lead. If such sources come to a conclusion one personally dislikes, then it can be tempting to start turning over rocks looking for lower-quality sources to use as "rebuttals". If one is determined to manufacture a controversy by Google-mining outdated and tangential quotes, then the dispute is likely to be interminable. Incidentally, WP:MEDRS specifically condemns the cherry-picking of sources to "debunk" existing expert opinion. I've made an effort to tabulate the high-quality sources I've located here, using site guidelines to assess source quality. I am not stuck on having the sentence in the lead, but I'm also somewhat reluctant to compromise with what seems to me a clearly ideological campaign to obscure current scholarly and expert opinion on the topic. MastCell Talk 19:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to you, MastCell, at the article talk page. I have no ideological agenda here, but am not confident that the same is true of all the editors involved here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!
You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C. Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
 * Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
 * Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
 * Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
 * Details & RSVP:  Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bible
If you really want to discuss the Bible and myth, e-mail me at slrubenstein at yahoo dot com and I can send you a pdf of an article from a reliable source you could use to this end. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will try to shoot an email in the next couple days.--Tznkai (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Miscarriage
Hi, as you had commented on the terminology used in this article in earlier discussion, would you mind looking at some research I have found regarding updated nomenclature for early pregnancy events. I have asked a couple of other editors who have commented on the talk page to look at the material also. [] User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting research. Discussion seems dead and I don't reall have anything of substance to add, but let me know if that changes.--Tznkai (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post. You've given me a new perspective on the issue, and I'm going to step away for a while to let it seep in.  But your observations were, in my view, the best thing I've read on that page.  Truly, thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion proposal post
Thank you for your post. You've given me a new perspective on the issue, and I'm going to step away for a while to let it seep in. But your observations were, in my view, the best thing I've read on that page. Truly, thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you to say. I'm glad that what I wrote was worth the time it took to read, and that you went into the issue willing to listen to different perspectives. Its a depressingly rare quality sometimes. --Tznkai (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Always good to see your name pop up on my watchlist, although I'm sorry to hear that you're dealing with some sadness in real life. If there's anything I can do, drop me an email or leave me a note. Best wishes. MastCell Talk 03:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for this, particularly the second sentence. Not just in that particular context, but as a general guiding statement. I used to think it was a self-evident truth, but I think it's somehow become regarded as a quaint anachronism. (I originally wrote more, but my computer ate it and I don't have the heart to re-write it. So you lucked out :) ). Good to see your name pop up on my watchlist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bonus points for the edit summary paraphrasing the Bhagavad Gita, or at least Oppenheimer. MastCell Talk 21:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm full of quaint anachronisms! But thank you for the thank you. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I was riffing on Oppenheimer, and I had totally forgotten about the origin in the Bhagavad Gita. I personally really should have known better.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also here for props for that. Kewlness reigns. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In Bhagavad-a-Gita, baby, don't you know that I'll always be true? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, now that will be stuck in my head for the rest of the day! props to you too, Floq! Well returned! KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Applause
For this. Well said. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * D'aww. You're making me blush. Not to make me wonder if you've taken leave of your senses. Respected and unflappable? I wish.--Tznkai (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making all kinds of good sense all over tonight. I would also compliment you on your reasoning on the template issue currently on ANI, but its beginning to sound like I have a Tznkai fixation. :-P KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More praise
I really liked this, and, though I have chosen not to get involved there, I think you captured what I would have said. Thank you. --John (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to hire someone to handle your fan mail. Why not run for ArbCom? That seems to be the fastest way to rid oneself of excess popularity. MastCell Talk 04:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * John, thank you. Mastcell, this is revenge, right?--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy - Time to hat Ludwig's posts
Can I remove Ludwig's hat?

Before that post I hadn't posted on that page for a few days, for the reasons given in that very post. He has continued to post repeats after repeats after repeats. His behaviour has been appalling in many places.He has abused me and others many times.

If I cannot unhat it, can I hat every post where he has been critical of others?

Right above his hat, he says "there's enough garbage on this page without adding yet another thing..." Clearly not intended as a criticism of his own work, so obviously intended as an attack on everyone who disagreed with him. I think I will hat it.

What do you reckon? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, and no. No more messing with each others posts or counter messing with your own posts.--Tznkai (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I won't. Sorry. I just had to get those words out. I wouldn't care if Ludwig agreed with everything I've ever posted. He really has attempted to dominate that discussion by sheer volume of words. I'm sure it hasn't helped his cause. And he doesn't even seem to realise it. That's the saddest bit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * HiLo - I do not have any problem with you hatting any offensive comment I have made on the page provided that (1) you do so selectively to remove offensive material without changing the meaning or sense of my arguments, and (2) I am allowed to similarly expurgate your posts (and the posts of others who have attacked me on the page). I even made an inline template for that purpose - nono.  we could probably cut the volume of material on the page by a third if we did so.  I don't have a problem accepting that kind of moderation so long as it's balanced and mutual.  If that's what you want to do, let me know, and we'll give the page a facelift.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On bullying, piling on, and anonymous distributed misery over the internet.
Some thoughts that have some application to Wikipedia. http://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/09/25/heisenberg-harmless-torture-and-cyberbullying/

--Tznkai (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Parfit’s second scenario does kind of apply here, doesn't it? Or death by a thousand cuts, as they used to say.  I hope you're resilient and doing well, Tznkai.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep on keepin' on. But yeah, Parfit's second scenario is interesting on Wikipedia because of how the "torturer's" experience massive coordination failures, while simultaneously appear to be actively conspiring. --Tznkai (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see you again around these parts... I've passed this article on to some of my friends who are interested.  Hope you've been well. --R. D. Jones  17:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been well! Its good to see you as well, Wikipedia could always use more well qualified editors doing the real work around here.--Tznkai (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

talk:pregnancy
Please do not criticize me for hatting an obvious incivility. The other alternative is that I berate HiLo for going out of his way to say mean things about me on the talk page, and that's unproductive at this point. Or perhaps you are suggesting that I should sit quietly and allow him to assassinate my character as much as he chooses?

I wish I had that in me, I truly do. But that is not going to happen.

I will hat comments like that in the future if they occur, as an alternative to responding in kind. As an administrator, you should be hatting comments like that; since you're not doing so, my hand is forced. Let's both hope there is no future need. -- Ludwigs 2 04:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not the arbiter of what someone else gets to say. There are many alternatives, all of which are your choice. Some of those include using talk pages. Some of them involve asking an administrator for help. Some of them involve rising above it, and some are simple "That is a mischaracterization."
 * You will stop. Or I will choose an alternative.--Tznkai (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Expanding on the above. Undo your changes to his comments. State your side of the story if you must (I think you already have), but undo the changes. Consider this a very strong suggestion.--Tznkai (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can explain to me how any single part of the hatted post is relevant to the discussion on that page, I will happily un-hat it. However, it seems to me the entire tenor of that post is about me and my putative bad behavior on the page.  It has no value except to stir up emotions against me (or simply to irritate me), and is a positive detriment to productive discussion.


 * Stating 'my side of the story' is not appropriate on the talk page, since 'my side of the story' (with respect to that post) is that the post is overly-personal, wrong, and offensive. Do you want us to waste tons of talk space just so I can defend myself against (1) things I'm ostensibly planning (line 1), (2) ostensive repetitions I have made (line 2), (3) accusations of un-wisdom and immaturity (line 3), or (4) supercilious and unnecessary insults masquerading as 'advice' (lines 4 and 5)?  I've done plenty of that on the page already, I no longer want to do it.  hatting the post seemed the easiest and most direct way to avoid further confrontations.  do you disagree?


 * I asked a simple question about getting an unbiased admin to close the case, and I got jumped on for it. Please do not criticize me for hatting that response.  I have behaved (I think) with admirable restraint in that section, because my first instinct was to tell HiLo exactly what I thought of him and his opinions of my character, and that would have been extremely unpleasant.  I may not be the arbiter of what other people say, but if that's the case then no one else is the arbiter of what I say.  I will leave it to your discretion which kind of page you want to see, but it will not be a page in which people can insult me freely while I am forced to be sweet to them in return.  That is not acceptable, so let's aim for a page in which no one insults anyone at all.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not behaved with admirable restraint. You've behaved poorly, and your logic of "well there terrible so I get to defend myself however" carries no water. What you have either failed or refused to realize is that hatting someone else's comments, is in of itself, proving, and has no essentially value except to stir up emotions and irritate.
 * As an analogy, imagine you are an employee in a workplace, and another employee starts insulting you and belittling your work. Do you get to duct tape his mouth shut? Do you get to alter the security recordings so that future people reviewing don't see the part that you say "adds no value?" If you're familiar with defamation law, if you were actually defamed, do you think you'd have the write to shred all parts of the newspaper that defamed you? Or would you have to settle for money damages and a court injunction?
 * The easiest and most direct way to avoid further confrontation is to walk away. If you're unable to do that, its to simply ignore the insults, and stick to the subject. If you can't do that, its to ask for help. If you can't do that, its to reply briefly and calmly. And so on and so forth. Altering someone else's posts especially those directed at you is not anywhere on the list.--Tznkai (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not my logic. That is what you imagine my logic to be, and it is not a good representation of what I actually said, much less of what I'm actually thinking.  Do you care to hear my actual logic, or do you prefer to stick with what you've got?


