User talk:Protonk/Archive 6

Archiving of WT:FICT

Protonk, you need to undo what you did here. On December 1, you manually archived a whole bunch of threads (23 to be exact) at WT:FICT and some of them still had ongoing discussions. You archived over 280 comments. These are the threads you archived and the timestamp of the most recent comment in each.

• 05:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC) - Small (edit) nit - large nit (since July??)
• 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - DGG's changes
• 06:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Derivative works
• 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Breaking out a subject from a list
• 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - Preserving via merge
• 04:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Just a note
• 04:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - notability of a character list article?
• 06:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Some thoughts
• 12:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - Recommendations for the proposal
• 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - A hard-line approach
• 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC) - proposing a split of this proposal
• 06:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - Plotcruft and Narrative Complexity
• 13:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - comments about non-wikipedia wikis to move information too
• 13:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - use of primary sources for citing production staff
• 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC) - Shortening
• 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC) - Another reason to keep Fictional Elements articles...
• 04:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - Honest introduction to the guideline
• 19:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - A somewhat harder line, but closer to WP:N
• 19:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - Brainstorm: re-framing "complexity"
• 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC) - A plea
• 10:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC) - Barring objection
• 10:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC) - Claimed AfD consensus
• 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC) - Fictional elements as part of a larger topic (FEAPOALT)

Archiving that top thread was fine, but you need to unarchive the rest. Next time you may want to let the bot that's been handling it, handle it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as I said in the edit summary, anyone should feel free to manually unarchive conversations that they thought were not stale. If you feel that some of those threads had continuing discussions relevant to the guideline as it is currently written, please restore those sections. But I'm not going to unarchive the rest and wait 5 days for the bot to re-archive them. 300 kb + is not an appropriate size for a talk page that people are going to use to communicate reasonably. Protonk (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• unarchiving all of them is a waste of everyone's time and energy. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've unarchived all but the top thread. I witnessed the same thing last year — comments on the talk page of a guideline related to fiction being swept under the rug and archived too quickly in December during ArbCom elections. 300 kb + is large, but if the talk page is so huge, maybe that's an indication that the guideline is controversial. Archiving active threads doesn't make the guideline less controversial. When it becomes common practice for people to reply on archived pages, please, feel free to archive away. But until then, {{talkarchive}} says "Do not edit the contents of this page" — nobody can reply on archived pages so the comments are effectively buried.
  • As an admin, I suggest you let the bot do it — instead of burying threads that were commented in less than 7 1/2 hours before you buried them. The bot isn't going to archive the threads in 5 days — that's not how the bot is configured, despite your edit here. That is just a notice, and not what the bot looks at. If you don't want to read such a big talk page, don't. If you want to start a thread about changing the number of days with no replies it takes for a thread to be archived, please do. It was set at 21 days and it's still set at 21 days. --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see how any of that was sweeping things under the rug. Neither you nor I used improper edit summaries when moving the material (in other words, both of us clearly articulated what was happening in the edit summary, in comparison to cases where an edit summary like "typo" or "fixing" has been used to archive material). No archives were burned. The "don't edit this page" admonition instructs readers to not edit the contents of the page to provide the impression that the material in the archive is not the same as the material which was placed in the talk page originally. It does not preclude manually archiving material. The notice at the top of my talk page archives, which are certainly not automatically archived, says the same thing. As for the recency of comments on those threads: that was the exact reason I said individual threads can be returned at will. As a matter of fact, I don't intend to revert your un-archiving of the whole lot. However, how many of those threads were "stale" in the sense that they no longer held active, relevant discussions to the guideline or had not been commented on in a reasonable length of time? 1? 5? 10? 20? If only one was stale you can feel comfortable in telling my I fucked up. If only 5 were stale you can probably feel comfortable doing the same. but if more than 10 had no discussion on them that was relevant to the page itself, what is the point of returning them?
    • As for the mizta bot. Ok, I didn't do that correctly. I'm human. And not very smart. I'll endeavor to change that to 5 days properly in a bit. But 300kb is excessive for any talk page. I can view it because I'm on a high speed connection. For someone on dialup it will take over a minute just to load the contents of the talk page. Telling me "not to view it" if it upsets me is unhelpful. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Archiving recent threads is "sweeping things under a rug" because nobody can reply in those threads after they are archived, nobody seeing WT:FICT for the first time knows those discussions are going on. Nobody can reply to those comments after they are archived — well, people can reply to them (and refer to /Archive pages and timestamps or provide {{diff}}s so people know what they're responding to) but it's so much easier to just reply below someone and add a few *'s or :'s. If you had archived this thread and moved it to your talk page archives, I would still know what's going on and I could have replied right now, but someone else looking at this page would likely be confused.
      • Yes, people can manually archive material. If you think some of those threads are "stale" (the thread "Just a note" comes to mind), I suggest you bring it up at WT:FICT. You didn't "fuck up." I would just appreciate it if you would tell everyone what you're thinking before archiving threads with extremely recent comments. I am glad you were trying to help. But please don't change the archive bot configuration to 5 days without discussing it with more people first. 30 days, 14 days, 7 days without replies, are all common timeframes to wait before archiving threads on "Wikipedia talk:" pages. WT:FICT was set at 21 days, and yes, it did become very active and much longer after Phil Sandifer copied his User:Phil_Sandifer/Fiction_proposal to the guideline. If someone on dialup complains, we can take that into consideration.
      • I see you have started a thread about the archive time at WT:FICT. Thank you. I will reply more there. --Pixelface (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I was not aware of any arbitrary (or otherwise) limitation on the archive timing. IMO, pages with more traffic get archived faster. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

disappointed

Can I just say that I am pretty disappointed in the way the current debate over censorship. As you correctly noted, the arguments have been framed in the same way that other internet censorship laws have been "what if a child rapist got off?", "will someone not think of the children?" etc etc. I really cannot see how we can honestly say this is done on the basis of "do no harm" and then have articles that contain pictures of Mohammed (as a example). There is plenty of "harm" there, millions of Muslims do not want us to display those images. Is the "hurt" there ok because it's a little hurt? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's avoidable. Absolutism is impossible here. The removal of information pertinent to a current court case with a finite duration is relatively easy to carry out and cleanly close; doing so on special request is only really a slight compromise of our principles regarding censorship. It's not really a precedent which could be applied to something permanent, like removal of all imagery of a religious figure. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a big sign that says "don't edit here because of [foreign legal system of choice]" is a complete perversion of our principles and should be treated as such. Yes I know people disagree but it's not a position I'm shifting from. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not excluding people from editing. We are saying that certain topics are unsuitable for Wikipedia, which we do already. Our principles say "anyone can edit", not "anything can be added". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not really advocating absolutism. We shouldn't feel compelled to morally support british jury laws just like we shouldn't feel morally compelled to support british defamation laws. Likewise we should not feel legally compelled to follow either. If, in the future, this comes up again, the right answer is to treat it just like we would a subject requesting deletion of a BLP. If it obviously meet our content guidelines (like if Tony Blair were involved in a court case) we say no. If it is marginal (like Peter Tobin), we send it to AfD. The community actually has a pretty decent record handling subject requested deletions there and getting the right balance between external requests and internal integrity. However if someone requests temporary deletion or the removal of content (and almost by defintition the enforcement of that removal through the use of admin tools), the answer should be the same as if they requested summary deletion: no. I think that the majority of this concern comes from a misguided sense of ethics on the part of many editors. They want to feel good about the choices they make here and that coincides nicely with the tendency to think that requests from authority==doing good. Further they ignore the very real fact that appearances of integrity and neutrality are a lot like virginity. Once we lose that--once we have a press story about how we edit articles upon request--we can't get it back. The Mantanmoreland/articles for donation/2007 debacle set WP back a lot in the view of many people. There is no reason to repeat those kinds of mistakes, even if they appear to be for a good cause. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If, in fact, the Tobin case had been thrown out, the British media picked up on it, and the negative attention thus directed at Wikipedia for being an (allegedly) unaccountable and amoral threat to the existing Scottish legal system had (hypothetically: please excuse the hyperbole) resulted in widespead negative coverage and universal condemnation from law enforcement groups, would that have been any better? Funnily enough, I would rather expect that a majority of the public would view the statement "upon request from a law enforcement official or court, Wikipedia will remove information which may influence an ongoing trial for its duration" in a favourable light. "Wikipedia is not censored" is not "Wikipedia exists to promote the First Amendment", and while it is certainly a firm part of the community it isn't a pillar. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But the media in the middle east picks up on the fact that we don't remove pictures of Mohamed, what's the difference? There was a petition with other 200,000 names on it earlier in the year. An argument (to the future) based upon PR value is not an argument worth making - and let's be honest, anyone in the UK goggling this case would have found Aunty Beeb's articles on his previous offensives, it was the second result in search. The BBC has a far better rep and reach in the UK than we do. Nobody has provided a single case where breaches of SJ have resulted in a murder trial being thrown out, not one - that's before we getting to the realms of "a case thrown out because of electronic media located in a jurisdiction outside of the reach of the court If we base our decisions on far-fetched legal guesswork, we might as well shut up shop. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A petition is not the same as a request by a designated official of the state. The muhammed thing certainly came up at an appropriate time, but let's not go equivocating. As for what the BBC did and didn't do and how many cases have been thrown out for such, that's unimportant - we weren't asked in those other cases, and we don't know whether the BBC was contacted.

I'm a big fan of not making up big rulings on things like this in advance. Nothing wrong with playing it by ear. In this case we didn't have to do a lot of "decisions on far-fetched legal guesswork": we just did what we were asked nicely to using the official channels. If the next time it happens the situation is different, then we can use our experience here to guide us. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still unclear *who* contacted us beyond a vague idea that it was "the scottish police" (which doesn't exist), so let's not use terms like "designated official of the state (which UK police officers aren't, if it was a police officer, unlike say france where they are for complex historical reasons I'm not going to bore us all with), because it's not clear that was the case. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the person to ask on that one. If we're going to have a big official discussion about it, I would hope that would be made clearer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris I don't want you to get upset but when I hear "designated agent of the state" the libertarian in me (I guess it is my father speaking) says "don't click your fucking heels and salute". I'm probably more inclined to handle a subject requesting deletion of his/her blp than I am to handle the request of a police officer to do the same. Especially given the difference in jurisdiction. That may sound like "I don't have to" or it may sound petulant, but I think it is important. If we lived in the UK, the police officer could say "this is an accepted norm of our community that our legal system is based on. Please ensure that you don't violate this norm through your actions." But I chafe at the thought of someone from another country (effectively) coming here and saying "this is an accepted norm of some different society. Please change your behavior in this society in order to conform with it." The answer should not be driven from moral compulsion. If I lived in the UK I wouldn't feel morally compelled to defend the 1st ammendment of the us constitution because I don't have any stake in the US society and I don't have to put up with the drawbacks. I live in the US. Consequently I don't feel morally compelled to change my actions to meet the cultural norms of england unless I am in england (e.g. I'd rather drive on the right in the US and on the left in the UK. It would be insane to drive on the right in the UK and totally insane to drive on the left here). Does that make sense? Protonk (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• As for the "media response" bit, we have literally no idea how that would play out. None. You surmised (reasonably) that we would be viewed poorly for not complying. I surmised (reasonably) that we would be viewed poorly for editing on behalf of special interests. Both of our views are reasonable and drawn from reasonable past examples. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about my feelings: I get where you're coming from, I just disagree. In particular, I think this was as clear a case as we're likely to get - a request through official channels that we take temporary action to ensure that the prosecution of a serial killer didn't fall apart on a technicality. I imagine there are plenty of edge cases where it is less so, and I do find it interesting that you brought up BLP, where current BLP policy far more closely resembles the way we do things over here than in the States. As for the media reaction, well, I dare say that it would have been harsher than the backlash we're currently experiencing for having complied with the request - a lot of furrowed brows and the usual bucket of drama from inside the asylum, but not a great deal of heat from the outside world. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've given up on the BLP page - it's full of crackpot legal thinking that suggests that we'll all be locked up if we don't instantly remove all and any information when asked. It's got too silly and hysterical to have a sensible conversation about the matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TGH1970

