User talk:NuclearWarfare

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Mimi Macpherson

Fake timestamp inserted so this does not archive for a while. I will remove it if the issue is resolved: 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

NW, given your very strong opinions about BLPs, I'd suggest that you not close AfDs or DrVs on them in the future. I don't believe 5% of the admin core would have closed that DrV that way. Admins really shouldn't be taking admin actions on stuff they have strong opinions about and I can't imagine you see yourself as not having strong opinions on BLPs. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have erred in your closure, but will leave it there. The problem we now have is WP:GNG can you explain in light of your closure what constitutes notability on this person, what we have is 15 years of sustained and substancial media coverage in every media outlet in Australia, we have sourcing as a TV presenter in Australia for The Discovery Channel, She is a Radio presenter in Queensland as well as goto source(expert) for comments for national media outlets in relation to Whales conservation. Gnangarra 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you folks suggesting that admins not have opinions on anything (which I'm sure most admin candidates have when they were non-admins)? Or should admins not have brains when closing such discussions? –MuZemike 06:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins shouldnt close when they are actually expressing an opinion, but I dont care about the closure. I care about WP:GNG so far everyone thats closed discussions on this matter have been unable to answer what we are required to produce as sourcing beyond that which is expected for any other BLP. The subject meets notability more thoroughly than most people but its decided she isnt notable since NW made that decision on the balance of the discussion presented obviously NW has some idea about will be required to have the article. If NW cant define it how can we mere mortal editors do it? Gnangarra 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The ideal case is the uninvolved administrator. NW is highly involved in BLP issues and takes a very deletionist stance. Just as a Star Wars fan shouldn't be closing Star Wars AfDs leaning toward delete as keep, neither should someone with a strong opinion on BLPs close an AfD (or DrV in this case) against consensus. I think it's pretty obvious, but apparently it needed to be said.Hobit (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This close is really very poor. The original reasons given for deletion had no basis in policy, and the arguments for endorsement of the close equally had no basis. To give weight to people who argue that Mimi Macpherson is not a notable person is to throw reality completely out of the window, and are you going to actually defend people who cited WP:BLP1E? As for "no longer a public person", she certainly was a public person as recently as last October,[1] and what ever happened to "Notability is not temporary"? This sets a horrible precedent: anyone who isn't an A-lister who doesn't like well-publicised negative aspects of their life appearing in a Wikipedia article simply has to complain to Jimbo, and up will pop people arguing that 2+2=5 to get it deleted. Fences&Windows 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that Gnangarra and Fences&Windows are likely correct when they say that this person meets the notability guidelines. The AFD and DRV both arrived at a rough consensus that supported that opinion. That's all fine and dandy, but deletion guidelines clearly state that the subjects wishes may be taken into account, which I am not going to apologize for doing. Until Wikipedia gets a near-foolproof way for protecting BLPs, I am nearly always going to do so when making a decision. Does that make me biased? Maybe. But not so much that I am going to stop closing AFDs, especially because not a single one of mine has ever been overturned. I could be wrong, but I don't believe so. NW (Talk) 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NW-don't let this get to you, good call. This thread is about sour grapes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

so little understanding for someone with such community trust. I'm trying to understand how the article of a notable Australian gets deleted and what it will take to move forward(re-create), the admin of the afd closurer said nothing except take it to DRV, WP:AWNB discussed the implications of the afd closurer -- you screamed canvassing(though there wsnt any) but I waited anyway and the DRV wasnt listed at AWNB. The DRV was closed as endorsing the closure I seek more detail, NW explained then you popup making an unnecessary comment, if your intent is to start a bush fire on the issue your going the right way about it. I suggest you go take a happy pill and do something productive and leave it to us experience editors to discuss this in a civilised manor. sorry NW for this response but after 5 years here the discussions about Mimi have generated the worse reactions by a crat I've ever seen Gnangarra 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to add NW I wasn't too happy either. We could have used semi-protection indef or even full protection. Outright deletion is like hitting a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. Think about it, so where does influence stop? You do know many political parties of various countries watch and edit wikipedia don't you? So this sort of decision gives a tacit green light to all sorts of people on how information can be influenced by the subjects themselves and hence undermines the credibility of the 'pedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There wouldn't happen to be an OTRS ticket I could read, is there? Depending on the wording of Ms. Macpherson's request and because the consensus really was leaning towards overturn to keep, I could be convinced to modify my closure to "restore but add on Reviewer FP and Semi Protection". NW (Talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good approach. I don't recall seeing any discussion about an OTRS ticket as such, just that Jimbo had intervened after some communication with the subject. I think the best the best thing would be to ask Jimbo about the exact exchange. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on Jimbo's talk page here. NW (Talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you NW, as I suggested in the afd I'd have no problem with a heavily oversighted restoration or even a fresh re-creation so as address BLP concerns. As Cas expressed the subject isnt the issue, the issue is the decisions and process outcomes that make it plausible to request deletion of all but a few 100 BLP articles on the similar grounds. I'll leave it here when you've had discussions with Jimbo give me a shout and I'll be happy to help if theres a need, also note I'm on the OTRS en-info queue as well. thanks Gnangarra 02:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I had requested that we hold off on even having a DRV until I finish talking with the subject. Due to the time differences and her busy schedule and mine, that takes longer than one might hope, but there is no hurry on any of this. What I propose we do is hold another DRV (I will gladly initiate it) in a couple of weeks, likely for the purposes of bringing back the article, including some fresh sources - on paper - which will be (ideally) scanned and sent to OTRS.

