User:Reconsideration2 is an alternate account of this one which is used for security reasons in logging in at public computer terminals.
Welcome!
Hello, JohnWBarber, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Norwalk Wiki
Greetings, great work on Norwalk related stuff. I recently created the Norwalk Wiki for everything that would not otherwise be notable enough for Wikipedia. Its brand new, so we need to get the word out about it. I invite your correspondence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do believe that there is serious canvassing-like issues here. Too many strange things happening by the same people. See my comments on Kevin's page. I forsee AN/I or arbcom sooner than later... But I will keep a lid on it if and until that happens. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hummm the translation line is also pretty in-you-face. I agree with exactly what you said, but I think we should both walk away for a bit. Best of luck to you. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request
{{[[Template:This is a shorter version of my original unblock request at User talk:Noroton. I'm posting it here because that may make it easier for an admin to unblock this account, the one I want unblocked. 24 hours after blocking, Versageek finally offered an explanation: Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. Versageek has simply contradicted what all editors are told is policy at the WP:CLEANSTART part of WP:SOCK. If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. Let's not contradict the clear language of the policy, particularly when the blocking editor doesn't think there was a bad intent (Versageek says of me I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap). The idea that "aggressive debat[ing]" is disruptive -- a blockable offense -- only applies if what I was doing either was uncivil (or worse) or if I made it much more difficult for the discussion at the Shankbone AfD or DRV to continue. In fact, my comments in both discussions were focused on the things that WP:TALK and WP:DELETE and the instructions on WP:DRV tell us we are supposed to be doing in discussions -- talking about policy and facts and (at DRV) whether or not the closing admin acted within policy and procedure. Either I have the right to a clean start or I don't. Versageek doesn't like the idea that I spoke at the AfD while people didn't know my prior conflict with Shankbone, and in a vague, abstract way there could be something wrong with that, although it isn't wrong in the letter or spirit of SOCK or any other policy. The problem he points to simply wasn't simultaneous with the Noroton account, which I'd stopped using by Oct. 5. Although Versageek didn't bring this up, I will: My using CountryDoctor and Reconsideration and JohnWBarber together could be interpreted as a violation of WP:SOCK, particularly the way that policy is now written. I've said elsewhere on my talk page that when I started using these alternate accounts, they were discouraged but not prohibited by SOCK policy, the language of which focused more on abusive use of alternate accounts (for instance, the lead then stated, While many reasons for using alternative accounts are acceptable, a number of uses for them are explicitly forbidden.[1]; from "Avoiding scrutiny" subsection: Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. [...] it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.[2] -- No one would have had a legitimate interest to make comparisons between any of my new accounts, ever, or between any of them and Noroton while I was using that account). It wasn't even prohibited for Reconsideration to comment in an RfC for a change in style policy at the time that account did so. Both the Reconsideration and JohnWBarber accounts participated in AfDs, which goes against policy as currently written. My bad, and I wouldn't do that again -- but let's not pretend that any harm was done. Anyone who scrutinizes the edits of Reconsideration would gain no insight into JohnWBarber or vice versa. Versageek is concerned about scrutiny involving the Noroton account, but once that account finally wound down its editing and resigned, it stopped being subject to WP:SOCK. The "scrutiny" that socking improperly avoids is supposed to be "justified scrutiny" (in the words of older versions of WP:SOCK) -- scrutiny of misbehavior of various sorts. Unjustified scrutiny -- scrutiny in order to continually bring up past actions of an editor even though doing so only clouds the issue -- is what CLEANSTART is supposed to help an editor avoid. The purpose of using separate accounts was originally to avoid having editors who were antagonistic to me start stalking me in areas separate from politics, and I used separate accounts to prevent the kind of unjustified scrutiny that would lead to those antagonistic editors following me. After a while, I became unconcerned about that, but it was why I did it and initially it was not a violation of policy to do it for that reason. I also found I became more annoyed when I logged in as Noroton than when I logged into the other accounts. I'd been planning on unifying the accounts eventually, but I'd hoped to do it silently. Since I knew I wasn't being disruptive with any of the accounts and was never deceptive, it was never a priority for me to unify them (and until recently, I didn't know how easily I could combine the long watchlists). If any admin had simply emailed me and told me I seemed to be violating WP:SOCK, I'd have looked into it and shuttered all but one account. I'll probably -- again-- exercise my right to WP:CLEANSTART at some future point. Since I didn't edit disruptively at all with JohnWBarber, at the DRV or anywhere else, there is no reason for anything other than dropping the block entirely, immediately. If a checkuser willing to work with me briefly will email me, I have a privacy concern related to this that a checkuser can handle, or I can contact one when I no longer have the block. At this point, I'd prefer simply to have the JohnWBarber account.