 * In a workplace or a court of law there are clearly delineated and strongly enforced codes of conduct. If I were a lawyer in a court case and my opponent made some statement that questioned my integrity or my wisdom (or even any statement that lay outside the strictly defined confines of the case at hand), all I would need to do would be to raise an objection - the statement would be stricken from the record, the jury instructed to disregard it, the case itself might be declared a mistrial and the opponent sanctioned by the court and by the bar for misconduct.  If someone insults me in the workplace they do so at the risk of their job; numerous minor incidents or one major outburst creates a hostile workplace that is actionable, and employers are generally quite willing to terminate employees who behave that way.


 * On Wikipedia codes of conduct are vague, interpretable, and enforced in an entirely haphazard way that makes them worse than useless. I mean, let's examine the suggestions you gave, to see how they actually work on wikipedia:
 * walk away - that is precisely why people like HiLo and Dessources write the kinds of posts they do: they think if they make the page hostile enough, their opponents will 'walk away' and they will implicitly own the content of the page. (that is also precisely why I do not walk away, ever - it's a matter of principle for me).
 * ignore the insults and stick to the subject - how many insults shall I ignore? how many can you ignore? I'm sorry if I do not have an endless patience for being insulted by people when I am trying to reason with them, though it seems clear that such people have endless capacities for being insulting.  probably I could do better, but you and I both have limits, and I (for one) do not pretend otherwise.
 * ask for help - from whom? The last four or five times I have asked for administrative help I have gotten in trouble for it (even blocked for it).  I sear, some Enculé de merde of an admin blocks me because I asked for help with someone he considered to be on his side, and it doesn't matter matter how reasonable my request is - does that strike you as appropriate?  You hunt around for my ANI troubles with Ronz, Mathsci, Bullrangifer and QuackGuru and you'll see what I mean.
 * reply briefly and calmly - two points on this:
 * One cannot have an intelligent conversation in sound bites.
 * How do I respond 'briefly and calmly' to the assertion that I am a sexually-repressed, nipple-fearing censor? The only 'brief and calm' response to that is to point out to the person that s/he's being a complete moron, but no one seems to like it when I point out that people are being morons, even where it is obviously true.  Believe me, I can call someone a moron without my heart-rate braking 60 if it's justified: that is not an emotional reaction, but rather a logical assertion based on their mode of reasoning.  Sorry, but some people reason very, very badly; that is not my doing, and it is a natural consequence of the normal distribution of intelligence compounded by differential educational path-dependencies.  And yet everyone seems much more comfortable with the obviously emotional 'nipple-fearing censor' bit than with the apparently factual 'moron' bit.  explain that to me.


 * Altering someone else's posts is actually a point of policy. please see this section of the talk page guidelines, particularly where it says "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived".  I archived.  You may prefer leaving them as-is, but there is room for discretion here, and I believe that removing even mild personal attacks of that sort (so long as it is done in a balanced and uniform manner) is a positive benefit to the page.  If you disagree we should take that up as a policy discussion over at wp:TPG or wp:CIV.


 * Now, you let me know whether you want me to explain the logic of this situation to you. If you don't, that's fine, and we can drop the matter here.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please redact your 'grown ups' comment. it's unnecessary and inflammatory. If you're going to criticize me for my behavior, please try to model a better attitude. -- Ludwigs 2 23:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed it. And minor nitpick, redact is when some authority censors some document, in the service of law and/or security. This is something else.--Tznkai (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting: my dictionary just defines it as 'edit for publication'. refactor isn't quite right either: is there a better term I don't know of?  -- Ludwigs 2  00:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove.--Tznkai (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah! - -- Ludwigs 2 02:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gee, thanks
Its leaking onto my talk page now. Its a fungus, isn't it? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, I want to say to both of you that I'm sorry. The dynamic on the page got out of hand, and while my own fit of snotty petulance has passed (for the moment, anyway), a nasty energy has built up and tapped into some deep-seated issues, and will probably take a while to boil away.  These things take on a life of their own, sometimes.


 * I wish I could see a better way to cope with these situations. Yes, it would be good for me not to lose my temper, but even given that, pages like this become no-win situations for normal editors.  The choices for someone on my level seem to be to give up and walk away, to quietly endure abuse for months, or to fight back, and none of those choices are good.  And yes, I know, you'll probably say I should seek out admins for help, but the fact is (no offense) that admins simply don't seem to care, not unless (a) they have an iron in the fire (which always seems to work against me, personally), or (b) things get so bad that someone decides something harsh needs to be done.  That leaves people like me trying to figure out how to edit in peace in the face of intractable opposition without support.  Believe me, I can hold my own (and more) in a rational discussion, but when it turns to mudslinging, what's left to do?  I can mudsling with the best of them too (which is a good part of why I irritate people so much - there's nothing worse than someone who's intelligently nasty); that's not really a solution, but at least it keeps a certain balance of power in play.


 * I guess I wish wikipedia were a better place. I don't think it ever will be, and wikipedia as it stands tends to bring out sides of me I do not like, but I do wish that.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been reading this whole thing for a couple days now and from a completely outside perspective, I think everyone involved needs to take a step back and ask themselves if this is a hilltop that's really worth fighting for. When I first saw the image in question my reaction was that it was placed there only to provoke conflict and spur a WP:NOTCENSORED war for no good reason. In fact, this has to be one of the most time consuming, POINTy, and ultimately inconsequential edit wars since the question of whether to use AD/BC or BCE/CE should be used on Jesus Christ's article. This is NOT to say I support any one opinion on the matter, but in the end it all comes down to a question of where our time is best served to the greatest benefit. I agree with Ludwigs2 in the way that he wishes Wikipedia would be a better place, where it is possible to get things like third opinions rather than taking things to Requests for Drama, where the fight just continues between deeply biased groups only now with a bigger audience. I haven't been in a true edit war in more than two years because either I'm too apathetic to care about an article enough to go to war over it, or because I just look at the other work that I could be doing with that time... and just decide to do that work instead of fighting an unwinnable fight. Trusilver  05:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 22:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I noticed your reply to an outline thread on NuclearWarfare's userpage, and I thought you might find this mystery interesting. If you find any clues, please let me know!

Annotations needed
The annotating of the entries on Portal:Contents/Outlines is nearing completion.

Annotated entries look like this:


 * Basketball – team sport in which two teams of five players try to score points by throwing or "shooting" a ball through the top of a basketball hoop while following a set of rules.
 * Canoeing and kayaking – two closely related forms of watercraft paddling, involving manually propelling and navigating specialized boats called canoes and kayaks using a blade that is joined to a shaft, known as a paddle, in the water.
 * Cricket – bat-and-ball team sport, the most popular form played on an oval-shaped outdoor arena known as a cricket field at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard (20.12 m) long pitch that is the focus of the game.
 * Martial arts – extensive systems of codified practices and traditions of combat, practiced for a variety of reasons, including self-defense, competition, physical health and fitness, as well as mental and spiritual development.

Entries needing annotations look like this:


 * Industry – 
 * Construction –
 * Architecture –
 * Machines –
 * Industrial machinery –
 * Robotics –
 * Mining –

Please go to Portal:Contents/Outlines' and fill in as many missing annotations as you can, even if it's only one or two. Every little bit helps!

Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have quoted you
Here. I hope you don't mind. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not mind, but its best to clearly note that you are quoting me, for whatever purpose, so you do not appear to be voting as my proxy.--Tznkai (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unthankful job
Thank you for fielding this one. Would you update also the logs? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