The biggest problem with this biography is the problem identified in the initial deletion request - she really isn't notable in and of herself, but only through being the sibling of someone famous. It is likely true that she meets some of our existing guidelines, but I think this only points to some failings in those guidelines, which haven't adequately contemplated cases of this nature.

Arguments have been made that she's a "household name" in Australia - although without proof. But even if she is a household name, the fact remains that not very much is known about her other than a handful of negative tabloid-style events which would not, in and of themselves, even been covered in the press, save for her being the sister of Elle Macpherson. A DUI, a bankruptcy, an alleged sex tape on the Internet. If these things happened to most people, it would not be in the press, and correctly so - but in her case, the press attention was a mere side effect of her sister's fame.

At the same time, Mimi is well aware that a google for her name gives pretty sad results. Nothing much about her is known, and the Internet is sadly mostly interested in the sex tape - so "slutload.com' (*sigh*) appears 2nd in the google results, while her own site appears 8th. She's sympathetic to the idea that if a *quality* biography of her, warts and all... but importantly "and all" - meaning genuine coverage of her entire life as opposed to the random collection of tabloid tidbits we had at the outset of this- could give a much better impression of who she really is.

What I'd like for us to do is wait a couple of weeks until she's made up her mind and we've really thoroughly assessed the situation privately as to what might be possible here, and then hold another DRV *with her considered and well-advised opinion* taken into account. Notice that I don't say that it should absolutely rule the day, but that it is legitimate to take it into account, and that this is - per the DRV close - a borderline case where that seems incredibly relevant.

I will forward my entire correspondence with her (after I get her permission, of course) to OTRS, so that others may review the situation as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jimbo, this doesn't look negative nore non-notable, and neither does this which is about the family not just Elle, nore this, nor this or this, so I am not too impressed with a comment like that about lack of proof. She is on television from time to time here and would be recognised by plenty. Look, I didn't argue too strongly at the time as I do sort of agree that maybe some folks famous for just being famous we could do without, but we need some sort of algorithm - as things stand she veers too far into notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

nor this note the show as proof she's a "household name" in Australia and no mention of Elle. Gnangarra 13:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Jimbo didn't carefully review the sources as he had information "straight from the horse's mouth". It's a very easy mistake to make--when you get close to the middle of things you can easily miss stuff. A careful review of the sources makes it pretty plain she's very notable and that her notability isn't based on her sister's (though it likely started there). She is, by our rules, notable for 3 or maybe 4 separate (though related) careers: TV show host, whale conservationist, and running her own business. Her work with her fathers business may be a forth. She won an award for her own business. Admittedly it apparently went belly-up, but that doesn't detract from her notability. She's in no way boarder-line notable nor is her notability solely due to her sister. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1984 ghallooghaaraa DrV

I'll point out that, AFAICT, the !vote (ignoring IPs and new accounts just because) was 10 to 10 (and that's if you count the deleting admin endorsing his own action as a !vote...). Given that A) the deletion was out of process and B) the admin whose close was overridden objected to being overridden that's not "general agreement". Also, note that the vast majority of those !voting to delete showed up in the same 20 hour block. That's not an endorsement of an out-of-process deletion. Oh, and all the arguments to delete were technically off topic for DrV. Hobit (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even those working on the article commented that it was unsalvagable ("# I guess most of you who want the article restored/re-listed are concerned about the "process" (checkuser/deletion) here, and it can be argued that it was a procedural error. Just for the record, while I did start working on the article, even I believe that the article is a hopeless POV fork of Punjab insurgency, 1984 anti-Sikh riots and Khalistan movement. It was first created at SikhWiki, and then copied here. I started working on the article so that any salvageable content can be merged to the respective articles and then redirected to 1984 anti-Sikh riots. utcursch | talk 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)"), and most people arguing to overturn addressed the process and not the content issues. DRV is as much about content as it is about process, and I could not see anyone with a sufficiently strong argument to counter the points made by those who wished to keep it deleted. General agreement was probably not the best phrase to use, I do admit. NW (Talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion was to be about the process, some of us chose to stay on topic. You want all DrVs that _are_ procedurally broken to also readdress the content issues also? If so, I'll dutifully update the DrV directions to make that plain. It's going to make DrVs a lot longer though. _{struck as passive-aggressive} I'd remind you that not one person argued there wasn't a significant procedural problem and that DrV should only look at the content of the article as it relates to the procedural error. "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early)." To fault folks for not addressing issues they aren't supposed to address in the DrV is, well, odd. Hobit (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURO, also a policy, applies in this case. There is no reason to believe that restoring the content would benefit the encyclopedia per the discussion (as in, the consensus was heavily in favor that the article was inappropriate), so I see no reason to undelete it only to send it back to be deleted at AFD. NW (Talk) 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your reasoning and it might well have been for the best. Or maybe a bunch of Indian POV warriors got there way. There is a real issue here: two different sides of a conflict have different names for the same things. One is more commonly used for various reasons, but the POV case is by no means open-and-shut. Only one side's arguments got heard because the other side didn't treat this as AfD2 and you closed on that basis. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare will be unavailable for a few days

