User talk:Mackensen/Archive12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Template:Infobox_Ship_Class[edit]

Since you created the Template:Infobox_Ship_Class, I left a note to help suggest the proper changes that could be made to this since you are the original coder of the template. I don't fully understand that code but it would be helpful if you could re-edit it. You can find my comments in the discussion page of that template. Thanks ViriiK 00:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rory096[edit]

With your un-indent, I now figure twice in the tally. (oppose and tangential oppose?) Sandy 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, I see. Well, as RfA isn't a vote, I don't really a forsee a problem with backing two different positions. Mackensen (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thanks. Sandy 18:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail me, if you're interested[edit]

I can provide the log. Geogre 02:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not being an admin or anyone in particular else, I can't have to do with any log, but I hope that the two of you will find some way of bridging this entire situation. You are two of the most valued people around here and it is miserable watching you interact in this fashion. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done so. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano[edit]

Hi, while I think your arguments on the talk page of the Giano proposed decision are broadly correct, I have to say that I do not recall being in any dispute with Giano; I barely interacted with him at all. Indeed that's one of the reasons why I considered that a brief block by me was appropriate, since he'd been warned (by Kelly I think) but had escalated. While I may have been wrong in the appropriateness of the block, I wasn't engaging with Giano (he was, in my estimation, far past reasoning). --Tony Sidaway

Several days before blocking Giano, you said as much in my RfAr, i.e., that you didn't notice my disapproval of your actions when blocking me. Seems like a pattern of forgetful behaviour. --Ghirlandajo 12:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not in a dispute with you when I blocked you. This is hardly forgetfulness, since I was barely aware of your existence until I read cowman109's report on WP:ANI and discussed the matter with him and Dmcdevit. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy[edit]

Mackensen, I am alarmed by your views of the blocking policy. Any blocks decided in the atmosphere of secrecy and collusion are better avoided. Once you are afraid/reluctant to discuss matters with fellow wikipedians openly, people start suspecting that there is a cabal operating behind the scenes. It's not good, because mutual suspicions damage Wikipedia. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you misunderstand me. I've stated repeatedly the admins need to justify their actions on-wiki. Discussion is a different matter, and we're being ridiculous if we expect everyone to keep everything they do or think regarding Wikipedia on-wiki. Regarding cabalism, it's an old canard but once you start suspecting a cabal you're going to see one regardless. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I trouble you...[edit]

Would you be willing to look at an arbitration enforcement complaint and give me a second opinion? It's complex and will probably be unappreciated (except by me) but no one else seems to regularly read the WP:AE page. If you're willing I'll give you a quick precis before you dive in. Thatcher131 14:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is regarding User:Intangible, and is described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement with some additional information at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore) plus a Q&A at User talk:Dmcdevit#I'm taking you up on your offer of free advice.

Briefly, Intangible was sanctioned for disruptive editing, including removal of sourced information and original research (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible, although some of the details never made it off the workshop page). As a remedy, he may be banned from any article he disrupts.

While editing Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw (a Flemish neo-nazi group--I told you this would be unrewarding) he removed a sourced statement that BBET had connections to a Dutch political party. The source was a French language newspaper quoting an American professor. Intangible argues the newspaper mistranslated the professor's remarks and is therefore unreliable. The only source for the English version of the remarks is BBET's own blog. This developed into a full blown edit war and the article was protected before the complaint was made.

After counseling at WP:AE, the two editors moved on to Paul Belien, a dutch journalist. Intangible removed a paragraph with three newspaper articles as sources because he claims they are based on the reporting of a journalist who is biased against Belien. His source for this alleged bias is Belien's personal blog. Intangible selectively quotes WP:V policy that journalists may be reliable sources for themselves when writing about things they have written professional articles about (ignoring the massive and obvious conflict of interest, of course). There has not been any disruption because the other editor involved is taking it easy and trying to negotiate on the talk page. However, it looks like there is now some reverting over {ref} and {NPOV} tagging.

In specific, I think Intangible should be banned from Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw because he started it, although that might be giving a free pass to user:LucVerhelst who edit warred rather than seeking other forms of dispute resolution. I think Intangible should be banned from Paul Belien because his ridiculous interpretation of reliable source policy would have caused disruption by now if there were more French-speaking editors interested in fringe Dutch political movements. I don't feel confident enough yet to do this without a second opinion, per Dmcdevit, and no one else seems to want to deal with complaints brought to WP:AE.

In general, and this was my question to Sam Korn at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore) which he hasn't answered, is how to determine if an editor is disruptive when there may only be one other editor interested in the page? It takes two to tango, and if the second editor is polite and patient, or just gives up and goes somewhere else, there won't be any visible disruption, even though the article may be harmed by biased editing. (It would be easy if there was a larger group of opposing editors, of course.)

Thanks for any insights you might have. Thatcher131 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, a few observations. I've only looked at Talk:Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw. One is that there's a definite incongruity between what Griffin said and what the newspaper, two years later, claimed he said. When there's a demonstrable difference between a primary source and a secondary source the former must trump the latter absent another secondary source explaining why the primary source is wrong. I think what happened is that the current newspaper altered his remarks to refer to the present name of the party, which is slippery but not exactly dishonest. It should be noted in the text, but it doesn't invalidate the use of the newspaper.
  • The inclusion of Griffin is somewhat jarring, but justifiable. The best justification I saw on the talk page is that it demonstrates the international ties of far-right groups. More should be done to contextualize this assertion, including finding links to other groups. As it stands it's insufficient.
  • Intangible may have been a little tendentious, but he also has a point, and I don't think the other editors properly engaged him on this point and may have been a little swift to point out his probation restrictions. Again, see my first point. Surely we wouldn't trust Wikipedia's record of something over a primary document?
  • Article bans are premature at this point as discussion has not broken down. Intangible represents a useful counterpoint to the other editors and hasn't passed the threshold at which his contributions cease being worthwhile.
  • You're wrong about one thing, Thatcher: there are some points of interest here which make this somewhat rewarding. I'll review the other article a bit later. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The day after[edit]

This comes from my talk page, which is miles long and easily missed.

My comments there showed more ire than I desired, mainly because I was tired and speaking in half thoughts. Mackensen has a valid point he wants to make, that we all need to be civil. He has another point that's valid and with which I wholly disagree: administrators become leaders. I don't want to argue my disagreement here and now, but I invite him, certainly, to talk it out calmly on a page at some appropriate time. However, to make this point, or because of his beliefs, he, intentionally or not, ended up lending a great deal of credibility to Fred's argument, credibility it did not deserve. Fred's whole decision shows an overt advocacy and hostility, and this is the most outrageous part, perhaps. To have this most heinous section given credence will, I think, lead those who look up to Mackensen to think, "Well, if this most outlandish thing can be argued, maybe all the others, like thanking Kelly and ignoring any misdeeds, is right." That really outraged me, and it did so because of the damage I think may follow.

I posted this on my page to explain why I might have gone a little ape. It's *because* you are admired and admirable that I feel your aiding such an abhorrent position is extremely dangerous. This is a mirror of your own concern that I might be bolstering the "ZOMG cabal" people by talking about the very real constellation of abusive people. You seem to have said that, because I am looked up to, I can hurt the project by seeming to license them. I disagree, because, as I've explained, I think there is a principle here that's worth fighting, and even leaving, for. However, I think you could have done more by "explaining" Fred to harm things than the sum total of my words. That's why I was irate. Geogre 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate the response. As I've noted elsewhere, I disagree with the proposed remedies. My goal was to explain, and perhaps pontificate on policy a little bit while I was at it (who can truly resist the opportunity?) I wasn't in the best shape last night either, and I suspect that if I dared to re-read everything I wrote I'd wince and wish I'd phrased things more tactfully. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed my office, and am dead glad that the storm has passed. But if there ever again comes a time when some buffering is needed, please do ask. Circe knows I need buffering occasionally sporadically often enough. - brenneman {L} 02:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um[edit]

Whatever's upsetting you, trolling isn't the answer. Knock it off. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm saddened that you use the term "trolling" so lightly. I'm not in the least bit upset. If you're going to accuse me of something, how about disrupting arbitration to make a point? Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, there was a time back when Wikipedia wasn't "serious business" and a little levity was permitted. Between Fred calling for Geogre's desysoping and Bishonen calling for Fred to be blocked we've clearly entered some kind of Terror and I wasn't (look at the page history) the only who thought so. Sigh. Mackensen (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I recall it was Geogre who started the Terror analogy by describing arbcom as the 'Committee on Public Saftey'. --Doc 18:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For levity - oh guys get a sense of humour, we need one these days. --Doc 18:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't use the word lightly. Using the word on a long-time, long-respected user was a grave weight on my mind, in truth. Anyone could look around at my talk-page contribs (especially prior to 2 weeks ago) and see that I frequently act the clown in Wikipedia -- but there's a place. Talk pages are a good place to vent humor. Articles clearly aren't. I don't think ArbCom workshop pages are either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content to disagree there. Happy editing. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bearly541: Mykungfu sockpuppet page[edit]

Bearly541 has put a lot of work into the sockpuppet page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Bearly541 He also has been pretty much the only writer of the sockpuppet page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mykungfu&limit=500&action=history The sockpuppet page is a bit unusual in that it doesn't really list just sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mykungfu

It gives a partial "synopsis"

"Mykungfu makes unwarranted edits to NPHC groups such as Omega Psi Phi, Kappa Alpha Psi, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Alpha Phi Alpha, and Delta Sigma Theta. User also harrases users via AOL sockpuppets. User also made attack page Alpha Kappa Nu which attacks featured article Alpha Phi Alpha. User cannot be blocked. High threat."

Although I believe this to border on harrassment I feel that maybe AN can be of help. Especially when USERNAMES such as Boobydoop and Mikeandike who were past vandals have been associated with my SN. I have always said that I was NinjaNubian and lost my password and became Mykungfu. The previous 2, BD and Mikeandike aren't me. I came in around August 2006, BD and Mikaandike were last used in march. Please take a look into this. thank you 205.188.117.74 08:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be a list of AOL's proxies, which is of little use in any such investigation. WP:ANI would be a reasonable place to raise the matter, I think. Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:68.234.163.184[edit]

This IP address is requesting unblocking; I see that you blocked it for a month on 13 September, but there doesn't seem to be much of a contributions history, which leads me to believe there's some deleted pages/edits involved. Any advice or thoughts? Luna Santin 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah yes, massive vandalism/sockpuppetry (which is why you don't see edits; I blocked the underlying IP). The phrasing, "persisted far too long" makes me wonder. I'm unsure about unblocking. Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A returning[edit]

K—, new identity (presumed; editing patterns seem pretty unequivocal). See Wikipedia:Editor review, 7th October, desires to become an admin by December. Taking on a new identity seems to have been constructive, in terms of work in article space, but given some of his threats before leaving, I thought I should lay this before a wise head to decide what to make or not make of it. Choess 02:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah yes. I think that one's been on my radar already. At the moment I see no reason to do anything (if his edits be constructive). Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. He hasn't been up to mischief, as best I can tell, and avoiding conflict so I didn't want to cause trouble at the review. I just saw the push for adminship and wanted to be sure he was on someone's scope. Choess 20:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from StuffOfInterest[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Needham vandal[edit]

Hi, Mackensen. I've got a sort of checkuser request, but I wasn't quite sure how best to put it into the RfCu format. I hope you don't mind if I run it by you informally.