I noticed this users contributions at AN/I after their oppose on my Arbcom vote page. User:TGH1970 is almost certainly User:Cumulus Clouds. RMHED (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• What makes you say that? I don't know anything about either user (and neither seem to share article/talk/wikipedia space edits. I'm not saying that I don't believe you, just that I don't know enough to agree/disagree. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Banime and Cumulus Clouds have had some past issues, also from the oppose reason given by TGH1970 on my Arbcom vote page, the only person that can possibly be related to is Cumulus Clouds. RMHED (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • CC is no stranger to SA [1] RMHED (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the link RMHED. If what you say is true then yes I warned cumulus clouds a few times before ([2] and [3]), mostly for assuming bad faith and personal attacks. I was pretty good natured about it so I don't see why he'd hold a grudge. Also the link to the website is slightly disturbing because of the possibilities, however I think it was already known that he knew a lot about the website in question. --Banime (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Ahhh..... Protonk (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I think it's these two posts by Banime that really annoyed CC [4] and [5]. RMHED (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • • You are in no position to speculate about any of that. TGH1970 (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah. I'm pretty sure we can run a checkuser. They may kick it back as "fishing". Protonk (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
          • • I have committed no violation of policy so there is no reason to run a checkuser on this account. There is no reason for anyone to confirm or deny any previous association with any other account because neither one of them has operated at the same time as the other. I have to ask why, in the larger scope of things, this is important since I haven't done anything wrong and Banime so obviously has. Why do you elect to pursue sanctions against me (when no violations have been made or reported) and willingly choose to ignore those committed by Banime (where there is strong, compelling evidence of numerous, ongoing violations and no will or desire to cease)? What's wrong with this picture? TGH1970 (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
              • We aren't "electing to pursue sanctions". Just cool it. If you have had an account here for a while you should know that things don't happen quickly and that people aren't likely to listen to the person yelling the loudest. The longer you complain about "ignoring abuses" and what-not the more people will be turned off from listening to you. We get no shortage of new accounts coming to wikipedia with crusades in mind. I've already given you patient advice on how to ply your case without pissing off your audience. Please, please just heed it. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Well then why are you talking about filing checkuser requests? And why do people continue to insist on digging up reasons for me to be in conflict with Banime? He's already filed one rejected checkuser request. Is he going to keep filing them until he's blocked? None of this is the result of any previous conflict with any user. It benefits Banime to convince other people that it is, so that he can cast this as a retaliatory attack to support his ridiculous hypothesis about somebody masquerading as him on the forums. I saw those posts, saw who had started the article, discovered -in exactly the same way anybody else would have- who had made them and made a good faith report to ANI. Now I'm being pilloried as some kind of vengeful warmonger so that Banime can escape any sanctions against him. I will not be scapegoated so that Banime can escape his ban. TGH1970 (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No. I filed one. Again, please don't get emotional about this. You may comment there if you like. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking into the situation more, I provided a few diffs, however I'd have to stand by my statement that most likely this checkuser should not be performed unless one of the checkusers really feel it merits it. Even were he Cumulus Clouds, the account was unblocked. It would provide perspective perhaps but the situation would still be far from clear and I like to minimize going offwiki as much as possible, especially with regards to checkuser since thats very personal. Good job staying civil as well, its really tough during times like these. --Banime (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:AALIYAH2014

User:AALIYAH2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey there Protonk, Seems like User:AALIYAH2014 is still uploading images without proper fair-use rationales with his/her latest upload after being released from your recent block. DiverseMentality 19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I left a note there, not that it will do any good. My guess is that a few more of those and I'll ratchet the length up. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You just blocked me

Please be more careful next time. A block of an established user for incivility should not affect anonymous users, unless said established user tries to log out and edit -- Gurch (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• What are we going to do when he tries to log out and edit? Protonk (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  In the unlikely event that he does, block the IP address anonymous-only -- Gurch (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ok. I'd put it as a likely event knowing why he was blocked and reblocked to begin with. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you got me as well! --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I did, infact, admit to my nubliness on that AN/I thread. How far back does the IP auto-blocking go? A week? A month? AFAIK the help page just says recently. Guess I'll go to the MW help pages. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Just says the last IP address he used and any subsequent ones. I'm surprised to see that much collateral damage, but obviously it just happened. :) Protonk (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, yeah. Sorry for the mess. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AALIYAH2014

A 3 hour block? Was that a typo, or did you mean to block for such a short period? This is a long-term disruptive editor that has been skating within inches of a block her entire editing career, and now, instead of just ignoring warnings, she's lashing out and responding to them with vandalism. I would have expected a bit longer.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I put that there so I could think about it for a bit. Odds are I will either indef the user or indef the user and ask for a review on AN (or reverse that order). But the 3 hour block means people don't have to roll back AALIYAH2014's temper tantrums while I think. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Economic freedom

Would you be interested in informally meditating the issue? -- Vision Thing -- 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Responded on the talk page, thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

Might I suggest that you withdraw from the "Accusations against User:Banime" AN/I thread? I believe that you misunderstand the role of an administrator. In particular, this quote from you

Questionable edits. Hoaxes. Subtle vandalism. A poorly sourced article that was a coatrack attack on a person.

is seriously inappropriate. By repeating the unproven charges made by Banime's accuser, you lend them the imprimatur of authority. You should not do this. This has the potential of following Banime around forever, unless you retract. (You should.)

The Checkuser on the accuser is likewise not a good idea. The AN/I thread needs to be dealt with by investigating the substance of the charges, of which there is none. After the thread is closed and if the accuser persists in making unsustainable accusations, then action can be taken against them, but not before.
All the above IMHO of course. If the language of my previous criticism of you was over the top due to the anger I felt, I apologize.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really think you understand. I find TGH's evidence incredibly compelling from a factual standpoint. You seem to come from the position that the evidence is imaginary and any statement about the possibility that the claims are true comes from some bias of mine. Perhaps that is where the confusion comes from. Edit Eh, not really confusion, per se, because that would intimate that you are confused, and I don't think you are. What I mean to say is that we both hold two divergent good faith positions on the subject and I'm trying to reconcile that. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

I hate these things, but you made as helpful a comment there on GC's as I've ever seen done, so maybe there's hope for the process. DGG (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I thought about it for a while and didn't really want to end up like Fut Perf's RfC or the TTN mess. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Idiot here. Would you mind telling me what to do and where to put my view as one who has dealt with the person GC in this thing? Just a simple note on my talkpage about the place I put my bit would be great. Those long explanations confuse the Dickens out of me. Thanks much, and thanks for providing you views to the RfC as well as correctly my misplaced warnings messages on his talk page. shadzar-talk 05:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Your support was overwhelming (and your check is in the mail). Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thatemptyfeeling

You might want to have a look at User talk:Thatemptyfeeling. It looks like he was caught in the Bambifan rangeblock--but his edits have all been constructive so far. Blueboy96 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be doing a moderate-to-high amount--the range resolves to Bellsouth.net (now part of AT&T) in Mobile, Alabama. Blueboy96 22:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. That worries me. Take a look at the original discussion where a few admins and myself checked anon contributions over portions of that range. We did not see too much then. I think it would be a good idea to let them expire at the end of the block period and see if Bambifan comes back--the rangeblock seems to have basically stopped him. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I was takin out my name because I'm trying to "turn a new leaf".--Rockyobody (talk)

_{Housekeeping note: I have restored (and signed) Rocky's above comment, which was removed as part of EEMIV's reversion. --HoboJones (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)}

2008 IWF Action

Protonk, thanks for your continued collaboration maintaining the IWF Action page. This is just to let you know I'm going to swap out that empty header, "Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses", for an anchor template at the footer of the page. That way, we can forward on incoming links to the old header without having a blank one clog up the page. Best wishes. Pretzels^Talk! 03:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

LTCM

You'd think I were on the Obama transition team, because I've barely edited since the election. I have a hectic looking December too, so I might not get around to finishing it until January (unless I get laid off, in which case I'll have lots of time for it). On an unrelated note... the elections are interesting this year, huh? Looks to me like we're in store for a pretty good crop of Arbs. --JayHenry (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• they are indeed very interesting (Both wp-en and US-pres). Definitely a good crop of people slated to find their way in--in both respects. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how clamoring against the incumbent party for change seems to be so pervasive that it spread to our ArbCom elections. I'm cautiously optimistic on wp-en. As for the US, I worry that January 20th can't come soon enough... I don't mean it as a criticism of Bush per se, because how much could any lame duck do for three months in the face of an economy like this? I'd do anything to be a college freshman or sophomore right now and know I wouldn't be in the job market until 2011-12. --JayHenry (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the flip side of being in college is competing with those white collar guys going back for their MBAs and PhD's. I get to compete with them to get into grad school now. :) Protonk (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I've been so out of the loop that I hadn't even heard of all this until seeing it on the Main Page just now. Glad to see someone with your perspective jumping in on this thread early. Kudos.

Your comment reminds me (this sounds vaguely stalkerish--not my intent; I have better things to do) that I saw somebody in a Starbucks with a crew cut and a "Mathematical Economics" text book a couple weeks ago and actually did think: that could be Protonk! --JayHenry (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be me, but I had some enforced version of a crew cut for too long and so now I look like a hippy. Protonk (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:TheSickBehemoth

I'm 99.99% sure that you have been watching his talk page, but I just wanted to give you a heads up that I have unblocked him. I will be keeping an eye on his edits to make sure he lives up to his end of the deal, but I don't think it will be necessary. Sometimes a block is the kick in the ass people need to stop acting retarded. Trusilver 04:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for letting me know. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Virgin Killer

is this where you meant to put this? That seems to make a lot more sense on the page about the blacklist then where you put it there. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. I meant to put it there, as I created that little sub-heading to discuss the 'fair use' claim raised by a few people. But it is only a nudge, as I realize no one person has control over the flow of the debate. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:My2sense2wikip

Back at it. Totally unrepentant.

On a completely unrelated subject, had a look at ANI today? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• If by that you mean our mutual friend doing what he always does, yes, I've seen it. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me a few tips?

I did a GA review of Touch the Clouds. Since this is only my second GA Review could you check my mechanics and general approach?

Any help appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good start. It's pretty much the way I started out. What I find is that mentioning specific items to be corrected works better than giving a more vague (but completely accurate) statement such as "The prose needs some work." There is nothing wrong with that, by the way. The prose does need work, and it does present itself as a general problem with the article. But as a peer review comment you will find that most editors won't be able to do anything with it. Take me, for example. If you took one of my articles, looked it over and said "boy, you need a copyeditor", you would be right. But that wouldn't help me improve the article. For most of these GAs it really is one person behind the drive to quality. As such you have to be their partner in the process.
• When you make suggestions like "use harvard referencing", consider writing out a little demo or linking to the explanatory page. I didn't know how to do harvard referencing until I saw Jay use it for Panic of 1907.
• Other than that it seems like you have it going on. Most of the GA review is about getting comfortable with the level of detail and scrutiny you feel is appropriate. Reviews that are heavy in detail and cover the article closely are helpful to editors but are manifestly more helpful to some. Sometimes you just want to zero in on 'decent' and avoid pressing too hard. But finding that mix has more to do with you getting used to it than anything else.
• Hope that helps. Also, I don't think that template at the top of the GA2 page belongs there. Not 100% sure though. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Quick and accurate as usual! Smallbones (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Because...