|This is a shorter version of my original unblock request at User talk:Noroton. I'm posting it here because that may make it easier for an admin to unblock this account, the one I want unblocked. 24 hours after blocking, Versageek finally offered an explanation: Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. Versageek has simply contradicted what all editors are told is policy at the WP:CLEANSTART part of WP:SOCK. If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. Let's not contradict the clear language of the policy, particularly when the blocking editor doesn't think there was a bad intent (Versageek says of me I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap). The idea that "aggressive debat[ing]" is disruptive -- a blockable offense -- only applies if what I was doing either was uncivil (or worse) or if I made it much more difficult for the discussion at the Shankbone AfD or DRV to continue. In fact, my comments in both discussions were focused on the things that WP:TALK and WP:DELETE and the instructions on WP:DRV tell us we are supposed to be doing in discussions -- talking about policy and facts and (at DRV) whether or not the closing admin acted within policy and procedure. Either I have the right to a clean start or I don't. Versageek doesn't like the idea that I spoke at the AfD while people didn't know my prior conflict with Shankbone, and in a vague, abstract way there could be something wrong with that, although it isn't wrong in the letter or spirit of SOCK or any other policy. The problem he points to simply wasn't simultaneous with the Noroton account, which I'd stopped using by Oct. 5. Although Versageek didn't bring this up, I will: My using CountryDoctor and Reconsideration and JohnWBarber together could be interpreted as a violation of WP:SOCK, particularly the way that policy is now written. I've said elsewhere on my talk page that when I started using these alternate accounts, they were discouraged but not prohibited by SOCK policy, the language of which focused more on abusive use of alternate accounts (for instance, the lead then stated, While many reasons for using alternative accounts are acceptable, a number of uses for them are explicitly forbidden.[3]; from "Avoiding scrutiny" subsection: Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. [...] it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.[4] -- No one would have had a legitimate interest to make comparisons between any of my new accounts, ever, or between any of them and Noroton while I was using that account). It wasn't even prohibited for Reconsideration to comment in an RfC for a change in style policy at the time that account did so. Both the Reconsideration and JohnWBarber accounts participated in AfDs, which goes against policy as currently written. My bad, and I wouldn't do that again -- but let's not pretend that any harm was done. Anyone who scrutinizes the edits of Reconsideration would gain no insight into JohnWBarber or vice versa. Versageek is concerned about scrutiny involving the Noroton account, but once that account finally wound down its editing and resigned, it stopped being subject to WP:SOCK. The "scrutiny" that socking improperly avoids is supposed to be "justified scrutiny" (in the words of older versions of WP:SOCK) -- scrutiny of misbehavior of various sorts. Unjustified scrutiny -- scrutiny in order to continually bring up past actions of an editor even though doing so only clouds the issue -- is what CLEANSTART is supposed to help an editor avoid. The purpose of using separate accounts was originally to avoid having editors who were antagonistic to me start stalking me in areas separate from politics, and I used separate accounts to prevent the kind of unjustified scrutiny that would lead to those antagonistic editors following me. After a while, I became unconcerned about that, but it was why I did it and initially it was not a violation of policy to do it for that reason. I also found I became more annoyed when I logged in as Noroton than when I logged into the other accounts. I'd been planning on unifying the accounts eventually, but I'd hoped to do it silently. Since I knew I wasn't being disruptive with any of the accounts and was never deceptive, it was never a priority for me to unify them (and until recently, I didn't know how easily I could combine the long watchlists). If any admin had simply emailed me and told me I seemed to be violating WP:SOCK, I'd have looked into it and shuttered all but one account. I'll probably -- again-- exercise my right to WP:CLEANSTART at some future point. Since I didn't edit disruptively at all with JohnWBarber, at the DRV or anywhere else, there is no reason for anything other than dropping the block entirely, immediately. If a checkuser willing to work with me briefly will email me, I have a privacy concern related to this that a checkuser can handle, or I can contact one when I no longer have the block. At this point, I'd prefer simply to have the JohnWBarber account.]]