There's an extremely persistent vandal who's been attacking Roger Needham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since last May, usually adding "Horrid old man, I hope you died in pain" or something similar. (User:Centrx recently purged most of the vandalism from the article's history, but you can see it here.) The article has spent most of the past six months either fully or semi-protected, but as soon as the protection is removed, the vandal comes right back. There's a list of the sockpuppet accounts the vandal has used here.

I'm wondering whether the page needs to be fully protected again, or if a range block might be possible. If it's not too out-of-process, would it be possible for you to check the sockpuppet accounts and the deleted edits, to see if there's a pattern in the IP usage and whether it's possible to block the vandal without too much collateral damage? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds tricky. I'll take a look, but I can't promise anything. Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the edits are too old. I found and blocked one proxy, but we'll just have to keep an eye on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking it out, anyway. Voice of All has now returned the page to full protection, so we won't get any more data for a while. Unfortunately, given the vandal's pattern, I expect him to be back as soon as the protection is lifted. He's astoundingly determined. But thanks for looking at the situation, and for not making me go through the (increasingly arcane) bureaucracy of RfCu. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shame Mackensen![edit]

I am so thick. I will not even say out loud the number of seconds I sat staring at the screen before realising that was a joke. I mean really, "I object to any attempt to suggest that discussion need serve a purpose." Did I need an animated gif of a mallet hitting me on the head? *brenneman shakes thick head, then falls off chair due to overbalancing.*
brenneman {L} 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I sure didn't appreciate the parody, myself, but, fortunately, I don't have to. Geogre 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water[edit]

Look, I'm sorry that my tone has escaped me and been exasperated on AN/I and elsewhere. To me, it is horribly obvious that Kelly's blog was intended to harm rather than accidentally harming and that its presence on the evidence page demanded a strong response from the arbitrators. When I saw that, instead of anything remarking on the well-established evidence of habitual personal attacks by Kelly, there was going to be a motion of thanks, I figured that it was all one, if the attacks stopped. They haven't, of course. They continued and continue still, and they inform her friends and stoke the fires higher. That, after all, is our mutual concern: whether or not Wikipedia becomes a battle between sides. Well, if someone is daily pontificating on IRC and encouraging people to fight, that's no good. It's obvious to you that Giano's attack on Kelly's blog was intended to insult her. If she doesn't really read Wikipedia, then she won't get the insult, I'm sure. If she does, then it will fan the flames. However, Giano's statement was removed and, inconsistent with ArbCom practice, not by a clerk, but by a friend of Kelly's and a partisan in the arguments. Further, that was not followed by removing the offensive blog, so there was no consistency in the redaction of the page. The people on AN/I, I hope, had not been caught up in this spitting match, and so, out of the blue and out of context, they'd have seen Giano's comments and had no idea what had been said prior, or even what he was talking about. It would have looked like a gratuitous insult to Kelly's private blog. No doubt that would look blockable. I shouldn't imagine that Doc was unaware, though.

I don't want to argue with anyone. I don't appreciate Giano's responding to the vilification Kelly traffics in on her blog. I think there are remaining issues, and I'm content that they be settled in the future, by Rfar's that have better definition and control than this one. However, we also have a remaining firestarter in Kelly, in my opinion, holding court in unindictable media, and we have Giano who will, within the technical limit, express himself. I don't think he was even remotely over the line, although I think it was not wise at all. However, it takes two to have a battle. If Giano is starting up after the fire has gone cold, then ignoring it would have kept the fire in ashes. Blocking him for 3 hours with a summary of "cool off" is to use exactly the same time and exactly the same block comment as what began the entire row. I hope you can be as denunciatory of the block as the blocked. If not, I still do not wish to antagonize you and apologize for anything I might have said that did. We can think someone is wrong without thinking less of him or her, I hope. Geogre 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential to this, if you are concerned about the evidence page and have a good view of FloNight (a clerk) you can ask her to do whatever she thinks is right. Thatcher131 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's not tangential but, in fact, something I've been asking for ever since Fred Bauder said that no one was allowed to do anything with the /Workshop pages but a clerk. Now that Cyde and Doc Glasgow have both been free with removing things from the /Evidence page, we really need someone to step up and make things clear. Geogre 18:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about policy/guidelines for teen editors[edit]

An editor asked to be directed to Wikipedia policy on posting of personal information by teenage editors. I recall seeing a proposal, but at this point cannot recall where it was posted. I'd appreciate it if you would point out to me the location of current policy and guidelines. — ERcheck (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the link. It is to the page I remember, but I just couldn't recall enough of the name to search for it. I'll check in with Thatcher131 as well. — ERcheck (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Esholt Sewage Works[edit]

Dear Mackensen I left a message earlier (however as I am new to Wikipedia it may have become lost/deleted in some way) refering to the Article I wrote on Esholt Sewage Works. I mearly wish to ask the reason for the deletion of the article and understand fully that there is probably a valid and sensible reason for its deletion. In the event I have breached rules or laws I wholeheartedly apologise for any trouble I have caused. --44532 16:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was tagged for speedy deletion because another user believed it to be a copyright violation (from here: [1]). Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry at WP:RM[edit]

Hey Mackensen,

Would you be able to check if there's any sockpuppetry going on at Talk:Barbarossa Khair ad Din Pasha? I noticed that Serali (talk · contribs) is a completely new user. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Benn Michaels[edit]

Can I ask you a favor? In 10:46, 18 October 2006 edit of the Walter Benn Michaels article I accidentally posted someone's e-mail address in the edit summary and article. From m:Hiding revisions it seems you got the power to do this. Thanks! ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete it so only admins can see it. Is that good enough? Otherwise there is an oversight mailing list WP:RFO. Thatcher131 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah. I doubt admins feel like looking it up. ~ trialsanderrors 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PI ETA Consulting Company[edit]

Just an FYI: After 3 attempts this user was finally blocked, however, shortly thereafter tried again as User:PI ETA Consulting Company which I had already blocked for their username before I saw the above. They're now back again as User:PE Con Co, however, I have taken these measures already. Glen 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

213.162.236.9 no longer an openproxy?[edit]

Hey Mackensen, I just retested 213.162.236.9 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) after an unblock request and it may have been locked down already. vcn-proxycheck has cleared, it's not listed at CWI and when I manually try port 80, all my HTTP requests get redirected to http://www.hipercom.no/, the ISP of the IP address. Can you please reconfirm its status? --  Netsnipe  ►  14:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scan (with nmap) still comes back with ports 21, 22, 37, 80, 113, and 3306 wide open. If this an ISP exit proxy that's one thing, but we need proof of that. Mackensen (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What command line options do you use for nmap? Do you scan every port? --  Netsnipe  ►  22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No options, so yes. It looks for all open ports. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Cynical[edit]

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A humble request for your opinion[edit]

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979Talk to me 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New page for Trivia clean up project[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Clean Up (which you are a member of) is now the official place for it. It's pretty bare bones now, so any help is needed. A userbox for user pages for members should be made. I don't know how to make one though. RobJ1981 18:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias[edit]

Hey Mackensen, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messhermit[edit]

I see that you once filed a request for check user concerning Messhermit. You might be interested to know that I have filed a new one. I believe that I have strong evidence that Messhermit is violating the decision in his arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messhermit. --Descendall 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006[edit]

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Victoria police rugby[edit]

Hi - You deleted an article a few weeks ago as non-notable. The user (a new user) resubmitted it, it got deleted again, and he's been working on it on a user subpage. If you could take a look at the current version, User:VPRLC/Police Rugby League (Victoria), and let him know what you think I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away. I really don't have an opinion one way or the other--I was just doing CSD patrol at the time. If he thinks he can make a go of it that's great. Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I'll ask the user who tagged it then. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:65.222.216.15[edit]

Wondering if you had any input or comment on this user's current unblock request? I've heard the name, before, but since the LTA pages are mostly deleted, I doubt I can look it up. In any case, thanks for any time you spend looking at this one. Luna Santin 05:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty please? Luna Santin 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Maxwell[edit]

Please restore the Jordan Maxwell Article ASAP!!

Mr. Maxwell is a highly respected researcher of the arcane and the occult, of theology and the astrological symbolism found therein (astrotheology). Among other works he is the author of

Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy Symbols, Sex & the Stars That Old-Time Religion Matrix of Power

and he has produced the following DVD documentaries and lectures:

Ancient Religious History & The Dark Side Basic Slide Presentation Egypt in the New Millenium: Jordan Maxwell Magic Dominates the World Private Interview with Zecharia Sitchin Secret Societies and Word Meanings Signs of Destiny II Sons of God & Maverick Award Show The Bible, End Times & Prehistory

and he has been guest to many nationwide radio broadcasts.

84.160.233.83 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another informal checkuser query[edit]

Hey, Mackensen. I hope this isn't a violation of your position as a checkuser — if it is, please let me know. You handled several cases of sockpuppetry by the banned user Cretanpride (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Recently, a new editor, Takidis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) showed up on Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece, echoing many of Cretanpride's arguments (and occasionally using the same phrasing). A formal checkuser request came back inconclusive, because it's been too long since any edits were made on the Cretanpride account. However, I thought you might remember the IPs used by Cretanpride, and might be able to determine if, for example, Takidis is editing from a Clearwire or Cal State-Stanislaus IP. If this isn't kosher, that's fine, but frankly all the editors of Homosexuality in ancient Greece are exhausted from dealing with Cretanpride and his sockpuppets. If Takidis is a new editor, I suppose we can take a deep breath and go through all the arguments again, but it would be great to know for sure if he's just Cretanpride reincarnated. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, no, it's our old friend again. Blocked. Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. You have no idea how tired I am of dealing with this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're most welcome. Happy editing. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really sorry for abusing your patience, but to close the other branch of the Cretanpride saga, alias Periklis* (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), could you do as per Takidis. I don't like having to ask this, but there are very good reasons to believe Periklis* a sock, as I indicated in the last Cretanpride checkuser. We've got the same problem as for Takidis, that is it's been too long since any edits were made on the Cretanpride account. I simply hope that by using the technics used for Takidis we can close the door on this other almost certain chapter of Cretanpride's sockpuppetry.--Aldux 01:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR rule on Jennifer Granholm[edit]

I was browsing for vandalism and noticed the potential edit war brewing on this article. To avoid further violations of the Three-revert policy, might I suggest you take any disagreement over content to the article's talk page? Thank you. SkerHawx 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I'm well aware of it. 3RR doesn't apply in the case, and I've just gotten an uninvolved admin to protect the article. Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support![edit]

Se la face ay pale, la cause est...
Se la face ay pale, la cause est...