You know, I am always fascinated that people take anything I say so seriously (trust me, I am not that special in the real world). But to answer the question, we are talking about two very different situations. My concerns raised with Wehwalt’s opposers appear to be a systemic problem to RfA in general – taking isolated comments out of context and magnifying them to the point that they obscure an excellent body of work. The problem of disqualifying a candidate for one or two brief, fleeting lapses does a disservice to the process and is unfair to the candidate – it happens too often and I would like to see it stop. I did not go out and directly challenge Wehwalt’s opponents – I challenged a mindframe that sinks too many qualified RfA candidates. Ironically, the editor who put those diffs forward isn’t even opposing the candidate – that !vote went to the neutral base. NWF is a completely different matter, where you addressed a trio of situation-unique opinions from three different editors. The problems raised in that RfA were distinctive to NWF. I was raging against the system, you were correcting me and those other two guys (those other two guys and I? Those guys and me? Anyone? TSP grammar experts, jump in, please). Does that make sense? In a way, I am sorry you came in too early with NWF – no one took my babbling seriously, but it seems East718’s points (which came up the next day) were the iceberg for that RfA cruise, and refuting him would’ve saved the endeavour. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Protonk. You have new messages at IRP's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE:Diff

Yeah. That's where I saw it. I sort of jumped to conclusions. I thought I had deleted it right after I saw it, but I think my internet session timed out before it was saved. Sorry for any inconvenience. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, you removed it, but it still registers as a "new message" so I saw it. And don't worry about apologizing. It wasn't an inconvenience. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I got a bit worried about it. I'm getting ready for an RfA soon and I don't want to get into any potentially problematic situations. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is going to sound stupid, but that's the worst thing that you can do. Don't be worried. Don't act worried. People are weird about RfA. Most of the people there would prefer to vote for people who "already are admins". They get a bee in their bonnet whenever people appear like they need it too much, are editing with a mind for it, or do anything that would indicate they are fixated on it. It's a crazy system. My advice is (without looking at a single contribution of yours or anything...well, except for the one to Ryan's page) don't run now. Run when you are forced to run. Run when you have to beg off nominations. A run right now will result in people saying things about you and your contributions to wikipedia that you won't want to hear. Remember, I'm saying this with only this conversation to go on. I don't know if you have 47 FAs, have moderated 20 disputes and helped write 15 guidelines. I don't know if you've never written an article. RfA is...an interesting place. Don't go there unless you are confident that you don't care what the outcome will be. Protonk (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've written a few hundred articles. I've got two admins who are going to co-nom me for the deal. I've been in "training" for about 5 months now. (Been under constant review etc...) I do want to be an admin though. I don't know how else to say it. I report many users and frequent AfD, IfD, CfD, and other areas requiring special attention. I want to be able to act on vandalism, instead of just report it. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. I just figured I'd throw you a heads up. RfA is strange and cruel sometimes. Protonk (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange it is indeed. I remember my first two RfA's. Some odd, yet pertinent questions are asked. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI case (70.79.65.227/Ramu50)

Hello, Protonk. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I hadn't seen the other link, and so no this is not an issue for AN/I. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DenisHume's block

In this edit you announce DenisHume's block. One of the pieces of evidence is this, an edit on my talk page. As I told DenisHume here, the edit did not rise to the level of abuse. Please consider shortening the block to the length it would have been had that edit not been made. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I wouldn't normally consider that a problem taken in isolation. If all Denis did was make that edit (or edits like it), I can imagine that people would find it irksome but not objectionable. However, when taken in context with the vast majority of his edits and the edits from his IP, I can't ignore it. That edit itself was one in a litany, so had I removed it at your request I would have replaced it with another. As such I am not inclined to shorten the block (Though the block has since been extended). I appreciate the feedback you have given me here and the comments you made on Denis's page but I disagree with you that I have gone overboard. I observed what I felt to be a SPA working on a highly contentious subject in an abrasive and uncivil manner. His method of argumentation seemed to consist largely of equating his opposition to rapists or pedophiles and accosting any editor who introduced nuance into the discussion as a pedant. Tack on the obvious personal attacks and I hardly feel that a week long block is out of the question. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I checked his edit history perhaps I did not look carefully enough, as I missed a few of the things you mentioned. Also, I did not check the edit history of his previous IP address. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk--

Since DenisHume has been banned from Wikipedia, I am effectively making a request on his behalf. When one week has passed, would you mind giving consideration to the idea of either lifting the ban or asking Rklawton to lift it? I don't think that his transgressions merit a complete ban -- much less an indefinite one -- when a simple block for one week ought to be sufficient.

--NBahn (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, ask that his talk page privileges be restored so he can communicate and make it clear he's ready to edit productively... or, if he chooses to do so, make it clear a further block is warranted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't extent the block. If you want the block returned to one week or want his talk page editing privileges restored, please ask Rklawton. I have no objection to you doing so, but I don't want to adjust his block downward without talking to him. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Archive 1

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Archive 1, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Archive 1 is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Archive 1, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Musing

With all the vitriol being tossed about in this RfA, I'm half-tempted to ask a much more conciliatory voice whether he wants to run. Thoughts? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ask him if he's got any skeletons, but he's an excellent voice for clarity and calm. He'll probably get the save 5-8 "I don't like the fact that articles get deleted" opposes that all of us would or did get, but other than that I think he's a great candidate. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Asked. Hopefully he's more amendable than my annoyingly recalcitrant admin coachee ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I know we discussed it 6 months ago. Back then, things were a lot more toxic, and the idea of being an admin repulsed me. Even though the same old conflicts are going on, I've seen a few people become more moderate and things are just a little more pleasant. I'm more open to the idea. But not yet. It wouldn't even be on my radar until we've had an RFC on the proposal at WP:FICT, and/or formally closed out the results of RFC at WP:N first. (And even then, I'd probably have a bunch of real life and Wikipedia commitments to take care of before I'd move onto the next step.)

As for skeletons, this is probably the worst you can find on me. In the end, I'm pretty pleased that the third-parties cleared me of any wrongdoing, even if the issue is technically "stuck". Elizabeth Rogan also accused me of conspiring with Rob1981 to harass him off site, which I really had nothing to do with. It probably would have been better for me to just say "I have nothing to do with this, leave me out of it." But I didn't want him to get away with misrepresenting the situation, as I don't respond kindly to people who bend/ignore the truth to suit them. I also don't like it when people in power "throw the book" at somebody to turn a small offense into a big one. I'm not ashamed of this incident because I never did anything but call him on his story and try to offer a little balance, but I don't expect it will make me any friends either. That's as bad as it gets for me. Randomran (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Those skeletons are basically a wash. I don't see anything there that's going to sink an RfA or change !votes. In any case, if you're ever interested in running in the future, my offer will still stand. Best of luck on getting FICT up and moving. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Joint Barnstar for finding an acceptable solution to the DenisHume block

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		I give this jointly to User:Protonk and User:Rklawton for quickly finding a way to head off rising dissension surrounding the block of User:DenisHume and to allow him to communicate with the community and, if he chooses to do so, eventually to show that he can become a valued Wikipedia editor. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees, it just means there's a resolution everyone can accept. I think we have consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC Update

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got a better head for stuff like this

Fancy talking some civility into the party behind this edit? (up-thread is good too.) I don't really have the restraint. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I avoid a few parts of the Wiki for my own sanity: Korea/Japan issues, Left/Right American politics, and the Manual of Style. Not pointing out anyone in that debate you linked but I've found some of the nastiest, most pernicious debates on this wiki are over stupid shit like ENGVAR. I'll take a gander and see if I can calm some people down but my first bit of advice is just to clear out of any MOS related discussion. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Yeah, I know. I tried to defuse this one by at least getting it back onto MOSNUM and off the template talk, though I shouldn't have passed any personal commentary on the actual issue first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Protonk. Next time you want to jump in, please take a more careful look, and be sure not to use an upbraiding tone towards just one of the parties in question, otherwise you'll seem partial, which won't help move the dispute towards resolution! Best wishes, Samuel Webster (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. What would a more careful look have revealed, specifically? Protonk (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD decline query

Hi, you recently declined a speedy I'd made. Naturally I don't have a problem with anyone flagging up an apparent mistake of mine - I'm happy to learn from them! I do want to query it with you though please, Protonk.

Your decline editsummary was "not an article, therefore not an A7. I blanked the page but I don't know the AFC protocol, so I would rather not ruffle feathers. Speedy declined.". My confusion is the AfC Project instructions on handling submissions state (and repeat it, at item 3 in collapsible box):
If an article is clearly an attack, immediately remove any libelous content and tag the article with {{AFC submission|D|blp}}. Consider also warning the user on their talkpage. If the submission was obviously made in bad faith, it may be tagged for speedy deletion.

The article was a BLP (technically), submitted as the only edit of a single IP (so reasonable to assume warning superfluous; also, see final point), neither {{AFC submission|D|joke}} or {{AFC submission|D|blp}} were ideal, so I used a customized notice addressing all points, and albeit not seeming intentionally mean-spirited was clearly not intended as a good faith article submission.

I left it unblanked since very little actual content was present, but ({{db-person}}) subsequently a7'd it as it had subject's full name as the title plus a link, and at the root seemed, to me, to fall under the a7 speedy criteria - which the AFC indicate to use (not MFD) when felt appropriate. I'm interested in any feedback you can offer. I'll watchlist your page awhile so'll see any reply here. Thanks muchly! Whitehorse1 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if the AfC says use A7 for unwanted AfC pages, then that's cool. to be clear (And I'm sorry I wasn't in the edit summary), I wasn't flagging a mistake of yours so much as I was being cautious. For pages outside of the article "namespace", projects normally use {{Db-house}} to indicate that the deletion is just routine maintenance. I didn't know if the normal outcome of a bad faith AfC attempt was deletion or archiving and I didn't want to delete it as an "article" if it wasn't in "article-space".
• For really bad AfC pages it is appropriate to use {{Db-g10}} or {{Db-g3}}. I didn't think the article we saw was purely vandalism or an attack page, but another admin might have.
• However, if you feel the page should be deleted I will defer to you and delete it as a g6. Sorry for the pedantry regarding specific numbers and where speedies apply. It may seem silly but is important (to me) that the right tag gets placed on the right page or there is otherwise some clear communication. Thanks for your kind note on my page and I hope this answers some of your questions (a few of which I am the cause of!). Let me know here what you want done with the page. Protonk (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• It sort of does; or, I originally thought it did. It says use speedy deletion. Of 5 or so other AfC things, like categories, speedy templates cover all. Submitted articles, in theory submitted as valid & ready, are in a sort of limbo or holding pen distinct from regular temp-userspaced articles and projects' / articles' talk-pages. I think my confusion stemmed from there.

• Mmm, I think we've reached the same conclusion. It doesn't mirror either strict definition. As it stood, I think the article wasn't mean-spirited really, only juvenile - up there with "$name smells of wee. *tee-hee*" as far as scathing attacks go. If I had to guess...I'd say another player on the sport team for which the subject plays made it. ...possibly while of dubious sobriety. *g*

• It doesn't seem silly at all. CSD, particularly A7 & A9, is among the mechanisms that carry the largest potential to be misused. Correct use is important for that reason as well as to future statistics and tracking. Probably in part because the article title is the subject's full name and the article links to their photo, in some respects g6 seems sensible; alternatively, given the content is effectively blanked, that can be deemed an adequate remedy. On reflection, I think, we can consider the matter resolved. Thank you for helping me better understand the processes. – Whitehorse1 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've deleted is as a G6 based on the bulk of this conversation. Seems uncontroversial. If you would rather I restore it as blanked w/ the decline notice, I can. Protonk (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for house-keeping

Thanks for clearing the junk out of my attic. --Philcha (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

About my block

I'm sorry for blaming you for the autoblock. It wasn't your fault, it was the IWF's. So, sorry. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's ok, there aren't any hard feelings. Maybe there is some dubious distinction in being the first people to "realize" that the whole of the UK was resolving to ~12 IP addresses. That being said, I do pay much closer attention to the autoblock check box now. Thanks for dropping by. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

Continuing the thread from WP:AN#Advice on protecting a policy page: Let me make a case. I don't know if I buy this, but I'd like to make the case anyway.