DR exception to topic bans
The scope of the expansion of the dispute resolution exception for topic bans from only to talk about the ban to allowing topic banned editors to use DR in general which you recently made in this edit to the banning policy has been questioned here. I thought that you might want to comment there and I was wondering if there might be some consensus discussion somewhere which supported that change or whether it was just done boldly to see if it would stick. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that MedCab is not considered to be formal dispute resolution, so may be out of the scope of this clause in the banning policy. The ban was also placed under discretionary sanctions, so technically they were within their powers to topic ban from DR as well. I do wonder what ArbCom will do here as discussion has gone quiet. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't really the problem either, since Mkativerata explicitly said that there were no exceptions for MEDCAB. A discretionary sanction can revoke anything explicitly except for the "right" of appeal and direct response (and even then, there have been structured we'll-only-hear-your-appeal-under-x-circumstances).--Tznkai (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but in my initial note, above, I was actually referring to Mkativerata's statement that, "It needs not be said that when an editor is 'banned from any editing related to the topic' for battleground behaviour, the ban includes content-related dispute resolution processes." A "ban from any editing related to the topic" is a topic ban and Tznkai's change to the policy says that DR is exempted from topic bans. To Steven's point, Tznkai's change does not say "formal" DR, but "proper" DR. I know policies are supposed to be loosy-goosy and IAR and the like, but when we get down to a banning policy a topic-banned editor should have the right not to be under the threat of being blocked for doing what a policy says in so many words that he can do. While "when in doubt don't, ask instead" is and should be the rule on topic bans, there is no doubt when a policy says in so many words that you can do it (and asking just invites an "oh yeah, I forgot about the DR exception" excuse to extend the ban to DR as well). Maybe this exception is not a good idea, maybe it is, but so long as it is in the policy it is what it is and Mkativerata's statement just causes confusion about its meaning and validity. Best regards, <span style="f, ont-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">TransporterMan ( TALK ) 15:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The original was worded "The following exceptions to ... bans are usually recognized: ... Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution..." which is hardly a model of clarity. MedCab is always going to fall into a black hole. That is how it was designed. I'm not entirely sure what it is you want me to do here?--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was only inviting you to comment, should you care to do so, upon whether or not Mkativerata's statement, quoted above, was or was not a proper interpretation of the policy and, if not, was also asking whether there might be some consensus discussion somewhere which supported your change to the policy. As for MedCab being a black hole, the Dispute Resolution Policy lists it as a form of DR, so I would presume that, unless Mkativerata's statement is correct, participation in MedCab (or for that matter any of the other forms of informal mediation) would be excluded from a topic ban under the policy unless the topic ban expressly includes DR. Is that not correct? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think it depends on the context, and I think generally that restricted users should always be in the mind of working forward, and however they do that, go for it. Mediation Cabal is supposed to be informal, and I prefer it to remain such.--Tznkai (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by it depending on the context. Either it's an exception or it's not, otherwise the exception is just a trap to get the topic banned editor blocked. And I'm even more confused about your comment about the informality of MedCab? How does that bear on this issue? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AE decision
I left a comment on AE board. Your rounding decision is unfair and benefits Khodabandeh14, whose aim is to simply restrict me from editing at any cost. Please, take time to review the evidence I presented carefully, as well as Khodabandeh14's editing behavior and canvassing all over Wikipedia against several contributors besides myself. It is easy to just block or restrict people, to save time, but this should be done based on carefully presented and reviewed evidence. I have not violated my restrictions in any way, haven't even reverted any article. Atabəy (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tznkai, regarding your comment. You are proposing to topic ban from all articles related to Eastern Europe and Western Asia. If that's the subject matter of expertise of the restricted person, how can he/she create Good Articles at all? Atabəy (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Research it. Use the internet.--Tznkai (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still believe that given I had no prior sanctions, and the user was just banned for three months, the punishment is uneven. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Should I notify him or is the notification by new york brad sufficient? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like NYB is pre-empting us.--Tznkai (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I notified him per your instruction but if it is wrong action, please delete it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hi, You can start the 6 months topic ban for me now (October 14 feel free to add the two days as well)..I just request my userpage and talkpage be locked and the way they are. I did my human duty in exposing lobbyist groups across wikipedia and proposing a mechanism to stop them. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC) In addition to my current userpage (both page and discussion), please also lock my previous username (both page and discussion page) as well [] as I do not want to be disturbed.. I can always unlock Khodabandeh14 and Nepaheshgar if I decide to comeback after the 6 months. Thank You. Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi (a small request), even if I am not sanctioned..I would like to have my userpage/talkpage as well as previous [] username/talkpage permanently locked. I will comeback if I feel like it (and ask for unlock), but for now there is no reason as I am disappointed by the total lack of care for my suggestion to stop lobbyist groups in AA (broadly construed) in wikipedia.  Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this still your request?--Tznkai (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tznkai, you have missed the link on "Detail [Here]" while announcing the topic ban in WP:AA2. Can you provide more detail? Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI
FYI. Steven Zhang <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  00:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

Civility issue regarding a user page
I want an outside opinion on a user's conduct and possible response to said user from an admin. While I am not sure if your involvement in my AE case makes it appropriate for you to act after my request, perhaps you could get a different admin to look at the situation. User:MONGO made a change to his user page that I am concerned might be perceived as baiting. It contains a diff of a comment concerning a dispute he had with User:Malleus Fatuorum (a dispute that ended up on AN/I) that provoked some personal attacks MONGO later retracted. The edit summary MONGO gives for the change to his user page says the following:"it's okay for me to refer to myself as this if others not of my country can also do so...." He has subsequently redone the change without that summary, but I do not think the general impression of the change is any different and the old edit summary can still be seen obviously. I raised my concerns about the potentially uncivil nature of the change, but the comment was removed. The general nature and context of the change may not have been noticed by other editors (Malleus specifically) and, if that is the case, it could escalate the dispute should they notice. My hope is that an admin's suggestion regarding the change might be taken more seriously. If you concur that the change to MONGO's user page is likely to be perceived as baiting and uncivil, then I think it would be good to have an admin suggest that the user undo the change to prevent escalation.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been swamped by election stuff, and haven't been able to get to this, sorry.--Tznkai (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The ACE voter log
Well, this is election stuff! About the voter log thing. The socks mostly know how to behave, but it's a bit overwhelming to keep an eye on them 24/7 in these election times. Could you please let me know immediately if you see the evil little anklebiter trying to vote? Regards, Bishonen &#124; talk 01:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Food for thought
An as of yet unknown female admin's perspective Worth reading.--Tznkai (talk) More food for thought on narratives in police interaction--Tznkai (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ACE201X
Hail, erstwhile colleague. Are you at all still interested in taking a crack at this?  Skomorokh   16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as I haven't completely missed the boat, sure.--Tznkai (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all; I've just taken the process from the last election, gave the wording a proper going-over to try and cover the loopholes and eventualities that were apparent, and set in down on paper here. I remember we talked about potential solutions for what-to-do-in-case-of-fire to prevent the disorganisation and drama of previous years, but I can't recall what exactly they were. I'm pondering the notion of authorising election admins by community assent to take whatever course they deem fit, but I'm not entirely clear on the intricacies of it. Anyway, take a look at what's there and let me know if you have any thoughts on avenues of approach to the issue.  Skomorokh   00:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Tznkai,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to DC Meetup #28!
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

Hey, I'm back, can anyone fill me in on what has been happening?
Or has everyone quit or been banned?--Tznkai (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As much as things change, it's amazing how much they stay the same. The encyclopedia is still being built. The vandals are still adding "penis" to assorted articles. The anti-vandals are still report-report-report-report-blocking them. There are still personality clashes. There are still people adding fighting over the genre of their favorite bad music ("it's not dark rock, it's deathrock!") AN/I still exists... unfortunately. A lot of old faces are still here. A lot of new faces have arrived. A lot of people that left will eventually be back. The same old Wikipedia is here. Trusilver  01:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically everyone has quit. Well, sort of. This is my ~95th edit this month, and that's basically equivalent for me. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The wheel turns, as they say.--Tznkai (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delighted to see your name pop up on my watchlist. Average cluefulness of WP just increased. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying so--Tznkai (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am, in fact, lurking. Although... "lurking" does connote a level of attentiveness which, in my case, is spectacularly absent; instead I have been preoccupied with juggling several mutually exclusive obligations and responsibilities. So mostly I just drop by AN/I and watch for exploding drahmaz. Good to see you back, though!! GJC 04:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps skulking then? A little skulduggery perhaps? Hope things clear up for you.--Tznkai (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WT:RFA
Any reason for this? GiantSnowman 16:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than an egregiously dickish comment against a fellow contributor who was doing nothing but his/her best to try to help out? Yeah, I wanted to give Leaky Cauldron a chance to rethink it over before calling him/her out on it in public. Well, more public.--Tznkai (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, while I generally agree that removing or re-factoring comments isn't a great idea most of the time, last I checked it wasn't a strict no-no. Now if policy has been updated, I weep for the increasing minutia but will abide by it. If it is more of a rule of thumb, I agree, and think in this occasion, it was warranted.--Tznkai (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have asked LC to remove/re-factor then, not simply undone his contrib. GiantSnowman 16:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Contribution, while technically correct, is a charitable description of the comment. Refactoring comments is useful when there is something of substance they are getting at that should be preserved in order to preserve the conversation. Asking someone to remove can be just as, if not more embarrassing and frustrating than having the contribution undone, depending on where the asking is done. I balanced the approaches in my head but what really flipped the judgement call was that there would be, at least for a few moments, one less piece of pointless vitriol floating on the internet. A small improvement, granted, but one anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been asked (albeit very rarely) to remove/re-factor before, and if anything it's less embarrassing - I'd want to know when I've stepped across a line and upset somebody, however inadvertently. GiantSnowman 16:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but in this case, in my judgement, based on the facts at my disposal, undoing the comment did the most good along various axes.--Tznkai (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please leave my contributions alone
..thanks. Leaky Caldron  16:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you will soon realize that undoing would have been preferable.--Tznkai (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening me or suggesting that I should be sanctioned for offering my personal opinion on a talk page? Leaky  Caldron  16:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm predicting that this ends worse for you now than it would've if you had just sucked it up and taken the much more charitable line I gave you to save face.--Tznkai (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully
I hope by "respectfully" you meant "respectfully, not "respectfully"? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I genuinely respect your take the situation. Good essay to have handy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Email
You've got one. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied to yours. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

