User talk:Tznkai/Archive 4

Respite

I have not been able to fulfill your request to refactor my statement at the J&S case [1], due to the workload I received when several editors focused their efforts on me. Will take care of it today or tomorrow, if that's OK with you.

Re: Questions

Hi Tznkai! Can you please clarify what questions you are referring to? Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the current status of the content dispute? I understand that consensus guidelines are (or were) being developed; are we close to seeing results in that effort? If progress has been made, would the parties prefer that the case remain dormant pending a resolution of the community effort, or should we press forwards with drafting rulings regardless? Kirill [pf] 01:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for readers

To anyone who reads this and can work their way around an image, I need a logo created for a new cabal I am forming:Stylish Wikipedians Against the Manual of Style, or SWATMOS. Together we will stand together against the tyranny of the Manual of Style and its authors. I'm thinking a Wikipedia globe in a fabulous hat.--Tznkai (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S Yes, I'm actually quite serious about this.

As I am an editror under review

I would appreciate you asking some arbitrator to look at Susya. I deeply dislike edit-warring, and have never done so since learning the ropes. I've spent some time on that page building it, and want quality sources. The conflict is with an editor who systematically elides a UN document in favour of the version of events in a settlement's Hebrew webpage, and uses a dating system not appropriate to the English encyclopedia. I see this as a policy conflict, WP:RS as I understand it does not allow for high quality official sources like UN databases to be cancelled in favour of an alternative set of facts available on partisan websites that do not formally qualify as RS. That explains my behaviour. If I have, in reverting the other editor, exceeded what is proper, I'll take whatever sanction is appropriate. That this should occur during the ARBCOM case is of some distress to me. (I am not calling for sanctions or review of the other editor's behaviour. All I want clarified is whether a blog's evidence can be used to cancel out evidence from a UN official document). RegardsNishidani (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think this is an WP:RS issue, do as I suggested to you, twice, and take it to the WP:RSN Noticeboard. There's nothing in WP policy that says the Hebrew calendar date can't be used alongside Gregorian calendar dates. More importantly, the UN source you insist on including does not say what you claim it does, as more than one editor pointed out to you on the article's Talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You evidently haven't read the UN documentation which gives the precise date of May 1983 for the establishment or beginning of the establishment of the Susya settlement.

I don't take UN documentation to the WP:RSN because every wikipedian knows what the outcome would be. It qualifies superbly. To claim otherwise, and insist that we waste time in going through a bureaucratic hassle with an obvious result is ridiculous. One should not tangle up work in wikilawyering that has lost all purchase on the obvious. This encyclopedia can only function efficiently if the rules are not used to create endless, futile equivocations. If you, to the contrary, believe, against all commonsense, that the private webpage of a minor West Bank settlement, cofounded by the righthand man(Bentzion Heinemann) of someone with a criminal record (Moshe Levinger), is compliant with WP:RS, you should ask for input from the WP:RSN board. The burden of proof lies on you.

As to Hebrew dating, I see no practice of using Islamic, Indian, Chinese or Japanese era/dynasty dating throughout wikipedia, and until I do, I will remind you that this is an English encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also have seen this, will work on it when I can.--Tznkai (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

MeteorMaker has added a table to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop - this (highly selective) presentation of facts belongs in his proposal section, if at all. Having it at the bottom of the page implies some neutral endorsement of the figures by WP/ArbCom. Please remove it, or move it to a more proper place. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I did add it to my own proposal section, but it shows up at the bottom anyway. It's not "highly selective", it's pretty neutral (check the data if you want). MeteorMaker (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's selective in many ways, not the least of which is choosing this one particular page, over dozens of others where you and your fellow POV-pushers were by far the most active reverters. But that's neither here nor there. You agree that his is part of your claims and that it needs to be in your section. It is improper to have it where it is now, so if you can't move it to its proper place, then please remove it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried. Better wait for Tznkai (or somebody else knowledgeable) to fix it. It's an integral part of the evidence, so it cannot be removed. For now, I'll add a note and a link to where it belongs. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Side note: When two sides go to edit war, how is it possible for one side to be "by far the most active reverters"? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this, trying to figure it out.--Tznkai (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

done, i think (hope I havent done something i shouldt have) Nableezy (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Magic! I can't even see how you did it. Thanks a lot. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Swamped

I have a big stack of things I need to do in meatspace, and I am very, very busy, so I apologize for the likely dropped balls and delays.--Tznkai (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And now that its been officially announced, I expect the Audit Subcommittee to take up a fair amount of my Wikipedia allotted time.--Tznkai (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, BTW. I'm glad you liked my rules,and didn't mind me adding them. I even added them to my userpage. Of course, they didn't help in my RfA LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit at the proposal regarding deceased Wikipedians

This disgusting comment is unworthy. Please refactor. Frankly your intimation of "socially incompetent" is laughable when you are clearly the person who exhibits incompotent qualities within that remark. Disgraceful. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at page talk.--Tznkai (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have replied and am still disgusted with your attitude. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

It's very important that you not censor discussion on Abortion. Please. Don't make me ask again. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence talk page

Sorry, I know you're busy, but I wonder whether anything can be done about this comment which someone posted on the evidence talk page. I hate to see a party to an arbitration case having to endure this sort of comment, on top of the many personal remarks by various people on the same page. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Emperor has no clothes

A big problem with the current arbitration committee is that it's a resource hog. Too many of the people with checkuser ops are arbitrators who have no time to process checkuser cases. Too many of our experienced admins are serving as arbitration clerks, instead of providing enforcement in the difficult dispute areas.

What we need to do is have fewer arbitration cases, and do a better job enforcing the ones that are handled. This would reduce the need for disputes to return to arbitration again and again. Take Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology as an example. Lack of admins to enforce the earlier case caused a second case to be filed, which has consumed a huge amount of resources. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What, precisely do you expect me to do about it?--Tznkai (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that you'd continue to help out at WP:AE, and encourage others to do so as well. What were you thinking? Jehochman ^Talk 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I had put it back on my watch list the previous week, but even when I was active, I never touched 9/11 matters. I will give serious consideration to becoming active in AE again as my schedule frees up, but I am truly and well convinced that it is a hell hole.--Tznkai (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That it is. We should make T-shirts, or something... Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just noticed this discussion accidentally. I happen to agree that there are too many arbcom cases at the moment, and I think it might be worth thinking about what if anything can be done to prevent these disputes escalating to the point where they are left at arbcom's doorstep.
• Clearly, there's a good number of people who like escalating disputes, feeling that once it gets to arbcom, "arbcom will sort it" and ban or penalise their opponents. Some disputes may be so hopelessly engrained that taking a hammer to them is indeed the only thing that can reasonably be done. But even so, I think we could do more to prevent disputes forming, by using mediators and/or facilitators preventatively and not only when the shit has already hit the fan. If you have any ideas how this might be work, and whether it could be useful, I've started a thread at Village Pump proposals, see [2]. Cheers, Jayen466 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Belated response

... at User talk:SandyGeorgia#MoS; sorry for the delay, but real life hasn't given me a break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse

I'm just curious here. I don't like drama, and most assuredly do not like being a party to it. But didn't you think it would have caused more drama to block? Thank you for listening to us and unblocking though. Synergy 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the opinion this was pretty open and shut application of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I was mistaken, it happens.--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're probably right, but given the circumstances... you also keep a cool head. Best. Synergy 22:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Peace-making is the first step in right-making." "Sometimes you're wrong." "It can happen to you." "The more time you spend talking, the more likely you've already said something stupid." I try to take my own advice.--Tznkai (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I don't think the unblock has worked (see Mattisse's talk page; it doesn't show in my recent changes either). Would you try again? Jayen466 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

on it.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't use the tools that often myself, but one thing I've learned is don't step on another's toes when you are using them. And ArbCom wears pretty big sneakers ... all the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Attitude

Hi! I'm not new to wikipedia by any means, but I am new to it in the sense that I've only been a content contributor in the past, and haven't cared much about policy or organization. As I've been getting more into it, I've been becoming aware of some things I've found troubling. I'm talking to you in particular because I saw your comments on an RFA and figured you were a good person to ask :) Some of the language I've seen in response to questions (for example, at User talk:Wiki libs, in various places - for example, when someone is accused of being drunk) don't seem to be entirely appropriate for setting a good example for newcomers/confused users. As they say, it takes two to tango... but if I'm misinterpreting what's appropriate and what isn't on wikipedia, I'd like to be told.. Thanks! (I'm watching here so you can respond here)Luminifer (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific?--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I could, but I didn't want to point fingers and thought it would be somewhat obvious. Luminifer (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This topic ban!

Isnt KB supposed to be on one at the moment as well?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Addressing--Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and for looking into it.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=288906534&oldid=288903331.
Thanks, Tznkai. :-)
AGK 17:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

When you come online, please get in touch.

Ping me on IRC, if I'm on, when you get the chance, eh?

I'd like your advice on something.

AGK 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Baronets_naming_dispute

Hi Tzanki,

How long will the arb request go on for? regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Kmiec article

Nice start, Tznkai. I've asked User:Non Curat Lex, whom I've bumped into in the past working on law-related articles, to pitch in as well. He was exceedingly patient with a new editor who was very problematic in my opinion, so dealing with this article should be a piece of cake comparatively speaking. Risker (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dishonesty

Those who are honest have nothing to hide. Jehochman ^Talk 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove or close threads. That is what adds to the heat. Such as this action. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Speak for yourself!

"Ban the lot of us (including the all of us making statements) for treating Wikipedia as a battleground." Ha! I think I made it clear that I was more a Red Cross member running across that battlefield trying to put people who were blown apart back together again. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with Satori

Hi - I'm very sorry for involving you directly - in fact, if you can point me at the best place to do this (I looked on dispute resolution, but everything there looked too formal - at this point, I think). If you look at the page for Satori (album), a user (whose page I can't link to because it's Japanese text and I'm not sure how to do that) had been consistently removing almost the entire text of the page - including some very well referenced sections. The first time he did it, I thought it was vandalism, undid it, and said "please discuss on the talk page". He then came and undid my edit - without discussing on the talk page. I undid _this_ (maybe I was in the wrong here?), and mentioned in that edit comment, as well as on his talk page, that he should discuss on the Satori page why he wants to remove it all. He instead undid it AGAIN, saying it's all subjective (despite the fact that it is NOT subjective, and it is also referenced). He also posted on my talk page telling me not to touch his talk page again. I am at a loss for what to do at this point, thanks. If you don't want to get involved and can point me at the ideal form (I have contributed to wikipedia for years but never get involved at this level), that would be great too. Thanks! Luminifer (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Havn't gotten to this, but I will do so ASAP, unless someone dives in for me. Sorry its taken so long.--Tznkai (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked this over and it looks like a new user who needs to be shown the ropes. I'll see what I can do.--Tznkai (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- if you look at his contribs (and then look at the histories there), you can see he/she has a history of removing large quantities of material - he even undid Wiki Alf's reversion of his removal, but someone else reverted THAT reversion. Good luck, and thanks! Luminifer (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - just a heads up. A certain user we've discussed before has removed a reference, with little explanation, from the Yellow Magic Orchestra page... Since if I try and explain things to him, I get yelled at (by him), I was hoping you would intervene again, since you were good last time..Luminifer (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Will get to this soon.--Tznkai (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't blank AN/I Sections.

Warning. Do not blanking pages, such as you did to the threat section on AN/I. Either mark it resolved, which it is not, or leave it to peopel willing to resolve it. ThuranX (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response on ThuranX's page.--Tznkai (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The good(ish) old days

Yup, I remember it well. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the I-don't-know-what in the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

ArbCom remedy

Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Tznkai has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention the links to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you specifically

ArbCom findings of fact included:

• 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:

• 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

• 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.

If you want to discuss this off-wiki, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address.. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look at this if it isn't moot already.--18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, looking over this a bit more, let me try to respond. I'm not sure if its some sort of language barrier, or just your style, but your writing is a bit dense, and its hard to track exactly what it is you're getting at, but let me give it a shot. Generally speaking, Arbcom wants you to get someone else to work on your behalf to help you with what to say, when to say it, and how to say it. If you would like me to do it, I am probably not going to be available for formal mentoring. I am however, willing to help out more informally.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vitagekits/Charlie Zelenoff

I have asked that Vintagekits, and whatever other editor name he may be using, be banned from editing the Charlie Zelenoff article which has been deleted for the third time. He has stated he looks forward to it being reposted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard

Last time I checked, this was taken care of.--Tznkai (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A little more explanation, please?

After doing some research, I figured out what you meant with your statement on User talk:Parsecboy (I watchlist his talk page because we're both active at WP:RM). However, in the future, could you provide a little more explanation with statements like that? What seems obvious to you may not seem obvious to others, and a little more detail (why it was salted, etc.) would have been nice. Regards, --Aervanath (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

If you would care to explain how Wikipedia was disrupted by the helpful reminder of community norms in my hatnote, please do so. Otherwise, please retract vague comments and patronizing instructions that my contribution was " pointy" (whatever that means). Thanks. Geometry guy 05:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You misused standard "see also" notices to make a point, giving your argument the imprimatur of neutrality and consensus, which it did not have. If you want to say, "This is CREEPy and BUREAUCRATIC" and sign your name to that opinion, you are more than welcome to. Sure, its not as clever, but it is fundamentally more honest and helpful.--Tznkai (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A see also does not assert any opinion. You have failed to explain how it was disruptive, and have further questioned my honesty. That this is process creep was the least of my concerns. Anyway, it seems increasingly obvious that this proposal is dead in the water, so the issue is moot. Geometry guy 06:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See also example of implication and transparency. I believe that will make my point sufficiently, and if not, I will try again.--Tznkai (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I find it interesting that you call this [3] a personal attack, yet you find this acceptable [4]? - Josette (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't find that acceptable at all.--Tznkai (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This handles it quite well in my opinion.--Tznkai (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not well enough, the statement stills stands and that is unacceptable. - Josette (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The undo button is your route to go then.--Tznkai (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-righteous? Have you ever checked out my contribs? That does not apply to me. More to you I'd say. - Josette (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

NPA again

Would you mind taking a look at these comments, [5] [6] [7] and deciding whether they're personal attacks? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cancel that. Someone else has looked at it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Commune

Do not understand deletion of The Commune page, given that its publications, reactions and references are at least the equivalent of many other far left groups with Wikipedia pages. The page has been recreated several times, but is a monthly paper not worthy of an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communismfrombelow (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the deleted versions of the article, none of them had any indication that the topic was notable. Please read WP:Notability for more information on that guideline. If you can write an article which demonstrates notability, then a good place to do so would be at a subpage of your user page, for example User:Communismfrombelow/The Commune, and then request that an admin review it to see if it might meet the criteria. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor:Ched's Helping Hands

Please give User:Buster7/Wikiknights a look. I started working on it soon after I got here. It explains my feelings about "newbies"...:~}...--Buster7 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of moving, but I will get to it ASAP.--Tznkai (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Attack on Slim Virgin

You were right to remove this. Someone put it back, and I removed it again, and added an xplanation on the talk page. Feel free to ad to my explanationif you think what i wrote was inadequate. And please keep an eye on this. You did the right thing and ought not to be reverted. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Why please am I topic banned? What is the cause and the objective? I wish to appeal it. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason: Conflict of interest and inability to work with others of diverging viewpoints in the topic area. Objective: clear the decks for Arbitration, or failing that, quarantine topic area from users shown unable to edit objectively and without disruption, seccondary objective: separate users with established disruptive interaction cycle. Discussed more here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed vintagekits was counting down to the end of his ban. He then made numerous disruptive page moves. So I reported this to AN/I. What should I have done? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How many pages did I move? How many page move did you consider disruptive? What exactly did you feel was disruptive about them?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing this or anything else with vintagekits. Nor am I interested in his topic bans. He seems keen to engage with me but there is no point in my interacting with him. But it would seem that the second objective is not entirely succesful. I resent being bundled together with him when our conduct and COI etc are quite different. What is the COI? What is the disruptive editing on my part? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've baited him in the recent past, whether by malice or incompetence I care not which - and you, by my read and the read of several others, are unable to separate your personal feelings on Baronetcy and Baronets from your editing and behavior. In fact, I would go far as to say that your direct conflict of interest in the perception of your family's, and your editing on the articles of members of your family, is less problematic than your use of Wikipedia as a battleground for your and Vintagekits' grudge. I am not sure how much of it is personal, and how much of it ideological, I suspect an even mixture of both, but I believe your judgment to be sufficiently compromised, and in that particular case, your behavior and Vintagekits' is exactly the same.