23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now,
it's because of the amazing support
during my recent request for adminship
and because of all those new shiny buttons.

And if in the future
my use of them should not always be perfect
please don't hesitate to shout at me
any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

Editing[edit]

Hello,

Given the recent attacks on Ed Bradley's article, isn't it time to seriously revisit the subject of limiting edits to registered Users?

Regards,

Michael David 17:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Hi - you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Female life peers. The discussion actually involves discussion of about 15 categories by now, and has degenerated into bedlam. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new CSD[edit]

I'm floating around this proposal I've written for a new CSD regarding unsourced articles: User:Dmcdevit/CSD addition. There's quite a bit of explanatory fluff there that I think explains my thinking on the matter. Right now, I'm soliciting input from people before deciding how to go about implementing it. Any thoughts on the talk page would be greatly appreciated. :-) Dmcdevit·t 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Campbell-bannerman.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Campbell-bannerman.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been moved to commons, where a licence has been provided. Martinp23 12:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Right Honourable"[edit]

Basketdove (talk · contribs) has decided that the decision hammered out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) had "no consensus" and was "adopted by a cabal" and has unilaterally started adding the prefix to a number of Privy Counsellors. Any thoughts on how to straighten this out? Choess 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolledback most of the edits. He seems to have stopped for now. In any event, I think a sock check may be in order but I don't know who the likely puppetmasters are. I presume that the two of you will have a better idea in that regard. JoshuaZ 20:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need that business starting up again. "Cabal" indeed. I'll look into it. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamazoo vandal[edit]

The persistent anon IP vandal who keeps blanking the Moped Army mention on Kalamazoo, Michigan has returned. It seems like it might be time to hand out some slightly longer bans, if for no other reason than to force the vandal to exercise more creative techniques to avoid our whackamole-ing.--chris.lawson 00:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lovely. I think we're at the week-long block at this stage. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still at it, via at least three more IPs this morning.--chris.lawson 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's time to start handing out more bans. This isn't letting up.--chris.lawson 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I already sent two of the IPs packing for a week. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi Mackensen! Per your closing of the MfD of WP:ROUGE, I thought I'd drop you a line. While it's quite clear that you upheld consensus, I strongly advise you not to take potshots at the nominator in the future. If you have a problem with me or my actions, I suggest that you bring it up in a more appropriate venue. Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can hardly think of a better forum to raise the matter, and I repeat the advice which I proffer there (if one cannot criticize deletion in a deletion forum, then where?). When that many experienced Wikipedians tell you that you're out of line it might behoove you to sit down and ask just why that is. Incidentally, please note the top of the page and consider using a more subdued signature in the future. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My issue was with your commenting on the nominator (i.e. me), rather than the discussion, in your closing. Commenting on the nominator isn't appropriate when closing an XfD, especially as the nomination was in good faith. Hoopydink
      • Hi again! Upon further review, I can see that your comments were written as good-natured advice, rather than some sort of direct insinuation towards me. Apologies for assuming otherwise! Cheers Hoopydink

Closure of that MfD[edit]

Hi,

I also write out of some concern over the manner in which this was closed. While the nomination was clearly mistaken, Hoopydink's concerns arose from a good-faith misunderstanding -- it is neither unusual nor terribly evil for a person to misapprehend a joke. The nomination resulted in an effort to edit the page to sharpen the humor (and meet Hoopydink's concerns.) The tone of your closing, somewhat dismissive, did not accurately reflect the useful input Hoopydink gave, however misplaced a nomination for deletion was. I am hesitant to take an MfD to DRV simply to have closer's comments removed, but I do urge you to reconsider their tone. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Hoopydink above seems to taken my remarks in good grace, and I think the matter stands there. When I misapprehend a joke my instinct isn't to stamp it out--first through outright deletion and then a convoluted (and groundless) MfD. Useful input on an article (or essay) ought to be found on the talk page, as indeed it is. I stand by my close. I would also urge hesitation to take the matter to DRV simply because you don't like the manner in which I phrased things. I'm not sure what that would accomplish beyond irritating a lot of people, and I'm fairly sure that those aren't grounds for reviewing the decision. Beyond that, I'm not sure that my faith in the project could survive such an act. Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first instinct when misapprehend a joke also isn't to nominate it for deletion, unless I find the joke grossly offensive, which a (confused) Hoopydink did. Those of us who took a more moderate line in the debate grasped his concerns, and improved the page as a result. I do think it is a shame that the closure failed to reflect this, and, in fact, appeared to endorse the most shrill position within the debate. If you object so strongly to a DRV, I'm sure you won't mind if I go ROUGE and simply remove your extraneous remarks. I see no other option, short of DRV, because I do object to them somewhat strongly. Going ROUGE for the sake of dispassionate closes, Xoloz 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I left the joke-y part. Xoloz 17:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I was concerned the debate wasn't relevant, save that a supermajority of users favored keeping. Ergo, toss the deletion and keeping working on the article. I think my comments were made in that spirit, but this is perhaps a question of taste. I certainly have no objection to my close being refactored if you feel so strongly on the matter. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Advise[edit]

Hi - new to all this. Can you explain why my article was deleted? I cannot see any deletion summary ? Regards Jennyhurren 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concern has been expressed that it read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I've undeleted it for now, but it will probably be deleted again within five days if these concerns aren't addressed. You might find this page helpful. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A RFCU from way back...[edit]

User talk:84.114.131.26 requires attention from you. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it'd make your day :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backslashing proxies used for abuse[edit]

72.52.143.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) apart for the blanking vandalism and attacks seems to be a backslashing proxy[2] This edit sugests he is Stevenak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Proxy appears also to be used by whoever used 83.98.189.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which is also backslashing. I can't tell if it is a open proxy or just used by one person. I have noted it on AIV, and leave the info with you as your name is on the WP:OP. Agathoclea 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's backlashing the above concerns are irrelevant--block and be merry ;). Looks like someone nailed them both already. Mackensen (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion request[edit]

Since you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, I would appreciate it if you could comment on WP:DDV, in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (Radiant) 08:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled[edit]

Why did you delete my comment? --Ghirla -трёп- 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the Cabal's Own Pikemen"[edit]

..your ideas interest me and I wish to hear more :) --ElaragirlTalk|Count 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template: UK heritage stations[edit]

Can you please enlighten me as to why you have removed this Template from the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railway stations, and substituted it with a template for stations being operated by one of the TOCs or Network Rail? Stewart 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because the template was identical, save formatting, and its deletion had been requested. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest then Template:UK stations is used instead of Template:Infobox UK station. This allows a linkable caption to be used. See Partick railway station - I have also editted Rhyd Ddu railway station. Thoughts?? Stewart 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't those the same template (doesn't the former simply redirect to the latter?) Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That had escaped me having previously worked on Template:UK stations to get the caption incorporated prior to the move to Template:Infobox UK station (see Adding a caption to the Image). All is now clear. Stewart 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006[edit]

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Lillywhite Campaign Article[edit]

Now that you've closed out the deletion debate (and have asked that the discussion sorrounding any content changes be moved to Discussion page of the article), it is okay to remove the deletion notice from the article page - correct? (the notice itself states that it can be removed once the discussion is closed). Just thought I'd ask anyway. While the content can certainly be built upon in the article, it seems that there were more users that wanted to keep the article (alongside a few merges) instead of delete - particularly because Wiki policy was cited. The user Milchama was primarily pushing on the opposition - which is fine - but my concern is his/her intent might be malicious considering how he/she spammed user talk pages with deletion requests. Let me know your thoughts, and if you'd like to remove the notice... thanks!

  • Yes, I forgot to remove the notice. It's gone now. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Wrestling Association[edit]

Ah, yes, I will add it to my to-do list :) semper fi — Moe 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser page of Khosrow II[edit]

  • Hey, I'm waiting about for 2 months for checking user of Khosrow II Can you please take a look? Here the link [3], Thanks Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't appear to have ever been listed on the main page. I'll go ask a clerk about it. Mackensen (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only was it never listed, it was apparently created as a closed archive [4] which explains why it never showed up in the unlisted category. Weird. Listed now. Thatcher131 17:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambriel[edit]

Hi, you closed this but your closing has been blanked by the nominator. Can you sort this, please? TerriersFan 00:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting this. TerriersFan 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddling with the pharaohs...[edit]

You've changed all the pharaoh succession boxes from one form to a basically identical form. Now, it looks like there's no cosmetic difference, but was there actually a vital reason to alter all of them? Thanatosimii 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vital? No, I couldn't claim that. I do think there's utility in having all succession boxes using the same internal template, in case that system ever needs to be overhauled. It didn't make sense to me for the Pharaohs of Egypt to have an independent system. The template, created by Emsworth, dated back before the standardized succession box system was commonplace and its continuance felt like an anachronism. There shouldn't be any cosmetic difference either. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

"You've got mail" Thatcher131 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobabobabo[edit]

I know that you are uninvolved in this matter currently, but I need immeadiate assistance with this user, and you're the only checkuser/bureaucrat who I can see is online. If you use mIRC, please contact me there.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Unicorn on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charlie the Unicorn. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. misanthrope 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal[edit]

Hey, can I get you to take a gander at the guy who keeps (several times over the last two weeks) vandalising Battle of New Orleans? Thanks in advance.--chris.lawson 14:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

You'll understand this question: What on earth was that? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maior popping up again[edit]

Hello Mackensen, User:Drini indef. blocked Maior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for DRV tampering and subsequently you blocked a sockpuppet Maior1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been coming back time and time again with sock after sock. Could you take a look at this talk? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Francis Stewart Hepburn, 1st Earl of Bothwell[edit]

This is wrong. His surname was never Hepburn. It was always Stewart. I note you have (properly) previously queried this. If you are an administrator, maybe you have the authority to correct this major heading error. David Lauder 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lǐ (李) (surname)[edit]

Following your closure, and prior to taking it to DRV, I would like to understand exactly what you consider to be the grey area in the policy about the use of Chinese characters. Admittedly, it was a complex debate. I do not believe that a default keep per no consensus is justified, as this would apparently be in violation of WP:NAME, and overturn a strong consensus arrived at when WP:UE was drawn up.