TB
Hi Tznkai,

There is a certain mindset that cannot often be changed or aligned with the policies set forth by Wikipedia. Such was the case with ANI(A).771-45 where this User suggested that wikipedia editors would see Divine judgement for their actions on Wiki as indicated here. Please note, that this case is currently closed. However, the point being that... I see the signs, especially made by the last statement here:. I am afraid that any further assistance that I give may result in wasted effort. There are some people that are just not qualified to edit on Wiki. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to get down to the nuts and bolts of this operation. I will standby for any further instructions,  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts Jason. I will attempt to (again_ reason with the user myself later today, but I don't wish to waste your time.--Tznkai (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You aren't wasting my time at all. I am happy to help, It's just that statements made like that ought not be tolerated and trying to convince persons with this mindset cannot be reasoned with. There is already additional counts against him, with the removal of this controversial content here  which is now turning into an edit war, after ignoring my instruction to talk with me first before making changes like this. He is not following my guidance. Please assist. I'm sorry, I saw two reverts but it was for something different... may not be an edit war.  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  15:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Andycjp
Hi. I didn't realise you were keeping an eye on him, so sorry if I was treading on your toes - I'll leave it to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its less a territorial thing than a talking off the ledge thing. He definitely seems to react poorly to direct confrontation on his POV.--Tznkai (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, I think you're right - I've removed my comment, as there's a good chance he won't have seen it yet. Good luck with the "softly, softly" approach. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Sorry if you felt I was too harsh or directed on Andycjp's page.--Tznkai (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, no worries ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Tznkai, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to work with you. It is unfortunate the turn of events regarding Andycjp‎. Since I was directly involved, I didn't see any reason to post at ANI. I did want to mention though, that I do support the indef blocking and I'm glad it was taken cared of because there is no other way. Thanks, again. &mdash; Jason Sosa  18:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

AE ban appeal
Hi, I just wanted to get your honest opinion whether or not I hold a solid chance if I do come up with diffs, as per your request. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lifting a sanction is an uphill battle. If you can show me evidence that you are likely to be able to work productively, then I will advocate for lifting the sanction, though I also would not hesitate to reinstate it if the problem re-emerged. Also, explaining your behavior by accusing another editor of "smearing" (regardless of whether or not that is true) does not fill me with confidence. I'm not going to pretend that it is anything but difficult to get a sanction lifted, but it is possible, if you can show you've changed.--Tznkai (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Election RFC
One issue that has been discussed, but not included in the RFC so far, is the issue of "parties." It appears that discussion of the "Reform Party" is still going on, so it is possible that there actually will be at least one "party" endorsing candidates in this election. For that reason, I have written up a list of "ground rules" for the treatment of any "parties" that do support candidates. It is still in my user space here and I would appreciate your comments, especially on some of the one or two "technical" questions that I have in the footnotes, before I post it in the RFC. Or if you believe that the whole thing is a bad idea, I would like to know that too. This is intended to be a compromise between having a "nonpartisan" election but also permitting editors to form affiliations and communicate about them to the voters, and to put as much of the "party business" as possible in user space rather than on the Wikiproject that was recently "kept". Anyway, your thoughts would be welcome over the next two or three days while this is still in my user space. I am also going to post this message on two other editors' talk pages. Neutron (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will have to take a little time to gather my thoughts on the nature of political parties. It was a development I feared/anticipated some years back, I had just hoped it wouldn't come (or would be someone else's problem). I'll try to get back to you ASAP.--Tznkai (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are still looking at this, I edited the first version (still here) down to a shorter version (here). The new version merges the introduction into the proposals themselves and does not mention the issue of voter guides, which was questioned by another editor who thought having the "party endorsement" page in "Wikiproject space" would be better.  I don't want this to get rejected because of what "space" something is in -- assuming that this proposal is even necessary at all.  I still have not posted it in the RfC as I really wanted to get some feedback first.  Neutron (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented there.--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

request
I wouldn't be surprised or upset if you don't remember me (User:Ched Davis - now User:Ched), but years ago I spoke to you and listened to you a few times. Anyway .. I saw a post from NYB about the upcoming Arbcom election )here) .. and thought I'd think about a short list of people I think would benefit the project if they served in that position. Your name came to mind, so I thought I'd ask if you would consider it. IIRC, you have in the past been active in that area - and I'm wondering if I could talk you into doing it again? Would you consider it? —  Ched  ZILLA  03:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Ched! I don't recall the exact issue, but I did recognize your non-zilla name and remember having a positive impression of you, so glad to see you're around. I'll dig through contributions later to figure out where we crossed paths exactly. Anyway, as a matter of full disclosure, we don't exactly see eye to eye on the recent business, so if you find you want to withdraw this, I totally understand. To answer you anyway, I'll be honest, I don't know. I ran in what, 2006, 'cause I was green and full of energy, and concerned that the slate was weak, and not aware that my other life commitments and challenges were going to suck any desire to Wiki out of me in a few years. I've been pretty busy recently, and I'm worried that might happen again, and some members of my family probably don't want to see Wikipedia become my life if it goes the other way.
 * I'm not sure how good of a pulse on the Wikipedia community I've got either. I've been gone for a little, and people seem unhappier then usual around here. The recent insanity doesn't even shock me, since I feel like its just a re-run of similar issues in our DR history.(I've seen this movie before! With the same cast too, mostly playing the same roles!). Hell, even the civility RFC is just a rerun of the one Casliber tried. I know I'd try hard to do a good job, but I don't know if I could do a good job. I'm not sure if I want my primary connection to this place be that near endless pit of despair, despite my pathological need to fix intractable disputes. I mean, AE was bad enough.
 * I'm very flattered you asked, and will admit to having enough ego that I smiled instead of recoiling in horror. I'll think about it seriously, but no promises beyodn that.--Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For your review
I feel like I'm close, but not quite... can you review how I handled Talk:Cain and Abel? I really want to know how I can improve my delivery. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  17:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Spent the day off wiki and then got exhausted due to recent dramas. Will try to get to it tonight or early tomorrow EST, and I'll let you know what my overall game plan is as well.--Tznkai (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I try to avoid linking to policy whenever possible. Catchphrase based arguments are both rhetorically weak and more importantly, confusing as hell to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with our jargon and idiom. This doesn't mean we shouldn't refer to policy, but rather we do it by using plain text. So, for example instead of saying that "Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:original research" I try to explain that "On Wikipedia, we do not draw our own conclusions based on primary sources, but rather, we look for secondary sources like scholarly papers.
 * In this situation in specific, the original editor could have been trying to make a point about what should be in the article, or just having a conversation. You had the right instinct in addressing both questions, but you tried to cram a lot in your answer. So, admit ignorance from the start "I'm not sure if you're trying to start a discussion, or you're making a suggestion of what should be on the article. If you're trying to start a discussion..."
 * Last piece of advice here, is that the conversation with Lindert starting going off the rails pretty much when it started. At that point, I usually switch venues - since you're no longer answering the original question and it still isn't clear whether it is actually article related, send the editor a polite talk message directly about your concerns. Instead of "it is not the place of a Wikipedian editor to answer this sort of question" I prefer something a little less strong toned. If you know any teachers in your life, you can observe they have two different modes of speech, a moment when they start speaking in their "teacher voice." Admins do the same. Do you think you may have been speaking in your admin voice here?
 * Final thought, this is all very experimental, and I'm not sure whether public or by email is best. I've tried public, so any one kibitzing can throw in their two cents as well. Let me know what you would be more comfortable with.--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points... I will study this info more carefully and see if I can improve my tone and delivery the way you've suggested. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  00:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to throw this here for now until I get more organized, but my current game plan goes roughly like this:


 * 1) Go through common administrator tasks, from menial to significant, and do a step by step walk-through of the process. I'll do something, explain my thinking behind it, ask for your comments, and then have you go through what you would do in my place with a different request. For example, on a request for page protection, either protect, or not protect the page, explain what I researched and why, and my conclusions, and then ask how you would do it yourself.
 * 2) I'll also expose you to the thoughts of other admins whose judgement I trust but who often come at things from a very different angle during these mini workshops. The whole idea is to expose someone to a lot of different kind of thinking on the subject so they don't have to learn everything on the fly. It is certainly possible to do it that way, but I'm hoping this will be better.
 * 3) From there, we'll go into the more difficult dispute resolution tasks, covering how to deal with newbies, editors, and blocks.
 * 4) All the while, you'll be doing whatever it is you want to do, but with me as an available resource to look over things.
 * 5) Finally, as a final exam, I'm going to give you a complex hypothetical problem covering multiple issues, that you might possibly face; I tried that as a question on an RfA before, but they were too much effort to try to do as common feature, so it never took off. I'm hoping to bring them back for this.
 * 6) Assuming you still want to try, and I haven't decided you're absolutely insane, I'll nominate you for RfA when you desire, and write up a longer report based on the mentorship for those interested.
 * Right now my plan is to have the majority of this on wiki to allow for other admins to kibitz and comment. As I warned you, this is highly experimental, but my hope is to put a tiny dent in the RfA problems by turning potential admins into mostly known quantities. If you have any concerns, feel free to e-mail me, and you can stop anytime with no hard feelings.--Tznkai (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds exciting. I'm up for this. I found this to be rather interesting... because these methods seem to be useful beyond Wikipedia such as how I deal with real world electronic interactions (business emails regarding disputes, deviations). Even AGF comes in handy in real life business e-situations believe it or not. Anyway, I really like what you are promoting here. Thanks for allowing me this opportunity, even if it is experimental.  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