At least he has been mostly content with decrying me and the admin corp a couple times on his talk page, instead of attacking my objectivity and bothering me me when I was on a declared break.--Tznkai (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in baiting vk or engaging with vk or what mostly contents vk. I have no more grudge against vk than you do against a mosquito; he is not of interest. Nor are most boxers. Nor do I accept that I have personal feelings about Baronets or their distant relations which adversely affect my editing. If you have a different opinion then I wish you would draw it to my attention so that I may improve my wiki-conduct. Is it suggested that I have done something wrongly which I should have done differently? If so, what and when and what should I have done? What I am interested in is improving wikipedia. Your topic ban makes it hard for me to make numerous beneficial edits. And it confuses me because I don't see how it helps wikipedia. Vk had previously mass-moved many pages on baronets (for whatever reasons) and numerous discussions were opened all over the place. He was told that these should be centralised in one place. When his recent one year ban ran out, he did the identical same thing again. I reported it to AN/I. Was that an error? If so why? What else should I have done? Why do you think my judgment is compromised? In what particular case is my behaviour and vk's exactly the same? You are making assumptions (based on I know not what) but not helping me to understand your thinking so as to benefit wikipedia.

I have now read your statement "Perhaps more significant, is that I, and others, is unwilling to consider Vintagekits the sole problem in any of these incidents, and one does not solve the abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground by letting one side carry the field." My answer to that the problem arose when vk's topic ban on baronets expired. He sees that area as a battleground. His approach to wikipedia is contumacious; mine is not. He went straight back into an old battle which was not there in his absence. Furthermore the effect of this topic ban on me is quite different from the effect of it on vk because he has no interest in the topic whereas it is virtually the only topic that I edit.

Generally speaking on Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on the accuser or administrator to create sufficient reasoning to enforce editing restrictions on a user. We do so for various reasons, a liberal philosophical tradition and the way that a wiki works: To quote from Jimbo's user page "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny." and "'You can edit this page right now' is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." Kittybrewster ☎ 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I will have to come back to this later, as a lengthy set of questions tends to result in a lengthy reply.--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Soon. I've had a car accident and a death in the family on top of an already busy schedule.--Tznkai (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My sympathies - and I hope you're alright! Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 03:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in fact ok, just busy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To the original topic, Kittybrewster, I realize that this is your topic area of greatest interest, but I've been thinking about a good answer, and the best I can come up with is this: we're both wasting time here. It seems at the end of the day, I'm convinced that both you and Vintagekits are to blame for a series of Wikipedia-as-battleground incidents, and you do not. From where I sit however, when he went straight to his old battleground, you welcomed him back in kind - and the fact is on Wiki experienced users are expected to do better than that. Some sort of attempt at peacemaking is best, or some sort of dialogue or somesuch. When you ran straight to an admin and then AN/I to get the topicban reinstated, it showed me that you are not interested (probably because you believe it is impossible) in working together with Vintagekits - and possibly others who share his viewpoint. You see it as more Vintagekits' fault, but from my chair, you're both beyond the cutoff. Please remember, my job is to not create parity, equity, equality, or even justice, though I flatter myself and think I can produce it in my own life on occasion. No, I am an administrator not a philosopher-king, and at the end of the day Wikipedia needs no one, not you, Vintagekits, or I, more than it needs a productive working environment as a whole.

When I was involved with Vintagekits' topic ban, at the previous round with the Baronets and troubles bans, I can tell you that they worked to great effect, maintaining him in a topic of interest - despite his protestations of injustice. I hope you can find something you're interested in as well outside your original main content. Try stretching outwards a little - perhaps the history of the British Parliament as a whole, and our articles on parliamentary procedure need to be updated badly and are Americentric. I sincerely hope you good luck in your endeavors.--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your saying that you realize you are banning me from my topic area of greatest interest. I had not known you knew that. The reason it amounts to a general block is because you interpret it to cover all the great and the good (and the parliamentary) - because they are all iinter-related. I am unable to distinguish the edges of the ban. So I will resist editing at all until the ban on me expires. I can't really be bothered to work out who is covered and who is not. I don't understand it or the purpose. I find it too difficult. I am not interested in being pushed or sucked into a fight with Vintagekits or anyone else as you suggest, let alone over multiple articles. Bad game - it makes wikipedia into a battleground. I am only prepared to leave it to others to sort out disruptive editors. Why I should edit areas of no interest to me, I do not know. Your abrogation of moral responsibility is not my business. When and if your ban does expire, I guess I will avoid taking anything to AN/I. Meanwhile wikipedia scores another win. Yes? Kittybrewster ☎ 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope so.--Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When does your topic ban expire? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the 3rd of November. I will check again later, but certainly in that vicinity.--Tznkai (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear that from? I cant wait to get stuck into these issues again.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement on the secret vote thingy

Were you done with your statement and just forgot to endorse yourself and leave the section for it, or are you still working on it? — Coren ^(talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I had in fact forgotten.--Tznkai (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS elections

I'll reply here to combine two things: First of all, sorry, I didn't know it was restricted to clerks, I didn't read it anywhere. I just wanted to spare someone the job of doing it but of course I will not do so if I'm not allowed to. I hope no harm was done. As for the vote by Barras (talk · contribs), while I of course am happy for any vote in support, I thought Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections specified that the required number of edits had to be made prior to 15 June 2009 (while Barras made all of them in July 2009). Just out of curiosity (I won't touch votes anymore, rest assure), does this requirement apply to mainspace edits on en-wiki or is it okay if they are made on another wiki? Regards SoWhy 06:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking its best if you don't clerk an election you run in as to the second, you may be right about that, but we may make an exception anyway - I'll confer.--Tznkai (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I won't touch those pages anymore except to vote and to answer or ask questions. Have fun clerking them all Regards SoWhy 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No vote at CU/OS elections

Hi Tznkai, didn't know there was any restriction to voters. Just wanted to get a bit more involved, but having only the more experienced users as voters is probably for the best. Thanks for the message. Cheers, Pim Rijkee (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! While your vote won't be tallied, your voice is still heard.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. It is sad that Aitias seems unable to stay on-topic and not nitpick at irrelevant things in the discussion. Majorly talk 00:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility discussion

I would very much appreciate your thoughts and considerations on User:Buster7/Incivility especially the sections from Safe Harbor down.--Buster7 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do my best to get to it soon, but I will be without internet for all of tomorrow and possibly most of the week.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Back online, on my list for tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient mainspace edits?

You've removed my vote counts because I don't have "sufficient mainspace edits". I would like it if you could explain what do you mean by that. I'm not sure how many mainspace edits are necessary. Thanks, -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to be eligible to vote, you need to have edited the main article space (any article) 150 times before June 15th 2009. The controlling policy is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections. I hope that clarifies it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. But I didn't realize that earlier. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your objective input is requested on Christianity and abortion

I am currently on the brink of an edit war with a revisionist contributor (User:IronAngelAlice) who wants the Christianity and abortion section to suggest that Christianity has taken a somewhat equivocal and lenient view of abortion. Your objective opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the history. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Re: [8]. I tried to do this myself [9]. Futile, as it was rapidly restored by Roux [10]. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Would you please remove the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Roux.27s_meta_response section please? Or, if Roux's already removed the section header again, the all comments in the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Upsetting_the_car section beginning below my first post in that section? I've been trying to terminate this line of discussion and keep things focused, without success. Roux is very bent on continuing a meta discussion on my behavior and personally insulting me in the process. It needs to stop. Perhaps someone else stepping in and removing it would help. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. [11]. Enjoy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Fascinating that you demand removal of something calling your behaviour into question, isn't it? Ho hum, thus it is with Wikipedia. Amazing that you were bitching about being railroaded out... but it's different when you do it. Tznkai, bad call here. → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My conduct is out of line? But it's okay for someone to disingenuously ask the same question over and over and over and over and over when it has been answered every time? That is the very definition of WP:TE and you know it. This is ridiculous. → ROUX ₪ 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed it under my own discretion actually, and I have no idea the precise history, but I do know that the argument the two of you were having was off topic, personal, and in poor taste. I am avoiding taking sides as much as possible, and I've been avoiding pointing fingers, so could you both kindly drop it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Roux, behavior that is irritating is not necessarily disruptive, and even if it was, it doesn't mean your way of dealing with it is appropriate or productive. Further more TE is an essay that is aimed at content related disputes, which matter way more than RfA.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking the same question over and over when it has been answered is disruptive, and deliberately so. → ROUX ₪ 20:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Then I'm sure you can find an administrator willing to block me. Please note; I'm not taunting you. Attempting to convince Tznkai you are right and I am wrong is pointless, even if you did manage to convince him. I don't see that I've done anything wrong. You do. If you want satisfaction from this, I suggest you follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, or alternatively report me to any of the array of noticeboards available to you to have me blocked. Pursuing this here is not helpful or helping yourself. Please, let's spare Tznkai an ongoing meta debate about yours or my behavior. His talk page isn't the place for it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You repeated the same question over and over, having already been answered. You demanded that others do work you refused ot do yourself. You see no problem with this? → ROUX ₪ 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get into a meta debate about yours or my behavior. Tznkai's talk page is not the place for it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)And hounding them and edit warring with them isn't disruptive? Or is any emotionally tinged response (Don't remove my comments (emphasis added)) justified as a result of the provoking action being disruptive? We don't punish people for being stubborn, and if we do, we shouldn't, and even if we did, you should always seek to FIX disputes, not to make them worse. You appear to be trying to shame Hammersoft into some sort of public contrition, and that does not fly around here, at least not on my watch.

Its worth noting that both of you are way out into the weeds here. Hammersoft, you aren't exactly getting a legion of support, and Roux, you've got no help either. Both of you could use a long break away from the topic. Nothing on RfA changes will happen within 24 hours, if ever.--Tznkai (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I did attempt to fix the dispute. He kept on whining about making people do work he wouldn't do himself. So y'know, whatever. Again on Wikipedia: as long as you're relatively 'nice' about it, you can get away with anything. But woe betide people who actually speak their minds. → ROUX ₪ 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've warned Roux to stop the personal attacks. One more, and he's blocked. His behavior is absolutely beneath what I know to be his high intelligence and ability. His neurotic need to bait others is NOT ON. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did you just warn me for making personal attacks while insinuating that I'm childish and flatly stating I'm neurotic? Physician, heal thyself. → ROUX ₪ 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Attack Hammersoft again. I'll admit to my errors; my patience is failing, and I'm not modeling best practices. You're right to criticize me, but you're wrong to attack anyone. So am I. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't attack Hammersoft, so there's that out of the way. 'Not modeling best practices'... now there's a laugh. You made specific attacks about my maturity and my mental health in the process of threatening me with a block. Do you not see the enormous problem and conflict of interest there? → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• (To Tznkai) If asking people to provide evidence of a problem before postulating a solution is being way out in the weeds, then I'll be quite content to stay in the outback. Other people have found veracity in the comments I've made, among them User:WereSpielChequers, User:Protonk and User:Christopher Parham. The discussion between myself and Roux derailed. When it did, I stopped responding to his comments in specific. I acknowledge and apologize for my role in fanning the flames of the derailment. I attempted to correct that by removing comments and refocusing discussion. That failed. That's why I asked for help here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Believe me, trying to shame people into seeing the errors of their ways doesn't "fix" problems, it makes them. Case in point, we're wasting a lot of time discussing this interpersonal dispute instead of the merits and flaws of the topic at hand. Niceness isn't about getting away with anything, it has a lot more to do with being effective or ineffective.--Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Which, of course, is why you and GTB are trying to shame me...? Mmmhmm. → ROUX ₪ 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, inexplicably, it works. If it doesn't, I'm happy enough to block you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. So what you mean is that you can shame people as much as you like, but us plebes aren't allowed to? Gotcha. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not going to speak for GTBacchus, but I am going to say that I am not trying to shame you, but explain things that may sink in when you're calmer. I am also not what I'm doing on a high traffic page. That is not a small difference.--Tznkai (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually perfectly calm. I use language very specifically to get my message across--in this case, outright contempt for Hammersoft's actions, and those of GTB. → ROUX ₪ 21:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The contempt you feel is not an adequate reason to do anything. We do not justify conduct on the originating emotion or opinion. At least, I try not to, and neither should you.--Tznkai (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The contempt came after much conversation which was basically a lot of verbiage covering his obstinate refusal to a) stop asking the same question over and over again (people have been blocked for doing that, so don't try saying it's not disruptive), and b) do any of the work he was demanding of others. I note you still haven't commented on GTB's abuse. → ROUX ₪ 21:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I havn't commented because on his abuse because I don't believe it is abuse. You havn't made an adequate case. If and when you do, I think you know the proper forum.--Tznkai (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not abuse to personally attack another editor while threatening them with a block for personal attacks? Seriously? → ROUX ₪ 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough is enough, Roux, get off my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I shall, but isn't it interesting how you get mad at me, but your fellow admin who did the same thing he threatened me with a block for...? Nothing. Hmm. Sorry for cluttering up your page, but you made a bad call without paying attention to the situation. So it goes. → ROUX ₪ 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• And I'm leaving too. I'm sorry this spilled over onto your talk page. I hope the flames die down. :( --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mutual trouting

Nothing personal. I just noticed you have a userbox for the trout if you act in a trollish, or dickish fashion. In the spirit of fairness, I award myself with one as well. We're here for the same purpose. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bob the Wikipedian

I've responded to your very clever question. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will hold off on making my !vote for a while yet to let the other two candidates submit their answers. (Don't want to give away my own position and make anyone feel pressured one way, or appeared to have been pressured one way)--Tznkai (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that there actually is a hint of what your position is in your "Personal policies" section.. at least with regards to whether or not to block anyway. That was an excellent question I may also add.. one of the best I've seen so far, perfect for judging an applicants ability to problem-solve. I look forward to seeing more in the future. And thank you for the support !vote, I realize I was rather terse with my answer and I will definitely heed your advice regarding correcting bad behavior. Thanks again. Regards, œ^™ 19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I didn't touch on the BLP issue is because I didn't even think of it. However, I do understand that the BLP issue is a very touchy issue right now. My views on it aren't shared by many, but if you would like to know them I'd be happy to share. The way I see it, every living person has the right not to appear in Wikipedia. When I create an article on a living person, I always contact them first and present the information I will publish and await their approval before uploading it to Wikipedia, similar to requesting permission for a copyrighted image. I do not expect anyone to follow the same rule I do for (what seem to me) obvious reasons.

I do not believe it is appropriate to include any personal details on a BLP. For example, the state of Obama's grandparents is no one's business, and his daughters (he realizes this as well) need no attention from the media. There is a lot to be said for privacy.

Because BLP is a very gray area (even for me), I avoid such areas of Wikipedia, just as I avoid articles like United States of America or Turkey. I have contributed to Laos, although it was only for the purpose of reverting vandalism. You may notice I edited an article recently on Bishop Gettelfinger of Evansville, IN. (I was very pleased with the privacy given him on that page, btw.) This was only to remove a link which appeared twice on that page, and I had planned to remove any of the false slander which has arisen over the past year or so, but was pleased to find no such slander. I do not have a problem with the facts being stated, it is lies that I have a problem with, so in the case of Sarah Palin that you mentioned, further research would be required on my part before I could make the call whether it was slander or fact.