If I understand right, the admin shouldn't choose which version to protect (that is, they should protect whatever they find, or flip a coin), mostly because the admin's own content preference shouldn't in any way affect their invocation of protection. (Even better than flipping a coin would be if there's some date-stamp available that gives hundredths of a second; that way I could say the protection will be determined based on an even or odd timestamp, and then no one has to take my word that I'm making a random choice.) On the other hand, individual sentences on policy pages in general, and especially the 7 content policy pages, don't change that often (see WP:Update). I can easily see this idea failing on other kinds of pages, but let's consider only content policy pages for now. If the admin considering protection always protected the pre-existing version of the sentence if it hadn't changed in, say, 3 months, then by definition, the admin would not be choosing their preferred version; they'd be following an algorithm. The downside, of course, is that some admins could easily use this rule to oppressively resist new ideas (which is probably why we don't do this). On the other hand, we can't write a rule that keeps admins from being oppressive; either you have the knowledge and interest to support new ideas or you don't. I do, at least on content policy and style pages, and whatever tools I have, I'll use them to keep people open and engaged, not to be slaves to precedent.

Consider theoretical User:Whinemeister. WM thinks one of the sentences in the content policies won't let him do what he wants to do. He knows that others feel hemmed in by that sentence too, and if he can generate enough noise, he's hoping at best to get the sentence deleted, and in any event to practice a little creative demagoguery, getting fans to cheer him on (usually, in his own mind) as he leads the fight against the oppressive cabal that controls all Wikipedian policies. Since page protection is decided randomly, that's an incentive for him to pursue page protection, either by his own edits or edits made by his public or secret allies; that gives him a 50-50 chance of at least raising his flag over the enemy's fort. Even if there's a big banner that doesn't endorse the new version, it's a moral victory, a victory that makes him stand out (again, usually in his own mind). This is probably why you rarely see a content policy page full-protected.

Okay, so full protection is currently not a very effective weapon on content policy pages; that leaves us with 3RR and ANI, that is, the threat to block. But consider: WM is an experienced user, and what I'm looking for is for him to do what he's capable of doing: asking around, doing the research, and providing links and making the argument for why he wants the change rather than edit warring. He's capable of it, but he's lazy or dejected or he'd rather engage in drama, and he's not doing it. If all I can do is threaten him, then he may leave the project, and we need him. (And his knowledge that I don't want to risk that, and that others would be mad at me if I did risk it, emboldens him further.) Also, WM probably knows how to skirt the boundaries; he'll "only" revert-war a couple of times a day, or get others to do most of it for him, while he rails against the tyranny of the cabal. Really skillful warriors can keep this up for literally years, wearing down the competition (see for instance WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion#Pcarbonn topic-banned, although I'm not arguing my case for articles, only content policy). A threat to protect the page is not a personal threat, so it lets me keep the conversation light: "I know you're capable of doing the research to support your case and making the argument, so do it instead of warring; otherwise I'll protect the page." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think the first step to take is not to determine whether or not to protect or how long to protect mechanically. The specific revision that gets protected can be determined through an algorithm but you should be able to recognize WM's behavior (even though you can't really call him out). Let's take your example of a 3RR free and "civil" edit war over a policy page. If we see an edit war and lock the page WM does have that 50/50 chance of being right (even though he doesn't know this and you he cannot authenticate your claim). We lock the page for a week and show up on the talk page indicating that some discussion should begin. If it doesn't we have a few options. They all require some investment of time and energy:

• Indicate that if some discussion and compromise doesn't start to occur (assuming we think that WM is even interested in compromise or that compromise away from the previous warning is appropriate) we will flip the revision and protect the other preferred version for an equal amount of time. This is...unorthodox and could probably result in both sides complaining. But it eliminates one of our problems.
• Just start an RFC and link it in WP:CENT for them. One solution to a policy dispute between two editors is to bring in a bunch of other editors. Sometimes this doesn't solve anything: see the date/autoformatting mess that has been going on since time began. But it works about 100 times better than telling the two players in the edit war to start the RfC themselves.
• Sacrifice your ability to protect the page or block editors and become involved. That's the most labor intensive option, but it may produce the longest lasting result.

• Also, we shouldn't worry too much about people like Pcarbonn. By that I don't mean they aren't an issue--they are. I mean that they are recognized as stubborn and problematic very early on--it is the nature of dispute resolution that causes them to be able to twist issues for so long. In other words, people knew that Pcarbonn needed to be excused from editing articles like Cold fusion long before they actually were. They do wear down the competition. See Adam Smith for an article where I gave up pretty early (I was the GA reviewer but became involved when I discovered some neat things about Smith. I stopped editing the page when I realized I didn't have the patience to deal w/ the person insisting on linking Smith to Marxism).
• Another weapon, specific to policy pages, is to just introduce a version of stare decisis. We aren't literally bound to precedent here but we do know that policy describes community best practice and isn't a tool to enforce action contrary to that. Right or wrong (and you do sort of have to take a hefty dose of orwellian thinking to believe it completely) it offers an easy method to say "the page was fine prior to the changes you made, any more substantive changes require significant community input". This is a powerful statement and may better explain why there are so few policy pages protected versus article pages.
• And finally, have you seen this RfA? I'm not surprised at the number of opposes but it would be a shame if this thing failed purely because we have built this wall around adminship. Another interesting sign of an organization growing larger. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In case you are watchlisting this, your response to that RfA is a reminder to me that you and I are very different in many ways. I don't say that to chide or admonish, merely to reflect on my own ignorance (or is it myopia?). Just like you were surprised at my very visceral reaction to flagged revisions I am intrigued (though not bemused in any way) at your response to seth's RfA. As I said, this isn't meant to argue that your position is invalid (we probably hold two reasonable positions on the subject from different points of view) or heterodox. Just very, very interesting. :) Protonk (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. I'm really happy to see that a large number of people have had the same reaction I did to this RfA ... namely, this is proof, if proof were needed, that RfA is not sufficient to meet the community's needs. Although I practice DGAFism religiously, there is the occasional issue that I do GAF about, and this is it. I'd appreciate your reaction to WP:VPP#New_individual_access_level:_editprotected; you might also want to see the message I left User_talk:Risker about this.

I definitely don't think it will break the wiki to hand Seth the mop under the conditions he's asking for. I struggled with this, but I decided my top concern is the next guy who shows up at RfA and gets turned down, because out of his 10000 edits on en.wp, he made a couple of unfortunate comments. What is he to make of the fact that we gave Seth the mop, with virtually no information about how he's generally regarded at de.wp, and virtually no edits on en.wp? I don't like decisions that might have the appearance of unfairness, even if I personally think the gamble is worth it. I would also love to get the proposal on WP:VPP going, and if we can get that, that's what Seth should get, I think we all agree (including Seth). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have a fuller reponse to this later, but I like Baloonman's take. Neither side in that seth debate has a monopoly on the "right" answer. I want RfA to be flexible enough to sysop him and you want RfA fair enough that someone with a few bullshit CSD tags wouldn't be denied the bit only to watch someone come in and get it. My wish is probably more romantic than yours--I see RfA as a proxy for the bureaucracy in general and I viewed this particular request as a sign of how sclerotic the project side of the community has grown. RfA may be a poor proxy for community flexibility or seth's request may be a poor fit in particular. Protonk (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What would really be nice would be some lighter-weight process, with cooperation from devs and/or stewards so that we could vote on giving someone like User:lustiger seth some lightweight standard package (including rollback and one or two other admin userrights that wouldn't "break the wiki"...MBisanz has a long list on his talk page) plus the ability to edit (in seth's case) just the spam-blacklist-associated protected files. This may sound at first like it goes against the sense of the vote at WP:VPP, for instance, Balloonman's "If we trust them to work in protected areas, we trust them to work in protected areas." The problem is that that option seems to have thoroughly blown up at this point ... people have agreed that, in general, we don't want non-admins to fiddle with protected pages, too much harm could be done. What I was voting against was the idea that when someone wants to edit the spam blacklist, we'd have a community vote and then get a dev or steward to grant the right, then another vote when we think they're ready to edit some other protected pages, then another vote when they're ready to use some admin userrights, etc. But I'd be perfectly happy with allowing people to make one such "lightweight" request, that might include editing specific protected pages and would come with a standard (smallish) package of userrights, provided we could get some assistance from devs or stewards to make it work. In fact, picking those userrights where there's currently a backlog of chores would be a good way to help the admins out, and seeing how they do with the userrights would be an excellent way to figure out later on whether they're ready for RfA.- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for talk page stalking, but Dank is quite right. Debundling would quickly fix a very large number of problems that recur at RFA. It's always quite silly when somebody wants to help with vandal fighting and is opposed for lack of XFD experience. Even most candidates who get "WP:NOTNOW closures" could unobjectionably use some "tools". I had hoped at the time that WP:ROLLBACK, when it proved successful (which it did), would create appetite for further debundling. My theory why it hasn't happened is that it's irrelevant to admins (who already have all the tools), but it would require support of many admins to implement. As with rollback, you'd be likely to see a small handful of admins filibuster. The filibuster of three or four admins is worth hundreds of regular editor voices, unfortunately, which all goes back to the cultural sclerosis. Ah well. --JayHenry (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem w/ the "if we trust them to..." thinking wrt to protected pages is that we certainly don't trust me to edit {{ambox}} or the spam blacklist, though I have the physical capacity to do so. But someone like Chris isn't able to edit that page because he's not interested (at least not presently) in the drama that comes packaged with the admin deal. I don't even trust myself to fulfill an edit-protect request on a sufficiently complex template or regex--I couldn't do proper due diligence. As I said on the VPP page, I'm generally in favor of devolving almost the whole kit and caboodle. I guess it might be time to dig out the rollback debate to see how dire the threats and arguments in that one were. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, please do, and I'll keep talking with people. And Jay, butt in any time! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A detail

In this discussion I think you may have missed the fact that build 6956 was stolen from a developer's conference. For me this makes the consideration of whether the work was previously "published" different than for other builds (such as 6801) that Microsoft has intentionally distributed to developers for review. Dragons flight (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't change my position. I don't know what NFCC 4 means for "publishing" software screenshots. If we take it to mean literal publication, most of our screenshots need to be sent to IfD. If we take it to mean 'nothing' or just mean that the software, not the editor, produced the screenshot, then this image meets NFCC 4. The Look and feel of the operating system being tarnished prior to official unveiling isn't an NFC issue. Alternately, why don't we just argue that editorial considerations dictate removal (i.e. there isn't enough commentary on that build to merit having an image of it) and wait for it to be orphaned? Protonk (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock-Puppet banning

Fair enough. The edit warring was bad enough but to see said person outed as a sock-puppet (and hence a liar) really stuck in my craw. Will retract for the sake of WP comity. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't blame you. One of the reasons why I didn't come roaring down with some righteous post about CIVIL/NPA/ETC is that I've done the same thing myself and regretted it later. Thanks for retracting that. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Appreciate you taking the time to "helpme". Am headed to that toolbar tool next. Thanks again, and have a great holiday season. Ched Davis (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. You can install it quickly from your "preferences" tag if you click there and then click on "gadgets". You have a lovely holiday season as well. Protonk (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One of your blockees is back

AALIYAH2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BABYGIRL2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given that Aaliyah's nickname was Baby Girl, this is too obvious to spend more than a few milliseconds contemplating.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Won't let me block it. When was that account created? I don't see a log entry (or contributions). Protonk (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Had to correct a capitalization error. Should work better with BABYGIRL2014.—Kww(talk) 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Making a production"?