‎On the recent wheel warring section
May I suggest this has the possibility to inflame more. You are effectively saying that those are four bad calls which will effect those four individuals. So my advise would be to remove your recently added section. Talking to the individuals is likely to be more productive except with for Boing said Zebedee who has left the project; see his/her user page. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am exactly saying those are four bad calls, and I also left personal messages on the appropriate user talk pages. I'm not certain that what I did was best, but it doesn't really feel wrong either. Hell, there is a case to be made that all four should be desysopped for poor judgement. (Not going to make that case, but it exists out there in the ether). And with the exception of Jclemens' alarming statement about who is and is not a Wikipedian, bad admin conduct is pound for pound the best way to degenerate a situation, especially when it is not opposed publicly. To be frank, I am surprised that no one else had done so. Perhaps I am alone on this, and I will consider your advice and point of view in case I am.--Tznkai (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem is that it's personal; a negative comment that targets someone. No one else has done so in part for that reason. You are not saying admin conduct degenerates a situation you specifically calling those individuals out. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 05:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the decision was bad, (let us assume for a moment that it is), there doesn't seem to be a way to talk about it without being both negative and talking personally about the decision maker. Here, for example, you are giving me, personally, negative feed back about a decision I made. More to the point, the issue at hand is judgement. I believe and stated that their conduct worsened the situation, and what I was trying to explain above is that not calling out the bad behavior can make the situation even worse. That, I think is why some many of us who might self-identify as "civility cops" pounced on Jclemens statement about who and who is not a Wikipedian. Civility is not never saying something negative (similarly, peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice) but the presence of respect, including disagreement. --Tznkai (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if a decision is thought to be 'bad' then first step is allow the defendant a possibility to explain, hence talk page discussion is a good thing. Perhaps the 'bad' can be seen from a different point of view, or other information might change the perception, or the defendant might see the error themselves and that may clear up the situation entirely. If it's still 'bad' and the defendant is not showing any correction to the mistake then take to another venue. In Arb venue is unlikely to be a good venue as: it's somewhat off topic; it can inflame the general drama more(partly because it's high drama already but also because it's a very public high profile page which makes the criticism more acute); plus it's not a page that is intended for discussion. Of course I accept you are well intended and wish to give negative feedback to improve the situation, however I don't think it will fulfill it's intended aim via the current venue. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 07:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The blocks and unblocks are direct outgrowths of that clarification request (and all the actions have already passed) and were exacerbated by the battleground behavior throughout. Hell, I only learned about the Shulz/Boing! block/unblock because they both mentioned it there, and they were already dead and gone, so I don't know how much private conversations would have fixed the situation. I just don't see the line between "The ongoing coercion appears to be bullying. It's not pretty at all and many people involved should seriously consider this point" and "I am very disappointed with all four of you." being really all that significant. I don't think this is just about me thinking that some admins made some silly decisions and giving them feedback over coffee, a line was crossed here, and it sure looks like it was done as a public act - it seems to me a public act is logical in return. Anyway, I am to bed, but I will consider it more in the morrow.--Tznkai (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This communication seems to have become less effective so I recluse from engaging further. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring
I just wanted to let you know, in reference to your comments on the current Arbitration kerfuffle, that you've misunderstood the term wheel warring. Per WP:WHEELWAR, the term only applies on the third admin action. That is, when Admin A takes an action, and Admin B undoes it, that's not wheel warring. WW is only when there is a third action (either Admin A, or a third Admin C) undoes Admin B's actions. Thus, neither of the two examples you called out are wheel warring--they're both cases of one admin undoing another, basically just like how an editor can revert the action of another. As to whether or not everyone's actions were in poor form or badly thought out...that's a different matter, and I'm trying to not comment on the actual matter of this dispute myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While the third move is wheel warring per se, the policy states (correctly in my opinion) "Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action." The focus is, and certainly ought, to be on the combative nature of the tool use, not on counting who went first. (There is also the issue of determining what the first "action" is sometimes). Wheel wars are simply when wheels war with each other.--Tznkai (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but your interpretation doesn't make sense. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a separate section for "undoing an administrator's actions" and "wheel-warring". By definition, wheel warring cannot occur without a third person. THis specific matter has even been debated a number of times, because the "problem" is that the current rule gives a "second-mover's advantage" (the administrative revert always "wins" unless you can show a clear community consensus otherwise). Note that the previous section still explains that admins should be careful to undo other admin's actions, but wheel-warring requires a third action. The only reason why I'm clarifying is that wheel-warring almost always incurs a de-sysoping, unless it was shown to be accidental. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that wheel-warring requires both a third person, and the reinstatement of a previous action. Hypothetically consider this: administrator A blocks administrator B. Administrator B unblocks B, and blocks A. That isn't a wheel war?--Tznkai (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. It doesn't take a third person, but it does require that the initial action be reinstated (in your example, someone, either A or C, reblocking B). However, an additional rule would apply in the case of your example, which is that admins are never supposed to unblock themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, now you've both said it definition-ally requires a third person, and have said it does not, so I am a little confused. But if I understand you correctly: if A blocks Z, who by request, is unblocked by Y, who then blocks A, who then is unblocked by B, who also blocks Y, who is unblocked by Z, who blocks B, which is undone by A, that isn't a wheel war?--Tznkai (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making the situation unnecessarily complex, because you've got 2 different blocks in there. Wheel-warring always revolves around a single choice--protect/unprotect a page, block/unblock a user, grant/remove some user right. If I said that you need a third person, that is my mistake--what you need is a total of three or more decisions by two or more admins. A blocks Z (first admin action). B unblocks Z (revert of first admin action). C or A reblocks Z (re-revert of an admin action, the third action taken on this one decision ("should Z be blocked?")). C/A are guilty of wheel-warring. There's no need to add in blocks or unblocks of any person besides Z. There is wheel-warring in your example, but not I think where you expect, because you've added a separate, independent decision--the initial question is "should Z be blocked?" Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What I've described is two teams of admins blocking the other team of admins, who retaliates, and each admin unblocking the other, thus avoiding the self unblock rule. And it is certainly complex, but I'm trying to understand exactly what you're saying doesn't count as a wheel war, because I find wheel warring was likely present at the first instance, the block, and definitely in the retaliatory block. That "independent decision" was present both in the previous hypothetical with A blocking B, and in the actual incident at hand.
 * It seems to me that you're trying to reduce wheel warring into a set of clean patterns, where the only wheel warring is wheel warring per se. This seems roughly analogous to trying to define when an actual war starts as "when one state attacks another with military formations, and the second state retaliates, and the first state defends." --Tznkai (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me I need to make two important points. First, your argument about the consequences of wheel warring reminds me a lot of the tremendous efforts made to ensure that the massive violence in Sudan was not called "genocide" because of what it would necessarily implied. Second, despite my frequent use of analogies, I do not mean to imply that what happens on Wikipedia is nearly as heavy or exactly the same as things that involve dead bodies, and I apologize if it seems I did. It is just the chain of logic I am trying to understand.--Tznkai (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're trying to create some "general" definition of wheel warring, when wheel-warring is term of art invented on Wikipedia with one specific, single definition. It has nothing to do with teams of admins, with undoing blocks on oneself, with retributive blocks, with bad faith, or any of that. It's kind of like 3RR--it's a simple, clear, bright line rule that admins cannot cross without community consensus. The example you raise is much more like general edit warring--I definitely see some of the admins in the hypothteical example you give as needing to be blocked and/or desysoped, but WP:WHEEL is the wrong tool to apply for that problem. In other words, my original point wasn't to say that you were wrong for criticizing Boing! and the other admins (I have no expressed opinion on who is at fault in what way in the overwhelming catastrophe that this issue is becoming), but that you were using the wrong term to find fault with what they did. And while terminology doesn't always matter, here it does, because just like crossing 3RR (without one of the special exemptions) is supposed to always incur a block, no matter what, Wheel-warring is supposed to always be bad and, at a minimum lead to a de-sysoping discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is in fact a term that was imported from UNIX and what we might broadly call hacker culture, and if we actually have terms of arte, (let it not be so) can we also please get some dedicated advocates? Also, decide whether or not we're a civil or common law legal system?
 * For unrelated reasons, I was digging through some previous crazy drama, such as the BLP related mass deletions and a related WP:PROD "wheel war" which, if I read it right, was an issue because of blocks, and not deletion reversals. Also worth noting that no one got desysopped, and, at least as far as I've read, no one blinked at the idea that it would be characterized as a wheel war. So, as an empirical matter, when I look at the policy text and history, "wheel war" does not have a restrictive bright line definition, or at least did not as of January 2012. Maybe things have changed since. We seem to be re-running a pretty classic argument between rules and standards, and I do prefer standards if for no other reason than they are less bureaucratic. At any rate, I changed the section a while back, so if you're just here to try to convince me to do that, you needn't bother. However, I find this discussion pretty interesting, a long as you do as well.--Tznkai (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Email
I sent you an email a few weeks ago - did you receive it? I've been having some email issues lately... Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 22:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it, sorry, I got distracted. Will try to e-mail you a reply soon.--Tznkai (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Vindictive block"
Hi, Tznkai. You posted a comment on the arbitration clarification page a while ago, where you said you got "the reasons why Floquenbeam found Jclemens' comments to be personal attacks, and why Alexandria found them to be vindictive", etc. (Alexandria didn't find Jclemens' comments to be vindictive, s/he found Floquenbeam's block to be vindictive, and I think that was what you meant.) If you get the reasons why Alexiandra thought that, I wish you'd explain them to me. "Vindictive" means primarily "desirous of revenge". Alexandria's comment, "Vindictive block", appears to accuse Floquenbeam of personal motives for the block—of blocking Jclemens in order to revenge himself for some past slight. I have asked Alexandria about it, and also urged them to refrain from gratuitous personal attacks in the block log, and I'm still waiting for them to respond. I've reminded them once. Floquenbeam is a highly respected admin, and as far as I'm aware, he has never blocked anyone "vindictively", and has never had any reason to feel vindictive towards Jclemens. I'd wager something that there's no mutual history at all between them.