Thanks for showing your support! Your interrogation wasn't too vague, hard, or insulting; rather, it had a very practical application...I really appreciate that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Request re. Arbcom

Would you kindly hold off on this request,[12] at least for now, as being subsumed by ArbCom's considering the matter elsewhere, as commented on here[13]? Also, I would appreciate if you retract your standing threat to sanction me for petitioning ArbCom. I'll save my discussion of this for the ArbCom board where it is taking place, but it is up to ArbCom, not visiting administrators, to decide who they will listen to on a matter and who may speak there. It is hardly an oversight for ArbCom to decide, as the vast majority of adjudicative bodies have throughout the world, that their doors are open to all petitioners with standing, and that the subjects of an order may discuss the order and its violation. You may disagree, and Arbcom could decide otherwise, but as you can see from many of the comments made already it is in no way a logical extension of a no-contact order that parties to the order cannot report its violation. Please note the contradiction between your proposal that I am not free to "reply to reports about the other user", and your invitation for me to participate in the discussion about your proposal. One other thing. I note, in reviewing your recent history and comments you do not seem to be fully acquainted with this case and may be trying to fit us into a preconceived theory you have about the role of Arbcom and the parties there (per your removing the tag from your user space essay), as in your request that I refrain from articles about politics. That has never been suggested, and my article edits and talk page participation are under no dispute here. Quite the contrary, I am a problem solver in some of Wikiepdia's thorniest places - I just yesterday created Nonpartisan (American organizations) to try to break a logjam that has affected dozens of politics-related articles for years now. So please, don't take a position without tracking down the diffs and the editing history. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom can handle the request when they get around to it - and I'm merely informing you that I think a reasonable interpretation of your restriction includes reports, which is well within administrator discretion, as described in my request for clarification. You are welcome, and in fact encourage to respond to me, since you and I have no interaction restriction, and you can disagree with my interpretation. That doesn't change that I am exercising reasonable discretion, and ArbCom is free to do with that what they will. You shouldn't read to much into my user contributions, I am not really quite sure what you're getting at besides.--Tznkai (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be more explicit. That request that would bar me from filing ArbCom requests is being dealt with at the new ArbCom case filed by Sandstein, and is also mentioned in the original AE page, so I don't want to deal with a third fork, as a separate request for clarification. Please don't unilaterally block me for good faith participation there. Beyond derailing and stigmatizing a strong productive editor, that would create a fourth fork for the very same question. ArbCom alone decides which cases it will hear and from whom, not administrators minding the ArbCom page. Barring parties from participating in cases about them is an extreme remedy, and violates every principle of how hearing bodies decide cases. I don't think you are up to speed on the Obama articles, the ArbCom case, or what's happened since the decision. That you could say you are "unimpressed" with my displeasure over being compared to Hitler, or suggest that I should stop editing politics articles, is so out there I can't even get a grip on it. My article edits and talk page participation are not under any challenge here.

I note the comment in your responsive essay here:

In the end AE is dispute management instead of dispute resolution. Disputes are handled by attempting to contain the dispute, not resolve it: quarantine the involved users, send them off on blocks for short periods at a time and isolate them from certain pages... A large part of the work of arbitration enforcement is managing the abuse of the Arbitration enforcement board itself....

I don't want to read too much into it, as you say, but this suggests that you don't see ArbCom's role as fixing problems occurring outside of ArbCom, but instead to pen off "problem editors" in an "entrenched dispute" (your terms) over content matters. Do you mean to classify me as a "problem editor" or someone in an "entrenched dispute" who is abusing Arbcom to fight a content dispute and needs a time out? Please don't jump to those kinds of conclusions. Where is the content dispute? I filed the enforcement request in the sole venue afforded me, to deal with a problem that was derailing my attempts to improve an article where I have made more than a hundred edits to date. I'm a problem solver, and I had just made a pretty significant breakthrough that seemed to have the approval of all there. If there were no violations of the sanctions, or if the violations didn't personally affect me, I would have no need to file a request. When it does my sole recourse is ArbCom. Please let ArbCom have its say, that's its job, and see where that takes us. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Because ArbCom serves as the body of last resort in dispute resolution, I never read any restriction short of a full site ban as restricting arbitration directly on point. The mutual interaction restriction is not being addressed by arbcom right now. It is entirely possible that I am not being clear or sensible about it, so you should feel free to ask and argue on the AE thread, where this belongs. As for the discussion on my essay, it is what, a year old now? It, like anything I write about long term trends and general behavior is never meant to apply to specific people.--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tznkai. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Many apologies... —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've answered; apologies once again for the delay. I must say that I was quite impressed with the question! I hope that you continue to ask it or a similar question in future RfAs. Cheers, —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of making hypos a regular feature.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on your support !vote: [14] —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You win... your very own trout!

This one is all yours. I toned down the hyperbole. I agreed to disagree. Yet you persist in nitpicking my comments. I mean, really, really nitpicking. The "secret" thing? Honestly. What is your deal? Hiberniantears (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have an honest disagreement with what you're saying, the way you're saying it, and the way you're filling up a forum that is best served by restraint and decorum. I want to credit you with toning down the hyperbole, but statements like "You disagree with the reality" still leave much to be desired. I think you have trouble distinguishing between ArbCom and everyone else who is disagreeing with you and other people. I think you've shown yourself remarkably unresponsive to the multitude of people who have called issue to your behavior. I believe administrators need to maintain the highest level of decorum and behavior, especially in learning how to disagree honestly but reasonably, and I believed that irresponsible rhetoric is not only inappropriate in articles but in meta-discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe you actually have difficulty reading nuance because you keep slightly missing the point of what I'm saying. "You disagree with the reality" is significantly different than "You disagree with reality". It appears you think I'm saying "You disagree with reality", which would imply Will had a weak grip on reality in a general sense. "The reality", on the other hand, references the idea that Will disagrees with the situation as it actually is, rather than what I was saying. He and I are in agreement, and were simply coming at it from different directions. You'll note we went on to agree with each other in the thread. As it happens, you're now the one lacking restraint and decorum. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked what my deal is - and I've responded. I will note however, that I may in fact, know what I am talking about.--Tznkai (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Answers to test questions, please

I came across RFA and your Palin question. Here are my thoughts, along with questions.

1. No response to an ANI post for 48 hours is highly unusual.
2. IP user (claims to be Palin family member) may be cautioned about 3RR, COI, and to refer to policies and guidelines in discussing edits, not making accusations of another user being a staffer absent proof and proof obtained not by stalking.
3. Accused staffer may be cautioned about 3RR, COI, and the use of RS, especially in high profile articles.
4. QUESTION FOR YOU: What should admin do about COI by people unrelated to this question. Topic ban them? Warn then block them?
5. What would you do about User C, if anything? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer my own thoughts on the hypo after ed17 writes something up.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made a lengthy post on WT:RFA, but i'll answer your questions quickly: 1. I believe the bot actually archives before 48 hours, so this part was actually an error on my part. It was supposed to demonstrate that sometimes no new information is forth coming and you're on your own - in addition, many of the issues may have gone stale. 2 and 3 are addressed more in the linked thread 4. Handling COIs is very tricky. OTRS confirmation is a good way to go - generally speaking, I look at COI as a heightened scrutiny issue. These editors need to be watched more carefully than others to make sure they don't make poor judgment calls at the same time, they need to be treated with respect because of how close to home things are, and how much potential damage to their actual lives wikipedia could potentially do. COI is an issue that requires a lot of hands on interactions by the admin. 5. I would publicly note on the thread that such responses are inappropriate and distracting, and are unwelcome on ANI. I would explicitly not threaten/warn user C at the time, but leave such a thing implied. There is a delicate balance in public rebukes between correcting bad behavior and attempts at public humiliation. Thanks for your thoughts!--Tznkai (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It educates everyone, not only admin candidates. About COI, if there is a new user called User:General Motors employee Sam K who starts to write about General Motors, some will say it is a conflict of interest. Is it permissible to topic ban that user from General Motors articles or even block them, unless they disclose their affiliation? In other words, are we supposed to uphold the highest ethical standards in editing? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Handling a COI is a delicate manner, but I would say, that COI should make you suspicious, but not parinoid. For example, some of our best photographs were produced by public affairs officers for the air force. I prefer having reasonable and open COI'd editors and then someone cleaning up after them to maintain tones--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:personal info

Thanks for the notice. I've User:Roger Davies to take care of it. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, its best if personal information removal requests are handled off wiki via e-mail.--Tznkai (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI WMC-Pedro

Not touching the ANI thread, but this was the diff WMC cited on his first reversion of Pedro's close.[15]--Cube lurker (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely, I will regret asking this

Probably, since being careful you no doubt read what I wrote earlier. [16]. Are you happy that Pedro is entirely neutral? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interupting - but that fact that I advised Ottava through diffs that he needs to back off - whilst openly admitting I have no time for you either WMC would seem to put me at the very centre of neutral. Also as I am an admin closing a thread on ANI that was not related to my actions and was not in need of admin input is perfectly fine. Next ? Pedro :  Chat  20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You've made it clear that you won't entertain any suggestion that you were non-neutral. But T asked *me* why I'd said it, so I've told him. Please allow the conversation to continue without further interruption William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My question was fairly open ended actually, but no, I don't want this argument rehashed here, or ever.--Tznkai (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As you said, you'll probably regret it. But you did ask. Now I've asked. So you should answer William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I decline, thanks anyway. Its moot, dead, and otherwise silly to continue at this point.--Tznkai (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So the original question was just prurient curiosity on your part - you had no real interest in the answer, or indeed the issue at hand. It would be better to keep such idle chit-chat off ANI, which is generally rather busy William M. Connolley (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I in fact, did, and do have an interest at the issue at hand, although you and I are likely to disagree about what that is. Upon hearing the answer to my question, and seeing the subsequent events, I was convinced that further pursuit down this line of inquiry is fruitless. I cannot help but think you are aware of the unnecessary and unpleasant combative tone you've taken, although you may not have grasped that it is unnecessary. Kindly desist.--Tznkai (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

This action is heroic, and I salute you for it. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AE result

Hi Tznkai,

I'm not planning to comment on the statements made by A Quest for Knowledge in the result section of the AE request. In my view, this is not the correct place to have such arguments. With regard to my German Wikipedia account (which is also activated on the English Wikipedia), I understand that the AE result is just about activities on the English Wikipedia. If you have any questions regarding Quest For Knowledge's comments, or other matters, please leave me a note at my talk page.  Cs32en  18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en (talk · contribs) has already violated the restrictions. Take a look at the contributions. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

AE comment

With apologies for posting in (technically) the wrong section, you may wish to see the comment I've added at the foot of the page. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Seen it, and duly noted.--Tznkai (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On my ArbCom comment

That's right, ignore the substance, comment on the style. And by removing my statement with your edit, you did what you were telling me I was doing. If that was on purpose, there's a word for that ... but I don't think it was on purpose. Why don't you take a look at those four diffs I provided that show how bankrupt the admin corps is at handling ongoing POV fighting. -- Noroton (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, What? You screwed up, I undid your edit. I didn't undo or fix your second mistaken edit by the way. That was a while ago, why are we still talking about it?--Tznkai (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at those four diffs I provided that show how bankrupt the admin corps is at handling ongoing POV fighting? The entire admin corps screwed up. Recognize it. The screw up is shown in the four diffs I gave, right under your nose. Now I'm waiting for ArbCom to screw up. I'm still here because you're still ignoring the substance of what I said while going to my page to comment on the style. -- Noroton (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from me (and everyone else) having a very limited obligation to listen to any particular person (in this case you), especially when they are apparently not concerned enough about being careful about what they have to say, you linked 4 diffs, two to a 3RR report you filled, and two to statements you made on Lulu's page. I am one of 1000ish active administrators, and somehow, I'm a hypocrite? You haven't really linked your postulates to your conclusion. You probably have a more convincing argument in your head somewhere, but it hasn't reached me yet. I haven't read anything of significant substance to respond to. You're calling all of "us" hypocrites, whoever us happens to be, based on two tentatively related events, and then throwing the responsibility for the failure, whatever the failure happens to be (its unclear, but it appears you have some frustrations with edit warring, and NPOV) on.... everyone? If what I typed here isn't clear, thats because I'm trying to tell you as best I can, I have no idea what you're trying to say. --Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Two different 3RR reports. A discussion on an admins page about LuLu's incivility. A complaint at AN/I that no one was dealing with the second 3RR report. No action (except for the admin's limp suggestion to be civil). No action. And shortly afterward, regarding the same page, a complaint from the other side is handled precipitously. The double standard is clear as day. Now that isn't so complicated, is it? Any admin who acted or commented on one side should consider the complaint of the other side, unless of course, some other admins were dealing with it. Which they weren't. Enforce policies for only one side and you know the result. Participate in any way in that enforcement and you have some obligation to consider the overall picture. Not to do so creates a hypocritical situation -- for which all participants bear some responsibility. Is it so hard to see bias in admin enforcement? -- Noroton (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious retort that you're biased yourself, where do I personally bear any responsibility for this? If you're suggesting that admins, as a whole screw up, we sure do, often. If you're suggesting that many of our articles are not neutral, that sometimes editors get away scott free when they shouldn't, or that admins wimp out of hard problems, yes, all of those things are often true. Let me throw the question back at you, what do you want done about it? Something simple, practical. Give me an action, or even a series of actions that allow me to make this project work like the Utopian promise it implies. Something, preferably, that doesn't require me to take away from the family, friends, and other responsibilities that we should all agree are far and away more important then what I do on Wikipedia. Its easy to rant on about unfairness and to carry on your moral outrage against those in so-called power. It gets a lot harder the moment you realize that these problems are big, they are bad, they are structural, and it takes a lot more brains then moral fiber to fix.--Tznkai (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's largely what I wanted: Your admission of the general failure -- the necessary first step. I don't expect ArbCom or most of the editors commenting on that page to even get there. There is no easy, practical solution for a single admin right now, although if admins on two different noticeboards had responded to a simple case of clear misconduct with some action -- even a warning -- I wouldn't have much of a cause for complaint now. Failure to deal with the simple problem then, simply makes it fester into something more complex and difficult to deal with later. ArbCom could address the problem on the Acorn pages, but I've lost patience and I won't go looking for diffs for some more organized complaint. The Wikipedia-wide problem would need new policy, and it's unrealistic to expect any major new policy to get the necessary consensus, the way policy approval is now. A new policy, if it could ever be implemented, might have elements such as having certain admins at least watching certain articles more closely, and perhaps given some more authority to deal with behavior problems on those pages. Some admins seem to be able to concentrate on the larger POV conflicts, at least for a while. Formalizing that with some direction in terms of clear guidelines on what they can and can't do and investing them formally with some authority would likely make this kind of monitoring easier. A more ambitious change would involve a kind of moderating of discussions, where the moderator decides what consensus is and when it's been reached. There is an interesting comment from someone who's thinking on even more ambitious lines at this WR discussion. [17] I don't know what I think of that, but it's an interesting bunch of ideas. We're far from any new policy. But in general, anything that gets editors concentrating on facts, sourcing, calm logic and the best way to write an article is going to move editors away from POV fights. That's true at any level: editing, enforcement or policymaking.

My outrage stems from lack of recognition of an obvious problem in front of everyone's faces. Thank you for being the first person to tell me you understand there is a problem. -- Noroton (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And basically I'm tired of being screwed over, then screwed over again by admins who can't deal with my polite complaint about it, and told to be polite when I finally lose patience with those who can't or won't deal with it. -- Noroton (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your supposition that we can policy this problem away - we can't, believe me, I wish I could, but I wager that to be approximately as successful as legislating "Parents must love their children." Even if I could snap my fingers and rewrite policy to what I want it to look like, it wouldn't create the right kind of change. What it is, is a cultural problem and a structural problem. Structurally, we're drop-in drop-out volunteers for one, making relying on any particular admin, or even any admin to show up at the right time is difficult. In addition to a lack of heirarchal or even coherent organization, transmission of information, there is actually very low group cohesion as well, never mind what people will tell you. All in all, it feels like admins are everywhere and nowhere, because they are. Its a very imperfect, and its difficult to sort who what where when something had happened, and speaking selfishly, I don't care a lot of the time to do yet another hour of research just to adjudicate a wikipedia fight. I think thats a sign of health.

Additionally, there are cultural problems, that have less to do with policy and more to do with the human condition. For example, we're seeing significant tension between two completing needs. The old, method oriented way of deriving neutrality, and a heightened awareness of the damage that falls through the cracks. The reason there is still a strong focus on conduct is an outgrowth of a strong "let the system take its time and work" culture in the early days of Wikipedia. I still believe, in general, that the system works - but it was easier then, when we all knew that Wikipedia wasn't a Big Deal. Now, most people don't have the patience to wrap their heads around the concept of legitimate disagreement, but tend to devolve to post-modern hand-wringing about the failures and questionable motivations of the other side, or get lost in a tangential personality conversation and that tendency has infected Wikipedia, which quickly becoming accepted as a Big Deal.

Look, I'm trying to say that your frustration is reasonable, but the people you're taking it out on aren't the source or the solution. The problem is widespread, and some of them are inherent, and we will never, never get rid of them all. Life is full of trade offs, and our problems are in large part a product of them.--Tznkai (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On the case at hand: Not one admin could handle what was, really, a pretty simple complaint. I get the very definite impression that when the complaints are against some rightwinger, they get more interest from the admins. On more than one occasion, IIRC, Child of Midnight has been blocked so fast that the block had to be rescinded. I don't monitor AN/I and the other drama boards and it's possible I'm not catching the leftwing blocks, but my impresssion has been that admin treatment has been rougher on the rightwingers. It's possible that something else is going on here -- I certainly see other behavioral differences between the rightwing and the leftwing troublemakers (rightwingers here seem more wild, leftwingers seem to work in groups more, which puts them in a much stronger position). But the difficulty of wading into a big POV fight doesn't seem to have been a problem in getting a lot of rightwingers banned or blocked.

