Concerning your answer to a question I posed about content, which was basically that ArbCom should not provide direct content rulings: The question doesn't ask if ArbCom should make content rulings in the sense of how an article should read; it's about how ArbCom can help, if at all, during intractable content disputes, including by setting up procedures (similar to those in Macedonia 2) or sanctioning users who violate content policies. Heimstern Läufer(talk)08:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I stumbled upon a situation that warranted contacting you, but this one's got me puzzled.
Rexburg, Idaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has suffered peculiar revisions from anonymous IP's for over a year, but in the past month, specific vandalism by multiple IPs has latched onto one objective: the removal of a single, valid (and pretty important) reference. Occasionally, the removal is accompanied by a minor tweak or manual reversion to one of the recent, vandalized versions of the page. In those cases there is little rhyme or reason to the changes, save for the removal of that one reference. But most of the time, that single citation is removed in a persistent, precise, and methodical manner that I've begun to think might be somehow automated (but the subtle IP variations defies this explanation). It's obviously not an issue with the reference material because it always remains untouched in the article.
Anyhow, after a week and a half of reverting the vandals, I requested page protection. A one week semi-protect was implemented, during which time there wasn't a single issue. But within 13 hours of that protection expiring, the vandals were back at it.
I wracked my brain (and searched the policies) for an alternative to simply requesting one protection after another but couldn't dredge up a solution.
I issued another protection request, pointing out the dilemma and asking what else could be done. As expected, the request was denied, but the suggested solution was to continue reverting the page and warning the users. Having already been doing this for weeks, I'm certain this approach is (and will be) a tremendous waste of resources - especially if the vandalism is automated. The offending IPs change frequently (creating new users) and requests for discussion in reversion summaries and user/article talk pages have all been ignored.
So my question is: Is there a way of dealing with this that's more aggressive than perpetually reverting the vandalism but doesn't fly in the face of Wikipedia's core values and require indefinite page protection? Better yet, what would you do as an editor in this situation? --K10wnsta (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, saw you're running for ArbCom. We have crossed paths randomly ever since my early editing days in 2006 (always in a good way) - just thought I'd write to wish you good luck. Orderinchaos18:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mailer diablo! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.
I must protest at your deletion of my new article (Phosphor_(Game)) before I could even get the first paragraph fully published. Please reply in my talk-page Mod mmg (talk) with an explanation of how it is possible to create any new article if they are all deleted within seconds of creation. Mod mmg (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been moved to my sandbox by someone else and it still exists in the mainspace under a different capitalisation. I would like guidance on what to do about that and will consult you when I am ready to place the full article back on the mainspace when I have finished creating it fully. Mod mmg (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many winners but I've chosen you because I've seen your name before.
Congratulations on your high scoring which will almost certainly result in an ArbCom seat. Recently, two issues have been a tad irritating to me. One is a complaint against someone which never reached the level of ArbCom. They are described as a SPA and described in a nasty way. The editor's bad editing behaviour should be the determining factor, not snide comments about SPA and other things. I hope ArbCom makes a distinction in any future case between any editor's bad editing as opposed to snide comments and smear tactics. This just creates incivility.
The other issue doesn't have much to do about ArbCom. It's when people say "verifiability, not truth". It's both. It's certainly not truth that can't be verified, but the modified converse (verification, not truth) is not good for an encyclopedia.
Please allow me to add my congratulations on the great showing in the election! I look forward to seeing your work with the Committee this year. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Mailer. Please see MBisanz's advice here. Tony(talk)
Hi
I noticed that you are replacing KL in the Arbcom case, and since you are now an acting clerk in the Arbcom proceedings, could you see if my concern is valid ?
[1]
If my concern is not valid then delete if freely or close the discussion. If it falls under the appropriate rule I would welcome an polite intervention.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated V for Vendetta (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mailer diablo. Thanks for your arbitration case outcome notice. I believe, however, that User:Biophys also falls under the remedy applicable to the EEML member editors–the prohibition on coming into any unnecessary contact with User:Russavia is one that readily comes to mind. At [3] FayssalF specifically clarified that "Biophys is subject to remedies 11A, 12 and 13." I believe that this should at least be noted–at least for Biophys' own awareness. If at all possible, making this absolutely explicit for the community at some venue such as the proposed decision outline at WP:EEML (or however such a thing should be properly recorded) would be helpful also in my opinion, as a way of avoiding further breeches and possible Wikilawyering about scope.
