User talk:Protonk

Archiving of WT:FICT

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

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

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

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

disappointed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TGH1970

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

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

User:AALIYAH2014

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

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

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

You just blocked me

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

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

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

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

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

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

AALIYAH2014

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

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

Economic freedom

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

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

A suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

RfC/U

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Thatemptyfeeling

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

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

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

Edits

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

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

2008 IWF Action

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

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

LTCM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:TheSickBehemoth

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

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

Talk:Virgin Killer

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

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

User:My2sense2wikip

Back at it. Totally unrepentant.

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

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

Could you give me a few tips?

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

Any help appreciated.

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

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

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

Because...

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

Notice

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

RE:Diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI case (70.79.65.227/Ramu50)

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

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

Civility

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

DenisHume's block

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

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

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

Protonk--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint Barnstar for finding an acceptable solution to the DenisHume block

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

RFC Update

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

You've got a better head for stuff like this

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

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

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

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

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

CSD decline query

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for house-keeping

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

About my block

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

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

WP:AN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A detail

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

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

Guido den Broeder

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

Sock-Puppet banning

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

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

Thank You

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

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

One of your blockees is back

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

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

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

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

"Making a production"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It was because of 'Policy BLAH'"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas!

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

About banime and cumulus clouds ....

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

• Yeah...not sure I want to delve more into that whole shitstorm... Protonk (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

wow edit

no, my account is not compromised, i just edited for a little fun and humor, and the fact that i hate wow.