In regard to your AN/I comments: you are referring to three isolated incidents regarding reversions of AfDs that, in turn, were re-closed very quickly (one within an hour's time, the other two in less than a day). I find it amusing that you are able to see how I am "making a production" over commenting on the closure of an AfD that should not have been reverted but you somehow miss the comments by the reverting admins who made a production by rudely calling my intelligence and competence to question (not exactly in keeping with WP:BITE and WP:NPA). I would be appreciative if you would remove my Talk Page from your watchlist. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'll direct you to Uncle G's reply. I'm not being rude. I am, in fact, referring to the AfDs you closed and which were reverted quickly. In almost every time you made a point to say something like "The AfD in question has been closed (9 hours after it was reopened) by admin SoWhy, who stated: "The result was speedy keep. This is a prime example of WP:SNOW." I consider this a vindication of my earlier NAC, and I am glad to see this concluded with all due speed." or "For the record, this AfD was closed again by an other admin about one hour after my NAC was improperly reverted. I consider this to be a vindication of my judgment." or "For the record, this discussion was already the subject of a non-admin closure by yours truly. The admin who reversed that decision has stated in the edit summary that "Scientology articles are subject to offsite canvassing and a solid rational for deletion has been provided." The first statement is presented without any evidence (at least in relation to this discussion) and the second statement is strictly an opinion that ignored the original consensus that led to the NAC. If the current consensus continues on track, I suspect this discussion will be closed as Keep, which would confirm the merit of the original NAC decision. Thank you." Those are unnecessary statement made to no one in particular about your being "vindicated" at the eventual outcome of the AfD. You need to stop assuming that a reversion is a personal affront to your intelligence or competence--that is a recipe for unhappiness. If you close an AfD out of process and an admin reverts it, that isn't a personal attack and it isn't "biting the newbies" (BTW, if you are closing afds, you aren't a newbie anymore). As for taking your page off my watchlist, I'll do it if it becomes ungainly or unenlightening. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The AN discussion was about the interpretation of WP:SK in regard to the withdrawal of an editor's nomination, and whether a non-admin can do an NAC for a withdrawn nomination. It was not a wider debate on NAC policy, nor was it a hearing on my NAC knowledge or the perceived lack thereof. That you chose to expand it in that direction was unfortunate. However, since you are under the impression that my Talk Page is attractive and enlightening, perhaps I should acknowledge that we are on significant parallel tracks and I should go over and see about bothering the people over in WikiProject Agriculture. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If that AN thread was about your application of the speedy keep criteria than it rightly moved into your understanding of those criteria. You failed to appropriately use WP:SK in that debate, closing an AfD early while good faith delete votes existed. Full stop. I brought up my points because it appears that multiple people have raised the issue of your NACs with you and you seem (as ungle G puts it), really resistant to that feedback. Here again, you got some reasonable feedback from me (that you ought to be more careful with NACs and close them closer in line with policy) and your response was to deem it "unfortunate" and treat it as though I had it out for you. I don't. Ungle G didn't. Jerry didn't. We are all concerned with keeping AfD a structured and fair environment. That means limiting the number of closes made outside policy well before the allotted conclusion. If you keep responding to feedback in the manner that you have you are going to find that people will grow less interested in offering advice and more interested in just reverting you. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering I've done five or six dozen NACs without any incident (I don't really keep count of that stuff -- I am just guessing), I suspect that making drama over a measly three separate and unrelated closings is something of a teapot-based tempest. Besides, I am here to create content, not drama -- I should be getting my 100th DYK later this week and someone challenged me to break the DYK record in 2009, which could be fun. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Those are the breaks, man. :( No one ever thanks the plumber if he does his job right, but when he messes up, people sure do notice. I don't think people are saying A: "Only you do XYZ bad things" (because I have my share of early/bad NACs, and I wish I had someone slap me around for them before my RfA) or B: "You only do XYZ bad things" (because your AfD work is by and large excellent). But that doesn't mean that something isn't an issue. We also don't mean to cause drama. The preferred route for this is:

"Eco, your close on AfD 'BLAH BLAH BLAH' wasn't proper and I reverted it"

"Oh, why was that, seemed fine to me"

"It was because of 'Policy BLAH'"

"Oh, ok, I'll keep an eye out for that" or "I disagree but I understand that you feel it was improper"

That whole exchange is drama free. If it breaks down at any point, we have drama, but the 'ideal' route isn't designed to create issues. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A message of holiday cheer, rich with the notion of peace on Earth, good will to men, and the hope someone else is buying the next round because I blew my paycheck at the dog track...

...whilst I was in the wrong queue for something strange regarding my brother-in-law, who is displeased that I am selling his internal organs without his permission...

...in order to save up for the re-release of My Fair Lady...

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

..and thanks for your help. ----Say Headcheese!-hexaChord² 12:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

About banime and cumulus clouds ....

You should read thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3036406&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=7 from the FYAD forums at something awful where anne frank fanfic/banime brags about vandalism and getting cumulus clouds/ty pepper/TGHwhatever banned from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.42.208 (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah...not sure I want to delve more into that whole shitstorm... Protonk (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• ok. anyway in that thread anne frank fanfic brags about how much time he spends making small improvements to pages in order to be able to sneak vandalism in under the radar. if you don't care maybe you can forward it to someone who does. anyway i don't edit wikipedia, i don't understand a thing about the power structure here and I don't really care that much about this, so if you want to keep banime here then that's fine by me too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.42.208 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

wow edit

no, my account is not compromised, i just edited for a little fun and humor, and the fact that i hate wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. In that case the edit was totally inappropriate and both using a false edit summary and marking it as minor were unacceptable. Don't do it again. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again

Hello,

You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This was originally raised in October 2008. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Mosscovered Twig...and the Mosscovered branch

And the branch. O my. So fast. We had one we shared for skilling up 2hb. *sigh* days of yore.
Heh, 6 clerics with twigs was deliriously funny to watch. They were just UNSTOPPABLE against most critters. The MOB health just melted away. Such a simple error, and such a painful (and absolutely essential) nerf. I can't remember who all else was furious about the nerf besides the raging dwerf clerics... just that a bunch of guildies were.
I have a screenshot of Sinneed, levitated, running accross FM shouting "Anything here outrun SoW?"... then my death message when something beat me to death from the ground far far below.sinneed (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi! I need some help regarding LICENSING of Images. How do I upload an image, copyrighted by someone else; yet mentioning his copyright, without infringing on any laws? I'd appreciate it if you'd mail me at - jonathanvarunbenjamin@gmail.com

Thanx

Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Question About Speedy Deletion

I am embarrassingly ignorant of Wikipedia protocol, so hopefully this isn't too stupid of a question. My account (User:Nagcboard)was marked for speedy deletion by another user and apparently you declined the deletion of the page. I made some edits to make it more tightly conform to Wikipedia standards, but my question is, do I need to do anything else? On my history page, you referred to adding userpage and index tags, and despite some FAQ research, I've not been able to determine what else I need to do. Thank you for assisting a total noob. Nagcboard (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not a problem. First we have to figure out a few things. If you work for or represent the NAGC, the best thing to do is just modify the user page in order to say something to that effect, rather than have the userpage be information about the association. Wikipedia gets a lot of accounts which do nothing but create a username similar to their business name and make a promotional userpage (this is usually because their attempt to make a promotional article has failed). Because of that, people are on a hair trigger about user pages like yours. After changing your userpage you should probably request a name change (or just create a new account and drop that one). Usernames that mirror the names of companies are highly frowned upon here, for the reason I mentioned above.
• If you don't work for the association and just want to make an article about them, my suggestion is to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. You have to make sure that there are some reliable sources covering your subject but if you can find those you should be able to make an article at National Association of Government Communicators.
• Does that answer your question? Protonk (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand things better. I am on the board of NAGC, so I need to make some changes. I guess I have a bit of a quandary, as the purpose of my doing this page is to provide some general information about the organization. Is it safe to assume then, it's more appropriate for someone who is not a board member or affiliated directly with NAGC to create this page? Nagcboard (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Correct. Specifically, your userpage is only for you on wikipedia (see WP:UP). If you want to keep the NAGC article there to work on it before you try to bring it into mainspace, that's fine. But keeping that page as it is to let people know about the NAGC is not appropriate. As for who would make an article, it is very true that someone unrelated to the organization ought to make the article, if only because that allows them to be a good, neutral judge of the article itself (and prevents them from arguing from authority). That isn't a hard and fast rule, but it is one well respected at wikipedia. See WP:COI for some more information. Protonk (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A good way to start an article is in your user space. Type User:Nagcboard/NAGC into the search box to the left. It will say there is no page by this name up at the top, including the name of the page in a red hyperlink. Click on that red hyperlink, then paste the text about the article from your user name in the edit box and click save page. Now you have a work space for your article. When you get it to a good point, I will be glad to mercilessly hack at it to make it appropriate for a Wikipedia article as a neutral editor, just post a request on my talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK -- two more questions and I think I'm done for now -- (1) would KP Botany's suggestion be acceptable, or should I continue with plans to hand over the editor chores to a more neutral user? (2) Could that user use most of the content I've created instead of reinventing the wheel? Thank you and KP Botany very much for your patience and help. Nagcboard (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll try to respond:

• The response to the first question is a matter of opinion. WP:COI is not inflexible. In practice many articles are written by people close to the subject (though as we have discussed this is really frowned upon). If you feel that you can write a neutral article (and you feel that your organization has received significant coverage in third party sources--this is important!), you can probably start an article in a sub-page then move it to article-space as needed. If you know a neutral user willing to work on the project then you may do that. I will note that waiting for a neutral user you don't know may take an indefinite amount of time--maybe never.
• Your second question is easier. What you release to wikipedia is available to other editors whenever you hit the "save page" button.

• Does that help? Protonk (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I can has help?

Hey...newbie admin thing here....Take a look at the edit history/move history for User:Bun39. He's moved the Noggin and The N articles, both a) without discussion/consensus/anything, and b) to names with conflicting styles (removing (TV channel) from one and adding it to the other). Question 1: Should I undo? Question 2: How, if I were inclined, would I go about doing so?? I've never reverted a move and it doesn't look terribly intuitive. Question 3: What do you think of the rest of this user's edits to these articles? I'm on the fence--some of what he's removing looks crufty--but I don't know whether I should revert based on "my spidey-sense tells me something here ain't right". Thanks for your help!!! GJC 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Shh... Keep this under your hat but I don't actually know how to revert a move aside from just moving the thing back. Is there an easier/faster way?
• I would hop by his talk page and see what his (ZOMG male pronoun) motivation is before doing anything. Most of the moves seem pretty innocuous to me. That account appears to have a long history of working on toons/kids shows and the motivation for one move (Kidshow) seems good (read the lede). I haven't looked at the rest of the contributions in detail (just the articles he contributed to).
• I just moved a sub-page and noticed that after the move a special link to 'revert' the move quickly is presented See this one. I think that the software generates that title and some technically inclined person could (and already has, no doubt) make a javascript plugin to do this for any page. That's all I've got. At present the current guidance does seem slow and crufty. That's all I've got. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Christmas was yesterday: Happy New Year!