Furthermore, it appears that some editors were attempting to use the AfD to decide policy, which I believe is completely the wrong forum. I feel that the default keep of the article sets a dangerous precedent: It is one thing to use characters which could theoretically be recognised without their diacritics, but sinograms, like arabic and sanskrit are different. I would ask you to prevent vigorously wikipedia's descent into anarchy. Ohconfucius 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD isn't the place for that, and I considered that as a matter of disambiguation both sides had a point. It wasn't a keep either, it was no consensus, because there was none. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Gibraltarians[edit]

Mackensen, Im assuming goodfaith but I dont understand your reasoning. If wikipedia guidelines state that an article cant be deleted unless there is a rough consensus to delete, and such consensus is not found, why did you delete it? Please explain this to me, otherwise I can only assume that you are abusing your position as an admin!--Burgas00 18:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have explained my reasoning already. Consensus isn't just the counting of heads. I looked for those keep and delete arguments which took Wikipedia policies to heart. I also looked back to the previous AfD and DRV for guidance. Based on all these things, I determined that there was a general consensus to delete. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say...[edit]

I would just like to say that I love admins who evaluate arguments instead of counting votes. That is all. Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For holding up Wikipedia Policies and believing that Wikipedia is not democracy on a recent AFD case. --TruthSpreaderTalk 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ali Sina[edit]

I noticed you deleted this page because the vote was to delete, but I counted, and it was a tie.--Sefringle 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its a keep by vote count Keep 18 Delete 17 Neutral 1 . Mackensen please reverse the delete since the results are contrary to your claim. If it is not a vote then on what basis do you delete the page? At the very least the result is simply no consensus , meaning leave the page as it is--CltFn 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)--CltFn 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also , would you kindly post the vote count at the top of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina (2nd nomination) page so that we can all clearly see whether there was a consensus reached or not?--CltFn 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, AfD is not a vote. Please read up Wikipedia's policies. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps , but how can you say consensus was achieved when there were move votes to keep than delete?? As far as I can see this was a incorrect implementation of the AFD process. My suggestion would be that you restore the article, because it was deleted prematurely and wait until we achieve a consensus. --CltFn 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fight Special[edit]

What you did to Big Fight Special was not good. Many articles on what appear very trivial issues make up a good 60% of English Wikipedia. If you've got two weeks annual leave from your job, I can link you to a few of them. What now if I begin to rewrite the article? Will you delete it again? Evlekis 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any closing administrator would have done the same thing. What you decide to do is entirely up to you. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination)[edit]

Why'd you delete E-Sword? The only comment calling for deletion was from the nominator. I see no consensus that it should have been deleted! Not having sources is not a criteria for deletion. I was not involved with that page or the project at all, but I think you made a mistake in closing it the way you did. --Karnesky 15:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, the need for verifiability is non-negotiable. It's irresponsible to create articles without sources. I can't help it if people arguing keep ignore fundamental policies. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion_policy states that WP:V should probably be addressed by cleanup, not deletion. --Karnesky 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: the AfD did not bring up any problems about verifiability. You acted out of process. If you saw problems with WP:V, you should have been the first to comment about it -- you shouldn't have closed it. I encourage you to restore it. Otherwise, I think this calls for deletion review. --Karnesky 15:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but this wasn't the first nomination. Editors had two years, and two nominations, to fix it up. Again, they're free to create an article that has sources. And the AfD most certainly brought up those issues. You can't prove or disprove notability without sources. Any assertion of notability without sources is no assertion at all. My actions were completely within process and I stand by them. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the page was a recreation of deleted content. Can you confirm? --Karnesky 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the previous debate deleted it because it was an advertisement. That was two years ago. I believe that the old database crash lost those deletion revisions, but that debate definitely took place. This is a different article, but suffered from the same problem: absent reliable, verifiable sources, it is an advertisement (that it also read like one is almost beside the point). Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of E-Sword. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Karnesky 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Short and sweet[edit]

Kudos to you. See above for recent reeasons why, but also for your general kudo-worthy-ness in times past.
152.91.9.144 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom[edit]

I'm quite bemused by your vote for geogre - you oppose because he's too valuable an article space contributor? By similar logic, presumably those candidates who are excellent admins are also opposed by you for their vandal fighting (etc.) prowess? Or are we just supporting expendable candidates to stop them from messing up articles? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh, that's a fair question. I hope we aren't at the Peter Principle quite yet. I commented to Geogre several days I ago that I viewed arbitration as a sentence, not a reward. I try to support candidates who I think bring the best balance of talents to the committee. My ideal candidate is a mix of janitor and article editor, preferably one with loads of free time (one thing that strongly recommended Paul August to me). I also look for at least informal experience in dispute resolution--preferably the person defuses situations. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what circumstances lead to your disillusionment with Arbcom but I'd hope candidates appreciate the time required for the job, certainly, having read geogres numerous (lengthy) and well reasoned responses to just about anything ever asked of him, I think he has the time..... Regarding dispute resolution perhaps a serious point; appeasement has something of a chequered history. I'm rather dismayed geogres candidacy has provoked such opposition, he stood up recently, to what a number of people saw, as abuse of power by certain individuals and appears to paying a price for that. In a community of volunteers if wayward individuals are attempting to assume power beyond their remit, is appeasement the best course of action? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not calling for appeasement, and I'm not entirely disillusioned with the Arbcom. My remark about sentencing has more to do with the high workload and corresponding stress. I think my best statement on administrators and potential abuse of power was made during the last Arbcom election (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Mackensen), and I'll not restate it here. I take the view, broadly, that the best possible outcome of dispute resolution is that the group of editors concerned patch things up and go back to editing the article. Obviously this isn't always going to happen, but it remains an admirable goal. To that end, we need to get people talking to each other. This strikes me as less adversarial than collegial. Now, in reference to the abuse of power, that represents, in my view, an unusual set of circumstances not likely to be repeated, and I prefer that we not build policy or procedure on a boundary case. That being said, I'm prepared to concede that I'm wrong. If in the next year we are confronted by a massive abuse of power from established users it will of course be necessary to re-examine the existing structures. It would be my hope that we don't come to that. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the chat. Extraordinary circumstances aside, I think he'd be pretty good at dispute resolution but we'll leave it there. To quote Curb your Enthusiasm "A good compromise is when both parties are left equally miserable.". Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reference desk comments[edit]

Can I interest you in commenting about the ongoing situation at the ref desks? I'm starting to suspect nothing will work except bring an rfc against one or more of the worst offenders, but I'd like another opinion on this before proceeding down this path. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mackensen/New admins[edit]

To Mackensen for his exceptional pearls for new administrators -- Samir धर्म 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by and tell you that I was honored to see myself listed here; I'm taking my inclusion as an example of many-hattedness as a compliment, rather than as an example of being really stupid to take on so many (per point #2). ;) Essjay (Talk) 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

84.114.131.26 unblocked[edit]

Hi Mackensen, I've lifted an ip block for Leaderofall (talk • contribs) on 84.114.131.26 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • block user • block log) which you blocked back in August as a compromised host. nmap returns the following: 

% sudo nmap -v -P0 -sA 84.114.131.26
Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-12-06 16:37 EST
DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.00s.
Initiating ACK Scan against chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26) [1680 ports] at 16:37
The ACK Scan took 35.41s to scan 1680 total ports.
Host chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26) appears to be up ... good.
Interesting ports on chello084114131026.5.15.vie.surfer.at (84.114.131.26):
Not shown: 1668 UNfiltered ports
PORT    STATE    SERVICE
111/tcp filtered rpcbind
135/tcp filtered msrpc
161/tcp filtered snmp
162/tcp filtered snmptrap
201/tcp filtered at-rtmp
202/tcp filtered at-nbp
203/tcp filtered at-3
204/tcp filtered at-echo
205/tcp filtered at-5
206/tcp filtered at-zis
207/tcp filtered at-7
208/tcp filtered at-8

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 35.437 seconds
               Raw packets sent: 1774 (70.960KB) | Rcvd: 1709 (68.360KB)

It looks clean, but shortly after I unblocked the IP, I remembered that "Leaderofall" fits Enlighter1's pattern of sockpuppet names. Could you please double check this host for me? Thanks --  Netsnipe  ►  05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't a proxy, but I also think that Enlighter1 is still on the other end. I suppose we could do a trial unblocking and see what happens, but those so often end in heartbreak, pathos, and discredit...Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But also in exposing more sockpuppets. I suspect User:Universalgenius - same Reuters ect edits today. Agathoclea 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. What was it I said about heartbreak? Re-blocked. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my suspicions panned out (I hate when that happens). Universalgenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is definitely an Enlighter1 sock and he's coming from the usual place. I've blocked indefinitely as it's obviously a static IP. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to run a checkuser on Leaderofall (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) then. Likely a sleeper account in that case. How did you detect that the host was compromised in the first place? Just intuition? --  Netsnipe  ►  14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damned if I can remember anymore. I must have seen something in the nmap results that I didn't like (open IRC port maybe, who knows?). In any event, it's clear that this is Enlighter1's address, and we'll just have to sit on it. Leaderofall is definitely a sockpuppet and I've tagged him as such. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He went on a spree a few days ago using proxies. If you want I can dig them out for you if you want to tag or run further checks. Agathoclea 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the following I reported at AIV:
They are all blocked, except 72.20 who only had a 48 hour block. Agathoclea 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo, List of FM stations in Kalamazoo, List of AM stations in Kalamazoo[edit]

List of TV stations in Kalamazoo was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TV stations in Kalamazoo. I've proded List of FM stations in Kalamazoo, List of AM stations in Kalamazoo. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-06 08:57Z

Stonnar[edit]

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Stonnar. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. *

What are you doing[edit]

why? what is "{{db-spam}}"? [| deletion] --ProdigySportsman 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and WP:PNT vandal[edit]

Regarding this user, I will contact the universities as an attempt at quelling this problem. I hope I can be of assistance to you. Thanks, --SunStar Nettalk 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is, when you can let me know which one, as I don't know! --SunStar Nettalk 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offer much appreciated; I'll let you know if it comes up. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a new result comes up at WP:RFCU, let me know, and I'll take it up from there, if you like. --SunStar Nettalk 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfcu/skinny mcgee[edit]

Is the additional query just about Dionysius? Thx, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley[edit]