Just a few days though. I'll do my best to catch up quickly when I get back. NW (Talk) 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to do a doubletake when "Nuclear warfare will be unavailable for a few days" appeared on my watchlist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess? -Atmoz (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way to win is not to play... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys are dating yourselves. Are all of us really this old? Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never dated Atmoz, and ChrisO isn't really my type anyway (sorry Chris). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I know that's a good movie even if came out a few years before I was born. :p It's on AMC every so often. Have fun, NW —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember wanting to date Ally Sheedy... sigh... -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you're old. :p —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@SHBH: Yes! It was my intent all along for that to happen, and I am glad that at least one person fell for it. NW (Talk) 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was my user page deleted?

Hi NW, Why was my user page deleted on July 8 when I only improved on other people's article, and even if other people also added to my contribution? Why was my user page deleted for "blatantly" advertising someone when the article on this someone I supposed advertised has been approved and continue to exist? I'm quite confused. (Much the same way I'm confused that somebody deleted the photo I uploaded even if I cited the name of the photographer as source and emailed his permission to the specified address given at wikimedia as instructed. I wonder if you guys coordinate with each other at all to avoid all these confusing policing one or the other is doing...) Thanks! Viajeratisima (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run in a very patched-together, hodge-podge way. Did you happen to send an email to a @wikimedia.org or @wikipedia.org email address for the photograph permissions? If so, I should be able to fix that issue for you.

And as for the userpage deletion, it seemed like it was simply an advertisement for Denial: A Memoir of Terror. Did you receive any email that said you could have it up? NW (Talk) 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

I see you lifted the original 1 year protection, I'm a bit curious as to the reasoning behind that; the page was hit be the vandal again. (now protected for 3 months, but I think we should restore the 1 year, the vandal has changed ISPs from what I can see, and is hitting some different pages now). I've initiated another WP:ANI thread. Connormah^talk 18:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think someone asked me to, but I am not sure why. The answer is probably in my archives somewhere. I will reprotect it. NW (Talk) 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help re: disruptive edits

Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

TWO, I am sorry but I do not think that I have the time to look into this at the moment. Perhaps you could ask User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who blocked him a week or so ago? NW (Talk) 23:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Internet censorship in Australia IP edit deletions

Hi, I noticed that roughly a week ago you deleted (not reverted) one edit each by User:62.178.233.96 and User:58.166.215.170 in the Internet censorship in Australia article, then blocked those users for "persistent vandalism". However, neither IP had ever made any other edits. Might I enquire as to the reason for the deletions and blocks, why the edits were not simply reverted instead, and why that particular justification was given for the blocks? --pmj (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Those two IPs were /b/tards, and I blocked/revdeleted them quietly to deny recognition to them. NW (Talk) 04:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't aware of WP:DENY; of course it makes sense, psychologically. Let's hope they never get into a contest to see who can have the most deleted edits ... Thanks for the prompt answer! --pmj (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Zzuuzz‎

Is there anyway you could RevDel those offensive posts on Zzuuzz‎'s talk page. No one needs to see stuff like that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 05:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It continues after Prodego took of the protection. Might be time to indef semi-protect his talk page and never take the protection off. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection has been restored and the posts RevDel'd. All is well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removals

Don't do this or this, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You really think that was anything but trolling? NW (Talk) 10:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they were both fair comments. Though I don't think the point is whether I agree with them, the point is that there's no reason to remove them. The IP is very familiar and not a very welcome person, as I recall. Good thing he's editing anonymously! --MZMcBride (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Familiar and not welcome, you say? All the more reason to remove them. NW (Talk) 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything you say applies to me. :-( --MZMcBride (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Watson unprot

See [2], a question for WMC. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected your talk page for a day