On the broader issue: Given the right rules of the road and some kind of effective means of enforcement, people could be expected to behave much better than they do on Wikipedia, even regarding articles about very controversial topics. We see that happening in other social situations, even when people are involved in hot controversies. That would make enforcement much easier. The right rules of the road would likely be some more formal ways of dealing with editing on more controversial articles.

The people I'm taking it out on could enforce our policies but often don't. I wouldn't mind if they admitted that they can't or declared why they won't, but they either stay silent or insist that everything is working out fine or otherwise evade or start bullshitting. Which leads me to believe that many of them like the POV pushers and the rest are -- what? lazy? clueless? acting like politicians? Who knows. When the POV pushing can be shown to be obvious, then any behavioral violations should be dealt with a little more harshly at first and a lot more harshly with second, third and fourth violations. I see the opposite happening. This situation was an example of it. The system simply does not work with politically controversial articles. But, again, it's not to much for me to ask that simple requests at AN/I and 3RR/N be dealt with, and it isn't paranoid of me to suspect something fishy is going on. -- Noroton (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Question RE AN/I

Was there anything in particular I was doing that needed to be cooled? I was attacked (rather bluntly and egregiously I might add) and I simply asked what the heck the attack was for. Can't say you guys are promoting an atmosphere of openness and contribution. Padillah (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you didn't mean to, but saying "Do you need some tea or a cookie?" is incredibly patronizing. Take a moment, and look objectively at the flow of the discussion. Was your response more likely to make the discussion go better, or worse? If someone is telling you you're beating a dead horse, and they're obviously angry, is your response going to make it worse, or better?--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought offering someone a cup of tea was supposed to be the generic way of informing them they had overreacted and should calm down. I didn't mean "Have a coke and a smile... and shut the f$%k up". I simply meant to convey to them they were severely overreacting to someone that had said exactly one thing. Not to be clueless but I'm not sure there's any amount of thinking that would have made me think that about that statement. (However, now that you've pointed it out I can totally see where that could come across.) OK, point taken. It's getting harder and harder to contribute around here. Padillah (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it. Too many stressed out editors. I suggest working on the food related articles. Food is calming.--Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Not to undermine what you were attempting to achieve, but to hopefully not let further in-wiki disputes to spill from the ANI, I reinstated the comment/sub-threads/whatever you removed. However, in doing so, I have archived the entire discussion to prevent further abuse. Hopefully this is one of those closes that is less objectionable, given the views raised at the bottom. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, and I understand.--Tznkai (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They've reopened it and filed a request for arbitration as well; all in vain I suppose, but at least we tried. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My wrong placement (Casliber)

Thanks for your note. It's misleading when one is directed there and it says "Discuss this", and the thought is that "I must be the first". Could it say "Arbitrator discussion" instead? (If that is the intention.) Tony (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a link to the corresponding section on the talk page, but yes, this time it was very confusing. Maybe they'll make it a "click here to discuss" link instead.--Tznkai (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RFAr

I don't think this helps [18]. There are clearly questions to be answered around the unblock; CoM needs to address this; and it is clearly relevant to the RFAr William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MB has hidden it [19]. This is probably a better solution; CoM and I can continue our little spat, or not, but no-one need see. If you have information on the substantive issue, do please contribute William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

sign block notice?

Hi- do you mind signing this block notice? Otherwise, it looks like I have a real vendetta against that IP :-) tedder (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

done.--Tznkai (talk)

Block

Moved to User talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins

There is a section on the talk page of ADMINS where I mentioned my insertion of honesty, perhaps you could explain there why you do not think that admins should model appropriate standards of honesty? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you put it that way... I've replied on relevant talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to make sure you'd gotten my response to your email. (a reply wasn't really needed, but I just wanted to make sure it hadn't gotten lost in the ether) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I got it.--Tznkai (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Groovy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  03:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

and I continue to be.--Tznkai (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

I am going to make an honest concerted effort to work with you more. I wish more folks had your approach to things here - please feel free to let me know about anything that's going on in the "Help" or "Let's get it right" areas. I'll do my best to help out. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea what I did to deserve that, but thanks! --Tznkai (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad you asked

I think you mean User:Buster7/Incivility.--Buster7 (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hey, I need your help with something. RedJ 17 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RfE

Hello, I added another diff to this page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lapsed_Pacifist if you could have a look please. thanks GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you're on (and unworried...)

I had asked Xeno, but he is understandably reluctant to block someone who isn't contributing given what happened last time (I'd forgotten). Can you please block User:Guitarherochristopher? He simply refuses to stop using his userpage as a blog. He has been warned. → ROUX ₪ 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He appears to be trying get his blog activty off of Wikipedia first. I'll look into it more.--Tznkai (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been doing nothing but editing his blog all day.. and the only reason he's trying to get it off is because I set up a wiki for him a few days ago. → ROUX ₪ 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, Stop Protecing My Userpage. iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R!_-=₪ 02:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

By not complying with our project's policies, you forfeited your right to exercise control over your userpage. I for one would object to lifting the protection, and do support Tznkai's action. AGK 00:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Guitarherochristopher

Hi, I see you protected this page indefinitely as it was being used as a blog. Your action changed nothing, the blog-material is still present, do you mind fixing that?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point

In "Result concerning David Tombe", "... as well as making a thread on ANI complaining about another editor, an a science related proposed guideline ... "[20] is slightly incoherent, and should be fixed, since it is possible that people will wind up arguing about its exact meaning. Cardamon (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Should "an a science related proposed guideline" be "on a science related proposed guideline"? Cardamon (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think so.--Tznkai (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(That has been superceceded by the topic ban afterwards anyway)--Tznkai (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

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

WebHamster

Wow. When they fall, they fall hard, don't they? I'm sad now. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A project you mght be interested in

Hi. I've recently initiated an informal WikiProject which will, in theory, help to support the Wikipedia community and its volunteers. I'm looking for a few people to help me get it off the ground, so feel free to join up! Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. Please help by posting your new ideas! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)

Will try to get to it ASAP.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

General Questions for ArbCom candidates

Hi Tznkai

Thank you for contributing to the questions. We're trying to reduce the size and complexity of the list, to make it a manageable part of the electorion for both voters and candidates (unless the GQs are rationalised, voters will be presented with 36 responses times the number of candidates, plus responses to individual questions). I wonder whether you noticed the one-question-per-user instruction at the top, and whether you will consider asking just one of your two questions. Tony (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you don't mind Tony, could you reword and choose the one you prefer, or at your discretion, eliminate both? I trust your judgment in this matter.--Tznkai (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, thank you; I'll try later today. :-) Tony (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Indirect abortion

There has been bit of back and forth on the talk page for Indirect abortion over whether to use the term "mother" or "pregnant woman" and we're trying to work something out but haven’t really arrived at a conclusion yet and could use more opinions. Please stop by if you've got time. - Schrandit (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

When I first used the term, I had in mind the concept of gestational mother (or mère-porteuse as they say in French). This means to say that even if a pregnant woman is not literally the genetic mother of the child, it is still a valid scientific usage to call that woman a surrogate mother. [21] ADM (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "pregnant woman" because it is more accurate, as we generally accept actual motherhood to begin at birth. (That is, people say, "I am going to be a mother". We use "pregnant woman" in this article.--Tznkai (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not use pregnant person if the carrier is a transsexual or a hermaphrodite ? Would it make a difference if it were a pregnant man ? What if the abortion occurs inside a test tube, isn't that relevant somehow ? Why should we oppose motherhood to personhood, since mothers are people too ? When a fetus is over eight months old, doesn't he already know that I am already a person ? ADM (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to argue the merits of the pro-life and pro-choice positions, as I try to leave that sort of thing at the proverbial door, "pregnant woman" follows both our natural and strict uses of language (a woman the first time pregnant is mother to nobody, few will call her a mother, most will say she is going to be a mother) although I suppose "pregnant female" is better, as by definition, the female of the species is that which is capable of giving birth. The most accurate term is actually "gravid" but it was considered too sterile. As for the hermaphrodites and transexual, the first group is usually sterile and the second group our language (and society at large) essentially ignores (a favorite topic of transexual activist groups I understand). It is impossible to construct language that is more accurate than not that also includes those groups without giving undue weight to what is surely a small grouping. If for some reason an abortion happened in a test tube, it would not be an abortion at all, but something else. --Tznkai (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to emphasize that medically, pregnancy is merely a stage of biological development, and that it is not a permanent biological situation, i.e. females are not merely pregnant people. Abortion is not an issue for most animal species, even though the same type of medical terminology could apply to female cats and dogs. But this is because human women claim to have special needs and rights, including the right to an abortion. ADM (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to chip in my bit - conversation, religion, medicine and the law all say "mother". Unless our source says "pregnant woman" I think our default should be "mother".User:Schrandit

They say both actually, most of the sources I've used (I linked one on the talk page somewhere) uses pregnant woman.--Tznkai (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact by the way, abortion does occur in livestock a fair amount, and miscarriages, which are a sort of abortion, occurs naturally in all species capable of giving birth I am aware of.--Tznkai (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they do, but I don't see how that would impact the current discussion. The one source that I could bring up (at least, in english) that uses the word "woman" only used it to describe women who were without child and did not use the phrase "preganant woman". - Schrandit (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Pedestrian content dispute"

No offence, but if you you were (like me) someone who cared about the veracity and neutrality of Irish history articles, you wouldn't think the Dunmanway killings case was a "pedestrian content dispute". In fact it's the culmination of years of battles to de-pov this article, which until very recently, was going out of its way to justify the murder of ten people.

It is also the leading example of systematic attempt by a small number of users to bully their POV into a large number of articles. See the following. Ulster Special Constabulary, Ulster Defence Regiment, Ulster Plantation, Battle of the Diamond.

And that's apart from trying to dismantle Peter Hart's reputation.

What's going on here is an attempt to insert Irish Republican ideology into all aspects of history articles. Most specifically, denying the existence of sectarian conflict (the British were really to blame) (Plantation, Diamond), denying, or playing down the possibility that Catholics ever did bad things to Protestants (Dunmanway), and as in the USC and UDR articles, playing up the sectarian and reressive aspects of Irish unionism. I am not a Protestant, or a unionist, but this is highly NPOV stuff. It must be brought under control, so that people can at least discuss changes to these articles again.

I can see how this may seem opaque coming from the outside, but if we're to (a) have reasonably neutral and well written Irish history articles and (b) allow people other than a small number of politically motivated users to edit them, then this needs to be sorted now.

Regards, Jdorney (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad argument

So if I quit now, argument over? Thats an offer I'm willing to make, if you and others will abide by it. That is a bad argument for the primary reason that if you resign now and I take the spot and then I or someone else goes inactive in 3 months, we'll be back in the same place or worse. MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I take the seat back under the auspices of traditional resign in good standing? Or we ask ArbCom to appoint one of the complainers.--Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me so much of my class in civil procedure. The first day we were awed by all the rules that we thought would cover every situation, by the tenth week we were convinced there were not enough rules. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There will never be enough rules. This is why judicial discretion is so important, and why people who whine about judges judging things are either ignorant or full of crap. In my un-humble opinion anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI / Giano

Please do not poke the upset bear.

He's overreacting - but calling him on that in an insulting manner is guaranteed to escalate drama.

Please remove or at least strike that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I'm not talking about him.--Tznkai (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby sprot?

Since you blocked a few scibaby socks recently, I wonder if you'd be willing to short-term semi-protect a few articles where he's currently being disruptive? Adaptation to global warming seems to be getting hit hard the last few days with his IP and non-autoconfirmed accounts. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

sprot'd Adaption to global warming. Don't forget RFPP either.--Tznkai (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

Hi there. Thanks for holding the axe a wile even if I taunted enigmaman little. But I have to say it doesnt matter so much. Just accept that Wikipedia cant handle disputed subject involving highly devoted povpushers without destructive conflicts. For example the response of Stellarkid [22] shows no understanding of the problem. About two months he probably just starts again. And Jiujitsuguys ARE is full of inaccurasys and statements far from the request of showing good faith. That itself is a wrongdoing against the discretionary sanctions and should be adressed. His editing here is motivated by a stated will to povpush.[[23] Why he is not banned long time ago baffles me, same for other hasbara activists editing here. Thats why i dont care if Im banned or topicbanned. I give up any hope that Wikipedia can confront the hasbara orchestrated from Israel or by hasbara inspired individuals. Im out editing, returning to use WP as a encyclopedia as before. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, Jiujitsuguy:s love for me shows no limits. So I stay and see what happens. Maybe I open a AE for him or watch someone else do it to get rid of that lovetroll. Cheers. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon indeffed, see his talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Baffled

I find it strange that Stellarkid gets a two month topic ban while Mr Unsigned Anon gets a relative slap on the wrist in the form of a one week block. MUA is a relentless reverter, on a much more insidious level than Stellarkid. However, MUA’s disruptive conduct went well beyond lack of constructive edits and relentless reverts. It included racial profiling, insults and vulgarities spewed in the direction of at least four editors as well as strong evidence of socking. These allegations were meticulously documented in the AE claim that I filed against him (which seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the AE boards It has since re-appeared. I have no explanation). Of note, is that he had not one defender and all agreed that he was a disruptive force. Conversely, Stellar had many defenders, at least equal to his detractors. Your decision therefore is baffling. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Most telling is MUA's first post after the expiration of his block[24] This evidences a clear intention on MUA's part to continue in his disruptive ways. His light sanction merits a second review.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And now this [25] where he hurls yet another insult--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe he has another site account here [26] though it does not appear to be active.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPI for suspected socks.--Tznkai (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please lift your ban

Please lift your topic ban Kittybrewster ☎ 10:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

huh?--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You imposed a temporary topic ban on 4 May against my editing articles relating to baronets. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[27] Kittybrewster ☎ 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the lifting of the ban, but please, Kittybrewster. Now is not the time to dive headlong back into the same editing pattern that led to the ban. You have waited this long, just take it easy and let the current hoohaa settle before easing yourself back in gently and non-controversially. The last thing you want is to get caught up on the Trouble's hysteria again. Rockpocket 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to table this discussion for about 2 days if you don't mind, while we wait for the discretionary sanctions discussion to go through? It is... chaotic.--Tznkai (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is my belief that your topic ban has expired.--Tznkai (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I will go with that then. So what did you mean about "tabling it for discussion" (above) in 2 days? What ARE the rules? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just meant I wanted to wait for a couple days before talking about this, not an actual parliamentary procedure or anything. As far as I know, you're just like any other normal editor with the attendant responsibilities, and no special restrictions of any kind. Certain articles (all of those in the Troubles area) have a 1RR, or one revert restriction that applies to all editors. It'll be on a big banner on the talk page. I'd advise you tread carefully in your old content areas, but that is only my advice. Happy editing.--Tznkai (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is good to hear. Plus I now have the knowledge that I should avoid ANI. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing

Reverting where? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a list on the WP:AE report.--Tznkai (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

made me smile

you can't revert fast enough round here! - besides, I'm more of a face for radio chap :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You and me both.--Tznkai (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare

It looks like Brews may be willing to accept the terms outlined in this diff. (My use of the word 'willing' is perhaps charitable, but we'll let it slide for the moment.) If he abides by the terms described in that diff – no guideline or policy editing, and no articles related to physics, broadly construed – would it be acceptable to lift his current editing restriction? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oop — never mind; you're already on it! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

re. AE request

Hi there, Tznkai. Just my brief two cents regarding your post at AE [28], asking to "stop re-litigating the EEML case and associated issues."