}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Could you please list all other accounts you have edited with while we're waiting? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one, User:Noroton, User:CountryDoctor, and two others. I can give information on those two by email to a checkuser. I have good reason to keep them private, and the checkuser should be able to confirm that there are reasons to keep them private and that they were both harmless in any practical sense, but I won't say any more about it and won't use them again (the checkuser can help me close them quietly). Can I email while blocked? Is there a checkuser who would look into it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just asked User:Hersfold if she would look into this, I believe you should still be able to use email. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errm - Hersfold is male, BTW, at least according to his userboxes. I didn't check anything else, mind :) - Alison❤ 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of interest, the original blocking admin is also a checkuser. However, if you'd be happier discussing it with me, I'm also available. As an oversighter, I'm bound to confidentiality re. privacy issues - Alison❤ 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here too if needed; you should have access to the email user function. And yes, I am male. ;-) Hersfold(t/a/c) 21:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. I trust and respect you, Allison, and I appreciate the offer, but I'll email Hersfold on this one. I'll need about an hour (making dinner). JohnWBarber (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my gender assumption, I jumped to a conclusion based on the user name. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it, and I don't really have privacy concerns about these accounts. These are the accounts: User:Picabu, User:Amg37 on Commons, which I used inadvertently to participate innocuously in an AfD (the short WP contributions page will show it). Also, User:Reconsideration2 is publicly linked with User:Reconsideration at the top of each user page. I used R2 for public computer terminals. I really am sick of all this. I did nothing worth blocking, what I did was either within policy when I did it or was obviously a minor violation of policy, wasn't done to harm either Wikipedia or any editor, did not in fact harm either and was never worth more than a message either asking me if I was doing something wrong or telling me to stop doing it. If I've missed a single thing in this explanation, just ask.
I started the Picabu account at a time when I thought I might be able to deny that I lived where my "Noroton" user name indicated I live, but I no longer care who knows about that. The Picabu account was for taking pictures, which are all (or almost all) from the area where I live. This is the list of all the contributions from the Picabu account: [5] This is the last of three links to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard when I asked for advice. I did want to avoid scrutiny of that request, but not of my own conduct -- it was a sensitive BLP matter and I didn't want some of the editors on the Obama page to post it without reliable sourcing (they later did and were reverted; later on, reliable sources reported it and I posted it myself). Before anyone responded, I crossed out the request. Last edit: [6] No harm was done. This was the state of the WP:SOCK page on that date: [7]
I started Amg37 when I started this account and Reconsideration and for the same reasons. It was used for uploading pictures from elsewhere on the Internet. That account voted in an Afd here: [8] That was on March 29. I voted "delete" along with four other people. There were no Keeps. That's the only edit I saw in the Wikipedia contributions, but here's the contributions page: [9] This is the version of the WP:SOCK page on that day -- it doesn't actually prohibit using an alternate account in a deletion discussion: [10] As I say below, it's been clearly prohibited by WP:SOCK to do this as of Oct. 3. JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference
This is the diff [11] where WP:SOCK first forbid alternate accounts from editing deletion debates. It occurred October 3 So any AfD edits by socks before that date, 27 days ago, were not forbidden by WP:SOCK (bold italics added):
Old language:
Sock puppets might be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists. Though typically it is the weight of arguments that wins the day, having multiple sock puppets participate, whether arguing with each other or else supporting a common cause, can still cause considerable confusion, and is therefore prohibited. This includes voting multiple times in any election, using more than one account in discussions such as deletion debates,Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages, or engaging with two or more accounts in an edit war.
In addition to double-voting, sock puppets might be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.
New language that replaced it:
Creating an illusion of support
Alternate accounts must not used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists.
Editing project space
Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.