Hiyas Nuclear,

I just figured i forgot to send you a message about this - i protected your talk page for a day due to high speed vandalism from a large amount of IP's. The vandalism started right after your own 30 minute protection expired, and was definitely coming from the same person. Feel free to unprotect the page if you deem the protection is no longer needed. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@Excirial: Pretty standard 4chan stuff. Thanks for the revert/block/revdelete/protections :) NW (Talk) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@NocturneNoir: User talk:Shirik/IDA explains most of it. NW (Talk) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that it looks like a double semiprot, a day apart, both indefinite. I think I'm missing something. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The move protection is indefinite, the edit protection isn't. NW (Talk) 13:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Right then. Carry on and all that, admin chaps. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have been editing more than usual lately. How is the Glenn Gould work going? NW (Talk) 13:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you believe my editing qualifies, in any way, as work, you are gravely mistaken. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea

Now that I like. Wonder why no one thought of that before. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed that there was some special rationale for it, but I couldn't find anything when I read over the procedures this morning. I'll be waiting for the ArbCom SWAT helicopter any day now though ;) NW (Talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

The following: i reverted some edits which were wrong in Alejandro Campano, by anon 79.112.225.110, he re-reverted. I undid it and sent him a polite but to-the-point message - although the person is most likely Romanian, the content of my message is very easy to understand (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.112.225.110) - what did he do? Revert it again, without one word! He also "operates", at least, with the IPs 79.112.225.132 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.225.132) and 79.112.225.220 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.225.220).

Could you please protect the page or something? Would really appreciate it. Regards and thanks as always :) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the three external links, and I can't find any evidence that he is playing for either. Could you point me to a team roster or something similar just so I can double check? Thanks, NW (Talk)

• On the other hand, maybe just the heat of the moment, for the the second IP that i gave you that is, pay no attention to that one (maybe i was mislead by the similar IP). However, i would like for the A. Campano page to be protected, the first IP and the the third are definitely the same user (you have seen how he has shown a total lack of disrespect, removing true info). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looked into it some more, and decided that I can indeed protect it. NW (Talk) 02:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI

The IP troll from the ANI thread on Leland Yee left me a nice message [3]. Just FYI in case he shows back up on the thread. Also thanks for the removal of that one sentence, didn't even think of WP:DENY. Mauler90 _talk 03:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Do you deny the claim was controversial? Do you deny that it was self published? Your view that it was not a BLP issue runs 180 degrees counter to what BLP says explicitly about cases like this. If, for example, this were reversed and Marknutley posted a self-published critique from Richard Lindzen on Michael Mann's BLP, would you not consider it a BLP issue? Marknutley was admonished for using a published book as a source, this uses a professor's personal website. How do you explain this discrepancy? ATren (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer not to discuss this here. I will, however, discuss this on the RFE page if you wish to post there. NW (Talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've posted the question there. ATren (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to restrict myself to quick matters while online for now, so feel free to poke me if I haven't answered it 12 hours from now. NW (Talk) 13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, there's no hurry. I've addressed some of the other admins there as well so it's not just directed at you. ATren (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hat on RFE

I noticed you colapsed a section begining with my comment. Just wanted to go on record. I believe my comment was a good faith comment condeming the nonsense on the page. Although the nonsense continued and happened to be indented under my comment I find it slightly troubling that my comment is lumped in with the rest. (Note slightly. Not troubling enough that i'm going to edit war about it or lose sleep over it, but enough to comment.)--Cube lurker (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll take another look and change the location of the collapse box. NW (Talk) 13:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No big worries. (Looks like someone else has disagreed with your boxing). Whatever happens i've said my peace and i'll leave the arena to the usual crowd for now. Best of luck.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I appreciated your fair statement about my actions on that page and didn't think that the boxing reflected poorly on you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hurling threats

Don't go hurling threats about on issues that you have not studied sufficiently [4]. Not a good way of doing things.Polargeo (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the entire thing and have followed the issue with Lar for several months now. I said what I meant and I meant what I said (that sounds like it is a line from Dr. Seuss...) There are times when to push the issue, and there are times to walk away. This is one of the latter. No matter who is right here, you or him, the outcome won't change, so best to keep it at the status quo to avoid the edit warring.