Hi Mackensen. Further to your note on the talk page of this article yesterday, I was wondering if there was some sort of tag that could be put onto the article to either prevent editing, or to warn that the article's contents were under review? I guess protecting it would suffice, but that might be a misuse of that procedure. I only ask because two users have already edited the article, and it would probably be better for everyone if people didn't expend effort on it until its limbo status was resolved. Otherwise, I guess there might be a duplication of effort. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, but it would be helpful to have some information as to why specifically the article was reverted to July 2006's version. Otherwise we may wind up adding material that puts us back in the revert zone. Furthermore, I can't actually remember exactly what was in the previous version. I'd spent some time sorting out references, etc., but I can't see any way of recovering this information, and I'd certainly prefer not to have to. Sorry to be a pain about this, but is there anywhere you can point me towards that would help with these issues? Best regards, --Plumbago 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is probably the best place. The long and the short of it is that we were facing a potential libel action for unsourced statements in the body of the article. I don't think I can be more specific than that. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thrashing the 3RR?[edit]

That was an interesting statement. Could you please elaborate on the reasons? (Radiant) 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can briefly (I'm working on a longer statement, but it isn't ready). I've outlined some of my thoughts at User:Mackensen/Thought experiment, but that was meant to deal with content arbitration, not the three-revert rule. Whether deliberately or by accident, the 3RR establishes a legal limit for revert-warring. While we all "know" that the argument that any user is "entitled" to three reverts a day is very much against the spirit of the rule, that remains the inevitable result of establishing an actual barrier after which you can be blocked. Any user can reasonably argue that the 3RR means that any block before the third or fourth revert is illegitimate, and they may well be right. There's also substantial disagreement over whether the fourth revert means you should be blocked, or whether you need to be warned after the third, or whether complex reverts are reverts at all or attempts at compromise. These questions are ultimately impossible to resolve, and this is, in my view, an unfruitful topic in the first place.
  • The three-revert rule does not favour "good" content over "bad" content save in cases of outright vandalism. I've covered this point in the linked passage above so I'll just recap briefly. m:Wrong Version aside, the 3RR can get an editor blocked for justifiably reverting POV-pushing or otherwise disruptive edits. Given the current stigma associated with a dirty block log, this can significantly harm a good user whose only crime was trying to better the encyclopaedia and who doubtlessly thought their actions were entirely appropriate. If there's an edit war breaking out the solution isn't to block the users responsible, that simply puts the problem in abeyance. If the article is suffering from disruption then protect the article and make them work it out on the talk page. Such discussions usually reveal who has a leg to stand on.
  • Finally, from a historical standpoint, the 3RR was meant to stop really obnoxious edit-warring. I think that it's clear from all the 3RR blocks handed out that it hasn't done that, and a cottage industry devoted to 3RR enforcement has sprung up instead, with all the associated problems that I've outlined above. I'd rather see content arbitration, or stronger community enforcement, perhaps via the Administrators Noticeboard, a mechanism which did not exist when the 3RR underwent its change in status.
  • In brief, that's my problem with the 3RR. I'll be trying to come up with something more coherent at a later date. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I chanced across this and found it interesting. The real thought experiment, I suppose, is "what would happen if this rule were not in place?" Someone with 3RR enforcement or edit-war-control experience should pick a few dozen 3RR blocks and try to figure out what would have happened? Would the revert-warring have gone on until someone had been blocked for disruption (albeit not mechanically under 3RR)? Would it have continued until someone got tired? Would disputes have escalated sooner than they did? Would the warring parties have resolved things? Imponderables I am sure but that is the real question. Newyorkbrad 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't imponderables exactly, because it used to be that way (back when dinosaurs roamed the wiki). Some edit wars did continue for days at a time, but an uninvolved sysop usually stepped in and protected when that happened. Back when quickpolls was tried out edit warring was grounds for a block. The problem with that mechanism was that it got engaged after the fact. 3RR at least has the benefit of engaging an existing problem, but I don't think it offers a solution. It's a ceasefire with no encouragement to approach the bargaining table. Furthermore, and I can prove this, it encourages sockpuppetry because the article is still editable. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting points. I tend to agree; I've had several cases where I made (or endorsed) a block for revert warring and was told that no, the block was improper because the 4th revert was not a full revert, or was done 26 hours after the first, etc. Plus we have all the bureaucracy at WP:AN/3RR; it would be more productive in most cases to be able to just point to a revert war (which is blatantly obvious from the page history anyway) and ask for admin reaction on that. Protection may be better in many cases, especially if a 3RR-accusation is made by the other party that was equally edit warring. That said, 3RR is such a meme that it'd be hard to dislodge. (Radiant) 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of bureaucracy, have you ever tried filing a 3RR report? Good grief. I think many of Sam Korn's arguments against Wikipedia:Community sanctions, or a least of writing them down and formalizing them, apply here too. Thatcher131 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's probably a textbook example of instruction creep (speaking of which, our guideline against that got revoked yesterday because somebody felt there wasn't enough discussion on the subject). (Radiant) 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, let me quote what I said two years ago: "Approve, with reservations. I'd rather it read: "Admins may block for obvious revert-warring." We ought to know it when we see it. Make 'em go to the talk page, period. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)". At least I'm consistent...Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility in my mind has always been that a 3RR violation would result in the editor's being banned for 24 hours from editing that article (maybe even that article plus related articles), rather than banned from Wikipedia altogether. Pros: We keep the energies of the editor and potentially direct them to another topic where he or she can contribute without being disruptive; we don't risk disaffecting the editor altogether. Cons: Less deterrent effect; difficulties of monitoring and enforcement. (By the way, Mackensen, I'd be interested in a link to the discussion you quote from above.) Newyorkbrad 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The poll was here: Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of dinosaurs[edit]

Way back in 1991-2 I used to contribute to alt.religion.scientology using a Macintosh LC III at work and Macintosh Classic II at home. And I also remember a user with a quite distinctive name who was banned from rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 who is a respected editor here and deservedly so. Funny to see the same people popping up 15 years later. Thatcher131 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


e-sword Deletion[edit]

a) How can a program that has won awards (PC Magazine) be called "Not Notable"? b) This program has been reviewed both by itself, and in comparison to similar programs, in both the theological,and general place. c) I don't remember ever seeing any tags asking for cites for anything in that article.

It probably is too late for me to complain now, but this is the second article I've contributed to, that was deleted before I knew that the deletion was under discussion. A third article I contributed to was not deleted --- and I only discovered that it was subject to deletion,after the fact. [The sole reason it was not deleted,is because the nominator thought a common word was a registered trademark. jonathon

User:Iasson[edit]

I'm really sorry for going here and not passing through checkuser, but I have strong reasons to believe the banned troll Iasson has started sockpuppetering once again :-( Me and Pmanderson believe he has assumed this time the identity of User:Armodios and User:Ephestion; unfortunately, for a checkuser we miss a recent ascertained sock account, as Essjay rightly observed when Pmanderson filed the request for Armodios (see [[5]]). Since you have often dealt with Iasson, I was hoping you could examine the IP of Armodios and compare it with that of Iasson or more recent ascertained socks like Faaaa (talk · contribs) or Epafus (talk · contribs). More recent, but not checkuser ascertained, are Karasar (talk · contribs) and especially Abakos (talk · contribs).--Aldux 14:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Srkris#Srkris[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Srkris#Srkris

It seems you have declined the above request. I'm not sure why, but I've added a few more IP addresses to the list. This is based on [[6]], [[7]], [[8]] and [[9]]. Could you please reconsider? (If not, could you please tell me why?) Thanks in advance. Ncmvocalist 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute 1 4 u, take eight and Enlighter1 RFCU cases[edit]

Hi Mackensen, you'll be seeing me around RFCU a bit now as a new clerk of RFCU. Two RFCU cases have been referred to you: Cute 1 4 u and Enlighter1. I'm looking forward to helping you and other checkusers. DarthVader 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Good to have you on board. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina deletion review[edit]

Hi, Mackensen. I have been working on collecting sources for Ali Sina. Could you take a look at my last three comments at the bottom of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 5#Ali Sina, especially the Rutgers University source, and tell me if this is sufficient yet? I don't want to keep scouring the web if we've already got enough to satisfy notability now. Thanks for your time. — coelacan talk — 18:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • These seem helpful; whether you could construct more than a stub from them is another matter. That is, simply finding a few sources wouldn't be sufficient to return the article to its old state. My interest in the matter, however, is and was simply that of the closing administrator. Mackensen (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable at least for a stub then? Maybe it would help if I bought the book and excerpted from it. — coelacan talk — 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be. Certainly you'd be better off than before. Mackensen (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep looking. Thanks for your input. — coelacan talk — 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, the site itself (as well as commentary against the site) ought to be a source for part of the article, as it is already out there and available for viewing. Precedent: we routinely use TV shows and movies as sources for those television shows and movies' plots. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamazoo vandal, again[edit]

He's baaaaack, using 216.120.170.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now.--chris.lawson 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more time, with 71.13.130.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) again.--chris.lawson 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just for good measure, back using 24.247.121.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this time.--chris.lawson 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That unblock[edit]

Thank you for taking another look at the block about which I posted at WP:ANI. I had no involvement in the situation except as an observer; I just happened to become aware of the situation because both Rush and User talk:Philwelch are on my watchlist–the latter, as it happens, because of his last controversial block, of User:John Reid. Coincidentally, that is the only other block I have seen in my 5+ months of editing that was described in the block log as being for "misleading edit summaries," and it was given by the same administrator.

I am not sure that ThuranX is the right person to engage Philwelch in any discussion of this block; my instinct is that they should stay away from each other for awhile, but we'll see. Meanwhile, just out of curiosity, which particular aspect of the matter were you opining was "unlike you"? Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like it when administrators block people with whom they're in a content dispute, and in cases of mutual edit warring I tend to favour page protection or stiff warnings over blocks...Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Chatterjee RFCU case[edit]

If you hadn't seen the latest Dr Chatterjee case yet, it would possibly be helpful if you had a look at this case to see if you could help out. Thanks. DarthVader 11:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking out loud[edit]

about the current template vandal, and this and this. Thatcher131 19:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's interesting, and very much worth a closer look. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That possibility had occurred to me too, although I gather from past discussions that there's a shared IP covering half of Singapore, so I don't know whether you'll be able to reach a conclusion based on the technical evidence. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor problem with the templates[edit]

Can you take a look at the minor issue I reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Succession boxes? Thanks. --NE2 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you thought of something I didn't, I don't think the type/type2 idea will work in cases like Back Bay (MBTA station), where it still needs a type2 to tell it to pick Boston rather than New York. --NE2 03:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have, but I'm not done breaking it yet ;). I may also be barking up the wrong tree. Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck; I'm off for a bit. --NE2 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that didn't work. See Framingham (MBTA station); "Boston South" is unlinked. One possibility is in Template:S-line/side cell, if type exists, to compare the linked rather than unlinked station names. I should be able to implement this, so let me know if you have any other ideas. --NE2 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the work you've done on these templates! If you could take a break from converting old code to read and respond to the note I left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Succession boxes, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! —CComMack (t–c) 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword[edit]

I have restored the e-Sword aricle- I absolutely do not understand why you deleted it. The consensus on the discussion page is clear - it is within its field very notable. 4 million people use it. Everyone said so and no one - apart from the original lister asked for its deletion. I assume good faith and do hope this was a mistake. Refdoc 09:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked what I was doing - I undeleted the article and started adding what was clearly missing - assertion and documentation of notability. I then wenmt to work and intended to finish the job now.