---

Happy new Headcheese!-hexaChord² 02:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

You're an administrator? Have you read WP:PROTECT? Why'd you say, please read this lame essay and the policy I was asking to be enforced within its guidelines? --KP Botany (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." And I linked you the "wrong version" because no matter which revision is protected someone will complain. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I made it clear in my post that I had already heard of that lame essay to hopefully, praise God, forestall someone quoting me that lame essay. And, yes, I also made the comment in my following PS to make it clear that I had, indeed, read the policy. So, thank you for treating me like a 2-year-old, or not reading what I posted. Now, my post will be ignored because you are apparently dealing with it by posting me lame essays and policies which my post clearly indicates I read before I posted. --KP Botany (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry. You posted a request to protect a page, then made some comment as to which revision you preferred (arguably it was prior to the edit war) and I just noted that the protected revision may not be that one, regardless of a request. I'm not treating you like a two year old, just responding to a somewhat hyperbolic question on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Which is precisely WHY I explained my reason for that request: to make it pre-edit war, which is, in fact, one of the reasons that is considered legitimate for protecting a specific reason, which is says in the policy, why I clearly read, because I made this explanation, before I posted the request. I took all of this into account in my request, which is now being ignored. So is the article I'd rather be writing.
      • I think this is the problem with quoting essays. I bet if you spent a second reading my post, you would see that I had obviously read the policy and understood the issue about picking a specific version, because I justified that request. If you spent as much time reading my post, you could have caught that. Please, don't throw stuff at me, that shows you've ignored the fact that I've taken into account all of the issues you raise.
      • Anyway, I made up my own little essay. DonQLeam. --KP Botany (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not "throwing things at you". I'm telling you that regardless of which revision you prefer and what justification you have, the revision that is protected may very well be the current one. Protonk (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Yes, I know that. I clearly indicated that in my post! --KP Botany (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"I asked specifically for an older version to do away with the undiscussed changed made by this group of editors, which, will, of course, leave it at a bad version, but all of their changes should have been discussed first."

• • • • • • • Ok. Show me the revision before the dispute started. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

From the edit history there, it appears the edit warring in flora started on December 1, and the article was somewhat stable before that. This edit war on the common names in general policy appears to start mid December, which, would, indeed, leave it at a bad version by one of the editors involved, but that edit of his in November does not seem to be part of the edit warring. I am involved in discussing the issue, also. --KP Botany (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I didn't actually check the content of the edits, merely when this group of editors started editing and reverting each other. I think if you look at the edit history you will come to the same conclusion about the dates in both matters. One of the plant editors protected the flora page, but there really needs to be someone from outside the entire mess protecting these pages, imo. --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure you selected a really bad version with typos and bum links and myspace pages and advertisements.... --KP Botany (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

on headers and boxes

I figured it out, but need you to protect one page and add it to another. :) rootology (C)(T) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Update again, last one I promise--it just needs to go on one lone template. I updated the thread. rootology (C)(T) 02:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

VPP

You got a response (sort of) to a previous post at VPP, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&curid=986140&diff=261695325&oldid=261693477 (and davidwr's edit just before that). (Watchlisting there, not here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: RfA Question Followup

I think the fundamental difference between MilHist & FAC lies in breadth of maintenance "crew", and the strength of the established processes. At FAC, you have Raul and Sandy, who do huge amounts of administrative work for that portion of Wikipedia, and they're really the only ones who do that admin work for WP:FAC. At WP:MILHIST, there are 13 of us (9 elected, 1 emeritus, 3 co-opted) who do that administrative work. Even then, if the 13 of us packed up and left, MILHIST wouldn't degenerate into total chaos, whereas FAC would. When he was the lead coordinator, Kirill did a staggering amount of work in implementing the processes and systems which ensure that the total chaos won't ensue if we have heavy-duty coordinators who leave the project (as happened with User:TomStar81 in November) - I don't want to even think about Kirill's Tylenol bills during his 2 years as lead coordinator. The fundamental difference is that those processes are not as well developed at FAC. So although Sandy and Raul do a superb job of running WP:FAC, the processes to allow it to function in their absence are not as well developed. When that happens, the system becomes dependent on that strong leadership. Would Wikipedia collapse if Jimbo left? Not likely, because he and others developed the processes, policies and guidelines necessary to allow Wikipedia to function independently. Cam ^(Chat) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

American Eagle

If American Eagle had simply apologised for their misbehaviour, promised not to do it again, and left it at that, I wouldn't have commented further. This is however not what happened -- AE attempted to justify their misbehaviour with a thread of tendentious excuses. Having already been subjected to their 'you didn't really mean what you said you meant' claims previously (as well as numerous other misrepresentations), I was not inclined to treat further misrepresentation as trivial. I would see representing others' statements fairly in discussions as at least as important to productive participation in wikipedia as 'not mucking up AfDs'. Your mileage may of course vary, but that was my reasoning for the continued hammering of this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC) sions

• Right, but immediately prior to the last hammering of that point, he intimated that it was a mistake. I suspect that a full on apology is not forthcoming (as they seldom are) nor would I hold out for one in your position. I would also say that Tendentiousness has a higher standard than his actions, though I am not immersed in that debate enough to tell precisely. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambios RFC

Hello, as you did quite a bit of wrk attempting to prevent further conflict between Mendaliv and Cambios, I think I should inform you of the RFC currently underway for Cambios.--Patton^t/c 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

T vs. C

You mentioned "trademarked and copyrighted", but NFC and for that matter all of the free culture requirements deal solely with Copyright. Trademarks are not covered by those policies but as described in the essay on WP:Restricted materials. Even Commons hosts trademarked images that are in the public domain on a copyright basis. MBisanz ^talk 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• My statement about trademarked images refers more to the owner's unwillingness to release those images into the public domain (regardless of the propriety of such a stance) rather than our handling of them. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ahh, okey. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

About User:Cambios

Hi, Protonk. I noticed your repeated attempts to help resolve the issue(s) regarding Cambios. At this point, the perceived injustice that he believes occurred on Wikipedia and the various appearance that supporters of the entry are all being deemed meat/sock puppets or a result of canvassing when it is untrue is making him think this is happening on the other side. This seems to be what is escalating the drama since I'm sure that there are many, many editors and admins who voted for delete under their own will just as there are people who are not meat/sock puppets who are posting in favor of the Threshold entry. Many of these people, however, are allowed to keep calling us meat/sock puppets. In the end, it seems like one side is being held accountable for everything while the other is not. This could be completely untrue, but at this point, many of us feel like we're having to play "catch up" on Wikipedia policy as it's being used to hammer us into the ground.

I am making a personal request that Cambios take a few days to remove himself from the situation and Wikipedia to calm down. I, however, am unsure what an RFC is. To be honest, and I admit my bias here, the only person I can see trying to show resolution and compromise is you. Everything else has been pretty much a list of "You're doing this wrong. Fix it. Stop doing that. Do this. Do that. And a long citation of Wiki policies, guidelinse and essays." Please also be aware that the WP:Outing against that Khosro is something that Cambios learned from Mendaliv's WP:Outing Intimidation (I can't remember exactly what it is) against him. You can easily see Cambios attempting to use all the Wiki policies that are being applied with various standards because he's being taught that that's the only way to get anywhere on Wikipedia.

The problem I see here is that there's always something else to hit someone with, and I can't see an end to this. What happens with an RFC? Will I end up banned again because of it? Kallimina (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll try and answer the easy questions. A (an?) request for comment is an invitation for wikipedia users to comment and resolve a dispute with a user. Usually most disputes are between two camps of editors and an RfC tries to bring in third opinions on the subject. The result of most RfCs is a compromise between the subject and the persons looking to solve the dispute. RfCs are almost always non-binding, so if Cambios refuses to participate, the page will just sit there as a testament to how many people are upset with him. If the dispute continues past an RfC, people may take the issue to WP:AN or WP:RFAR and ask for some more binding result. I wouldn't worry about the RfC in the short term.
• As for the users till calling you sock/meat puppets, I don't know what to say. They shouldn't, but that doesn't stop people. I will say that the skepticism shown at that AfD is well founded from experience in other debates. Usually when we see a half dozen or so new users jump in to an AfD we find that it is the result of people trying to railroad a debate (Which usually has very few participants). In many cases these debates are about obvious spam articles, obviously non-notable biographies and so forth. We can't really write a procedure that says XYZ mud is not seeking promotion while ABC game is. We have to rely on some decision rule that is (somewhat) subject matter agnostic. As a result the rules about notability, promotion and inclusion get applied to Threshold just as they would for an article written by an ad agency looking to promote a game.
• My view is that the deletion process is the shittiest (excuse the language) way to be introduced to wikipedia. It is filled with people who are hyperalert to tampering (and so don't assume good faith), centers around really emotional issues, and matches up relative "experts" with new users (so there is a huge presentation distinction between an editor that indents "normally", bolds his/her comments and signs their posts and an editor who leaves unsigned posts, breaks formatting and doesn't leave a bolded "vote"). Topping that off is the normal problem of watching sausage being made. Everyone likes the 'idea' of wikipedia, but seeing the editorial and inclusion process at work is a trifle disturbing at first.
• I don't have a solution to people using policy to hammer you into the ground. I'd love to push the reset button and have all the blocks, personal attacks (on both sides) and vitriol retracted. Then we could have a reasonable discussion about whether or not the article subject meets our inclusion guidelines. I can't do that, though, so the DRV will have to be the best bet. Does that answer any questions? Protonk (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It does answer many of my questions. I haven't checked on all the users who jumped in were "new". I thought that most of them were casual to semi-causal editors. I'm not technically "new", though I'm very new to having the WP:Guidelines and Policies being used in such a way. My account has been active since 2006 with various small edits here and there. I worked on the Threshold entry at the request of some of our players. I actually have no idea who created it. I'll be honest and say that Wikipedia is not my hobby and not my passion. It's not for most people involved in MUDs since they're usually pretty invested in their own games, wikis, and creations. I'm actually fairly efficient with the Media Wiki software since I created and run my own Wiki, but honestly, none of us have ever used our talk pages or the discussion page on our articles. (We actually weren't sure what they were for. Now we know!)

In conclusion, I guess that the best thing to do would simply be to walk away. There's actually no way to prevent the edit wars that might well occur again with anything we try to put up, is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallimina (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the primary function of the userpage is to ensure that your name isn't a redlink, that way people won't think you are new. That's the sad truth of it.

I don't think we should despair. I still think the right answer is to sit down and build a new, short article from the rubble of the last one. We can (And should) cite bartle and koster and whoever else might be considered a expert on the subject. We also should search for previously untapped resources. And there is a faint change that the DRV will overturn the deletion decision. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Protonk. Thanks again for trying to help me out through these situations. I have been writing up a detailed response (which includes apologies for any behaviors of mine that have been disruptive), but there is one major thing that confuses me. The rule for the RfC says:

"In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with"

Now, 5 people certified it. But the problem is, 4 of them never tried to resolve any dispute with me. And the 5th, well, he asked me to "Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing." and I responded with a request for a specific example of a personal attack and a promise to remove it. So at worst, that is a "successful" attempt to resolve a dispute.

So, how am I supposed to respond?