In any case, at WP:RFAR, there is a section above the Arbitrators views called "Clerk notes". It is specifically mentioned there that only uninvolved clerks are to post there, but it is also where recused clerks make a statement about their recusal. So I see no reason why that shouldn't apply here as well. NW (Talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I am a step ahead of you and have also re-expressed my recusal. I hope you will defend this in similar maner with no wikilawyering. Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think it was really necessary, but sure, I have no problem with that edit. NW (Talk) 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When I previously edited in that section with regard to enforcement where I had no grudge with the editor and had never previously edited the article or it's talkpage my comments were removed. That was because you and other established admins did not have the balls to go against Lar. So you move Lar's comments back in with threats but when Lar moves my neutral comments out you are silent. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar moved your comment out? I must have missed that. Diff? NW (Talk) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Without taking sides, I believe he's referring to [5], or [6], or [7] - more on request, I think, but I stopped after 3. Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was a previous enforcement request outlined in the case [8]. Where Lar moved my comment out even though my comment was constructive and I had never edited the article or had any significant conflict with the individual. Lar seems to have defined who can edit in which section and you appear to be enforcing this with your blessing. Polargeo (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. Can we just let bygones by bygones here? If it were May, I would defend you (I think I have learned a lot since then about this general dispute, and I would not make the same actions as I did then), but there is no use stirring up old disputes now. In any case, I read your comment as "Lar moved my comment out today". Is that the case? NW (Talk) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, it is not that old a dispute in the terms of the arbcom case at all (last three months). I wish I could so easily ignore everything. It all boiled down to me being Pointy apparently and this is used as ammunition against me on a regular basis, along with incivility against Lar. In fact the whole thing is currently being used to try to get me desysopped by JWB in the current arbcom case. Therefore I don't find leniency towards Lar as a good way of dealing with continuing abuse of privilages by him. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore it all. I know it sounds easy to say that from my position, but hopefully things will calm down after the arbcom proposed decision (speaking of which, JWB's proposals with regard to you have almost no chance of even being proposed in the actual decision). If the Arbitration Committee is unable to fix the problem, then we can work it out ourselves, but clearly the community has reached a standstill with how to deal with Lar's uninvolvedness at this point. NW (Talk) 15:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, I moved your comment on the RFE page per the discussion you linked me to that forbid you to post there for three months. Sorry about that, but I figure it's best to try to do this as by-the-book as possible. NW (Talk) 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry I seem to have triggered an edit war on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I made a good-faith attempt to fix the sourcing and wording problems others had identified (which I agreed with, by the way) but it seems Marknutley's disagreement with the content was deeper than that. :-( -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP

I see that you have blocked Marknutley.[9] Are you planning on blocking any of the other editors for edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP, or just Marknutley?

1. [10] MN reverts.
2. [11] WMC reverts.
3. [12] ATren reverts.
4. [13] ChrisO rewrites and readds section.
5. [14] MN reverts.
6. [15] WMC reverts
7. [16] MN reverts.
8. [17] ChrisO reverts.
9. [18] MN reverts.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this sequence is rather misleading without noting what the edits represent. Edits 1-3 concern the old content. Edit 4 (my first) is, as noted above, my good-faith attempt to resolve the problems that editors had identified over sourcing and wording. Edits 5, 7 and 9 are MN reverting under a new rationale that had not been discussed in the previous dispute. Edit 8 (my second) is my one and only revert. I had no previous involvement in this dispute. It is rather annoying to have made the effort to resolve the problems identified by others - which I agreed with - but then to find oneself being reverted for a new reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same basic material. I note that you did attempt to rewrite it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same topic, but not at all the same material (compare [19] and [20]. The previous discussion raised concerns about sourcing and wording. I agreed with those concerns. Therefore I rewrote the material to address those concerns and added Monckton's side of the story to provide balance. The material I added was wholly new - I dumped what was there already and started afresh. Weighting is an entirely separate issue that, as far as I can see, was not discussed to any extent. My impression was that editors were objecting to the sourcing and the wording, not the basic issue of inclusion. Apologies if that was not the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still supposed to seek consensus before restoring contentious material in a BLP. And even if we overlook the first time, there is no reason for the second time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't restore anything - I rewrote the thing from scratch, fixing the problems that others had cited in removing the content. I was under the impression that those problems were why the content had been removed - not because of any undiscussed undue weight issues. I then made one revert. That is well within a (self-imposed) 1RR. There's no 0RR on this or any other CC article, is there? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think NW's talkpage is the right place for this. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Blocks are preventive, not punitive. As such, Marknutley indicated that he would continue to edit war if not blocked so he was, to prevent further disruption. This is Nuke's point. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But the page has already been locked.[21] How can Marknutley edit-war on locked page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuke didn't know but it's been endorsed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see now that there was only a two minute gap. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line on CC

Just posted on CC evidence talk page: " Bottom line: If the users on BOTH sides of this would BEHAVE, SirFozzie wouldn't have felt compelled to try to stop the THIRD edit war in less than a week -- which is also the SECOND in 24 hours. Therefore, I'm telling the clerks to clamp down on this atrocious behavior by both sides. And yes, this is being discussed on arb-l but the edit wars are breaking out faster than arbs can respond. If any editors can't shape up post haste, as far as I'm concerned the clerks and other unvolved admins can take any measures necessary to put these fires out." — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Check mail too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Checked and forwarded as you requested. Don't forget to enjoy you travels :) NW (Talk) 00:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We're having fun. But I could do without CC edit wars. I'm around a fair amount today because we're using this afternoon and evening to recuperate ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good that you're away, bad that you're logging in on vacation. (Yeah, I'm one to talk...) Anyway full protecting every article or project-space page that contains the word "climate" or a synonym, broadly construed, would be a great idea. People are going completely nuts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SB-hehe, yeah, that option might be coming but we'll see. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