Incidentally, I also have my doubts about Boing!'s comment on Stephan Shulz' block of Malleus—"Malicious block"—Stephan is certainly also a highly respected admin—but the phrasing is not quite as egregious IMO, and I haven't raised it with Boing!.

The block log is for ever, and admins need to give some thought to what they post there. If Alexandria's comment was where I could remove it, I might do just that. Anyway. Alexandria still hasn't responded to me, and so the matter slides into the past. It bugs me, with WP:ADMINACCT and all: if Alexandria was going to be too busy IRL to respond to queries about an obviously controversial admin action, I don't think they should have taken that action. Sorry to be asking you to interpret your own comment so long after you made it, and I'll certainly drop it right now if you'd rather not be bothered about it. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
 * As I indicated, I actually found all four of those things inappropriate, because, in my world, admins act with some courtesy towards each other. I apparently live in a fantasy world, but I'd like this world be a bit more like my world. Anyway, revenge can be done on behalf of someone else, in this case Malleus, or "Content Contributors", or whatever faction Alexandria believes that Floq was identifying with, that lex talionis is nothing more than revenge, and Floq was operating under it. Vindictive also can mean more generally spiteful, and with Floq's comment that "He's more a "Wikipedian" than you are," spite is as good of a word as any. Between the two meanings, there is enough overlap to cover a reasonable interpretation of Alexandria's comments.
 * Going more generally, I agree that admins need to be held to account for what they say and do, and I tried to do exactly that but pointing out the bad behavior and encouraging good behavior. I got exactly no receptive responses and two people hopping onto this page to tell me I was varying degrees of wrong. So, the consequences left are a loss of esteem in the eyes of your fellows, which isn't nothing, even if it is intangible. I've been considering resurrecting the Administrator Wikiproject to try to create some sort of actual admin community, but short of that or asking Arbcom for a desysop, I'm not sure what there is left to do. Actually, we could loosen up the block log redaction criteria, but I'm certain that is a very, very bad idea. Those are my general (and meandering) thoughts, I don't know if there was something more specific you were looking for.
 * Also, I am very glad to see you are still editing, but concerned. Quite frankly, you seem to be less happy every time we run into each other. I hope things are better than I think.--Tznkai (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All my friends are leaving. Even Bishzilla is burnt out. :-( Bishonen &#124; talk 20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Look, I believe in Wikipedia. I think we do great work here, and I'm proud to be a part of it, as small and marginal as that is. But it isn't worth misery. The world does its level best to chop us up into petty, bitter factional groups, and there isn't anything here worth adding onto it. Wikipedia will be here without us, whether we edit or not. Coming and going as I do it is clear that this place doesn't need me, and I take heart in that. I don't think it needs anyone in particular, there will always be enough people working in good faith to keep the place spinning, even if it wobbles from time to time.
 * I don't know if you consider us friends, but we're certainly not enemies. So, speaking as a friend or at least a colleague, take care of yourself. Do what makes you happy, and if that is here then be here, and if not, then don't. I hope there is something about editing that gives you joy, or at least satisfaction - and if so, please, do it! - if I can help, let me know.--Tznkai (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add my apologies Tznkai if my focusing in on your terminology made things any worse. I never weighed in on the dispute itself, but was greatly saddened to see two of my favorite editors (Boing! and Sitush) walkiing away in support of Malleus or in opposition to Arbcom/Jclemens or whatever it is that was the "real" cause...and other than knowing that I don't want these people to leave, I don't really know how I feel about the underlying issues. I do know that, like you, I think this project matters too much, and has already been so enormously successful (despite the portions of if that need cleansing by fire), that I can't walk away. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, no apologies necessary as far as I'm concerned. I'm certain you were doing what you think is right, and you had a reasonable point, even if I disagreed. We're all just muddling through here, and we are all on the same side.--Tznkai (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your taking the time to write such a polite and articulate letter, which I read carefully.

Sincerely, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  08:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Email

 * I've sent you an email, per your request on the ACE2012 page. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Election
Hi, I'm flattered to be asked! This is a really hard time for work at the moment: huge pressure from clients until 2 December, then medium pressure. If you have specific tasks, I could try to give a little time. Tony  (talk)  08:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Tony, I mostly want your for your body (of institutional memory), but if you're busy we can muddle on without you. If you can think of anything important that I'm likely to have forgotten, please let me know.--Tznkai (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Count me in, but my availability is a bit sketchy for the next 36 hours or so. Was there a particular, hypothetical, situation that we needed to take a crack at? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The EC should be up and running so they can handle any fires, but just start up stuff. I'm going to enjoy Thanksgiving and family myself. Hop on over to the coordination page if and when you get a chance.--Tznkai (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom
Hi there - what would Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination entail? GiantSnowman 16:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Go'fer this, go'fer that, remind candidates of deadlines, if you're an admin, sometimes you may need to throw a block at a sock or two. Its whatever needs doing.--Tznkai (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, I like to help out, I'll just go over and sign up... Oh wait... : ) - jc37 18:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll pitch in where I can. GiantSnowman 18:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

DC Meetup #33
December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill [talk] 14:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Holiday Party and Wiki Loves Monuments Exhibition
Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28!
Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion: Wikipedia and legislative data
Hi Tznkai, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!