Would you like to read what I have written? Cambios (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, I would be happy to see what you have written. As for the "certified the dispute", I wouldn't press the issue. That is there to make sure that one person can't bring an RfC to bear on an editor. Like I told Kallimina, the likely outcome of that RfC will be non-binding. Your best course of action is to work with people there rather than combat them. The other element (one that I hinted at in my comment there) is that the RfC is highly likely to be moot at the end of 30 days. Threshold will either be deleted or kept and "appeals" will have long since been exhausted. So don't get too worried. Protonk (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I even write a response? Should I just ignore it? Am I correct that it doesn't appear to be an appropriate use of an RfC, since it is not about a single dispupte that at least 2 people tried to resolve and failed? Thanks again! Cambios (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, regarding what I have written so far. Should I email it to you? I have already had an admin dig up a deleted page from my userspace that I used as workspace, and used it against me. So right now, I am kinda wary about ANYTHING I type through Wikipedia. Cambios (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you made information regarding your background publicly available by creating a subpage of your userpage, formerly at User:Cambios/novel. It was noted by others, so your recent attempts to claim that others outed you were completely baseless -- and other administrators agreed. Hell, you've even disclosed some other details in this comment. It's not outing when you've made it publically available. seicer | talk | contribs 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am trying to have a discussion with Protonk. I find this intrusion a little bit creepy, at a minimum. I used a page in my userspace as a "workspace" for formatting purposes. The page existed for a few minutes, and I immediately requested it be fully deleted (the ((db)) request thing). It was a long time editor who suggested I do that to improve the formatting of a long post. To have something like that dragged up against me, by admins who are the only ones who can see it, strikes me as exceptionally inappropriate. And now it has happened TWICE. Honestly, I am trying to learn your procedures and culture here, but any objective outsider would look at this and see that I'm being railroaded and harassed. Regarding the "self outing thing", nothing I have written anywhere "outs" me to anywhere near the extent KoshVorlon's handle connection did. I believe Wikipedia policy is that the user himself controls to what degree he is outed. Tons of people give lots of details about themselves - including schools of graduation, degrees, certifications, and more. But that still doesn't give someone else the right to go and take it a few steps further. Cambios (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to answer here. I think anything you write should reflect your words, not mine. So if you want or need some help you can post it here or (if you need it to be private) email it to me. But I think a short response is reasonable. You can accept some claims made in the RfC, state your position and try and come to some compromise with the people who filed it. That compromise may just be agreeing the issue is moot. As for the OUTING claim, I don't have a firm stance. We have a history of giving leeway to people who use information on wiki to identify someone (in your AN/I post I noted a previous dispute over much the same issue). If someone used something you revealed on wikipedia to identify you, it isn't fair for us to come down on them like a ton of bricks (like WP:OUTING suggests). If they used significant off wiki material to out you, that is another story. Either way, it probably shouldn't be the focus of your RfC response. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I took your advice and wrote up a brief response. There are a few things I'd like to discuss with you, but I'd really prefer email since its odd how people just jump right in a conversation between two people. I can't find your address on your user page. Maybe I'm blind or something. Cambios (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, JzG blocked Cambios following comments at the DRV. Since you have been reaching out to Cambios, I thought you might like to offer to refactor/strike on his behalf, so that he may demonstrate good faith. The DRV seems to be cooling off, but a little more heat reduction wouldn't hurt. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Centralised discussion linkbox

Hi Protonk - I've undone your revision to the centralised discussion linkbox (re WCAG 2.0). You're right that the link's a bit obscure, but your new wording of it was so long that the box spread right across the top of every page it was on, making the top few items (TOC, etc) unreadable on things like AfD. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. You may want to rewrite it with a similar number of characters to the rest of the items. As it stands it isn't likely to draw people in to discussion. Protonk (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a hard one to make a short link to - see what you think of it now. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • that looks perfect! Protonk (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, but no. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: [6]

Thanks for being bitter for me. I still haven't figured out whether I should ever put myself through that again.—Kww(talk)

• Happy to be bitter for someone. :) Protonk (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sunshine

Kallimina (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Arbcom

It was going to be far worse if they took the case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. Let me tell you, you don't want to be the first to @#ck up when a new boss shows up--I had some worries that arbcom might be inclined to deliver something meatier than the pablum fare of E&C2. Hopefully FICT doesn't have a bumpy road and we don't need to find out. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BITING

Okay, okay, you're right. I got a little carried away; I suppose I have more of a problem with it than other editors, and I always will. C1k3 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. Remember, you can be firm that we don't need to have every page under creation without being mean. Sometimes it is harder and it is tempting to lash out at people. I know that. That's why I just dropped by rather than jumping down your throat over it. Protonk (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid biting or snarky comments, yourself, in serious discussions. You made a vague commentat Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard which led me to think you might be implying a problem editor in question had other or prior identities, I requested more specifics, and you inappropriately responded with "Don't be cute." Please assume good faith and be civil. Edison (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Article: Marc S Ellenbogen

I do not understand why you deleted this page. I had seen that there was a previous page created, but I did not once look at it in the creation of this page. Everything I wrote was based off research, which I cited. Macfan14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC).

Could you please tell me why you deleted this and what I have to do to fix it? Macfan14 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. The article was deleted in a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc S. Ellenbogen. You may read that (by clicking on the "history" tab and viewing an old revision, or just using this revision) and see why the article was deleted. If your article fixes the problems noted in the deletion discussion you may make it in a Sub-page of your userspace or recreate the article (do this only if you are absolutely sure the article dealt with the reasons for deletion). Protonk (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well there aren't COI issues and I sourced everything I found, so I think the page should be recreated. I wrote everything based on research and it wasn't from sources that belong to or are directly associated with Mr. Ellenbogen. I feel that the article I wrote warrants recreation, but as a more experienced Wiki user I feel you should have the final word and recreate it if it's appropriate and tell me if it's not. Macfan14 (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Will you please respond to my last comment or I will assume in 48 hours that it is acceptable for me to re-add the page. Thanks you. Macfan14 (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the wait. I'm not the best to judge that. From looking at the material, I see mostly trivial mentions of this person in the sources (or sources which don't strictly meet WP:RS). If you want. You can make a subpage of your userpsace, add the material and then bring it up at deletion review. A group of editors will give you some advice as to whether or not your version improves enough from the deleted version to merit dismissing the old AfD. Does that make sense? Protonk (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yea that made sense. I figured out how to make the subpage, but how do I get all the content I had written up for the article? Macfan14 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:My2sense2wikip, Who You Blocked Last Month, Is At It Again Adding The Exact SameExtreme Fringe Conspiracy Theory Source to Seductive Poison

I started an ANI on the issue. It is here.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Building

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Threshold (online game)

Hi Protonk. I noticed that you'd restored the history of Kallimina and Cambios' version of the article to mainspace now that a new version has been made. I was wondering if you could also restore at least the edit history of the talk page. There's been at least one case where an uninvolved editor wanted to comment on Cambios' RFC/U but retracted when informed that there were details about the discussions leading up to the AfD were unavailable. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I did. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Threshold (online game)

You should have speedied this. While the text is different no additional sources were provided that weren't present at deletion, and there is no clear consensus to overturn the deletion. One of the deletion reasons was a clear lack of coverage, nothing else was provided so rewriting the article doesn't change that deletion reason. As the speedy template says: any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. --Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why is this addressed to me? Phil is an admin. He restored it. He's capable of deleting it. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  Because you restored the history. Perhaps now you'd like to restore the CSD template and let a non-involved admin address the situation. You're clearly involved in the AfD debate and this article clearly does not address the reasons for deletion.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  I restored the history because the article was already there. Would it matter? I had no intent of restoring the history if someone hadn't already made an article over the same name. As far as the CSD tag...I'm not really inclined to self revert. The DRV will get closed in a day or so, and the article will be deleted or kept at that point. I don't see a reason to G4 it in the meantime. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about me. I've often, usually unintentionally, found my way through to some controversial topic or another almost continuously since I've arrived at Wikipedia. I've got a pretty thick skin, the only thing I don't tolerate is people who can't debate civilly when reminded to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoping this is appropriate

		The Barnstar of Peace
		You made a gigantic effort to gently reprimand people who were behaving badly, help newbies navigate the rough waters of Wikipedia, and generally got everyone to play nice. You were dealing with some seriously intense personalities, so being able to keep your cool is pretty impressive. (Maybe this should be the barnstar of civility also!) Kallimina (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FICT

Did you help to compose the current version of WP:FICT? It's quite a good compromise. — Deckiller 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Phil Sandifer and User:Randomran deserve the bulk of the credit. Phil wrote the shell of the current guideline (his style is more long-form than what remains) and random exerted patient, constant pressure on both sides. I worked on it a non-trivial amount and I'm proud of what it has become, but those two have been tireless. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The main difference between this and the original version is format and tone; I guess we're not at the point where the wording can strengthen. The concepts are almost identical to the original version, except this version has moved much of the content to WAF. — Deckiller 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I feel that two other differences exist. First, we try to avoid making statements about classes of subjects (e.g. "all main characters are notable") and we assiduously avoid talking about lists. But you are spot on that little else has changed. Hopefully it will be enough to reach consensus. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The original version didn't really assume that classes of subjects are notable, nor did it encourage lists. Actually, by "original version" I really mean the original rewrite. — Deckiller 19:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
        • We may be looking at two different revisions. :) Protonk (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Most likely. User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction) (the version from roughly May to December 2007) discouraged lists as well as inherited notability. — Deckiller 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I think the two RfCs in 2008 used a later revision, but you are right. The differences between your revision and the current proposal are mostly tonal. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• (reset)Yeah. I offered to sacrifice myself to the wolves by doing the first rewrite, with the intent of a "modernized" guideline that maintained compromise. The post-update vandalism and warfare was pretty significant, and led to the 2008 versions (I hardly edited in '08). Then the pendulum swung back, hence the current version. — Deckiller 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

gawker.com as a reliable source

could you please point me directly to where it states that gawker is a reliable source? it appears to be a blog/gossip site, but i would like to know for future references if this is to be considered a reliable source. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• sure thing. This is an early discussion but included other SPS and SPS-like material. This later discussion, in which I participated, noted that Gawker had (presumably) an editorial staff. Here, where I was largely the only respondent, we dismissed Kotaku (a gawker owned blog) as non-RS, though I don't agree with my decision broadly anymore. So, mixed responses. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) after searching the reliable sources board, i think i found what you were referencing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com

dgg wrote that gawker is usable, but with reservations. this is the part i don't get. he stated "Using anything (from) a site like this (gawker) for negative BLP is like using a tabloid. (edited for clarity)" but how could this be true? only using it for negative BLP? what about positive BLP? what about BLP that i think is positive and you think is negative? how can we differentiate? how can it be a reliable source sometimes but not other times? we trust them when they're not being controversial, but we don't trust them if it's possible that they are being controversial? this doesn't sound like a reliable source to me. that is more like the definition of the word unreliable Theserialcomma (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are in the gray area. The expectation for BLPs is that we use the best possible sources. Saying that gakwer is not one of those does not mean that it isn't sufficient for other uses. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Favor

Hiya. Would you mind taking a gander at the recent fracas at James T. Kirk, both my recent edits and the ongoing talk page discussion (which also has a messy tendril, which I confess I probably am largely an initiator of, on my talk page)? I don't see you fairly recently, if at all, in the edit history, but I know you have an interest in/eye for fiction-related topics. I made the mistake of stepping in on a disagreement about how to acknowledge fan-film portrayals, and then jumped in and did some major revisions of the article -- now an editor with a burr for the fan-film stuff has some hearty feelings about the other edits, too. My narcissism precludes admitting my edits might be in the wrong, but feigned hubris suggests I at least ponder the possibility and pass the buck to someone else to take a look at ;-) -- would you mind? --EEMIV (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I protected it for three days. I don't want to wade in and say "XYZ edit is wrong, ABC edit is right", but I'll come back and try to talk through a compromise. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I decided to swallow a pill and managed to engage much more civilly with Arcayne shortly after posting this request, and I think we can move forward. Of course, lo and behold, a whole OTHER editor has swooped in to take ownership of the article. Sigh. --EEMIV (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I saw that on the edit history. Like I said on the Kirk talk page, I have a few academic papers and books that were of some use to me for a paper on TOS. I'm travelling now, but when I get home I'll try and post links. Protonk (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. If you're back from traveling, it looks like Arcayne and I have settled on appropriate phrasing about our point of contention. User:Globular Cluster1 opted not to chime in on the article talk page -- and his user page + edit history suggests some ownership issues. Anyhow, an uninvolved editor chimed in backing up the edits, and I'm pretty sure the iteration I've been working on since you protected the page will pass anyone's muster. Sooo.... if you'd like to remove the page protection a bit earlier so I can drop it in before I take tomorrow off from most of the world, that'd be swell. --EEMIV (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for working that out. I'll remove protection if it is still in effect (sorry for the delay, I was not connected to the internet reliably). Protonk (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alon Miasnikov