sofixit ;) NW (Talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully protecting all the articles punishes everyone, not just the involved editors. A temporary topic ban on all the parties would be better, as it would allow uninvolved editors to continue to improve those articles. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This could also reveal just how many/few uninvolved editors there are. I wouldn't be surprised if there are darn few. This seems to be one of the areas on wiki that lots of people avoid like the plaque. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume you want "plague" and not "plaque". ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do suppose a buildup of some plaque or plaques are far worse than a buildup of other plaques or plaques... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A plaque on all your houses might diminish their individual value... -- ChrisO (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[22] I thought the parties had accepted a voluntary topic ban until the case was decided? Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you could point to where they volunteered. Secondly I was unaware of it and thirdly if it is voluntary they can unvolunteer. Polargeo (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope Cla isn't under the illusion that I'm the only one making edits. That would indicate a distinct lack of attention William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, no Cla *isn't* under any such illusion because he is making edits himself [23] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Protecting all the articles even remotely involved in CC seems to make the most sense. I'm surprised it hasn't been done. Topic bans on "the parties" is problematic as it raises the question "who are the parties?" I was away for a few days, and I read that there was a request from arbcom while I was away that people involved in the case not edit CC articles. I haven't been able to find that request, and I'd like to know who it applies to (specifically, if it applies to me). ScottyBerg (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo

In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Shirley Sherrod (good call, BTW), you wrote

there really isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this will end up being closed as keep

Did you perhaps mean to write "... closed as delete"? No big deal. (I wish I was as good at spotting huge errors in my own writing as at spotting tiny errors in other people's work.) Cheers, CWC 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Thank you! NW (Talk) 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary indefinite semiprotection?

Hello. I see that on March 14, you semiprotected Joe Pasquale for 50 years, with the justification of preventing WP:BLP violations. Well, I looked through the history of the article prior to that protection, and out of the previous 32 IP edits, only three of them were vandalism, and all of those were reverted quickly (in some cases by other IPs). None of them were serious BLP violations of the sort that would seem to justify such a long period of protection. I recognise the importance of BLP, and understand that certaion biographies do have to be semiprotected indefinitely, but do you really think it was necessary here? I tend to believe our articles should be as open to editing as is reasonably possible, and judging from the history I don't think this one needs to be semiprotected. Would you be willing to consider lifting it? Robofish (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why put a silly expiry instead of just "indefinite"? Maybe this would be a good case for the pending changes trial? –xeno^talk 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The expiry was purposely chosen to be so far in the future. Normally, I would have done a protection of indefinite length. However, I have seen people search for old indef protections and then unilaterally overturn them several years after the fact at RFPP on grounds that the protection is no longer justified, or on the grounds that the protecting admin can no longer be found (who knows if I will be editing five years from now). I can't go into further detail because of the privacy policy, but there was an OTRS ticket involved with this where I gave my word that the page would be protected for a long time to come. Now, I am willing to consider this as a candidate for flagged protection, but only when the trial is over and we are assured all pages protected by FP won't be mass unprotected. NW (Talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the ticket #'s usually indicated in the protection log? –xeno^talk 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, but not always. The way I was instructed was to not add an OTRS ticket number if you can avoid it; apparently it helps minimize exposure. Never really understood it, but I have usually gone along with it. NW (Talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. –xeno^talk 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

He has been asked not to post here. [24] ATren (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. See my posts to his talk page to a thread entitled "Mark's talk page" or something of the sort. NW (Talk) 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Editer 67.142.130.39

How is this constructive? You blocked for three years! And you account creation blocked. May I ask why? AboundingHinata (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the (probably shared) IP has a long history of vandalism and blocks? NW (Talk)

Maybe, but at least let the IP create an account. AboundingHinata (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? NW (Talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because, I looked online and it is a big amount of range. Plus, you should have started at 1 year, not three. AboundingHinata (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a range; that's a singular IP address. Further, a three year block is equivalent to an indef for an IP; since there has been nothing but vandalism from the account and no unblock request, there is no reason to believe the IP will be beneficial in any way and thus should remain blocked. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be allowed to edit under an account. AboundingHinata (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Where it would do nothing but vandalize (as it has done in the past, repeatedly after bans? Why? A vandalism-only IP with no discernible intent to contribute value will only result in a vandalism-only account, which will further waste the time of reverters and admins. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Please check your spelling, I couldn't understand that. AboundingHinata (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Small tweak to discernible; I see no other issues. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Struck potentially confusing bit. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, goodbye got to go back to work. AboundingHinata (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Allowing account creation on that IP is just like saying "Here, create a sockpuppet to vandalize, make it harder for us to catch you." There's always WP:ACC, anyway. Pilif12p :  Yo  18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In any event, if said ip wished to get an account, I'm sure the folks at Account creation will look into that, also, if the ip wanted to create an account to contribute constructively, they can request the removal of the account creation block themselves without issues. Don't see the problem here, all kosher imo. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are invited

You're invited to my talk page to continue the thread started at the bottom of this section If you like, turn up there, we can copy your post and my reply to start things. If you don't want to, then say so here... I strongly prefer the discussion happen on my page rather than here though, although I'm persuadable I guess. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I copied over my post and yours, and left a placeholder for me to fill in later this evening. NW (Talk) 18:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Erh? Please explain.