 * Please sign up here
 * Announcement on Cato's blog
 * Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
 * Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 13:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29
In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 18:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill [talk] 20:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, May 11!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 23:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DC WikiSalon on May 24
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of May 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 18:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)
Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tempest (Christian rock band)
Back in 2008 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DC WikiSalon on June 6
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Have time on Saturday?
I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, June 15!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 20:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Join us this Sunday for the Great American Wiknic!
Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 00:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!
Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 15:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 06:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 02:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Berthold of Calabria
Hi - would you please explain your rationale for finding consensus to move here? I'd appreciate it - thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done so in detail on the page. I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for appeal, but you are welcome to do so if you find the rationale unsustainable.--Tznkai (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Barleybannocks
I apologize if my comments to Callnecc in any way interfered with your position. I happened to be up early and saw that he was about to act even while another, more humane suggestion was on the table, when you, another admin seemed to indicate you might move that way, and during the time when many because of the hour would not be available to object. I have a strong interest in supporting a fair AE for other editors, so my comments had nothing to do with Barley or his position on Sheldrake but with the thought and hope that the one- admin sanction, a kind of wild west mentality could be moved towards more thoughtful actions in the future. I'm sorry if for some reason Callanecc saw my questions as somehow implicating Barley further. Odd that. At any rate I now have some hope that in the future more enlightened actions may come out of AE, and I do thank you so much for involving yourself there and for your thoughtful responses to the situation. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC))
 * (e/c with Barleybannocks below) No need to apologize. I recognize your pseudonym, although I do not recall why, and I am certain we have disagreed often - but your peacemaker's instinct does you great credit. I agree there does seem to be a little bit of a wild-west dynamic at AE, but I would more characterize it as the Untouchables ala "you want Capone? He pulls a knife, you pull a gun." I have been away too long, and it seems like a tough-on-crime attitude has prevailed with little counterweight.
 * At the same time, I have to admit I am a little bit that old-west sheriff, rarin' to go half-cocked and shooting the hats off of bad guys, even if I prefer putting the town troublemaker in the drunk tank over handing him over to the judge. AE is a tough beat, and I think we need the leeway to occasionally apply creative solutions or come down hard when it is in fact necessary - of course that just makes it more incumbent for admins to do the right thing well. At any rate, thank you for the kind words, and I hope that I don't disappoint your hope, even when we disagree in the future.--Tznkai (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We disagreed only once, that I remember, on the Martinphi sanction. I am never disappointed with honesty and integrity, admire thoughtfulness, and I don't need people to agree with me. I want fairness, and I like to think there are lots of ways to eat a banana.:O)  Thanks and Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC))
 * Tznkai, hi, I'm not screaming myself hoarse at some administrators (proverbially or otherwise). I am asking a simple question about the nature of wikipedia. Is Wikipedia a reference source that endeavours to the best of the ability of its users to provide factual information, neutrally presented, in its articles, or is all content in reality simply the views and opinions of Wikipedia editors (such that articles may misrepresent, exclude, or otherwise distort facts as recorded in hundreds of reliable sources). This is a straightforward question about the extent to Wikipedia's core policies are actual working documents or simply window dressing. You can refer in your answer, if you like, to the test case involving the biologist Rupert Sheldrake, and the suppression of the fact he is a biologist - a fact established in hundreds of reliable sources and disputed nowhere off-wiki. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Barleybannocks, the correct answer to your question is wu. Wikipedia is a reference source, as you described, with the goal of neutrality and reliability and our method in achieving that is broad participation collaborative editing under certain practices rules and norms. I reject the notion that how you were treated is a test case of our mission, even if it is may be another example of a failure to acculturate - for which I am not blaming you. I reject your stake-raising - you ran afoul of our methodology, and this does not implicate the whole conceit, even if it is unfortunate. To go too far down the logic you present is to turn your work on Sheldrake into a battleground on which you defend some greater and outside principle, and that ends swiftly in your exile, with me shutting the same door I will almost always otherwise try to keep wedged open.
 * If I may turn to practical advice, I believe that you are passionate about making Wikipedia a better source, and if you still wish to contribute, find a less controversial but still interesting article to work on (or as they say in the movies, go West young man) and observe how the best Wikipedia editors make their changes and arguments. Editing Wikipedia at anything resembling a sophisticated level is actually very hard, which is unfortunate but true. Compile your sources, find ways to improve articles in low stakes ways as well as high stakes ways, and find ways to compromise on those low stakes changes to build up trust for bigger more difficult changes. Wikipedia has a culture all of its' own, but I think in the end, despite the absurd barriers to entry, it can be intensely rewarding.--Tznkai (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in life-advice thanks. I am asking you, as a (fairly) senior representative of wikipedia, whether the policies, such as those outlines in BLP, are for real or mainly for show. (One point about your advice above, when you say "compile sources" do you mean like 1000 for any basic fact, because my previous offer to supply 100 for such a well-known fact was ignored and/or rejected because some editors don't want the readers to know it.) Thanks again. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a representative. I am a self-selected volunteer, and I answered your question. I will answer it again. They are for real, even if there are imperfections along the way, or just disagreements on how best to apply the policies. I believe I have been been both charitable and evenhanded towards you. Please do not make me feel foolish for having done so.--Tznkai (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the policies are for real then why not apply them. I note, for example, numerous blp violations on certain talk pages (violation as outlined in the appropriate policy) where users are, to your knowledge, using that page engage in defamatory attacks on living people. You're an administrator - administrate.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Barleybannocks, I am, for both of our sakes, going to stop engaging with you for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is your right, and I shall respect it, but when things come to a head, don't say you weren't informed. Barleybannocks (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Absence
I noticed that, prior to the last few days, you had made only two article edits (plus one to your userpage) in the last year. Of course, we're all volunteers and edit according to our own desires, but it's striking to me that someone would be gone for so long and then immediately leap back into combat on various noticeboards. If you've been gone for a year, is that really appropriate? Don't you need some time to refresh your memory and catch up on everything that's happened since last December? I think it would be best to ease more gradually back into the administrative side of things. Everyking (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am generally a believer in (re)learn by doing, and I have held off I think on any major or solo actions except maybe a move. Just discussions as far as controversial article stuff. So I'm taking it relatively slow. Is there a specific problem you think I have caused or handled badly, or is this a general cautionary note?
 * I hope you are doing well.--Tznkai (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A new policy
Maybe Wikipedia should adopt a new (old) policy - that people who have been accused of doing pseudoscience are, in virtue of that, deemed sub-human. That way you can treat them anyway you like and since they're not really people, BLP doesn't apply. Or maybe Wikipedia, and its wikistrators, could show some human decency. The choice is yours. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Barleybannocks, I have a couple pet peeves when it comes to Wikipedia. The first is lazy allusions to Orwell. The second is what you are doing here, asking rhetorical and loaded questions, and otherwise using mendacious framing. (Really, these are the same pet peeve). Either way, I don't appreciate it, and your polite language in no way lessens the fact that you are accusing me of being inhumanly indecent.
 * You act like someone who is looking for a fight, and I am not interested in having that fight. I in fact, have Christmas and family events this week, and I don't wish to inflict on my loved ones the bad mood that inevitably results when I've spent my day trying to be reasonable on Wikipedia with no chance of success. I have no interest in playing the villain in the narrative you have constructed above. Wikipedia isn't perfect. Sometimes, I doubt it is even good, but it certainly isn't this black or white nonsense of your way or we're all monsters. I'm not buying it.
 * I believe you have, behind the bluster, valid points. This is why I pushed against an indefinite topic ban. I would be interested in helping you return to unrestricted editing, but not at the cost of you heaping abuse on me and the community I have chosen to serve, especially if only to see you rightfully banned again for your behavior.
 * If what you remain interested in is the argument you tried to start above, I will now grant you the last word. If later wish to find me for constructive purposes, you know where to find me.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Other people have lives too. Lives that should be free from public abuse. No?Barleybannocks (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Barleybannocks. I understand you feel abused, and believe me you have nothing on me, but Tzankai is the admin who tried to make things work for you, to make it easier. I think most admins are doing their best but its not easy to see the evidence in these cases. You cannot improve anything with these attacks. I know more than you can imagine what the AE judgment feels like, three times over, but this approach cannot change anything . You cannot shed light on a dark place with more dark. The system no longer works and that must change in time, but change will not happen on Wikipedia in isolation of the community, and isolation  is what we create with this approach. And again Tznkai was the admins who tried to approach this in an enlightened and even novel way. I thank him for  beginning to look at approaches that are more just than in the past. He needs support not attacks. Best wishes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC))


 * Olive, I don't feel abused. I was talking about the outrageous BLP violations that are happening on the Sheldrake article and talkpage and which are being facilitated by Tznkai amongst others via their current ban feeding frenzy. And the fact they are unwilling to spend more than a few minutes checking out the false allegations against editors or the egregious BLP violations means, since they have the power to stop it and instead are knowingly facilitating it, that they are ultimately as responsible as those who are writing it and raising the actions. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not sure why you would include an admin who tried to help, in your allegations. Second, in an AE, an admin can apply a sanction, but another single admin cannot overturn that sanction.Wikipedia has AE processes established by a community, and no admin can counter those processes as an individual with out making a worse mess than there is already.You've been told Tznkai will help you because he feels you have valid points, and there are appeal processes as well. You are talking about abuses here call it what you will, and you can't overcome that nor is anyone likely to help if  you approach them this way. That's all I'm saying. And I've been  where you are multiple times so know that I can understand.You have options,  and perhaps take Tznkai up on his offer to help in a few days. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC))

Regarding the Alfonzo Green AE case...
Hi Tznkai, regarding my closure here of the AE case regarding Alfonzo Green, it was brought to my attention that perhaps enough time wasn't given for further consideration of Alfonzo's comments due to the holiday yesterday. Did you have any intent on making a substantive change in your position regarding that case after Alfonzo's comments and before my closure? Please let me know if so... Thanks. 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied on Zad68's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Trout: Bad vote
You have voted [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee&diff=587324441&oldid=587320253 voted] a disambiguation page mu. I'm wondering if you're trying to convey a nuance of meaning other than "no"? (Or at least a Western / American "no"). NE Ent 10:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am confused why I'm being trouted, is it because I didn't link correctly? No matter, I'm using wu in the sense that it is used to answer koans and other loaded questions, that is, to reject the inquiry as ill-founded.--Tznkai (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. The primary reason you were trouted is because you have the open to trouting user box on your use page. Practice I was referring to is WP:INTDAB. Per WP:TROUT such things are not meant to be taken seriously. NE Ent 12:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This thread is floundering. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NE Ent, thanks, I was just concerned I had missed something more serious. George, there is a special circle of hell reserved for child molesters, punsters, and people who talk at the theater.--Tznkai (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come to this party late, but just saw the vote you made and wanted to add "mou" to your repertoire of ways to say it in Asian languages, if it's not already there. That's how you say it in Cantonese (maybe also other southern varieties of Chinese? Not sure.) If you already knew that, please disregard my message. If not... well, you can still disregard it if you so choose. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! I wouldn't know on the other dialects of Chinese, since they're pretty much independent languages inexplicably bound by a shared written language. Source it and add it to the page?--Tznkai (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already in the infobox, at least, which might be sufficient if there's nothing particularly Cantonese to say about it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Meetups coming up in DC!
Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:


 * Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
 * Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding appeal Cihsai
Hi Tznkai, upon your advice I have informed the three editors on their talk pages. I was not aware that such notice was my responsibility, therefore thank you for your advice. I wish to inform the editor Omer182 as well who had taken a lead role in discussion back in 2007-2008. Would he be allowed to contribute under the "uninvolved editors" section, if he prefers to interfere?