Thanks for taking care of it. FYI, you'd removed wrong tag from the article. I fixed it. Hope that's okay. ^LeaveSleaves 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, that was probably twinkle and me forgetting to check up on it. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm sure you'd think I'm stalking you, but I also did this. Again, hope you don't mind. ^LeaveSleaves 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't mind at all. That was more me not knowing how the AfD2 template actually works. :) And here I thought I was leaving you with less work. :) Protonk (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I was trying to figure out how to fix that problem too. When you beat me to it, I had to check out how you did it. ^LeaveSleaves 17:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cmchir

Hi, could you come give your views at User_talk:Cmchir? It looks to me like some words were less than ideally-chosen, but as long as the user in question realises that we could probably unblock. --fvw* 05:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. Best, - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oopsies - My Life Would Suck Without You

[7]—Kww(talk) 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• ...just knew I had forgotten something! Protonk (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• I am so confused from all of this logging, moving, etc., but do you think the article could at least be redirected to the album, All I Ever Wanted (as apposed to the artist)? Hopefully the debate over the song's deletion will be settled soon, and the song article will come back. -Whataworld06 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What I don't know about kelly clarkson could fill a warehouse. I saw the article in the "singles" part of the kelly clarkson template, so I redirected it to her. If that isn't the best target, please point it to the correct one. Protonk (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

file

Hey protonk,

Can you restore and/or send me a copy of: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Getting_started.pdf Thanks! It was meant to be a pdf :) Part of a collection of instructional materials about Wikipedia I've done. But I don't know where the original is... Thanks, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 08:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Economic freedom

The informal mediation process is not getting very far, unfortunately. Do you have time to participate, or should we try to work this out among ourselves ? JQ (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, but I've made a suggestion on the talk page that rather than freezing the page as is, we go forward even if you can't participate. I said on the talk page that I would leave you a note to update you on the matter. We would appreciate a short note from you when you have the time. LK (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay. I've been out of town for some time and have only had access to the internet for limited periods. I'll respond on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that you used IAR to justify blocking someone immediately. I always saw IAR as the pardon ability - something to limit power in order to protect people. However, your interpretation seems to make it like the ability to more quickly stop people. Is this true? Do you seem any potential harm in possibly moving too fast? Or do you think that speed is essential? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Speed is rarely essential. Where it is (pagemove/template vandalism and the like), immediate blocks are hardly a contentious issue. For most cases of vandalism, there is little harm in moving quickly--assuming that a reasonable process is followed. AIV responds in a matter of seconds to minutes (of course, as I noted at AN, there are several factors that allow them to move this quickly). For other blocks, speed is not a good quality. Most blocks for NPA, NLT, COPYVI, etc. require some forethought to determine if the block is the minimal solution, if the user has actually been in contact with another editor (as opposed to a page full of template warnings), and if the reported behavior is as it seems. For those cases, discussion and deliberation are paramount.
• IAR doesn't have a fixed role. IAR works well to pardon people (though I dispute your contention that pardoning is a limitation of power). It works well to avoid needless bureaucracy. The only place IAR doesn't work well in is when it is used against consensus. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  I mean limitation in the regards that you are using it in a negative form (i.e. something happens, then you pardon to retract from that). :) Regardless, I can see where speed is needed when it comes to incidents similar to vandalism bots. I have dealt with three on various wikiprojects. I still get teased for temporarily blocking the whole IPv6 node on a project and for manually reverting hundreds of pages instead of using some faster method. However, in those cases there was a team of administrators working together and there was a lot of opportunity for people to see what everyone else is doing. My only concern is when things don't become visible - if someone vandalizes just your page, and you block them, that seems to vanish into thin air. Such a case makes me feel weary in general. I never work unilaterally because it seems to go against some of the core philosophies of Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  Well, a refrain of my comments at the AN thread was judgment. If an ip makes one edit and it is to vandalize my user page, there is little purpose in doing anything but reverting it. If it is persistent, I see no reason to bother someone else. If it is one human and multiple IPs, I just semi-protect it. Each scenario results in a minimal solution. And in each case, someone else is watching. Invariably it is not me who reverts vandalism on my userpage and anyone viewing their watchlist can click over to the IP talk page. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

  As for the comment on collaboration, I don't see the contradiction. Collaborative work requires that you think about your actions and determine if they warrant outside review. In most cases, they don't. I don't preview most of my content edits on the talk page and I don't expect other people to. However, many edits require some discussion beforehand. Likewise many administrative actions shouldn't be undertaken unilaterally. But the expectation that some be discussed doesn't extent to all. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  No one seemed willing to answer this, but since you stated the above - is there a difference between if it was an IP and if it was a named user? How about a name user who has been here for 6 months? A year? Someone with a lot of contributions? One person stated that the IP should be indeffed. I found that a little troubling (indefing IPs in general is never a great thing). How long should one be blocked? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  I noted before that IP/named doesn't matter much (somewhere on that AN thread). either way, there is a human behind the string of characters. With a one-off IP address used, I have no means to contextualize the edit. There is no way (short of a WP:DUCK comparison to an existing user) for me to say "this is explainable because of XYZ". The same thing is true if it is a new named account. For an account that has been here six months (or any significant period of time), the game changes. We have some context to work with. People complain about this or feel that it shows wikipedia is biased against IP editing. I don't want to get into that debate right now, but my short answer is that such a distinction is unavoidable. It is impossible for me to contextualize a one-off edit and irresponsible for me to refuse to contextualize edits made by a long or short term user. As for the block length, it varies. For what appears to be simple schoolboy vandalsim, I block for 3-12 hours. That is less time than it takes for the IP to change hands (usually) but often more time than it takes for the user on the other end to get bored. Shared IP addresses with a "history" of vandalism (have to be careful using that word because people conflate all the users of that IP when issuing blocks) can and should be blocked for longer periods because one person getting bored may not be the limiting factor. Longer blocks (>1 month) are outside the scope of this discussion, as are rangeblocks (with both of those usually being undertaken after collaboration). IP's shouldn't be indeffed, but honestly >1 year is effectively indefinite while still keeping the IP off Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm, okay. Basically, it seems as if your view holds an extension of "don't template the regulars" to serving as a sort of ability to help determine the nature of the editor in question. It is a fair argument with a strong rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doctor_of_Chiropractic

Since you commented earlier, could you give some feedback on the current discussion about a topic ban of User:Levine2112? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Just saw it. Give me a moment to write a sane reply.—Kww(talk) 13:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Take your time. I benefited from not actually having read it all the way through when I made my reply. Rereading it, I'm convinced it is insane. It's WP:FICT's own 9/11 Truth movement. Protonk (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

I added the Ambassador's Barnstar to your barnstar page. You provided a great example by reaching out with your consistently civil and measured writing. Flatscan (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm glad I could get involved in a discussion on Raph's blog about it. I'm also glad that the whole thing ended rather amicably. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I had read through that discussion – it was part of the reason for the barnstar. I was encouraged that a number of thoughtful and forward-looking discussions came out of the AfD mess. Flatscan (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way

I'm reading up on username issues for a variety of reasons. I'm negotiating at WT:RFA on what kinds of information we can dig up on candidates that people will always be interested in, and one of those categories seems to be what tools the candidates requested and how they used them, including WP:PERM#Account Creator. I saw you made a recent post at WP:AN concerning a problem Arcayne was having with doppelganger usernames? Sounds like you know what you're talking about, so I hope you don't mind if I drop in with username questions when I have them. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't, in fact, know too much about it. I know a little about ACC from the IWF and Wikipedia row last year. We discussed how to work around the account creation bottleneck for blocked users in the UK, turns out that accounts couldn't be created for blocked IP addresses (Even with softblocks/account creation enabled) by regular users (Though some feature of the ACC tool could do it). The actual tool itself (it's on the toolserver, though you probably know that) is a mystery to me. Your best bet for username questions is the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard, a place you are quite familiar with. :) CHU and USURP are good, on the ground places to learn about username peculiarities and some 'crats have a good body of knowledge. Protonk (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I recognized the "unpossible" reference at WT:BLP. Simpsons used to be my favorite show, but I haven't watched it in a while. Okay, CHU and USURP will probably be good places to read up. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a good friend who put it a particular way. When the simpsons movie came out he, like other formerly avid fans, avoided it at the theaters. As he says: "If I told the Ben from 10 years ago that I was going to skip the simpsons movie, Ben from ten years ago would have punched Ben from present day square in the jaw". Part of it is the show peaked (IMO at about season 6-8) and part of it is that the simpsons stopped being the "edgiest" television show in the intervening 10 years. It is hard to imagine from watching the first few seasons but people were scandalized by how "foul" the show was. Hardly holds a candle to It Hits the Fan.

On a wikipedia note, would you mind having a look at WP:FICT? We are trying to get some comments on a compromise proposal for notability of fictional elements (A big, big, bone of contention in the world of inclusion/deletion). You will probably approach this in a fashion dissimilar to mine, so I think that getting your voice in the discussion (or maybe just your "vote" in the straw poll) might be helpful. Protonk (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on my suggested FlaggedRev implementation?

If you have time, would you care to comment on my suggested Trial 13: Three month trial of all BLPs + flagged protection? Basically, would FlaggedRevs on BLPs and individually selected articles be ok? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface RFC

I'm about one millimeter away from unloading on that tendentious editor, as shown here. I am trying my best to keep my cool, but I think I am losing it after that personal threat from him. MuZemike 06:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing would be gained from it. One thing that you gradually learn from dealing with certain kinds of people is that they work best on people like you and me getting upset and saying "incivil" things. That's why you here hear a lot from some editors about how important incivility is...ignoring the fact that most people being "incivil" to them are just being driven to distraction. I would just back off. Protonk (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't it time to start proposing solutions in that case? Or admitting that RFC is an invariably futile process?—Kww(talk) 13:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • RFC is an inherently futile process, assuming that the subject refuses to cooperate. If he goes back to edit warring over PLOT, we'll just take it to RFAR. Protonk (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, think I'll get out of the oven for a bit and concentrate on other things, such as the mainspace (which is what we are all here for). MuZemike 17:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Taking this off my watchlist. Nothing good can come from me posting there anymore. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

my talk

Your comment was perfectly appropriate, and i explained further at some length. The ed. who objected to it there needs a better understanding of how to work at Wikipedia. I think I said what needed to be said on that point, and it would help a little if you didn't respond to him there. To me, sure, but please wait a bit, as I;d like my answer to your posting to be visible. DGG (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. I keep a number of talk pages watchlisted (mostly through inertia). I'm afraid I disagree that "ikip" needs a better understanding of how wikipedia works. He's got a perfectly functional understanding of the place but seems to treat the world of deletion like a battleground. If you need some backstory you may look at his rather lengthly block log and the more recent trouble (maybe a few months old) at WP:ARS. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresenting me

Why do you misrepresent what I wrote in such a simple-minded way? I never suggested we should not speedily delete material reasonably suspected of copyright infringement. What I said was that we should not label the deleted material "blatant copyright infringement" when we can't be sure it is copyright infringement. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• It must be because I'm so simple minded. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)