What I'd wanted was some kind of measure to stop Sander from re-igniting EEML issues, as I don't appreciate being falsely called "ethnically prejudiced", as he's already called multiple other editors who'd been having some disagreements with him. Since he's just done this, has a history of doing so, and has been under explicit warning to refrain from doing so from none other than the Arbitration Committee in WP:DIGWUREN, I thought I would take it to the appropriate AE enforcement mechanism to see that this behavior stopped. In response, Sander Säde and his friends reignited the entire EEML case with the usual behavior of besmirching me with stale out-of-context diffs that demonstrate little, if any at all, wrongdoing on my behalf and using the same old diff in order to tarnish me as some kind of POV pusher, merely the latest such attempt, as seen from the diffs subsequently provided afterwards. I made only one recent edit to anything related to Estonia – regarding one paragraph of text I found dubious and asking for page numbers and verification of the source on talk, noting that the material came from a United States-based advocacy group claiming that the trials over Holocaust perpetrators in Estonia were illegitimate proceedings of the Soviet judicial system, and that did not include any page numbers for reference – which prompted him to refer to me as a bad-faith "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" editor, a censor, and an "ethnically prejudiced" POV pusher. As I am naturally tired and exhausted of the Arbitration proceedings, I made only passing reference to WP:EEML in the request for some action in this context that I posted for AE; nevertheless, I am extremely annoyed and outraged by the habitual assumptions of bad faith, the edit-warring mentality, and the personal attacks on Sander Säde's opponents as hate-guided "racists." Thus far, I had by-and-large ignored Sander's and friends' edits, but this is really the last straw, and by no means an isolated instance of harrassment – hence the report about him. If this is not actionable per WP:DIGWUREN, I would like advice on what to do. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get paid enough to sort out the entirety of whatever insanity goes back between you all, but it reminds me of the Hatfield-McCoy feud, with the rest of us poor shlubs sitting in the valley between the cartoon hills. (a Looney toon episode as I recall). What it comes down to is this: I'm not sure who the good guy is. I'm fairly certain there are no good guys, just different levels of bad. Everytime I receive a complaint or comment, it comes pretty much like what you've written above: a combination of article concerns, perspective of real life history, a jumble of links and accusations, and references to wikihistory I took no part in. What you need to do is to distill it down to the barest facts. WHO did WHAT, WHEN, HOW do you want us to handle it and WHY should we?

Also, your name implies to me that you're here to fight battles, and will suggest the same to others. Just an fyi.--Tznkai (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

=Lapsed Pacifist

Continuing discussion at AN/I: [29]. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Userspace BLP

Apologies in advance for stealing your thunder. I experimented with this idea a few weeks ago. It's awfully tedious to do the actual moves and leave notes and tag the bios, but the overall effect seemed to be pretty good. Esp. when only applied to brand new bios, as the author is usually still around and willing to do research. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit more detail would help.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews ohare block

This communication refers to this action initiated by yourself. As you can see here, a number of administrators suggest that I respond by "picking a topic completely unrelated to physics and editing that for a couple of months, and then appealing your topic ban on the basis of good behaviour in those few months?"

Would you consider such action as something you would permit? Would you modify the wording of your prohibition accordingly?

Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See my alternate restriction on the clarification thread. I'll put it into effect later today barring any unforeseen complications.--Tznkai (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Could not Brews be given leave to edit his own user space material as he sees fit (i.e. including the physics diagrams)? That way he has the oppourtunity to edit constructively when/if he see fit, without having to appeal his restriction first.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No. This one isn't even me, a topic ban is a topic ban.'--Tznkai (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai: The wording of your ban is even more restrictive than previously. The exceptions listed are only for engaging in arbitration pages concerning myself, and do not include even my own Talk page. I wonder if that is your intent, or whether (based upon the more specific nature of the restrictions itemized later) you mean the beginning two sentences to read differently as, for example:

Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces as specifically noted below

Could you check your wording please? Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you!

Thanks very much for the compliment!! You're actually one of the admins I most respect, based on my own idiosyncratic algebra: R = s/d (where R=respect given, s=substance and d=drama). You definitely have R > 1, putting you in a rapidly-diminishing category of admins. (And I don't THINK I've been screwing things up when you're not looking; generally, I save my screwups for my job. But I may have thrown a few here and there, just to keep things interesting.....) GJC 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist - ArbCom 1 Violation?

Hiya! Just bringing this to your attention, as you were the last admin to block User:Lapsed Pacifist. Another user pointed out on ANI this morning that this edit might be in breach of LP's first ArbCom. I'm not sure really, just giving you a heads up! Thanks! Fin©™ 13:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

hope you make it back in time for chat on Sunday night

You've got some stuff on your desk I think that is worth looking at. — Ched :  ?  05:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohho?--Tznkai (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

David

Hi Tznkai, I've asked on WP:AN for some diffs showing clear violations of SOCK. As you're the blocking admin, would you mind providing some? I've taken a look myself but it's a lot to look through, and so far I'm not seeing anything conclusive. SlimVirgin 04:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied in appropriate thread. I have to catch a train if you still have concerns, but it eventually ends in general administrative discretion in dealing with editors indulging in inappropriate conduct that damages the working environment, with that damage done by sock puppetry.--Tznkai (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The rub

You wrote: "Try to do whatever on you can on Wikipedia that genuinely satisfies you." The problem is that some people are genuinely satisfied by fighting, arguing, and scheming. We have a preponderance of editors who, given the choice, would sooner comment on 100 dramas du jour than improve a single uncontroversial article. I think they are doing what satisfies them. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I like to think that people are, not so deep down, not actually satisfied by trolling, arguing, scheming and so on. That is admittedly a silly hope, but I do believe if everyone else ignores them when they're doing petty stuff the rest of us don't have to care.--Tznkai (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about malicious trolling, which I agree is a fairly specialized taste. I'm thinking more about people who feel strongly about something, whether it's Climategate or the injustice of a specific block, and more than that - people who move on from crusading against one such injustice to another without ever contributing anything of real value. It doesn't make them bad people - it's just that their motivation here is to win a series of arguments or correct what they see as injustices, not to help build a useful reference work per se.

I think there is ample empiric substance to this view - for example, look at how hard it is to get committed reviewers at FAC, compared to how easy it is to get people to weigh in at great length on the latest Giano block or the latest fall-from-grace of the formerly high and mighty. Additionally, the Internet is full of people who like to argue with other people - it's the driving force behind most of the blogosphere - so it would be silly to discount that very human motivation as an element here.

Like you, I believe, and always have believed, that the only way to deal with this stuff is by ignoring nonsense. Anything else provides positive reinforcement. If we reward stable, mature content-building and ignore melodramatic outbursts and feuds, then we'll get more of the former and less of the latter. I try to model that behavior, and I think you probably do too, consciously or subconsciously, which is all we can do really. MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

People love to argue, especially on the internet, and so do I really. In the end though, it feels pretty hollow, and I like to think I'm not alone in that feeling, and thats my message for folks at large. Want I want also want people thinking about, especially admins and ANI regulars is drawing a line between distasteful nonsense that can be ignored and the harm that can not. I'll worry about the line drawing itself later, i just want people aware of it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about a sense of perspective, which is probably the single thing most sorely lacking on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly a problem unique to Wikipedia though. I mean, the older I get the more I see WP as the rest of the world in a microcosm.--Tznkai (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's my line of work, but I have a totally different experience. In real life, I feel like I'm surrounded by reminders of what really matters. Here, I get to watch people create an ArbCom case over footnoted quotes or mdashes. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, more on that, its a problem thats gotten worse on Wikipedia the more important Wikipedia has become to people and the world at large. Probably an irreversible trend, but things would be better if people cared a bit less.

Also, really? I see the same pettiness, ego, need to argue, to be right, to put your stamp and two cents in, on different levels of minutia. How else could reality TV be so successful if it didn't reflect, however warped, the shenanigans in there homes and work places? WP drama looks downright reasonable compared to some of the extended family fights I've witnessed.--Tznkai (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reality TV isn't reality, thank God. People watch it for the same reason that videos of car and airplane crashes get millions of views on YouTube. In real life, people who obsess and argue about minutiae get marginalized very fast. You can ignore them, or at least work around them. Here, persistence (what we would call tendentiousness) is de facto rewarded, because one agenda account devoted to promoting snake oil can easily drive off a dozen well-rounded editors who just come here to relax and improve a few articles. You can't marginalize or work around people like that on Wikipedia - you need to either concede the field, or spend 6 months working dispute resolution to try to get someone to notice them. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand

The object of my intervention is not "to help Nableezy". It's to give a play by play of what happened long before Nableezy was involved and what happened thereafter. I cannot understand why you would decide to unilaterally remove my comments here. If there is something that could use rephrasing, please let me know what it is and how to improve it. Tiamut^talk 10:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a wall of text that started out by attacking a third party, and opened with the line: "Nableezy is being singled out once again." The natural conclusion is that 1. you were trying to help and 2. you were failing. Most AE responders I imagine are like me, in that they get annoyed by this thing. Imagine if you will, a court room, during a proceeding, which is going along as it does with the lawyers arguing back and forth, and then suddenly from the audience someone starts screaming at the top of their lungs, drowning out everyone else in length and volume, pointing fingers and throwing out accusations and broad assertions at someone else in the audience.

That, roughly, is how I see your intervention. In real courts, you'd be asked to quiet down, or removed, or even thrown in jail for contempt. Thankfully, we're not a court, and I'm not a judge, but I ask you to trust me on this basic cause effect analysis, whatever you are trying to get me to look at, you are inspiring me to do the opposite. I would not be surprised if others reacted the same.--Tznkai (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm certainly not yelling. I understand your critique, but I believe its more than a little harsh. Strip my contribution of the commentary and just look at the diffs and the timeline. It becomes clear that there were problems at the AfD that preceded Nableezy's intervention. There are editors whose actions repeatedly evade scrutiny who should not have been behaving as they were and the issue should have attracted admin attention much earlier on. Forgive me for trying to point that out. Tiamut^talk 10:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See, what you said right here? That would have been great. I would've phrased it like: "Nableezy is not to blame for the AFD going to hell. See X Y and Z." Whatever, short and sweet. You're right though, it was too harsh, and I do apologize. It appears I get punchy if I edit too late at night, so I'm going to catch up on sleep. Again, I apologize.--Tznkai (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kinder approach and apology. I'm sorry too for my verbosity. I feel super guilty as it is given that Nableey was topic banned at AE after I filed a case against User:Cptnono which resulted in nothing happening, and here I am having deja vu all over again. Anyway, have a good sleep. Tiamut^talk 10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your very fair consideration of dates.

I got married a week after that topic ban and had no time to contest it.

There are other issues in this case. The original AC is probably best not poked too much.

Please leave room to consider impact on content (though obviously not content issues themselves).

I am impressed by your willingness to make, then change a decision.

My time is constrained for the next week.

I do not want to make a case against Kaldari.

I also do not have time to do so in the next three days (though that time would normally be fair)

May I also suggest, that it would look good for your decision if someone other than me, attempted to investigate my claim, giving that at least some appearance of due diligence.

It is this process that is adversarial, not me. If only others could attempt to represent the "point of view of the defendant" justice would be more obvious, and co-operation more likely.

I'll do what I can to assist your process. I care about content and co-operation as much you no doubt do.

Please attempt to consider that.

Please advise me where it is most appropriate for me to post, and where it is inappropriate for me to post.

Alastair Haines (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And please see User:Alastair Haines/Kaldari for just one small bit of evidence of the sort of content issue and behaviour involved. I stress, I am not making a formal complaint, nor offering anything close to a full analysis, like would be necessary to establish facts in the current case. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop it with the personal attacks. If you want to discuss content issues try visiting article talk pages. Regarding my "behavior", your own evidence page does a great job of demonstrating my patience in this matter. Kaldari (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Today's witicism

This user thinks that when process is my servant, it can be the master of others. ^Bongo_matic 06:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm?--Tznkai (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a response to your userbox Pr-3. ^Bongo_matic 06:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confused as to whether your making a joke of some sort, or you're picturing me as somewhat Machiavellian.--Tznkai (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a joke of some sort (not necessarily a terribly funny one)—hence the heading. ^Bongo_matic 06:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AE

I'm concerned that Nableezy's case was turned into a question on if he was supposed to be editing an AfD. I requested it because he edit warred. He made a couple edits before his ban was lifted but that was secondary. I think it was made clear that he should not be edit warring in the discussion so hopefully this will be enough of a reminder not to. Cptnono (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The way the request was worded, it made it appear like it was a topic ban violation that was at issue. The edit warring issue was a little complicated because of the history of the AfD discussion, and I did not think, and still do not, that there was much to be done from on high in this case other than some finger wagging.--Tznkai (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I worded it wrong but I tried to clarify it. I think you might have gotten caught up in the discussion by Nableezy and the other user who decided to debate that aspect instead. The problem was edit warring from a user who has been blocked twice this year for edit warring and recently sanctioned for edit warring. There was also 1 definite violation with an edit a day early (not too big of adeal though). This looks like a no brainier to me. Maybe this recent case will be enough of a reminder to finally stop it.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee

Hi. I have asked a followup question at the now quite delayed Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#Regarding_disputed_oversights_for_an_Arbitrator. If there isn't an explanation forthcoming within the next 48 hours regarding the mandate of the subcommittee, I will ask that it be folded back up as failed. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been mulling on a response in the back of my head, and I don't have one, because I frankly don't understand your logic, expressed or implied.--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My logic, express, is that the committee has a mandate to audit and report on things to avoid the old method of either loud yelling or nothing being done. If it's not fulfilling it's mandate to audit and report, it needs to be disbanded, and it's functions folded back into arbcom. NYB has promised action by this weekend. Hipocrite (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement Format

Please use the correct format when posting requests for enforcement - I've just refactored your request about Brews to comply with this. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ACE end time

Possible problem with the stated end time of the election on-wiki and on the SecurePoll. Do you have access to edit the SecurePoll ending time?  Skomorokh  11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Tznkai, thankyou very much for blocking this user for this. ^Izzedine 10:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent AE case concerning the 9/11 topic area

Hi Tznkai, you may remember the Arbitration Enforcement case in which I, as well as A Quest For Knowledge, have been involved. Can you give an evaluation of that case?

In particular, several editors have complained that articles in the 9/11 topic area were in a bad shape, and they said that I would be primarily responsible for that situation. I think that, looking at the versions of the articles that existed before I joined the encyclopedia, it is clear that these assertions are unfounded. Furthermore, during my two-week editing restriction, there were no substantial changes to these articles, although one would expect editors who are complaining about these articles to fix the actual or perceived defects and weaknesses of the articles. In my view, some of the comments in the AE case seem not to have been motivated by a desire to improve the articles, but by a desire to have sanctions imposed on me.  Cs32en  16:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This will have to wait until the weekend, but I will take a look.--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, will have to kick this one down the road one more day.--Tznkai (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I appear to have failed to revisit the case after the two weeks as I should have, and I'm unaware of any other efforts to revisit sanctions. I don't however, have enough information here to support your inference of bad faith, and certainly not enough to do anything about it. Only thing I can say is try not to take it personally and let it go.--Tznkai (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend to reopen the AE case, and I don't think that any formal action is necessary with regard to the conduct of the users that I have referred to. As the arguments that I have described (and which, as far as I see, are not backed up either by the facts nor by the actions of the same editors) seems to emerge quite regularly in discussions within dispute resolution processes related to 9/11 issues, I nevertheless think that it would be helpful if uninvolved administrators are aware of this situation. Thank you for your attention to this and to the problems that exist in this difficult topic area!  Cs32en  17:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

The article has been through three AFDs with no consensus. It has been through at least one RFC before now, where the result of the RFC involved BITING. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Weekend

The weekend now being unambiguously, globaly, certainly over, I'm going to have to insist that the Audit Subcommittee release a statement in a specified timeframe. If the comittee cannot release a statement within the next 24 hours, I'm going to mark the comittee as historical and sugest a return to the "loud shouting and backchannel influence peddling" method of audit. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

posting emails?

Re: EEML, I read the proposed decision as indicating that while ArbCom can privately consider emails, it was still improper for anyone to publicly duisclose any of the material anywhere on WP otherwise? [30] appears on its face to represent something improper as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is anti social and improper, and I should have dealt with it earlier, but I missed it. Someone should contact oversight-l if they feel strongly about it, but the copy and pasted e-mail does not appear to have identifying information.--Tznkai (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It was identified by those involved if you read the section. And the editor who had sent it complained to The Four Deuces about its use as well. This whole nonsense about the EEML cabal has gone rather far enough, to be sure. Collect (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case involving you.

I have opened a case to attempt to get some clarity on the mandate of the Audit Subcomittee. The case can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Audit_Subcommittee. You are a named party only in your capacity as a member of the Committee. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I still don't understand where you leap from "light a fire under their collective asses" (which makes a lot of sense) to "Fold up the subcommittee and wave arms wildly". That is, there seems to be a point, and a WP:POINT, and I don't see the link between the two.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I've been trying to light a fire for so long that I've just up and quit. If I lack the patience to solve the problem, no one else seems to really care, and all the comittee does is provide cover from people like Giano who have the demogogery (sp?) skills to get the community to care about something - remember when everyone was telling him to go to the audit comittee instead of stinking up the world? It's not a POINT - the committee is actively harmful to transparency, which, if you've followed me for any reasonable time, I'm a big fan of. It would be POINTY if I were to tag the committee historical after being instructed not to - but I don't see any other vehicle for resolution at this point. What would you do if you were me, other than just say "fuck it," and walk away? Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not saying "fuck it" and walking away. You're screaming "fuck it!" and telling everyone else that they should walk away to - that they have to walk away too. You're loudly insisting that we've failed in general - not just failed you, and that you have enough confidence in that judgment that anyone else who is not as dissatisfied as you is wrong. Presumably, we've also crossed some magical line that separates "not ideal" to "actively harmful" - and I'm not seeing it.