Hi, I'm a new account user who found myself blocked as a sockpuppet on very tenuous grounds, as you can see on my talk page.
What particularly disconcerted me was that the user then suggested that all my comments at Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes be deleted!
It may well be that it was a case of oversensitivity. However, looking at the talk pages of some other editors
at Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes I was led to the EEML arbitration page. I had a quick look at what it was
all about, but the pertinent thing is that the name of the user who alerted admin appeared several times on the evidence page.
I have not looked into it any further myself, and the block and request to delete my comments might simply be honest oversensitivity like I said, but nonetheless I feel I should mention it just in case.
DHooke1973 (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks for uploading File:110908WP.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block request
Since I was unblocked during EEML case, I suppose to calm the matters you should reset my block till 31st of May(even though I do not intend to edit till the block is over). To explain:my previous account was blocked till 31st of May, I was unblocked, my account got hacked, so I set up the a new one, and old one was indef blocked as result. Since the EEML is over I probably need to be reblocked, although I do not inted to edit anymore till the 31st of May.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simon D Perry
'Mr Perry's accomplishments should not be overlooked.
Yeah, that's what I thought too (I thought long and hard about this but decided not to go ahead with it). Per WP:MOS, only titles/ranks of a particular person are in Caps, landmarks are... well, another story altogether. Cheers~! --Dave118517:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at this section instead. There may be only one railway station in Singapore to make it unique enough as a proper noun, there are literately thousands of stations for example in UK to be sufficiently considered as a common noun. I think there isn't a standard MoS being set out by Wikiproject Trains, so you might want to work out a standardization there. - Mailer Diablo21:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is not a biggie for me so I'll leave that to someone else. But what part of "WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections" are you referring to? According to the Wikipedia article on nouns, "Proper nouns ... are nouns representing unique entities ..., as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities". I think that every place, including every railway station, is a unique entity and so is a proper noun. For example, how many Jordanhill Railway Stations are there? Surely only one by that name. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–17:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I don't maintain watchlists. This account is totally empty, while my known alternative only has a handful of leftovers that in the past I added like internal bookmarks. - Mailer Diablo04:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by this. Are you saying that it is so important that the ArbCom not appear to be flip-flopping that you shouldn't try clarifying or amending something which you now understand is bad? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The request for case page is getting unweildy, so I thought I'd come here. The problem with the original motion is that no-one can agree what it actually means. The various "clarifications" by individual Arbs are scattered about in various threads on various pages, so no-one can be sure that they have read them all, let alone what kind of status the clarifications have. Are they individual Arbs expressing personal opinions, or are they the officail position of the committee? Do please consider trying to make it a bit clearer. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying, yes. But as far as I know, amendment is a straight no. If we wanted to pass an amended motion, we could have done so during the original motion's voting stage. We saw this coming, but Alea iacta est. - Mailer Diablo21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a shame. That motion leads logically to this mess, and to the next one in a few days, whatever that will be. Oh well. I give up on this committee. Guettarda (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer, are you saying that Arbcom now lacks the power to revisit its previous decisions? Or is it only in this case that Arbcom cannot revisit its decision? DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put this slightly less politely than DuncanHill. Is the ArbCom trying to pretend that statements it makes are all ex cathedra and infaillible? Of course you can make amendments when you realize something went badly. That's what sane humans do. Insane, stubborn, or stupid humans don't. The ArbCom should not be acting like the Edah Charedis. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer - No.
Long answer - The motion only specifically addresses that series of events at that point of time with an amnesty, and ArbCom hasn't issued any new 'Get out of jail free' cards since. Whatever now is over at the ongoing RfC. Unless it fails to produce something decisive, then the Arbs will consider revisiting it as a whole. (I'm speaking in my personal capacity) - Mailer Diablo21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you at least get your colleagues to gather up their scattered clarifications and put them all in one place, to help us poor saps who are still trying to guess what the motion meant. DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