I appreciate the concern for non-notable or non-encyclopaedic articles. My edit history is not extensive, but long enough - I have cleaned up plenty articles in my spheres of interest and made them (more) encycloplaedic.

I am not using e-sword and never would as it is not on Linux, but I have heard of it, I read reviews and have met many who do use it. It is simply one of the most important programmes in this particular niche. Actual reviews were listed with quotations on the delete review so I really do not see what your problem is now. I like to assume good faith, but I find the whole speed and way of this particular process weird - and totally contrary to anything I got used to here on WP. Refdoc 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice from your edit history that you've been absent for about a year. Things have changed since then. My problem now is that you restored the original version of the article--against both the original afd debate and the deletion review. You can't do that just because you disagree with it, not as an administrator. As an editor you're free to write a new article with actual sources. Mackensen (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly like this. The Actual AfD Debate was clearly in consensus of keeping it, though admittedly none of the assertions of notability were backed up by references. Poor show. So the article was deleted and failed at the review. Fair enough. Thing is, now there are actually plenty references out there, several important ones were mentioned on the talk page and I think the sensible way is to undelete and augment the text. Given that the original article - even if deleted - remains under GFDL there is nothing wrong with using it as a skeleton. It is further clear that the article history is important and should be preserved by undeleting - including the debates and as I understand policy provides for exactly this. I understand the only reason to keep a successfully ressurected articles predeletion history deleted are copyright violations in the original version. Show me the mistake in my reasoning Refdoc 17:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, your primary mistake is claiming that there was a consensus to keep; there clearly wasn't and DRV upheld that view, for the reasons you suggest. Policy does provide for a history undeletion, but not a reversal of the outcome of the deletion debate. Your comments this morning--and now--suggest that you're taking the latter course. Go ahead an undelete for historical purposes, but the article really ought to be stubbed. And, as an aside, the new article really shouldn't sound like an advertisement. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to read a long list of "keeps" in the originat AfD as anything other than a consensus. Similarly the debate on the RfD was not consensual - after an initial flurry of 'Delete" a lot of argument was brought why the article should be undeleted and - most importantly - references and argument for notability was brought. I really do not like to move away from assuming good faith, but the speed and the tone of the actions was quite wrong. Even today when I undeleted I actually started editing the article, incorporating the very necessary changes - and promised on the talk page to continue after work. Your assumption that it is an advertisment is contrary to the evidence - a long edit history with many entries by many different people. Maybe a bit fanboyish, but not an ad. I am not an interested party as such - As said above I do not use the programme, am not a fan of closed software in general and do not like Windows software anyway. The article needs undeleting, cleansing and referencing (well actually not anymore as the refences are there. I guess a 32 page academic review is as good as it will ever get for something of a niche product like this) Refdoc 18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had a conciliatory reply here, until I saw that you'd opened another DRV. Good day to you. Mackensen (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you really lost me. I obviously opened another DRV after being told that this is correct approach nowadays. Where is the problem? Refdoc 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opening another DRV is improper. The best course of action is just to start writing a new article, backed with sources from the outset. Re-creation does not, in my book, equate to undeletion. In any event, I've said all I'm going to say, here and elsewhere. I imagine this has as been confusing for you as it has been trying for me; if nothing else, the whole episode is an object lesson of how involved processes have become here and how dangerous it is to take extended wikibreaks. Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Mackensen. I did not realise that there had been a review. I am sorry for wasting your time by suggesting another one. --Robdurbar 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and quite upsetting indeed. I also apologise for messing things up. One of the things which really bug me though - my edit speed is days and not seconds. Many others are/were similar I guess. So I start something in the morning, continue a bit over lunch (searching for further references etc) and decide to add things in the evening. Had I been able to continue, I would think by tomorrow the article would have been very different to the deleted one. And yes - the DRV was emphatically not in bad faith. It was on above advice and my re-reading of the DRV preamble - that new evidence should lead to a new review. I guess i had the material for doing just this. But I guess I leave it here. Someone somewhere will recreate the article. Refdoc 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC) [edit][reply]

I found the problem[edit]

We're running up against template limits. If we ditch the switch and instead go with subtemplates like {{s-rail/Amtrak from/Hiawatha}} having Milwaukee, we should be able to make it work. The station switch would still be needed for the bare minimum that cannot use redirects in the form station, assuming we want Springfield, MA to display as Springfield. --NE2 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If that fixes the problem (which I noticed in Chicago), then I'm all for it. Mackensen (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the changeover, and fixed the problem with terminus comparing by using "Boston or Springfield" as the input to template:Amtrak stations. --NE2 06:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism[edit]

what is wikipedia vandalism?

Please unblock[edit]

Please unblock [10] It was a compromised host someone hacked into my system but my network admin fixed the issue. Please unblock. 65.99.214.132 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.99.214.132 (talk • contribs) December 16, 2006.

Well, this seems pretty self explanatory to me  Glen  07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock , i beg you. I did not do it it was the vandal. I like wikipedia. 65.99.214.132

User talk:84.114.131.26 again...[edit]

Hello. User:ThomasK has recently been asking on IRC (#wikipedia-en) to be unblocked, claiming that the IP in question is now secured. I'm leaning to AGF here, so I've been thinking, maybe we could reblock the IP as anon-only with account creation disabled and unblock ThomasK? This way, we could give him a chance and be able to reblock in case of trouble. If there is however a vandal operating under this IP (User:Leaderofall etc), this solution requires that all socks created from this IP be blocked; that's why I'm messaging you. What do you think? Миша13 15:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Err, ThomasK was blocked as an account for vandalism by Curps back in May. That his IP was blocked for different reasons is something of a bonus. He's been emailing me as well but I really don't see any good reason to do this. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the contributions of Disclaimer1 (talk · contribs) I think there is an overlap between the two circles of friends. Agathoclea 15:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My impression of the situation is this: ThomasK was blocked in April because his account was compromised. And it was compromised along with the entire network, so the network's IP was blocked. Recently, Netsnipe unblocked the IP having checked that it is now secure (and so ThomasK claims). Then you re-blocked it woth {{checkuserblock}}, because it was used by several sockpuppets.
Now, assuming the netwok is indeed secure, I figure we could unblock ThomasK and soft-block the IP (after making sure there are no sleeper socks on this address). Миша13 15:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be party to this. I can't guarantee the absence of sleeper socks. Immediately after Netsnipe, with my consent, unblocked the IP, we were hit with vandalism from multiple sockpuppets. If the ThomasK account was compromised I don't see how it could be un-compromised, and I see no reason to unblock it. While the technical readouts from that IP have changed, the behavior pattern has not. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{s-line}} conversions[edit]

hey there, thanks for all your work on s-line! however...it's not necessary for functionality for either next or previous parameters to be specified if you are going to leave them blank. for example see this edit you made, and my subsequent "cleanup" – it displays the same, and i don't see a reason for specifying the param if you're going to leave it blank anyway. cheers. —lensovet–talk – 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know it comes out the same, but I like leaving it in as a kindness for whomever winds up updating it at a later time. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me how exactly multiple termini work? for example the Lake Shore Limited on chicago's union station. I see that OK, now i see how it works, and to be honest, it seems extremely hackish and unmaintainable. Especially since the last place you'd look to modify this sort of thing would be a template called {{XXXYYY stations}}. I propose that we deal with multiple destinations the way we deal with them on {{NJT line}}. Also your current method requires that the editor actually know what the two termini are, whereas NJT line takes care of everything on its own. The relevant code, btw, is
{{#ifeq:{{NJT line ndir|{{{line}}}}}{{NJT line ndir2|{{{line}}}}}|{{{next|}}}{{{next2|}}}| |<br> <!-- figure out if we have directions --> <small>''toward {{#if:{{{ndir|}}}|{{njt-sta|{{{ndir}}}|type={{{type}}}}} {{#if:{{{ndir2|}}}|or {{njt-sta|{{{ndir2}}}|type={{{type}}}}}}}|{{njt-sta|{{NJT line ndir|{{{line}}}}}|type={{{type}}}}} {{#ifeq:{{NJT line ndir2|{{{line}}}}}|||or {{njt-sta|{{NJT line ndir2|{{{line}}}}}|type={{{type}}}}}}}}}''</small>}}}}|''Terminus''}}
  • However, that system isn't particularly flexible, particularly when there's more than two different possible termini. I think the current method affords a great deal of flexibility, and isn't hackish at all. What we're lacking is proper documentation, because the concept is less than a week old. Furthermore, the system only requires that the editor establishing the new line know where the termini are. Once that's been done they don't need to worry about the termini at all, unless there are multiple termini in one direction. Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Union Station line cleanup[edit]

Hey, thanks for making this look better. I tried to clean it up (and many other station pages) and I think I made a few mistakes. Can you explain how you determined the "direction" of the train lines? Are they supposed to go north-south (left column, right column) or west-east (left column, right column)? What if they go southeast/northeast/northwest/southwest? Or several directions along the way? --BetaCentauri 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been playing this by ear. As a general rule, west is on the left and east is on the right. When dealing with trains that run almost exclusively north-south, I try to match them up with an east-west line. In a few really awkward situations I've placed a switch in the type field that can reverse the locations of the terminals, allowing the trains to "switch" direction within the succession box. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be a standard approach. Different train station pages have different standards, and sometimes they're applied willy-nilly within the same page. Being a novice editor, I have no idea how to best fix this. --BetaCentauri 22:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that as I've been rolling out the new templates. The new system has centralized control for the termini, which should help enforce standards. I've tried to start with major stations first (Chicago, Boston South, Washington, New York) to get as many lines on the same page as possible. At some point I'm also going to properly document the new system so that we can apply it consistently, but this is still very much in the testing stage (and I already had to reverse half the Chicago Metra lines leaving Union Station). Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see that page. It'd be a lot easier to fix things with a general consensus as to which column is in which direction. It's not just U.S. stations, it's also a problem for railway/metro/premetro stations in Europe and Asia too. --BetaCentauri 23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STA lists a standard where stations are listed west-to-east, then north to south. There hasn't been any real discussion going on on that project page in quite a while, but it is a good standard, and I and most other editors follow at least the first sorting, which actually covers most lines, as even predominantly north-south lines share a concurrency with an east-west line for at least some distance. The new templates will help reinforce the preexisting consensus for this standard. —CComMack (t–c) 04:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-jnct[edit]