At the end of the day, I do care, and we collectively do care, and it has very little, if anything to do with Giano. For example, the JWB incident involved a DRV that reached over 38000 words, not counting the asides residing on the talk page. I read most of them in order to get an accurate picture of what was going on. That sort of thing takes time.

We've moved at a frustratingly slow pace, but you've put me in the uncomfortable position of trying to explain why that is, despite being only one of five, and I don't particularly think speaking well or ill of any particular subcommittee member well help us get our work done any faster.--Tznkai (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree I'm not saying "fuck it" and walking away. I agree I am screaming "FUCK THIS" and insisting that something is wrong. I'm looking for the alternative. The line is crossed when the trivial report takes a month and a half to write - and will be what, two paragraphs long? I'm not blaming any individual member - unlike some people that I filed a more different report on, I don't get good info leaked to me, and I'm not looking to blame any specific member, but if we went back to the old way of having a bunch of people yell really loudly (that's what Giano was doing), and then have some insider leak the info to Wikipedia Review, and then have the ritual scalping of someone - that would work a lot better than what appears to be going on now. If you can think of a better way to get the Audit SubCom to work faster, I'm all for it. If you want me to prove I'm game to do the work, fine. Have the Arbitration Comittee appoint me to be the drafting agent. I'll ID to the foundation right now. I'll stroll over to NYB's place of employ and prove that I'm more than qualified to review whatever docs take reviewing, and more than qualified to draft two paragraph statements that do whatever needs doing. That, of course, assumes that you have the standard problem of rudderless comittee - no followthrough. Make a suggestion for what I can do, because I care about transparency, to solve the problem of reports not being issued in a timeframe that makes them relevent. PS - I'm out of the country for two weeks starting Dec 18. If it's not done by the time I get back, I swear...

Run next year. Sooner, if you can convince the new committee to put together a special election, and I mean it honestly. But let me turn the question around on you. Why would a six member subcommittee that is just elected with two new members, meaning one third of the work force, suddenly handed an explosive incident that causes the resignation of another one of the members, be able to handle anything quickly, in a time period that is crunch time in school and work. 40% of the work force is brand new on a subcommittee not all that old. This isn't even a "get up to speed" thing, that kind of turnover in a young entity tends to mean reinvention.

As much as I've found it irritating, I also find it useful to have you pelting tomatoes at my proverbial window, because its a good reminder of how much wiki culture desires speed, and I can only ask you to trust that if I am not giving the people what they want, I am doing it for a good reason. You can be frustrated, and legitimately so, but you are not obligated to care.--Tznkai (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Block for tweaking

If you're blocking people for tweaking, give me a month and indef FT2. Neither of us uses Preview properly. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Once again I am victim to the ambiguities of language.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Read this

User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behavior Food for thought.--Tznkai (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rhetorical praise

Noticed your excellent phrasing today at AN. I have quoted the passage "... of those with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene" on my user page.

A quick Google shows it has never been "spoken" before, so, it is truly yours. While it may not seem as noteworthy to you as it does to me, it fits so well with the problem of, for example, preserving NPOV in a contentious BLP inflamed by current events. Yes, you have to have a clue, or you can't do it. And I know from experience that "fortitude" is precisely the word that is required there.

While I have lightly suggested the stripping of your bit for crimes against stupidity lol ... let me also say that your words are memorialized on my page. Thank you. Bless you. Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy holiday of your choice to you as well.--Tznkai (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent a reply to your email

which you should read before posting the AUSC statement. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Received.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for releasing the report. It is difficult for any comittee to write a document. I apologize for being such a bother through the process, and merely hope that no one holds it against anyone. As a nonpasted note, I appreciated your engagement with me on various talk pages, and hope I wasn't offputting. Have a good one. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely, keep up the good work. I can appreciate (in the abstract anyway) the necessity of a nag.--Tznkai (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Tradition

Come now, it's tradition to welcome in the new arbs with a clusterfuck. I was beginning to get worried. Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For once in my life, I wish I had a grandmother who made fruitcake so I could make a clever analogy.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Seasons Greetings to you and yours.--Buster7 (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 20:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews

When you get around to it, I think that you should update the enforcement log of the Speed of light arbitration concerning User:Brews ohare. Thanks, and best wishes for the Holidays and the New Year!—Finell 03:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Will get to it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Witch" in perpetuity

The procedures now are increasing exponentially -- latest is at WP:NOR/N on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Kindly follow my user contributions <g> to see how all the procedures are progressing, with more AfDs due momentarily, I suspect. Merci. Collect (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"my economist friends tell me I'm wrong"

Only because your economist friends assume Free Disposal. Not a fair assumption here, I would argue. Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are quickly becoming one of my favorite pains-in-the-ass, which I write with considerable affection. I believe you have struck upon an important term in economics which no one on the net has written clearly about.

And to be fair, I can't speak clearly to the rationale of my economist friends because we start every discussion with me saying "... but people AREN'T rationale maximizers." I'm sure you can imagine how that goes.

How was your holiday season? (Assuming you were in a place and culture that did such a thing).--Tznkai (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's written with affection! I was considering writing an article about Free disposal (economics), but I'm finding it hard to get started. Basically, it means you can take anything someone gives you and throw it away without cost. It's a key assumption for rational maximizing (it's what makes 5 cheesburgers at least as good as 4 - since my doctor says I can't eat even one, at least it dosen't cost me anything to throw them away) I think the argument that applies here is that you can't tell the last guy who volunteered to work at wikipedia and say "no offense, but we have too many people commenting in discussions about foo, so further comments are hurting. Through no fault of your own, you were the last guy through the door. You are banned from foo," while you could say "no offense, but we have too many people working quality control, and so too much meat is being discarded. Through no fault of your own, you were the last person hired. You're not fired or anything, but stop coming to work." See also [31] which looks good at first glance but I don't vouch for.

I was actually in London and then Spain for the last two weeks of the year. It was quite nice to get away from the US. Yourself? Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My three favorite things about economics have always been its incredible heartlessness, its frequent use in any field that doesn't involve the economy, and the frequent food analogies, and you've managed to do all three at once. I've personally found actually starting articles to be a difficult proposition, while taking an existing article thats terrible and rewriting it to be considerably easier and more fun. This of course, has a lot to do with why I don't actually contribute much content anymore, but I may take a crack at free disposal or just continue to putter around landmark civil procedure cases, which seems to attract little trouble.

And my holidays were grand. I absconded from wiki-work and meatspace-work and saw friends and family and my dog, who is possibly the best Shiba inu on the planet. It was quite refreshing, and I recommend it to all (but get your own dog). Of course, I came back to proverbial mountains of work in wiki and meatspace, but thats life. I hope you had some good food while you were over there!--Tznkai (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think along with Robinson Crusoe being the only acceptable example for trade between countries, we are informed that students respond well to thinking about food, and so when you're making them pick between things, make them high in fat. I will tell you that the among the hardest classes to sit through I experienced in my years (past, now) of academia used only Lamy pens as his examples of consumer choice, while in almost everyting else - steak and eggs and eggs and steak.

The food in London was revolting - mostly because we tried to be "authentic," so I experienced the Full English and Black Pudding along with Fish and Chips and Steak pies but we did not get to go to the Fat Duck because they were closed. Spain was better, mostly because I stuck with Jamón ibérico at nearly every meal. Coffee in europe - Madrid more than London, is just shockingly better than the US. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An old chemistry teacher of mine said there was a triad to teach teenagers anything "sex, money, and food" (wonderful teacher that woman). My thought on English food has been (and this is with considerable bias and an absence of first hand experience) that any culture who's main form of cooking for centuries was boiling meat for hours upon hours is unlikely to produce good eats. I had the opportunity to visit France once, and while I don't remember the coffee being any better, almost all the normal food was exquisite. I confused many when I insisted on bringing back to the states pedestrian mass produced buy-it-at-the-chain-grocer mustard as if it was the most delicious thing I had ever eaten.

It was. I think it even had little Batman logos on it as part of some promotion. Wikipedia needs more food articles dammit.--Tznkai (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gentle tap on the shoulder

I respect you immensely, and you're usually one of the most clueful people around (and one of the few with the fortitude to be an AE regular), but I must say this seems like a horrid idea, leaving the poor chap in some sort of half-banned-half-unbanned limbo. If no-one else can do it, I could chime in with a third opinion, though it would take me a few hours to re-read the case properly. Sorry for butting in here with an unrequested opinion. :/ henrik•talk 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an entirely fair response, but my exercising discretionary review and overturning would be a combination of a really bad idea and horrible precedent. At the same time, I've found waving my arms anywhere but the result section doesn't get bupkis done. I'm open to better ideas, of course.--Tznkai (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah, no, it's indeed a horrible mess. Too few people at AE, the cases are non-obvious, and you have tons of people throwing up smokescreens, so you end up with far too great individual discretion and somewhat arbitrary results. I'm willing to close this, but I'll talk a bit to Sandstein first (and in the mean time, I'll hope to God that someone beats me). Keeping it open for much longer isn't likely to do good in any case. henrik•talk 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, for pitching in at AE. Its an otherwise thankless task.--Tznkai (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Haitian Earthquake Aid Site

Thanks for contributing to the discussion about links on the Haitian Earthquake site.

This person has just deleted Red Cross links from the site (one of a few who have done this, but this guy is the one doing it now). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DarkNITE&action=history

Do you know anyone higher up in Wikipedia who can help?

By the way these were links added to the "International Response Section"

Thanks, 69.171.160.153 (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No battleground, understood

Hello, I can assure you I don't wish to make a battleground where there is none. So I did strike out that part of my comments. Actually I did not incriminate any one person in particular, I wanted to add some context. And also I can assure you that I don't mind if somebody is not agreeing with me, however I do prefer to make sure that people engage in rational discussion point by point on the content rather then blind reverts or continuous personal labeling. Is this reasonable to expect? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Abd

Re [32] - note the edit comment: "vote in poll". This is why Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Abd-William_M._Connolley matters. The only arb to comment there is, ironically, agreeing with you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Abd. Which I think is regrettable because your summary there isn't that clear: the remedy allows participation at XfDs that does not otherwise constitute prohibited behavior. Abd has not engaged in the prohibited behavior. Abd is advised to back off anyway. Abd will, of course, ignore any advice that he doesn't like. He appears to have taken your summary as permission to participate in anything he chooses to call a poll. I'd urge you to take the request for enforcement / clarification rather more seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Some might call me paranoid, but GoRight's 'invitation' ([33]) on his talk page seems particularly crafted to point to this purported loophole. GoRight definitely didn't want anyone to note that the ongoing discussion was not a vote: [34]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! It's all a big plot orchestrated by "those people"! it's a CABAL! Round 'em up!

Silliness. :-/ ATren (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely Abd is just an innocent harmless lamb that is totally not orchestrating an off-wiki campaign to damage editors in wikipedia: "My involvement with Wikipedia will continue, but off-wiki, and what I write here is not the core of it, this is merely a public place to explore certain issues with possible notice by some influential editors, including arbitrators. Maybe it will do some good, maybe not. (...) My continued task is enabling those who can see to become effective, more efficient. This is what I was doing before Wikipedia, and my editing WP actually inhibited it, by taking up so much time. That's gone now. I'll put some effort into organizing the off-wiki structures that are needed to be able to shift the status quo; it will either be picked up by others or not. It's the same everywhere. You scatter seeds, you know not which ones will germinate (bolded in the original)."(posted in September 2009), and then on the new thread that he started to continue the discussion: "We are gradually getting rid of those jerks, they have certainly lost much of their power over the last year, and I played a role in that. (...) Unlike too many editors here (in Wikipedia Review), I don't whine about Wikipedia, I do something about it. And I've been effective, so effective that I'm now banned by ArbComm from commenting on any dispute where I'm not an "originating party." (posted 6 days ago). Again, who is the one who is trying to suppress editors with a certain POV? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tnkai, it seems that your Talk page is being used to make charges against me. I'll respond to just one. Once upon a time, I did act to identify certain abusive sock puppets, but, beyond that, I have not attempted to "suppress" any editor. My intention and action is always to seek broad consensus, which requires discussion, so I run into problems with those who don't like to discuss issues that they personally consider resolved, but rather consistently act to ban editors who question their preferred status quo. Enric Naval has done this, literally, many times, filing AN or AN/I reports asking for bans, arguing tendentiously for them, etc., as well as tendentiously arguing for his POV. I have not pursued him nor have I sought to "restrict" him in any way. Nor would what I'm setting up act to do that. However, if he were to continue as he has, the community might decide differently from me.

Enric Naval has, above, brought comment from Wikipedia Review onto Wikipedia, comments abstracted from the context in which they were made. WR is not Wikipedia, it's a place where "jerk" is a mild term, and, in this case, "we are gradually getting rid of those jerks" was a reference to the action of the community, not "me and my friends." I certainly have no power of my own to get rid of anyone and, further, it does not refer at all to blocks or bans, but to the removal, loss, or resignation of administrative privileges by those wont to abuse them. And I could indeed document this, but it's not necessary to justify an off-hand comment on Wikipedia Review!

If you have any questions about my comments quoted above, or anything, I'll be happy to answer them, on my Talk page or here, if I notice response here. You did comment on my Talk that you thought my AN comment was over the line. Because of my long-term involvement with the issues, I believed that it was important for me to comment, and whatever that report was intended as, it had become a poll and it did not even occur to me that it would not be considered one. Otherwise, the matter itself I considered important enough that, had I thought it not a poll, I'd have asked ArbComm for permission to comment. So, what's one small comment on AN vs disturbing and taking the time of the entire Arbitration Committee? ArbComm is welcome to tighten its definitions, but I'd suggest, of course, that it would be better to look for actual disruption rather than mere debatable "violations." There hasn't been one example; rather, all major disruption has come from editors, often with no involvement at all with the immediate topic, but only historical conflict with me, trying to get me sanctioned further.

It is not my intention to engage in protracted debate on any topic, except possible on my Talk page, and I apologize for this intrusion, you are welcome to remove this comment or let it sit or whatever, your response is not required. --Abd (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Abd, remember, you banned me from your talk page, I can't reply there.

Anyways, see "I have advised PCarbonn that the most useful outcome of the AN report, politically, will be that his topic ban is renewed by a set of involved editors, providing him with a ready-made RfAr. (...) and a new RfAr on this would likely focus on cabal behavior (probably without that prohibited word), which has only survived because of the common WP inattention. (...)" (posted 11 days ago). The post continues by explaining the behaviour of WMC and of myself. Please make a long post with beautiful words explaining how this was not an off-wiki effort to get rid of WMC and me. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Tznkai Talk. If Tznkai asks me to respond, I will. If not, not. My comment above inviting questions was to him, not Enric. I apologise for any unclarity, and I thank Enric for bringing my comments here, something I could not do without his cooperation. On the other hand, is this worth the time and space this takes? Tznkai's call. --Abd (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just spent a dozen or minutes rereading this entire exchange, and I still don't know what to make of it. You know, I probably don't have much of a leg to stand on as far as dense, rambling prose goes, so I'll just say I'd appreciate it if y'all would make it clearer what it is you want to tell me, and what you want me to do about it.

In the meantime, and I'll repeat these comments on this point somewhere suitably official shortly, Abd: ban discussions are not polls within the meaning of your restriction unless ArbCom tells me otherwise. Discussions involving Wikipedians that you happen to know, have conflicted with, or have associated with, does not qualify you as an originating party. You'll note my comments at AE talked a lot about the nature of XfDs, and AN, nor ANI, or AE, or so on qualifies as such. Finally, this response of yours has lowered my opinion of your ability to restrain yourself appropriately considerably.