Try to see the forest through the trees. Hair splitting and wiki-lawyering about whether you actually violated the sockpuppetry policy is not going to move the unblock request forward. In any event, the very first sentence of that policy is: "The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only." Since you have acknowledged seven accounts so far, we need to identify which ones you intend to keep as alternate accounts and which you are willing to abandon. Please indicate below what your intentions are regarding:
First, I already said, repeatedly, that JohnWBarber is the account I want to keep. See the last lines of the block request. That's why we're on this page instead of User talk:Noroton, where this began (perhaps you weren't aware of that). Second, I didn't deny that I in fact violated the policy, in fact, I've commented at the Noroton talk page on ways that Versageek didn't bring up but where I went wrong. I've been open and honest on this and admitted mistakes. I did violate the policy as it is now written, just in having the accounts. Now look at the policy as it was written when I set up the accounts in early November 2008 [12] and look for the underlying principles, not just the technical language. The spirit of a policy can usually be found in the nut graph and the lead section. The nut graph says The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block. [...] Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse. I didn't do any of that, ever. Look at the first line of the lead: A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Later, it says, If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended but not required that s/he provide links between the accounts. I'm not going to say I was wrong not to follow the 2009 language of the policy in 2008 when I actually looked at it before setting up the accounts. You could say that I should have paid attention to the changes in the policy. That's a fair criticism. I'm guilty of not doing that! Is it worth continuing the block for that reason?
I looked into ways I might have violated WP:SOCK because, in fact, I'm concerned about violating the spirit of it with what I did. I concluded that I didn't do any of this to avoid legitimate scrutiny. If I'd continued voting in AfDs with two accounts, I'd have started to avoid the spirit. That I commented on a controversial matter with JohnWBarber instead of Reconsideration is a violation. It wasn't a violation that actually was done to avoid what's in the spirit of WP:SOCK because no practical harm was done or could have been done by using JWB instead of Recon. It was a technical violation done in good faith. (Nothing would be gained by looking at the edits of Reconsideration to gain insight into JWB comments in the Shankbone discussions.) It isn't wikilawyering to say that either. Are technical violations done in good faith worth continuing the block?
I've said I'll stick to one account. Do you have reason not to believe me?
As you can see, I have unblocked you. I'd like to clarify a few points though. Even if you did not intend to be deceptive, using multiple accounts is generally frowned upon. I completely understand your concern about the photographs of your neighborhood and not wanting to be personally identified, but the reasons the rest of the accounts were created is still a bit unclear. Many users feel that any undisclosed alternate account is an indication that a user has something to hide. You may not be aware that there have been several recent scandals involving well-established users and multiple accounts, and several administrators have been desysopped as a result, so this is kind of a "hot button" issue right now, which is part of the reason I wanted to insure we were on the same page about this before unblocking. The other reason is that I am fairly new to handling these types of requests, and as a result I may have asked you to jump through some hoops that weren't really necessary. I'm sorry if this seemed overly harsh, I was trying to be cautious, but making you repeat yourself was probably not needed. Anyway, I'm glad this is resolved and you can return to editing Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate that comment, and I understand that you wouldn't want to unblock and then see an editor do the same thing again. My initial reason, in November '08, was to avoid unwanted contact or even unwanted reactions from people I'd been in conflict with. Later, I found I had little to worry about regarding that, but by that time I found I enjoyed Wikipedia much better when I was editing under a name other than Noroton, I guess because that user name just brought up annoyances to me. Under the Nov. '08 policy language it didn't seem to matter what the reason was. Things have changed, I accept that. I don't need the accounts now. My conscience is free because I didn't do anything harmful. Thanks for the comment and for the unblock. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The unblock isn't working
{{69.120.113.253}}{{adminhelp}}
I don't have much experience with autoblock removal and I can't figure out how to get this guy unblocked. The toolserver says he's not blocked. Little help? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of. It would have been easier if the unblock request template had been posted properly, but enough was left intact to take care of it. Hersfold(t/a/c) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I'll have to be blocked a lot more before I understand how these things work. I'll work on it! JohnWBarber (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have a beerI could be wrong, but Hersfold may actually be referring to the original unblock, which got kind of mangled in the course of my accepting it. (Although as far as I can tell I followed the instructions as written it didn't seem to work quite right.) Have a cold one on me. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Lar
I posted this response to Lar days ago on my Noroton account talk page:
Rather than arguing that policy DOES say something, you need to argue that policy SHOULD say something, to sway others to sustain or overturn. Because policy here, at this point in time, is not clear cut. No consensus BLP as delete sometimes passes muster and sometimes doesn't. I've argued that policy SHOULD favor deletion for BLPs, elsewhere, at length. And I will continue to close them that way. Because I don't always get overturned. This is one of the BLPs where deletion is the right outcome. [...] ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This was my response to that passage:
If the policy change is so "descriptive", why is it having so much trouble getting consensus at the Deletion policy talk page? Looks to me like it's getting more and more prescriptive, and edging closer to proscriptive[16]. Lar, if you fail to change policy, what should be done in the future with closing admins who deliberately violate WP:DEL as it stands? Would you object to warnings and blocks? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
'You need to dial down the threats. DRV is intended to see if there is consensus that the close is endorsable or not, and if it is it sticks and if it isn't, it's overturned. A series of DRVs will shift policy, because policy in this area is not, and will never be, proscribing. If you think you can block an admin over a close made in good faith, you have another think coming. Keep up this sort of disruptive, argumentative badgering and you might find yourself blocked. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I responded here [13]. Part of an additional response that I originally posted at User talk:Noroton:
I meant to point out that he's arguing that policy needs to catch up to "practice", although the consensus for a policy change wasn't forming at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Default to delete for BLPs, and not being able to change the policy through consensus would seem to me to show that the kind of deleting he wants to do is both contrary to policy and without consensus. How can you go against policy when you don't have a consensus to do so? Since DRV is normally subject to the challenge of getting a consensus to overturn, doesn't a deliberate violation of the language of WP:DEL amount to gaming the system -- in fact, violating policy? He states, You need to dial down the threats.JohnWBarber (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discusson with Mackan79
I responded a few times at Mackan79's talk page. I'm adding copies of those responses here.' -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, I think you miss the part about suddenly going to high-drama behavior in Lar's comment, and that you far too easily dismiss the history with Shankbone simply because he's gracious enough to disregard it. I'm surprised you don't see it, but make some effort to consider the effects on project related discussions if it was completely ok to use a brand new account in order to pursue the most contentious of project-related issues. You keep saying that you weren't disruptive in how you did it, and I'll even grant that maybe you weren't. That completely misses the point. If I saw you doing this as a CU, the fact is it would be downright negligent just to accept it, or even to take your word that you were not misleading anyone by your actions. It's too much! This is an AfD on someone that you know darned well is going to be the height of controversy, and where misbehavior on your part would have a huge potential to taint the entire decision. This in turn has a huge potential to cause additional problems down the road. In fact, if this had not been brought to the community's attention until after the deletion review closed, I think the concern would have been much greater. You know? This doesn't mean you intended to deceive, or that you acted in bad faith, although to be honest your inability to see these problems does suggest some degree of selective hearing, if that's the right phrase. We all have blind spots, but anyway, I hope you'll try to consider this a little bit more from outside your own perspective, and the whole thing might make more sense. Mackan79 (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another response or two later, as I think through your comment, but here's an initial one: From the very beginning (see User talk:Noroton) I recognized that a CU could have a concern. My focus has always been on how I was treated once the CU had that concern. If you see my most recent comments at RFAR (and maybe you have -- I'm rushed right now and haven't checked; see my "@SlimVirgin" response), you'll see how I think the CU should have reacted. It simply didn't have to be with a block, a day of silence and an odd comment at ANI. And someone has to review Lar's communication with Versageek -- what was said, how, and when.
Policies aren't poems to be given alternate, equally valid, vague, impressionistic interpretations. They need to be clear enough for an editor to follow without an enormous amount of intepretive work, and if we're going to leave CU work for very trusted admins, they damn well can be expected to act with a minimal amount of tact. Without assuming bad faith on the part of either Lar or Versageek -- and by this point, who would blame me if I did? -- why don't you consider two possibilities: first, that one or both editors acted out of bad motives to try to influence the DRV by using CU and admin powers to make me look bad in ways far beyond any technical violations I'd committed; second, that one or both editors used the various tools, either in an acceptable way or a ham-handed way. I think those scenarios are all possible, but given that harm was done to me and given that the first scenario is at least as likely as the second, Arbcom should look into it. Given Lar's and Versageek's lack of response on their talk pages, my suspicions are heightened. Consider also the idea that I was acting malevolently vs. in good faith. There is no proof for the first, but plenty of proof for the second. I used the alternate accounts for a damn year and did no harm, but suddenly I meant to do harm here? It is so obvious, and could be figured out so easily that I don't think it falls within admin discretion.