Do you mind making hide and rows work here (for Jamaica)? I'm not in the mood to wade through the code. --NE2 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The LIRR is even more complicated; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#More about services vs. lines. --NE2 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're interested in trying to figure it out, have a look at Talk:Jamaica (LIRR station); all three lines east of Jamaica have trains to both of the major ones to the west. --NE2 00:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Row hiding for s-jnct is on my list, when I've got the courage to deal with it. Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --NE2 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominems on WP:AN[edit]

Mackensen, I'm concerned about your latest ad hominem. Please confine IRC manner of talk for IRC and other secretive channels. In Wikipedia this may look unseemly. Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thank you for confirming your opinion of me. Frankly, I'd be impressed if anyone on IRC managed such verbosity, although I do manage complete sentences there. I'll have you know that I haven't been on IRC since early this morning, when I went looking for a steward for an emergency de-sysopping. I'll also remind you that as my remarks are directly related to your remarks, it is quite a stretch to call them "ad hominem." Mackensen (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the by, do you have any proof whatsoever that I make "unseemly" statements on IRC? Or are you just making an actual (not imagined) ad hominem attack there? Mackensen (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, perhaps I am mistaken, but the last time I was subjected to such aggressive and self-righteous manner of discourse, peppered with "incivil", "stupid", and "disgusting", was when I spoke with Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway (not anymore, thank heaven). I tend to associate it with IRC although perhaps the source lies elsewhere. Anyway, it does not cut ice with me. Mackensen, you are wrong in assuming that I have some "friends" on-wiki. In fact, I don't have any. I log in daily not to get friends and chat with them (as some users do), or to exercise power against them, but to edit articles. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, I apologize if I've mis-characterized your position, here and elsewhere. It has been my impression that you enjoy collegial relations with a group of editors--insofar as Wikipedia is concerned, I would think one could term them "friends" (on Wikipedia, not in real life). I think in such terms of the editors with whom I've worked over the last few years. I don't like using terms as strong as those, and I deliberately reserve them for situations such as these. I log on daily because I have an addiction that I can't break, even if I satisfy it by editing minor useless templates and articles related to American commuter rail systems (now there's a purpose in life).
        • For me, there are no friends in wiki, only temporary alliances based on convictions. I have enough friends in real life. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I view IRC as a communication medium. Communications mediums are, to my mind, only as evil or good as the people in them. A better characterization might be "adult" versus "juvenile." The latter would be the reason I stay out of #wikipedia. I stay in IRC mainly because my foundation responsibilities require me to be easily--and discreetly--available.
        • I agree that "adult" versus "juvenile" is a good characterization of the problem. I don't know much how IRC works, therefore I can't readily see how off-wiki communication may be superior to on-wiki communication. Nevertheless, I respect your decision to be in touch with other editors. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find it superior for two reasons: the relative confidentiality (useful for the work I do), and the free flow of discussion. It's a useful way to bring a matter to someone's attention, but I'd never try making policy there. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would ask that you read into my comments not so much self-righteousness, or aggressiveness, but sadness. Sadness that after all this time such comments are still being made. Sadness that I still rise to respond when I ought to just keep my mouth shut and accept that these denunciations will continue. It doesn't help matters that you and others make them, and it doesn't help that I and others continue to challenge them. We're all editors regardless, and we ought to be able to engage one another without resorting to strong language, tirades, or ad-hominem characterizations--and that goes for all sides. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't like to see "clueful" admins claiming that they are treated as "lower" to "clueless" editors, which implies that in fact they are superior to them. Neither do I share the attitude "I chose to be elected as an admin but I have no responsibility before Wikipedia on that account". Such comments usually make me wince and itch for response. I suppose that these attitudes are no applicable to you, Mackensen. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hope that I've never made any statements that would imply that I consider myself better than other users because I'm an administrator. If there are such statements floating around then I wholeheartedly--and without reservation--apologize for each and every last one them and I would be happy to make personal representations to any individuals at which they were directed. I'd be guilty of not taking my own advice, among other sins. "Election" is a loaded word in this situation–an administrator is "elect" only in that he or she has been chosen to take on additional responsibilities. I don't blame you for taking umbrage at such remarks, I only wish that your response was more proportionate. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment on a specific statement: "Communications mediums are, to my mind, only as evil or good as the people in them." This is very much a mischaracterization. The issue here that some mediums do and some don't discourage the worst insticts of people to be revealed. Secrecy and non-accountability is a prime ground that breeds the worst. No one is ideal except the few. Some people are incorruptable. If you, Mackensen, claim to be one of such, I don't have any comment on this since I never interracted you in wikispace. I know of some users, don't want to call names, of who we saw the worse specifically because the secrecy and non-accountability allowed the shadowy emotions of those people to grow.

I view openness and transparency a best check against unethical behavior. Secrecy breeds corruption. Openness eliminates it. This is not to say that everything should be public. There are few issues that should stay private such as the issues that discuss personal information and serious threats. Most of what goes on IRC is unrelated to these. If you are interested, you may read more on my position on that in my recent exchange with Lar where I explained my opposition to his stewardship. --Irpen 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be the height of hubris to claim incorruptibility, and I certainly won't make it. At the same time, I don't think that I've ever abused my admin tools, or said anything about someone in private that I would be unwilling to repeat publicly. I recall making these same points at Wikipedia talk:Out of band communication considered harmful, where I think you participated as well. That's also where Brenneman had the audacity to claim that I was "sensible."
    • Abuse or not of admin tools on your part is not a part of this discussion. Such abuse, when it takes place, is usually obvious. What is not obvious is what brought the admin to abuse. It is often IRC, although not necessarly so. I would be interested to know whether you can equally assert that each and every of your Checkuser check was within the policy. I am not saying that it was not. I am simply asking. --Irpen
      • First of all, it is, because you raised the matter and I wished to make my position clear. I believe that I can give a good reason for every check I've ever made, and there's an ombudsman who reviews those checks. I am not aware of any situation in which I've breached Foundation privacy policy--in at least one case I was the subject of an RfC for refusing to disclose information. Regarding what brings an admin to abuse, I think you're begging the question. Even a structuralist approach to the question will suggest a multiplicity of factors–stress, poor judgement, misunderstanding of policy, general wickedness. This is without addressing contingent factors–heat of the moment, harassment, and yes, possibly, IRC. Administrators are responsible for their actions. That they consulted IRC beforehand is not particularly interesting or important; it is still incumbent on them to justify their actions on-wiki. If it is possible to do so then the question of IRC is moot. If not, then we can hang them with policy. Again, IRC doesn't enter the equation. You're trying to make this a structural question--IRC is an underlying cause of administrative misbehaviour. As I've suggested below I really don't think that the case has been proven. We've had plenty of bad administrators, but not all of them have used IRC. We also have plenty of good administrators who use IRC. This suggests to me that IRC is not, in itself, a factor in administrative behavior or, if it is, then it is only one of many factors, and probably not the most important. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that breaching the privacy policy is much more of a gross violation than running a non-policy checkuser. The former requires unauthorized sharing of the sheckuser results. The latter constitutes simply a non-policy checkuser run.
        • I am not saying that "is an underlying cause of administrative misbehaviour". First of I am talking about only one of causes. Second, the issue I raise now is lack of transparency as most cases do not require any secretive discussions. IRC is an important but not the only issue in this pervasive unwarranted secrecy culture. --Irpen 06:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone who presents one face to Wikipedia and another to IRC is in a false position. We find ourselves in a situation where someone made remarks that cannot be substantiated, which creates an understandable feeling of ill-will, especially if the person in question denies saying any such thing. There are two possibilities: the person is lying, or the person has been misquoted. The second possibility is almost impossible to verify and requires trusting that the person is telling the truth. The first, of course, clarifies matters considerably.
    • I don't see how it is related. The problem is not with some sort of dual personality. The issue here is personal ethics and violation of ethic rules rules are certainly more tempting in a secretive environment. --Irpen
      • It's related because there's only a problem with the off-wiki communication if the person's behavior is inconsistent. Otherwise, it's an on-wiki problem, and we have mechanisms to deal with it. As for these "ethic rules," I'm not quite sure what you mean by that beyond what I've stated already. You can't block someone from IRC. You can release private information, but I'm only familiar with one instance of that happening, and there were repercussions. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only one instance? Look, let's not play kiddie games here. I personally do not care a least for checkuser being ran on myself but the very thought that when an editor publicly disagrees with the self-appointed "establishment" someone often runs a checkuser on them is utterly repugnant. This does not happen every time but this does happen as you know full well. --Irpen 06:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own solution to this problem is this: anything related to the wiki that I say in private I say in public, with the obvious exceptions noted above. Public statements have a far greater effect and generate actual discussion. We need only to look at the noticeboard today to see what happens when two long-standing contributors get into a tussle. With luck some good will come of it, but this couldn't have happened via a private medium (IRC, E-mail, etc).
  • Where does this leave us? I see IRC as a useful way to bring something on-wiki to someone else's attention, and to wind down by talking to someone whose judgement I trust, but without cluttering up the wiki without something that has little bearing on its operation. Sometimes I need to discuss something with an arbitrator. Sometimes I connect for no real reason and just leave it open. Once in a while I stop someone from doing something stupid. There's your other consideration: if you demonize IRC enough all the sensible folks will leave. Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If sensible people leave IRC there would be more good than bad out of it, overall. The secrecy creates the corruption. This has been known for a very long time. --Irpen 21:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You state this as though it has been proven; I don't agree. There is no demonstrable correlation between abusive admin behavior and use of third-party communications. I would be very interested to see such proof, but I suspect that it doesn't exist. Furthermore, there's nothing more secret than the contents of one's own head. Some of the worst decisions I've ever seen came from users who acted alone, without consultation, and who did not frequent IRC or much of anything else. You may have believed that this relationship exists but I'm unconvinced. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I beg to differ here. And I am afraid I am not alone at it. --Irpen 06:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A particular incident[edit]