Separately, Abd's postings on Wikipedia Review are not actionable unless you exceed a much higher burden of persuasion, Abd's done something considerably damaging, or someone hands him advanced permissions that someone needs to take a way because he's announced a plan of world domination via Wikipedia. Stay out of other people's heads when comment about them around here please.--Tznkai (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tznkai, for the clarification about ban discussions. If I don't like your opinion on that, I'll ask ArbComm, because I do see you as neutral. As to restraining myself appropriately, I don't expect you to understand every action of mine, but, again, if you have any questions, you may ask them. I will simply assert that I could justify and establish every substantive word of the comment you refer to with evidence, and the "Go away" was a direct request that Future Perfect disengage. I'm not volunteering the explanation, I doubt that I'd have time to make it brief, and I'm asking for no action from you. --Abd (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That draft...

I do wish you'd reconsider. The loss would be sorely felt and, I believe, needless. Your participation in the necessary discussion that must follow, even if you disagree with how it was brought about, would be both valuable and welcome. — Coren ^(talk) 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rarely added anything of value to a Func-en conversation that has gone anywhere. If I decide to continue participating in discussions about BLP on -en, I'll can still do it as an outsider. I've already told people I'll try to give it at least another night's sleep.--Tznkai (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've put in my time. I don't think I owe the committee or the community a damn thing.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You, indeed, owe nothing. That doesn't make you any less valuable. I'll simply wish you a good night's sleep. — Coren ^(talk) 20:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You, Tznkai, are one of the most valuable contributors to the project. I just wish some of us would tell you that more often. AGK 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the kind thoughts.

I was more pissed of at WP this morning than I've been in a long time, and was thinking in similar terms (and I agree with nearly every word of your draft). But please, take a night or two or three. Something good may yet come out of the RFC and resulting discussion. You're one of the few that displays consistent clue, please don't do this. henrik•talk 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the RFCs and discussion will help. Thats fine. My disagreement with the Committee has very little to do with the substance of the BLP issue. If this somehow leads to the BLP problem being dealt with in a real, substantive way, I'll be pleased. I just can't support a Committee which is willing to insult one group of editors for having the wrong wikipolitical position. I started editing (I remember now) because I believed in reasonable differences - that truly neutral descriptions really do exist, and that there was an institution out there that believed, collectively at doing our best to leaving our personal baggage, politics and grudges at the door. In my first year I wrangled disputes over abortion and Islam, and it worked. I didn't come here to leave my personal feelings about things that important at the door, to replace them with partisanship inside.

We've had people calling for the admin bits of people who disagree with their particular actions in dealing with the BLP issue. No one it seems, is calling them out on making a political test for adminship. In fact, they seem to be tacitly supported. The consequences of this concern far more greatly than whether 58000 articles get deleted in the next few days. (To reiterate, go ahead and nuke them, and then salt them. Salt their redirects. Hack together an abuse filter. Half measures don't help)

I'm afraid, whatever makes my final decision, it won't be whether or not the BLP issue gets solved, but whether the committee reacts to comments like this are read with applause or a sad sigh.--Tznkai (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the support.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I too strongly support the sentiment of your draft, Tznkai, but unlike the others I support your proposed course of action. What has been done by the Committee threatens the foundation of this encyclopaedia as a collaborative project and the way things are headed, it looks like this abuse of power will go unstopped. It takes a stand by editors damned by association with those responsible to speak about against the road we are headed down. With respect and admiration,  Skomorokh  21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the support.--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you nailed it as to why good ideas rarely get implemented here. The standard pathway goes like this: someone has an idea (potentially a very good one). They become so filled with righteous zeal, stoked by an echo chamber of like-minded individuals, that they become contemptuous of anyone with anything less than immediate and unreserved enthusiasm for their idea. Then, they alienate or otherwise piss off a substantial fraction of the community with their high-handed, condescending contempt.

The end result is that a) their good idea is never implemented, b) they hold "the community" responsible for ignoring their good idea, and c) no one learns anything. If you were to ask why the idea failed, the response would be "because the community didn't know a good idea when it bit them on the ass." For people capable of introspection, the take-home message should instead be that a great idea can be undone when your zeal for the idea overrides your basic respect and common sense for other people. MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ almighty, what are you, a mind reader?--Tznkai (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No... at least that's not what's happening here. Your diagnosis is accurate in many situations (I can think of a few where I've been the one with the "good" idea), but what we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion regarding notability, inclusion criteria, and what to do with our current sub-par biographies. It's not a matter of one group having the Right Idea™, really, it's a matter of a true ideological divide. It isn't that one group is intentionally or unintentionally trying to piss off the other, but that's what ideological divides naturally lead to. Some people genuinely believe that every person who has ever played cricket is inherently notable and deserves his or her own biography. The same can be said for other groups, e.g., every person who has ever served in any political body, any person who has ever named a star, et al. The moral imperative behind the decisions (real life consequences due to the very visible nature of Wikipedia) and the mind-bogglingly slow pace of progress (for the Internet age, at least) are what is adding a lot of fuel to the fire. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MastCell's description (which parallel's nicely with my own thinking) is accurate, as is yours. The problem is, the people on each side of the divide, including the people I agree with, are acting in the way MastCell described, squeezing out more moderate people between the two ideological camps.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I blame our dysfunctional decision making process. It seems that just about the only way to enact change is to gather a shitstorm of such magnitude and intensity that it, briefly, moves enough people. It's a poor process, doesn't lead to good decisions and leaves a plethora of pissed off people in its wake. henrik•talk 21:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only decision making process, or the only one people have managed thus far? People who want change are quick to blame everyone else, but I prefer to accept the onus on myself to find a way to make the change I want.--Tznkai (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the proper response to people engaging in this behavior is not to back away. If the people who care about rational dialogue, community consensus, and respect for other editors become less involved, that leads to further problems not more. Indeed, you should become more involved not less. I for one, would be happy to support you if ran for ArbCom. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom is a year from now, and I doubt I'll want to run, or that i would win. (There is a lot of people to piss off between now and next year) - and I'm not planning on quitting Wikipedia outright. Just less of the stuff I've been doing. I've been playing the AC's traffic cop for a bit now.--Tznkai (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had access to see some of the glimmers of the truly horrific crap the Arbitration Committee has to deal with. Genuinely hard issues with real consequences on real people, along with the daily bullshit and fire controlling, and then theres actually cases. The clerk support staff is barley useful, because they're only equipped to deal with the on wiki case control. The functionaries are often a source of problems in their own right, and there are maybe a handful of admins that I'd trust to run interference for the Committee on tough issues, and twice as many who I don't trust, who try to do it. It is a job impossible to keep up with - there is a nearly unlimited number of problems that can occur at any time - I wonder if someone should do a piece for the signpost or what not. At any rate, it is an incredibly tough job, done under siege. Whatever my level of irritation is with them right now (and I say with them, not just the ones voting to disagree with me for a reason) I have a great deal of respect for the ArbCom and the difficulty of their task. Sometimes your principles and priorities collide.--Tznkai (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for making this supportive comment of ArbCom. I really appreciate you doing it at a time when you are disillusioned with their work. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I too personally appreciate your kind words, especially at this time, when I am aware that you have serious concerns about recent actions of the Committee. Tznkai, I've had the pleasure of working with you and having many worthwhile Wiki-debates with you over the last year and a half and I'd consider it to be a personal loss, as well as a loss to the project as a whole, if you completely disengaged from the tasks you have carried out so well. At the same time, I'm aware of some of the other pressures in your life, and I have always supported people when they decide that they need to re-evaluate their commitments, or exactly where they want to focus their wiki-energies. You have done a lot of very good work for the project, and your input will be sorely missed, should you decide to step back from all of your current areas of expertise. I hope that you'll reconsider. Risker (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't run from the fight for what is right. Prodego ^talk 04:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

...I suggest you grab your WikiKnapsack and hit the WikiRoad. Just for a short break. Some R and R is needed. Don't let them torpedo your valued input. It is too important for those of us that share your concerns.--Buster7 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support everyone. I've decided to stick around, but a bit less engaged in certain areas. I still think that the Committee made a major misstep, but recent events have proven that some people will be jerks regardless of what the Committee does, so its not fair to hold them responsible for it. I may have more thoughts on the matter later, but for now I think a few days not thinking about BLPs and arbitration would be good for me.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you edit?

I need a reminder for myself.--Tznkai (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Flippant answer: because of the raw absolute power over the flow of information that I have as a Wikipedia editor and admin. I mean, a variety of obsessive lunatics on the fringes of the Internet keep claiming admins possess that kind of power, so I'm sure I'll start feeling it someday.

Honest answer: I started editing here because I noticed that a lot of people were getting medical information from Wikipedia, and the quality of this information was, to be charitable, uneven. In my view, a large part of a physician's job is to educate people so that they can make informed decisions about their health that are congruent with their personal values. Editing Wikipedia is a way to educate people. High-quality medical information here makes a real-world difference that I can see. That's why I started editing. I'm not sure what keeps me editing; I've gotten further and further away from doing the kind of content work that I did in my first year or so on this site. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because despite the regular doses of contempt dished out by ArbCom and various crats and admins, within the article pages themselves there is value.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Because sometimes this happens. (This link translates into English, from my native language of Snarkus Obnoxiatus, as this: At the moment, I really have no effing idea. I'm currently drafting my valedictory address offwiki, and barring a Wiki-miracle or an entirely predictable spate of total apathy, I'll probably be slapping it to my talkpage next week, once the S.O. leaves town.)GJC 06:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for the most perfect encapsulation of absolute truth+laughter ... and if that will not make you stay, I cannot imagine what would. :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 06:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My edit

Grrr, think I got that right finally. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It happens all the time though.--Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. You got it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your exceptionally well put attempt to stand up to Arbcom's ludicrous decision in the BLP deletion case, I hereby award you this barnstar. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom's decision to endorse the behavior of those disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point on the basis that they were doing what was "right" is the saddest moment of my wiki career. I am glad people like you had the courage to stand up and tell them they were wrong - too bad they didn't listen. ThaddeusB (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Brews and David topic ban on their talk pages

Hi. Why did the topic ban for discussing physics include their respective talk pages? It seems like the purpose of the topic ban was to prevent disruption of articles. So it's not clear to me what's the purpose of including their respective talk pages in the topic ban. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice about Jpatokal

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Jpatokal - racial slur and harassment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Jpatokal (talk · contribs)'s disruptive personal attacks that require administrators' attention. Thank you. --Caspian blue 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC) You are mentioned in the diff that Jpatokal WP:CANVASS about the past case to bash me and his talk page that leads the ANI report on his conduct. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Although you've said "no" already, I write again to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me.

You may be unaware that the "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:Tznkai#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

Your experience will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group. The nascent status of a mentorship committee is clarified in the currently active thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Hopefully, this mentorship experiment will prove to be more effective and less burdensome than previous wiki-mentoring schemes.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?

"I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.

I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Wikiquote:Helen Keller#Misattributed is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always, but often.

What can I say or do to convince you to agree tentatively?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Your background causes me to share something already explained to another prospective mentor, "Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context" -- see diff. May I offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

Are you willing to look into this a bit further? I assume that time constraints will limit your participation; but perhaps you might consider making yourself available as a "non-public mentor", as an advisor to the co-mentors whose questions are likely to be different than mine?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your restrictions on Brews ohare

Hi. Your comment at User talk:Brews ohare#February 2010 and/or WP:AE#Brews ohare might be helpful. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

RFAR

Risker has asked that you be informed of this case which concerns Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More

User talk:Brews ohare#March 2010. I tried looking into it all, but it seems to me to be a big mess. Perhaps you can help? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread on Brews ohare's topic ban appeal

See this thread. Your comment is welcome. Tim Song (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have moved that discussion to WP:AN. Thank you, –MuZemike 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

With This Herring...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your numerous edits to Wikipedia and generally unbiased, accurate and point-blank comments on other Wikipedians, you are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Diligence. -- Androgeos Exeunt 10:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And sorry for taking up some of your time and talk page space looking at this section. -- Androgeos Exeunt 10:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Its appreciated, actually. --Tznkai (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Very nice

It's very nice to see you editing once more. Hopefully it isn't just a short relapse into madness, but a prolonged stay? That would be nice :) NW (Talk) 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was incredibly busy, but should be back for many moons yet.--Tznkai (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point

Almost forgot that was even there. I do want to keep the link, though. Its a template for a well conducted RFA. I trimmed the title down so it doesn't look a personal attack. -OberRanks (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Tznkai (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ani medjool

Hello. As Tiamut mentioned, I have repeatedly warned Ani medjool about commenting about editors being Israeli or Jewish. I think his latest outburst merits a one-week block, but you wrote at A/E that he shouldn't be blocked yet. Do you have any objection if I block him? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't block myself, but I won't stand in the way of you doing it either. I'd like to think that Ani medjool's issue has something to do with a poor command of English, but I honestly don't have enough hours in my day investigate it in detail.--Tznkai (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tznkai, I wanted to think that too [35] because we all like to assume good faith. But its not a language thing. Ani medjool is faking bad language skills, as was outlined in this ANI discussion [36]. This user has done nothing but disrupt discussions and contribute to a battle atmosphere. No good content contributions at all. I'm often surprised at how long it takes for someone who is truly disruptive to be blocked, while those who are only arguably disruptive seem to get long topic bans and blocks at the drop of a hat. Anyway, thanks for stepping aside to let Malik Shabazz do it. Tiamut^talk 19:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have sometimes treated it like a forum, I will change. Give me a chance: [37] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP-hopping Troll

Hi Tznkai. Can you sort out 86.40.105.226, a block evading sock of 86.40.210.11, (which you previously blocked). Range block apparently unfeasible for the moment, but the harassment continues. Perhaps you could keep an eye on things? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

?Never mind, since sorted. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For your attention

I only mention this because one of my dear friends on WP was recently chastised or banned for this so when I noticed this ban notice and noticed that it had been removed some three minutes later, I thought it appropriate to bring it to your attention. Stellarkid (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was aware, but thanks for letting me know.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP harrassment

86.40.210.11 is back after the 72 hour block, as virulent as ever. Sorry, this time as 86.40.105.226. Hohenloh ⁺ 21:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorted by User:DMacks. (See 'Disruptive IP-hopping Troll' above). RashersTierney (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Hohenloh is ignoring some very admirable olive branches. I was hoping you might mediate, Tznkai. 86.40.202.253 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Come back in a week and I might. Until then, take your medicine and leave Hohenloh alone.--Tznkai (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you back!

You've been missed around here. You actually came back to activity at exactly the same time as I did. :-) AGK 12:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad you're back too then.--Tznkai (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Latin legalise

I noticed your possibly humorous objection to the use of "Latin legalese" at an AE enforcement thread [38]. I think I understand the basis or motive for your "opposition" but hope it's not based on your desire to turn similar proceedings at AE into a court similar to one like her's. If anything else, Wikipedia should also be a teaching tool in it's capacity as an encyclopedia. If pro bono has a wlink, I think it serves a pupose beyond knowing what Lady Gaga had for lunch on twitter. Best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm in the camp that says that laws and legal writing should be simpler for the common (wo)man to understand even at the cost of some precision. In fact, I generally think that jargon is one of those things that exists, not for merely technical needs, but as a way of separating "insiders" from "outsiders." It is precisely because I want to teach - that is, use AE decisions in such a way that it is clear what the reasoning is, and why decisions are made the way the are, that I want to eliminate jargon as much as I can. An administrator at AE has an obligation to explain what they're basing their decision on anyone who might want to know, not the cadre of other admins other participants.

I would also be wary of grasping at what some teachers like to call the "teachable moment." On Wikipedia, we're restricted to a single dimension of communication, and one that doesn't truly occur in real time. Its very easy to misread the mood of the "room" or how well other parties actually understand you.

Any attempt to imitate any real court, or to think of AE as a court will be stymied by a several factors. Unlike common law courts, we don't have a long tradition of administrators as judge/priests of the law, precedents, and we have no dedicated advocacy corps to interface between the common (wo)man and the machinations of the Law. Unlike customary law traditions we don't have a universal body of custom, because our community, such as it is, is constantly in flux. Unlike civil code states, we don't have a written code, and the code we have is constantly in flux. Unlike courts of equity, we don't have a sovereign power to divine our authority from, or common law courts to push against. If we are like any court, we are a primitive one.

We are, in a word, stuck, and it gets worse. I've noticed the more we treat dispute resolution as a court, the more people treat it as a court - sort of. They treat it with the formalism, aggressiveness, and evasiveness that you see on your favorite T.V. drama, but without the professionalism, wariness, and respect of the awesome dignity courts usually are granted.