This [25] seems strange. I do suspect that particular user, i have added hir to SPI[26], and i have even added hir to WP:GS/CC/RE#Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. Have the rules changed? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rules haven't changed (though I think tagging should be discouraged from now on; the false positives feel kind of annoyed about falsely being tagged, from what we have found at SPI). No, I removed that tag because I simply didn't see enough evidence for the sockpuppetry accusation. While you're right in that Scibaby has focused on that topic before, that single edit really isn't enough to justify a block for socking at this time, I don't think. NW (Talk) 20:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tag rarely - but that particular editor hits rather high on my scibaby radar, i would be very surprised indeed if CU turns up as a false positive on hir. [so much that i'd revise my internal list of things to check for]. I'm OK with not tagging, but since CU apparently has broken down - we have a problem... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe try poking Deskana? I can't really think of any other checkusers that are very active at this time. NW (Talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we down to that small a CU staff? Damn. Could you prod? I have had no interactions with Deskana at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Left Dan a talk page message. And yeah, I don't really think there is any one else on the list who do more than one or two cases a week (though I haven't been as active as I have been in the past, so I might have missed something). NW (Talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Additional: If you check the latest number of Scibaby socks, then you'd notice that current Mode of operations for hir is to use several one-use focused socks per day (ie. one per article/topic/edit) - we are not going to get more evidence from that sock, it will either go dormant, war if being reverted, or be blocked as a sock. So what is the current thing to do? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. I'm not really sure at all. Lar used to be involved with checkuser stuff (he's taking a year off because he is serving on the Ombudsman Committee), so maybe you could ask him? If you don't want to ask Lar, then perhaps you could try MuZemike or Tim Song, both of whom are active in SPI? They might have a better idea of what to do. NW (Talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm avoiding Lar, sorry. I think its a mutual "rub each other the wrong way" thing. But thanks for the comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley edit-warring yet again

I'm not raising this (at this stage) at the CC AE page because I don't want to set off yet another shitfit, but Marknutley is edit-warring yet again - two edits past 1RR, as before, claiming BLP exemption, as before. [27], [28], [29] ] It's not at all clear-cut whether there has been a BLP violation here - there is a discussion of the sources ongoing at WP:RSN (which Mark did not start). However, Mark is certainly not the right person to be trying to enforce BLP at this stage. Could you please have a word with him? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: [30] ATren (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris: I might not be the best person for this at the moment, sorry. Maybe ask LHvU or EdJohnston, the latter of whom I bring up because of a) his uninvolvedness with climate change and because b) he often participates at WP:AN3. NW (Talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuke just want to point out, my 1r is on CC articles, this one does not have a template on it and is not CC related, in fact the links i removed were to do with tobacco mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it has a template or not, "CC broadly contrued" or words to that effect for one thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Am i to be blocked again for following policy Rlevse? Removing blogs from a blp is a bad thing now? mark nutley (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The question here is whether these refs are RS/BLP vios. I don't know enough about these particular sources to say one way or the other. If they are vios, then edit warring occurred by more than one party, if they aren't vios, they could fall under BLP rv exemptions. The other point here is it looks like people were told to use the talk page and ignored that warning; that could change the whole equation and could be called disruption. I'll leave it to uninvolved admins to sort out. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I should note that the refs are being discussed at WP:RSN and on the talk page; it's not clear that they were or weren't BLP violations (I'm keeping an open mind). But you're right to note that people were told to use the talk page but resorted to edit-warring instead. This is unproductive behaviour, to say the least, particularly after Marknutley's just come off a 24 hour block for doing exactly the same thing. I was hoping that NW might be able to persuade Mark to desist without further drama but I guess that's not going to happen now. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to remove suspected BLP vios until the dispute is resolved. That's what happens everywhere else. But climate change is Wikipedia Bizarro World, where long time contributors with more than 30,000 edits regularly commit blatant BLP vios and nobody sanctions them. ATren (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please

Answer my question, as it seem you have failed to do so.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this relates to User talk:Duchamps comb#Climategate image. I've provided some policy pointers for DC. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have left you a note on your talk page. NW (Talk) 22:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

hank you for the comment. Can you also answer me as to why you deleted the image (in 13 min.) with no discussion from other editors? Best,--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a violation of policy that I happened to see right at the top of my watchlist. When I checked and saw that it had already been deleted in November, I figured that a formal WP:FFD wasn't necessary. NW (Talk) 22:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

  — Jeff G.  ツ 04:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax and Jeff G.