I wish to make some further statements in view of the comments of "uninvolved editors" as well as possibly "involved editors". Can you please advise where I can insert such new statements?Cihsai (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cihsai, you would add comments under "statement by Cihsai", other editors will add their comments where they will in their best judgement.--Tznkai (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi,I have of course acknowledged your decision about the ban. I know that your decision is not subject to discussion. However I am eager to know the reasons for your decision. Therefore I kindly ask you to provide comments to the statements I have made. I have let some time to pass and reevaluated my statements. I beleive I have presented the facts in understandable English. My common sense as well as the Wikipedia guidelines as quoted in my statement, lead me to beleive that those facts would not render me to have deserved a ban. Actually I would expect the counterparts to be criticised.I wonder whether I have failed to present the facts or the “Rules” are very different from what I understand.Thanks in advanceCihsai (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been pretty busy this week, but I will try to review over the next day. Is that alright?--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm not sure there are formal rules on this anywhere, but in my opinion, in order to modify the ban of another administrator I have to be convinced not that I would have done something different, but that the administrator who did it was obviously wrong. If it is reasonable that the other administrator did what they did, I should not over turn it. OR, if circumstances have changed significantly since the original action, then I might waive or lessen the sanction. Either way, you have to convince me that something is significantly different.
 * The hang up seems to be over the nature of consensus and the revert/discuss cycle. Your appeal seemed to rest on three grounds. 1. That you had in fact been discussing, 2. that the other people involved in the discussion were reverting without discussion and 3. that you were actually defending the status quo ante.
 * In order for discussion to be adequate, it needs to be sustained, currently active and almost always on the talk page. If an edit is controversial, that means get agreement before making the substantive change. The point is for people to work together and to come to compromise. So, you needed to be actively discussing. Your second and third points don't work out because of the old adage of two wrongs not making a right. Maybe your opponents should have been more polite, and maybe someone should have done a better job back in 2008, but right now, you're using the edit process to try to force what you think should be the correct.
 * I understand that the flimsy way we use "consensus" is incredibly frustrating, but the bottom line is this: you have to convince people that you're right, or at least to compromise, instead of just editing the page to try to get your way.--Tznkai (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indef blocked IPs problem
Hey, so I am nudging you per your remark. There are competing ideas on how to handle the problem but I think the consensus is that this is indeed a problem which is progress never the less.

There are two main competing ideas at the moment one that suggests carefully checking the IPs before unblocking them and the other (mine) is to unblock 1000 IPs per day and let RC patrol/everybody monitor these.

The problem with running checks on these IPs is that it requires some expertise to operate and interpret tools to determine if an IP is an open proxy or not. Even if there were such people with disposable time it would take them months to years to process 20,000 IPs even if they dedicated their time to this task. I do not believe this is worth the trouble.

I think my idea of unblocking 1000 indef blocked IPs per day (only IPs blocked before 2010 and with exceptions at the discretion of admins, arbitrators, checkusers etc. whom may choose to reinstate the block) and monitor them seems to be a practical solution to the problem. The discretion clause is there to avoid senseless wheel wars as the goal here is to pre-process indef blocks down to more manageable numbers where we can review remaining ones with greater scrutiny. It would still take about 1 month to process this many IPs.

Mind that a good chunk of the blocks were precautionary rather than to prevent disruption and the people enacting them while having good intentions weren't necessarily experts in handling open proxies. I am not trying to accuse anyone, just merely suggesting that particularly indeffed IP blocks prior to 1 January 2010 are perhaps outdated as we do not indef block known open proxies today. That cut-off date is entirely arbitrary by the way. Also 20,000 IPs may sound like a lot but we do not run such proposed checks to billions of IPs that edit wikipedia "unchecked".

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm going to think about the best way to approach it. While I agree that manually checking IPs is an inefficient way to do it, there tends to be strong resistance to mass unblocking for reasons beyond my understanding. It will do no good to simply unblock a bunch if they are immediately reblocked by someone else. I think we're going to need to demonstrate some sort of groundwork, or automated system before approaching that. I will ask around.--Tznkai (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice if ArbCom established some sort of arbitrary cut off date for this... allowing a bulk unblock prior to that arbitrary date... I am not opposed to the notion of automated checks (if IPs are dynamic ranges, globally blocked on meta, public open proxies, etc.) but say if a check returned positive for open proxy, the block should still be reduced to 1-2 years rather than indefinite as we do not do indefinite blocks for open proxies anymore as you probably know for years. Mind that I do not want to game the system by reducing the blocks down to 1-2 years and let them expire in bulk either. We need to have a way to keep long term blocks in check - particularly for open proxies. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Coming up in February!
Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Why...?
I agree that the other user's edit was possible vandalism, but why did you put that Meryl Davis and Charlie White won bronze? Team USA won bronze, but in the actual ice dance, Davis and White got first. I edited it again, with a better explanation, to emphasize that, otherwise it'd be false information. 50.15.85.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * both are acceptably accurate.--Tznkai (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DC Meetups in March
<div style="background: #EFFDF5; padding:3em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue',sans-serif; font-size:110%;"> Happy March!

Though we have a massive snowstorm coming up, spring is just around the corner! Personally, I am looking forward to warmer weather.

Wikimedia DC is looking forward to a spring full of cool and exciting activities. In March, we have coming up:


 * Evening WikiSalon on Wednesday, March 12 from 7 PM – 9 PM. Meet up with Wikipedians for coffee at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle! If you cannot make it in the evening, join us at our...
 * March Meetup on Sunday, March 23 from 3 PM – 6 PM. Our monthly weekend meetup, same place as last month. Meet really cool and interesting people!
 * Women in the Arts 2014 meetup and edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 30 from 10 AM – 5 PM. Our second annual Women in the Arts edit-a-thon, held at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free lunch will be served!

We hope to see you at our upcoming events! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

— Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice.--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

An exciting month of wiki events!
<div style="background: #EFFDF5; padding:3em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue',sans-serif; font-size:110%;"> Hello there,

I am pleased to say that April will be a very exciting month for Wikipedia in Washington, DC. We have a lot of different events coming up, so you will have a lot to choose from.

First, a reminder that our second annual Women in the Arts Edit-a-Thon will take place on Sunday, March 30 at the National Museum of Women in the Arts.

Coming up in April, we have our first-ever Open Government WikiHack with the Sunlight Foundation on April 5–6! We are working together to use open government data to improve the Wikimedia projects, and we would love your help. All are welcome, regardless of coding or editing experience. We will also be having a happy hour the day before, with refreshments courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation.

On Friday, April 11 we are having our first edit-a-thon ever with the Library of Congress. The Africa Collection Edit-a-Thon will focus on the Library's African and Middle East Reading Room. It'll be early in the morning, but it's especially worth it if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of African topics.

The following day, we are having our second annual Wiki Loves Capitol Hill training. We will discuss policy issues relevant to Wikimedia and plan for our day of outreach to Congressional staffers that will take place during the following week.

There are other meetups in the works, so be sure to check our meetup page with the latest. I hope to see you at some of these events!

All the best, James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Two edit-a-thons coming up!
<div style="background: #EFFDF5; padding:3em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue',sans-serif; font-size:110%;">

Hello there!

I'm pleased to tell you about two upcoming edit-a-thons:


 * This Tuesday, April 29, from 2:30 to 5:30 PM, we have the Freer and Sackler edit-a-thon. (Sorry for the short notice!)
 * On Saturday, May 10 we have the Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon, in partnership with the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, from 10 AM to 5 PM.

We have more stuff coming up in May and June, so make sure to keep a watch on the DC meetup page. As always, if you have any recommendations or requests, please leave a note on the talk page.

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Meet up with us
<div style="padding:3em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue',sans-serif; font-size:110%;">

Happy May!

There are a few meetups in DC this month, including an edit-a-thon later this month. Check it out:
 * On Thursday, May 15 come to our evening WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle. If you're available Thursday evening, feel free to join us!
 * Or if you prefer a Saturday night dinner gathering, we also have our May Meetup at Capitol City Brewing Company. (Beer! Non-beer things too!)
 * You are also invited to the Federal Register edit-a-thon at the National Archives later this month.

Come one, come all!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Washington, DC meetups in June
<div style="padding:3em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue',sans-serif; font-size:110%;">

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:


 * On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
 * Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
 * The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
 * Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
 * Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of article Bible
In response to your message on my talk page I have put the two versions on the Talk:Bible page. Are you sure you want me to give a sentence by sentence analysis? Editor2020 03:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How you'd like to discuss is up to you. What I would like is some indication as to 1.) what your objection is, other than a general aesthetic disagreement and 2.) more specifically, why the changes cannot be integrated but rejected whole sale. However you think you can most effectively do that is up to you, although I subscribe to a school of writing that says that better writing is almost always shorter writing.--Tznkai (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to keep it very short, and so have addressed only one of the issues. I have restored some information that was deleted by another user on June 13, hopefully that helps. Editor2020 20:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity


Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 21:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice Xeno.--Tznkai (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey
Hello Tznkai,

I am Allen Lin, a computer science PhD student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. We noticed that you've created main/sub article relationship in Chinese ceramics for Pinner. So it would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah90 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)