My job at AE is essentially that of problem solving - is to do my best to make sure that problems get better, not worse, all with the end goal of somehow improving the encyclopedia so that the countless readers (who outnumber the community by many fold) can learn something. AE, along with all DR must serve the encyclopedia not become an end in itself. Thus, it is my hope is that AE doesn't have to turn into a court at all, because if it does, we will have birthed a monster.--Tznkai (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and detailed explanation of your perspective concerning the matter. Actually I was more prompted to write to you as a result of this remark [39], "...pretend you've been hauled into court with a judge who is scowling at you over his glasses, exchanging glances with his bailiff", than to teach someone "Latin legalese", one end of the swinging arc of the "jargon pendulum", the other being "dey, dem, and dose guys". Anyway I'm on the same page with you with "... it is my hope is that AE doesn't have to turn into a court at all." Thanks again for your reply and best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC) p.s. Hope you caught my final comment, after the fact...[40].

I saw it. I don't really have anything useful to say in response that I haven't said before.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Košice

Hi, it´s been nearly a week and no one on the talk page objected against the name table so I contact you as you requested. Please lift the protection, thank you. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off for another day so I can look into it further, as you and Nmate still have not solved your problem, so i'm going to now have to dig into it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If Nmate doesn´t want to participate on discussion about that table I can´t possibly force him but do as you like, I shall wait. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

?

The reason for the topic ban was because of things I have said at talkpages right? It wasn't because of any article edit or rfc I have done? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.--Tznkai (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question. Nsaum brought up my RfCs in the enforcement, and me saying Israeli/Jewish sources are not reliable for setting the standardized names for the mountains in the Golan, (as several others and admin also said) Was there any problem with these things? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this somehow slipped through the cracks, but my major concerns were the partisan appearance of your edits.--Tznkai (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify. I need to know, what edits exactly? I know that you saw problems with my talkpage edits, but was there problems with any article edits? Please point out those article edits and explain. Also please clarify if there was any problems with the RfCs I opened and me saying Israeli/Jewish sources are not reliable for setting the standardized name for a region occupied by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  
• Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

RFCs

• WP:AERFC
• WP:Civility/Poll

We're way better at talking then doing.

--Tznkai (talk)

NB, have not forgotten about User:Buster7/Incivility, just been busy.

Re: your admonition on my talkpage

I am sincere in saying that I am not aware that I have edit-warred. If I have, then I apologize because I want to be seen as a contributor and not a detractor. Can you tell me here on your talkpage what you noticed and how I can improve or avoid what you noticed? --Morenooso (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The fracas on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Generally speaking, reverting another user restoring their comments, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea for them to have those comments in the first place, is a bad idea. Because you know, I know, and everyone knows, they're not going to like it, and they're going to want to revert right back. Thus, an edit war.--Tznkai (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

TideRolls just explained it to me on his talkpage. I apologized to him as well. I thought I was doing the right thing in reverting an editor who had been reverted by another editor. I did not appreciate that he called me a moron but maybe I am for failing to see what was so evident to two admins and all who follow Jimbo's page. I have posted before on Jimbo's page and have it and his regular article on Watch too. --Morenooso (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, thank you for not blocking me for edit-warring. I sincerely like being here on Wikipedia and enjoy the experience for the most part. Sometimes reverting is tricky but I try to do my best. I consider myself a pretty good wikidefender. It's just about my bedtime so I probably should sign off early and consider your good words. Thank you, very much. --Morenooso (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No one likes being called names, which is why we have the policy, and everyone slips up from time to time.--Tznkai (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarshallBagramyan

FYI I have closed this request with no action as the report is becoming a violation of WP:BATTLE. I have also warned anyone thinking of bringing the matter back if the disruption recurs to read WP:OUCH first. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please have a look at WP:AE#Hittit and check whether my sanctions are proportionate? Stifle (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Looked fine.--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

Since I've quoted you as to what the phrase "broadly construed" means here, I wanted to pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

After the moment when your protection has expired, a new edit war has began at Košice: [41]

I have now fully protected this article for a couple of weeks. Feel free to amend protection as necessary if you've more background info. Cheers. GedUK  10:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

meetup?

Hi there,

I got your name from the Wikimedia:Meetup/Ohio 1 page. I will be in Columbus Aug 8-11 and was wondering if any Wikimedians would be interested in meeting up then. If so, I started Wikipedia:Meetup/Ohio 2 for quick planning :) best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

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

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi Tznkai, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try.--Tznkai (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re DC at AE

As near as I can tell there was only that one article starting at: 04:20, 8 December 2010 (diff | hist) Jamie Sorrentini ‎ (→Early life and education: add Scientology info) here. Cirt would probably know for sure ;) un☯mi 19:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Tznkai, I removed my statement as you requested here. I did it not because I am afraid of your unwarranted threat to block me. There's absolutely nothing there to block me for, and besides I cannot care less, if you do block me. It would not be anything new anyway, I mean blocking a content contributor in order to feed up the trolls. But still I would like to find out, if you believe all my statement was "irrelevant" or only a part of it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm on my way out the door, but the topic of the enforcement thread was whether or not Jaleponos do exist was editing in such a way that violated sanctions. Your comment on the other hand, was about his accuser's possible point of a view bias on the general topic matter, and then about your problems with a third party. So, its pretty much all irrelevant. This isn't to say that accuser's actions never bring administrator scrutiny, in fact they almost always do, but it doesn't mean its open season on them or that tu quoque arguments are suddenly welcome. Does that make it any more clear? --Tznkai (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I posted my initial comment because the accuser (gatoclass) mentioned me in his comment. My comment about the third party was of course irrelevant. I took a bait that I should not have. Still I have done nothing to be threatened with a block, and one cannot compare my comment to the rant of the third party. Now I'd like to ask for your help please. Could you please impose an interaction ban on me and unomi - a troll that has been wikihounding me around for quite some time? You saw it comments on AE. I could come up with many more examples of the same. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

AE is a difficult process at the best of times, so I'm not particularly tolerant of it being used as a battlefield between two users having a grudge match, especially an irrelevant one. There is a time and place, and it isn't on someone else's AE thread. Regardless of whether or not you think its blockworthy, we're both agreed on the basic principles, so no block and no real argument worth having.

As to an interaction ban between you and unomi, I'm not quite sure what you're asking for AE allows administrators such as myself to fashion fairly dramatic remedies, but only within certain jurisdictional boundaries. Anything outside of that usually requires gathering of a consensus on wp:ANI or some similar board. Could you clarify exactly what you're after?--Tznkai (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that AE allows administrators such as yourself to impose an interaction bans. As a matter of fact there was a recent precedent of such thing happened. Clarify what I am after? Well, I am after getting rid of a troll and wikihound. I'd like to spend time writing articles and uploading images versus editing AN/I and AE, when trolls attack. I believe his appearance on AE is enough for the interaction ban to be imposed, but if you need more evidences of wikihounding I could present them by request. The project will benefit, if this ban is imposed. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably review the evidence later today, under the understanding that Unomi will have to get his/her say, and that I will be opening to sanctioning one, both, or neither of you. If you agree, please notify Unomi of this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• (Off-topic) Personally, I'd like to see a blanket ban on DYKs related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. DYK has clearly become a battleground for partisans in the topic area, and the oversight process isn't sufficient to combat that problem. Every time I see an I-P-related DYK hook, it seems transparently conceived to proclaim the greatness (or villainy) of one side or the other - and those are the ones that actually make it through vetting. The original proposed hook here is a classic example - it presents an assertion by Alan Dershowitz, whose position on the I-P conflict is sufficiently partisan that we shouldn't be quoting it without attribution in an article, much less a DYK. Theoretically, DYK is intended to pique readers' interest in encyclopedic topics, not to provide a platform to recycle various partisan assertions without the filter of attribution and context. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. --Tznkai (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tznkai, have you seen my response to your question above "off-topic" one? I just like to make sure.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I did. I'm drafting my close of the Jalapenos opinion before returning to it.--Tznkai (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai, sorry to bother you all the time, but do you still remember about the interaction ban? Could you please tell me, if you are going to proceed with it? Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I said that if you still want to proceed, and you are also aware that this could end up with you being sanctioned, that you should notify unomi of what is about to happen, at which point I will start looking at behavior and seeing what if anything I can do.--Tznkai (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanctioned? what for? I am asking for an interaction ban, which will absolutely equally apply to both of us. And please do not threaten me with sanctions. You want to sanction me, please do, but I really do not like to be threaten with sanctions. Yes, I'd like to proceed please, but I am not sure why I should notify unomi? Didn't he posted right here in this very thread? Of course he knows. Besides he told me do not post at his page ever again, and I have to respect his wish because I would not like him to post at my talk page ever again either. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz, I can't make an interaction ban without any basis. In order to see if there is a basis, I have to examine evidence. If I examine evidence, I have to examine the evidence of all the relevant parties, in the case of a proposed interaction ban, that means I look at both of your conducts. I have no idea at this point whether or not either of you has crossed the line that allows me to take action, and I haven't looked. I won't look, until you've made it clear to me that you're accepting the risk that my view of the evidence can turn against you as well, and that Unomi has fair notice, or someone else asks me to look into it with the usual caveats I just laid out.--Tznkai (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please understand me.I am not asking you to turn against unomi. I am asking for an interaction ban that will equally apply to both of us. For example, I cannot post on his page, he cannot post on mine. I cannot revert his edits, he cannot revert mine. I cannot discuss him anywhere, he cannot discuss me, but if you'd like me to spell it out here it is: I am not afraid of being sanctioned. Please feel free to proceed. Would you like me to submit the evidences to you?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Start a new section on this talk page (try to keep it concise), notify and link unomi to that new section, and if necessary, I'll transfer it to the board with proper jurisdiction.--Tznkai (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A more substantive reply to MastCell: isn't that the catch though? Getting people interested in the encylopedia requires giving them interesting topics - and people tend to be interested in conflicts that spark strong passions. It is a problem, and maybe fire walling the whole thing off is the only way to deal with it, but after IP what else do we have to cut off on the same logic?--Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I, uhh, really don't think we want more people with sparked passions heading into I/P. I welcome and support MastCells proposal, perhaps in time we can work out a 'controversial DYK' queue, but at the moment I fear there is just too much slipping through unchecked and to little benefit for the project, sure we get a bunch of articles created, but I have to ask are articles such as the one being fought over here worth it, specifically thinking about the one that is sought retained as, what I view as, an unnecessary content fork?. un☯mi 20:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

JDE AE situation

Hi Tznkai... I am feeling more than a little manipulated by what happened, as I never would have approved the modified version of the article for the main page. In any case, my concern is much more for the reputation of DYK, the integrity of main page content, and preventing anyone from trying a similar stunt in the future. If I were to propose for discussion at WT:DYK rule changes to prevent recurrences / sanction editors who undertake similar actions in the future, would you see this as problematic in terms of trampling on the jurisdiction of AE or in any other way? The sort of rule I have in mind is that nominators may not make substantive edits to an article that has been approved and is in the DYK queue or on the main page without notification to WT:DYK; that any such edits may be reverted to the consensus / approved version if they are controversial; and that nominators may be banned from DYK by consensus at WT:DYK for gaming this rule. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

AE's jurisdiction begins and ends with the relevant cases, so on that level no problem. However, I'd say you're going to have to brave the halls of ANI to get community consensus at some point, and not just the isolated community at DYK.

I'd also counsel against the "consensus/approved" version. There is a serious amount of ossification and status quo bias that is alien to Wikipedia already, I'm hesitant to approve of encouraging more of it. In particular, DYKs are meant to bring in new viewership and editors - and inflicting that sort of rule on them on top of the already unpleasant welcome that Wikipedia has become in many cases... I worry as all.

How I would approach it, and this may work for you, it may not, is to tighten up enforcement already existing policies, WP:BATTLE, WP:EW. That covers a lot of the problems right there without the problems that come with enshrining a particular version in stone.--Tznkai (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll take the suggestion about ANI under advisement, but will wait to see what happens in a WT:DYK discussion. To clarify what I will propose, the restriction on editing away from the "consensus / approved" version would apply to the nominator(s) only, not to new editors. It would also apply for only the period from approval of the DYK hook until the article has left the main page. I have no problem with new eyes and article improvements, but I have a big problem with an article I approved for a main page appearance having reverts within minutes of its appearance to re-insert POV material that more than a dozen editors had objected to.

I see your point about the edit war policy, but my priority is preventing a repeat gaming of DYK and a repeat of POV material on the main page rather than the 'sanctioning' of any particular editor. And, as a non-admin, my faith in the admin community as a whole is not unlimited. EdChem (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Its an interesting idea, and while I'm instinctively wary of it, I am a big fan of innovation, even if it seems counter intuitive to others, so go for it. Either way, if you want this to become sort of binding practice, as much as anything is binding around here, you will have to get a community consensus, and administrators will have to know (and somewhat agree) if they're going to enforce it. Good luck.--Tznkai (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been reviewing hooks at DYK for around three years now, in all that time I have never seen anybody do anything that remotely approaches what Jalapenos did last week. It made a total mockery of our review process, and it is all the more reprehensible that he made these reverts after expressly giving his assent to the consensus version only the previous day.

However, my chief concern, like EdChem's, is not to sanction Jalapenos but to ensure this type of thing never happens again. I brought this case to AE precisely because of the potential difficulties you mention in achieving consensus for additional safeguards; I felt a shot across the bows, delivered from AE, might be the best way to discourage future transgressions of this type, without us having to play instruction creep at DYK. It does seem to me to be self-evident that what Jalapenos did was unacceptable, because breaking one's word on a verbal agreement is ipso facto acting in bad faith. We shouldn't need to spell out in our rules that this sort of thing is unacceptable, and of course ultimately there are always going to be loopholes for people who are determined to game the system anyway. But if we have to, we can probably draft some additional safeguards.

Apart from that, I think I read somewhere that at some point you had suggested a simple blanket ban of nominations from the I-P topic area at DYK. It would be a draconian step, but I must say I would be tempted to support such a measure. Over the last couple of years we have had periodic scraps over POV DYK nominations in the topic area, the amount of wikidrama generated by these cases has often been extraordinary, to the point where I pretty much stopped arguing for outright rejection of such nominations and instead started working with nominators to try and NPOV the articles instead. That is what I find so galling about this particular case - that I could have simply argued to have the article rejected, but that I acted in good faith, wasting a week of my time trying to fix the problems, only to have most of my edits made for NPOV reverted at the last moment. At this point I have pretty much had enough of playing this game, an outright ban would certainly make for a lot less wikidrama at DYK and considerably less work and angst for me. The number of problematic submissions in the topic area has risen in recent times to the point that I can't possibly edit them all for NPOV anyway. But then, getting community consensus for such a ban would probably be problematic in itself. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Gaming problem in the DYK of civilian casualty ratio where any and all comments are welcomed. EdChem (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My AE

In "my" section [42], I added a couple of questions based on the discussion so far. Since I'm not sure anybody would notice them at this point, and since you're the uninvolved admin who seems to be taking charge of the discussion, I just wanted to call your attention to them and to tell you that I would really appreciate a response by the admins. I realize that the discussion is already annoyingly long, but think about how I feel: I have to read all of it and I may be censured at the end. Thanks. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

reading it now.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied there.--Tznkai (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your proposed remedy - placing J. under "1RR" is no sanction at all given that all articles in the topic area are already covered by such a ban. I don't particularly care whether he is sanctioned or not for this offence, but I do believe that a general statement regarding the inappropriateness of reverting contested content back into DYK articles while they are on the mainpage would be helpful. Gatoclass (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've struck that suggestion as it occurs to me it may not be all that easy to come up with an unambiguous formulation. Perhaps that would be best left to the DYK regulars after all. Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I expanded on my concerns at the AE case. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai, I understand your proposed alternative to a sanction as inviting a response from me. I think I would be fine with voluntarily committing to refrain for 9 months from making any Arab-Israeli related edits, broadly construed, to my own DYK'd articles while (and immediately before) they are on the main page, provided there was an effective caveat to prevent an editor aware of the voluntary commitment from gaming it. This voluntary commitment would prevent the arising of any concern similar to the one that the original accusation was supposedly about.

I would not volunteer to refrain from making Arab-Israeli related edits to all articles on the main page, both because I frequently edit "in the news" articles and because that commitment would require me to thoroughly check the main page before making any Arab-Israeli related edit.

To avoid any possible misunderstanding: my purpose in undertaking this voluntary commitment would be to avoid further drama and time wasting. My position remains that I did nothing wrong that I am aware of, that no one has yet shown anything that I did wrong, and that unless and until that situation changes, any personal sanction against me would be unwarranted and harmful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid its not good enough. Your responses here suggest to me that you are either unwilling or unable to recognize the proper way to deal with the concerns about POV material within the topic area when you disagree with those concerns.--Tznkai (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)