Hey NW,

I restored rollback to Jusdafax and Jeff G.. We shouldn't go removing those userrights because of a simple misunderstanding. Jeff G. is a longtime contributor and well aquainted with rollback, and Jusdafax interned for the WMF and was mentored by Cary. Simple, good faith mistakes should not be admonished or punished, but educated on what went wrong. There was no need to remove the rollback flag (it's not a big deal, right?). You know where to find me if you have an issue with my reversal. Thanks! Keegan (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Arg, there goes my secret identity... ;) For my part I bear you no ill-will, NW. The irony is that WMF has had me deal with types cases of this sort before. My mistake was not looking deeper, and assuming that those reverting in front of me were in the right of it. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to mend fences. Best wishes, Jusdafax 05:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Keegan, you're probably right. I wasn't thinking the most clearly last night, and for some reason I totally ignored the simple method of "talk to them on their talk pages". The rollback removal was intended to be very temporary to get the two of them off Huggle so I could deal with the issue at hand. NW (Talk) 13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

HG whitelist

Did you totally nuke it? I think that's a good idea. It was at 26k+, I'm surprised nobody's proposed or done it before (maybe they have, I haven't seen it if they have). I'm thinking about readding all admins and rollback users to it, as a matter of convenience. Do you have any opinions on that? Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that admins/rollbackers are automatically exempt, and don't need to be manually whitelisted. The list is usually rebooted once every few months; I had to edit it manually anyway so I figured now would be as good a time as any for tabula rasa. NW (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't thought about doing that... normally I just clean out any IP's that manage to sneak their way in there. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Not entirely sure if this is relevant at all, but user you blocked is seeking advice on Y!A. sonia^♫♪ 08:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've just gotta know...how in the world did you find that? Mauler90 _talk 08:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the Wikipedia section of Yahoo Answers on a RSS feed, because so many first-time sockpuppeteers seek advice there from more experienced trolls. It's not something I'd recommend others do, though, because it is scum. At times burnout-worthy scum. sonia^♫♪ 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, don't think it is necessary to do anything. That's pretty clearly someone making 10 useless edits to get around autoconfirmed and then acting disruptively on a Wikipedia-space page. Grounds for an immediate block, IMO. NW (Talk) 13:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence closed?

I'm puzzled by AM's deletion of evidence [31], apparently on the basis of an edit comment from you. The case is still in progress. Why is evidence closed? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Per [32], I don't think that the arbitrators want to accept major amounts of late evidence, except when it directly relates to the exemptions they laid out (unlike their usual policy of accepting but not necessarily reading evidence even if they are in Workshop phase). I actually followed the lead on Amory on this one in my actions, as I'm the newest of the ArbCom clerks. NW (Talk) 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Note my comment on Armory's talk page. I had a parallel concern about the Workshop. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That was done per direction of Risker; see the Workshop talk page. NW (Talk) 13:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See my reply there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Thanks for the explanation on the mechanics. I wasn't aware that the decision itself was discussed. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You've pointed me to a diff containing nothing by Risker, and a deadline that was, I think, ignored. Where is the real deadline written down? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[33] closed the evidence pages (except for the one or two exemptions given afterward). If it was ignored, it probably shouldn't have been, as it was the last official deadline. This is the post by Risker which I was referring to. NW (Talk) 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was it ignored? I find this kind of behaviour one of the primary reasons ArbCom is held in such contempt by the community. There were over 300 changes since that "deadline". Verbal chat 16:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Contempt" is far too strong. But with deadlines that aren't really deadlines and evidence limits that are routinely disregarded, the arbs are sending a clear message: "Only chumps follow the rules." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You confused me with the Risker stuff; I now see that was about the Workshop pages. And I agree that there is less added evidence than I'd thought (there is a pile of stuff by Nsaa that broke the deadline; presumably no-one cares). This all seems a little odd, but no odder than the rest William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring the very important permission given regarding recent edits, given here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What has that got to do with Nsaa's edits? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Amending evidence

Following the thread above, I have just discovered I'm referred to 9 times in the evidence despite not being a party, informed I was referred to, or invited to comment. Three editors that refer to me have made factually incorrect statements that should be corrected. How do I go about doing this? Verbal chat 16:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not really sure, actually. Perhaps you could ask Amorymeltzer for advice? He is a much more experienced ArbCom Clerk than I am. NW (Talk) 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You should ask on the evidence talk page, but in your case it would probably be easiest to email the arbcom mailing list. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be able to do something about such? I thought it was just accusations - i wasn't aware that it was possible to defend against these? How? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Expand (just before vacation): I thought the format was for pure assertion - and i didn't reply since we'd end up in the usual "he said/she said" kinda discussions - which just doesn't make sense in a arbitration that is supposed to stop that sort. Oh - well. Guess i'll see the results when i return in a week. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)