  • Well actually Mackensen there is that famous occasion when a new and naive admin was persuaded to block an long established editor by a highly experienced admin on IRC-admin channel, because that admin didn't want to get his own hands dirty, and display his own differences of opinion with the established editor. That certainly had very detrimental repercussions for Wikipedia. We don't need to drag the diffs up, yet again, or name names, I merely am trying to say your statement that "no demonstrable correlation between abusive admin behaviour and use of third-party communications" is not quite correct. The correlation exists, and many Wikipedians know it exists, however, if officially there is no absolute concrete "demonstrable correlation" in that case it is only because the experienced admin concerned invoked the rule forbidding mention of his IRC actions on Wikipedia. If you remember (and I'm sure you do) the admin concerned almost had a panic attack in the ensuing Arbitration case that followed, when he was pressed about his involvement; while the inexperienced naive admin fled to the hills refusing to take part in the case. Both those admins are now keen for administrative advancement supported by flocks of IRC supporters, do you wonder then that those unable to see what goes on the Wiki-admin channel are concerned, especially when one very vociferous ex-admin and ex arbcom member still has access to that channel, despite receiving an unprecedented vote of no confidence in recent Arbcom elections. Does all of this, and the very fact this discussion is taking place not ring some alarm bells at all for you? Giano 09:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm well aware of the deplorable incident to which you refer, and in that case IRC was certainly a party. I would, however, put greater emphasis on the naive administrator who let someone else order them around. When there's an important block you make it yourself or do not make it at all. As I've suggested above, anything done on-wiki should be justifiable on-wiki, regardless of discussion elsewhere (with the usual exceptions). I would argue that one instance, regardless of its severity, does not prove the case. If we see a rash of inappropriate ill-considered actions by administrators, whom we know to use IRC, and who cannot sufficiently explain why they did what they did, then I may be prepared to concede your point. At the same time, we have plenty of administrators who use IRC (for whatever reason), but whose judgement has not been compromised (not yet, anyway). I spend a good deal of time in the admin channel, and I must say that for all the alarm it causes it is a quiet place, with fewer than fifty people at any given time, and very little nefarious plotting. However, there's also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rory096 2, where there was demonstrable misuse of IRC for vote-stacking and general juvenile behaviour, but the people in question weren't even administrators. I would also agree that they're jockeying for position, although I doubt they realize what a dog's breakfast the job is. If this batch of people gains ascendancy over the mechanism of the encyclopaedia, then I think we'll have real cause of alarm. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your considered response. I'm sure you are innocent yourself of any nefarious practices on the IRC channels, but as long as the doings of the IRCadmin channel cannot be discussed on wiki, while the doings of wiki can be the subject of debate and more importantly action on the IRC channel then there is going to be growing discontentment. Anyone who feels this problem is going to disappear is very mistaken. Finally, I would appreciate your views on my final question "do you wonder then that those unable to see what goes on the Wiki-admin channel are concerned, especially when one very vociferous ex-admin and ex arbcom member still has access to that channel, despite receiving an unprecedented vote of no confidence in recent Arbcom elections! Giano 13:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I suppose that is indeed the elephant in the room. The most important point is that the IRC channels are not under the control of Wikipedia; that some of them functionally represent Wikipedia groupings reflects the desire of the creators of the channels. This is in some ways problematic: while #wikipedia-en-arbcom and #wikimedia-checkuser only contain the people you'd expect, #wikipedia-en-admins is a different kettle of fish. While anyone who is a sysop has, in my view, a right to expect to be there, there is no requirement that someone be an admin on the English wikipedia to gain entry. This isn't a bad thing, necessarily: there have been times when stewards, or admins from other projects, have been granted access because there were matters under discussion. Access to the channel is controlled by the moderators (of which I am not one). This isn't subject to external control, and I imagine they feel that a vote of no-confidence in an arbcom election is not grounds for removal. There are all kinds of reasons for attaining or not attaining support in such an election--my own election last year remains mysterious, but I digress.
  • Finally I come to it. Simply put, should someone who could probably not gain adminship in an RfA be in an IRC channel talking to other administrators. This relates to my idea above about administrators being accountable for their own actions. Anyone who says "I did this because X on IRC said to do it" would hopefully find a very poor hearing. A permissible exception, I should think, would be "X ran a checkuser and said block Y," but generally a checkuser prefers to make the block him or herself since it carries actual authority--in the original sense of the word. Authors shouldn't use a ghostwriter.
  • I understand your concerns but I think that they might be misplaced. I recognize that we're going to disagree on this point. These concerns, I think, are predicated on the idea that this individual continues to wield power through other administrators despite having resigned her offices. This does not give enough credit to the agency of those administrators, and actually exempts them from taking responsibility for their actions. If an administrator takes a problematic action, there is no need to focus on what possible external structural factors might have led them down the wrong path--it's a distraction and will provoke a meta-discussion when what actually should be discussed is what the administrator did and why this was or was not the right thing to do. In this light, I view the presence, or lack thereof, of anyone in the admin IRC channel or any other IRC channel as unimportant. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will be relieved to know I'm not going to argue any more (not for a while anyway) but your comments bring us neatly back to "a naive admin was persuaded to block an long established editor by a highly experienced admin on IRC-admin channel" If this can happen with highly experienced admins, it is certainly going to happen if less than reputable ex admins are also in the channel giving advice. Until someone has the courage to say "Enough" this problem can only worsen - and it will. Right, that's all I'm going to say on the subject this side of Christmas. Happy New Year Mackensen. Giano 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, I enjoy these discussions, but I'm content to leave the matter for now. Thank you very much indeed for your time. Happy New Year, Giano. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am getting just a bit tired of "a naive admin was persuaded to block an long established editor by a highly experienced admin on IRC-admin channel" as the spin to what happened in that incident. I categorically reject that characterisation. It is more accurate to say that you, Giano, were being incivil, had been warned about it, multiple times, and an admin, after asking for advice about it on IRC, decided to block you. That block was overturned (by a friend of yours, I note) after discussion on AN/I, which included justification, and refutation, of the reasons for it. You know darn well, or should, that the "highly experienced" admin (if you're referring to me) was involved in the incident (you were harangueing me at some length and not getting much of a rise out of me at the time) and therefore could not block. That you continue to trot this canard out is really quite inappropriate. I think you're starting to verge into the area where an apology is necessary, if you do not discontinue this gross distortion of what happened. IRC should not be used as a substitute for transparency, or for putting blocks up for review, or for getting to consensus. But it IS a valid and valuable vehicle for asking for advice. The advice given needs to, of course, lead to an action that is justifiable on its merits, just "it was on IRC" is not a justification. This action, in my view, and that of others (although not the friend that unblocked you, you seem to have an habit of getting unblocked by friends) was justifiable. That it was overturned proves the system works, not that the block was unsound per se. I've subsequently realised that warning for incivility is usually a mugs game though, and no longer think it's a good thing to do, in almost every case. But this is a wiki, opinions change. At least some do, anyway. Some of us hold grudges and incorrect opinions forever. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, poor Lar is having another panic attack, it must get very dull following me about. Even Mackensen (not one of my strongest supporters) above says: "I'm well aware of the deplorable incident to which you refer, and in that case IRC was certainly a party". Sadly it was not one of Wikipedia's finest moments, and with the logs and conversations all being top secret - you appear to be cast in the role of the villain. That Lar is something you will have to learn to live with. Too bad - get over it! If you want to winge on about this do it somewhere else and stop cluttering up Mackensen's page. Giano 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Starlight[edit]

Hi Mackensen. I see you're reformatting the service info-boxes in station articles. Excellent. I have a question. In the Coast Starlight services, you indicate the northern terminus is Vancouver (I'm assuming you mean British Columbia and not Washington). Doesn't the Coast Starlight terminate at Seattle King Street Station with only connecting bus service to Vancouver, B.C.? --Oakshade 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested, setting up s-line for Metro Transitways.[edit]

I would love to set up a system like s-line for the LACMTA Transitways and their stations which include... the Orange Line Transitway (color Orange), the Harbor Transitway (color Bronze), and the El Monte Busway (color silver). RickyCourtney 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That shouldn't be a problem. We'll need to make entries for them in Template:LACMTA color, and possibly Template:LACMTA lines. Then we can add the end-points. Is there a station that includes these lines already, with the old format? Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this a bit further, the Orange Line is already established. Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked into how you created the boxes... and took it upon myself to learn my way thru it... so im finished now, and it looks great, so I just wanted to thank you and join Hbdragon below me in thanking you for all the work you did on the LACMTA pages. Oh, and check out one of the pages id love to hear what you think! (Slauson Station) RickyCourtney 09:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

The Working Man's Barnstar
For moving all of the LACMTA station pages to the new syntax, I award you the working man's barnstar. Terrific work. Hbdragon88 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Square[edit]

Why did you remove the box from the article? Thanks. American Patriot 1776 22:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because the station is closed. It seems misleading to include a closed station in the order of succession. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trashing the 3RR, redux[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#3RR_Considered_Harmful. Thanks. >Radiant< 14:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lori_Klausutis[edit]

This article did not qualify under G8, which states: "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere. Subpages (including archive pages) are only deletable under this rule if the corresponding top-level page does not exist. Exceptions to this are user talk pages and talk pages of images on Commons."

The talk on that page was not only regarding deletion discussion, but it was linked as evidence in an ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#User_talk:Sparkhead with a diff link so "what links here" doesn't show. If you can show the discussion exists elsehwere, please point me to it. Otherwise I'll ask that it be restored. Thanks. --*Spark* 18:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Break[edit]

Saw you went on break and thought I should drop by; hoping it's a "I'm having Happy Holiday's in the real world" rather than anything else. If you need any help with anything when you get back, you know where to find me. Essjay (Talk) 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006[edit]

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More cplot[edit]

Special:Contributions/USDHSUberAlles - crz crztalk 05:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metro North train line direction[edit]

While I think your motives are fine in applying a nice template to the MNR stations, I have to disagree with changing the direction. All the stations were previously starting from North, going South. That is to say...all trains leading into Manhattan (Grand Central) - this is how any New Yorker is accustomed to seeing things. I'm not sure why you arbitrarily decided to point all the trains towards Wassaic, with GCT on the left side, but it's quite disorienting.

John Silvestri 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was necessary to standardise the direction used by the Metro-North trains to conform to the other rail systems. That is, they needed to be on the same page with with NJ Transit, Amtrak, SEPTA, CDOT, etc. We've adopted as a rule of thumb West/left East/right. It wasn't arbitrary, rather, the layout of the existing systems forced my hand. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a tangent, I have a criticism of the New Haven Line setup namely how it deals with branch lines and terminals. The number of one-seat rides from any station to another is limited and should be reflected as such rather than throwing all possibilities out. For example, the only stations on the main line that should mention Danbury are South Norwalk and Stamford while the terminus for Waterbury service is Bridgeport, not Grand Central. Given the different scope of service that Metro-North provides as opposed to other authorities, the box that's been made isn't big enough to fit. Scrabbleship 03:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's all easily addressed within the current setup. If there are any other irregularities in the New Haven service (or other services, as the case may be) please let me know and I'll make the necessary changes. Mackensen (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirects[edit]

Please check for double redirects when you move a page. In the case of some railway stations you recently moved, such as Niagara Falls railway station and Saint-Lambert railway station, there were a few of them, which I fixed. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 00:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about that; I thought I caught them all. Thanks for clearing up after me. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

backlog at WP:OP[edit]

Includes two instances of our friend, while you were on a break. Both are currently no longer blocked. Agathoclea 17:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen/Archive12&oldid=1182713526"