And notice something else: You've got two CUs on one side and one editor on the other. If we're having trouble figuring out just what WP:SOCK permits and doesn't permit, which is given the benefit of the doubt -- the editor or the checkusers who need to know that policy inside and out in order to deal with socks? J.delanoy, a CU, will block if an editor makes a mistake, then demands of me that I prove Versageek's bad faith -- yet he would require no determination of bad faith on my part before he thinks I should be blocked. It's a double standard, and a typical one. New admins are sometimes told they can expect to make mistakes with the tools. Why not expect editors to make mistakes when policy is not always easy to decipher? What exactly was the justification for not assuming good faith here?
Thanks for your response, I can only quickly address a couple of points. First, I think blocks are over-used as a general matter, and I think communication first would have been better here as it would be in just about all cases. You're right that there's no reason to block someone as a first step; mistakes are far too easily made, even with several people working together. Second, I agree that policy should be as clear as possible. With that said, I don't see how you addressed my point. In this case I think a CU would have been justified in thinking that not to act immediately would have risked prejudicing a very prominent DRV. Accordingly, I think any CU looking at this would have needed to raise the issue for those participating in the ongoing DRV. Moreover, based on your current explanation, and assuming your good faith, I think an admonishment would be called for: don't jeopardize significant processes with your use of an alternate (or brand new) account. I'm not commenting on all aspects of your case, as I haven't looked in at it closely enough (such as whether both checkusers were too involved in this to act or if you can say one improperly influenced the other). I've just gotten the feeling that you aren't seeing how the way you went about all of this played into the result, which I think is giving you unrealistic expectations. Mackan79 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciated the reference to "high drama" because it was the same problem I saw. It doesn't mean your actions were dramatic; it's a statement about the discussion itself (see the current policy which prohibits alternate accounts in project discussions, for a reason).. As far as it being obvious that you were acting in good faith, however, the problem is that it isn't obvious at all. I don't know if you are aware of the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article (now under another name), and its very long list of AfDs, but it turned out that the very first AfD for that article was done by a sockpuppet of one of its creators, exactly to disrupt that and future discussions. In just about every subsequent AfD people would say "what, again?" In parliamentary procedure, this kind of thing is tradition. To say it was completely obvious you were acting in good faith, well I'm sorry, but nobody's intent can be that obvious to another person who has so little to go on. This isn't about arrogance, but about basic responsibility to the project. As far as scandals go, if Shankbone later discovered your involvement, and that multiple checkusers knew about it but said nothing about it, that would be a scandal.
Regarding policy, I think that's just never how Wikipedia has worked. You're supposed to follow community norms, not just the letter of these policies. See WP:BURO, which is the first link at WP:POLICY. I don't know that it's the best system, but that's the system in place.
"high drama" -- you find something useful in that phrase of Lar's. I find it absolutely arrogant. It also illustrates just how far afield Lar and Versageek are from policy -- that thing that editors and admins are supposed to be guided by. Policy is what admins point to when they tell you you've done something wrong. It's what Arbcom refers to when they make rulings. And yet there's nothing in policy about avoiding "high drama". Simultaneously accusing me of going against policy while using a strained interpretation of policy is -- an interpretation so strained that it actually contradicts what the policy actually says -- is arrogant on the part of Lar and Versageek. I didn't start that DRV for fun: I had a serious purpose in trying to help this project. There's nothing wrong and everything right about starting a DRV when a closing admin engages in outrageous conduct (even if only I thought the conduct was outragious -- but if you look at the DRV, you'll find that most editors commenting in it agreed on that point). There's an attitude (shared by Lar, Versageek, Delanoy, maybe others) that admins are some kind of demigods in Wikipedia and that policies are there to be bent or ignored by admins, and to criticize an admin is some kind of attack. My attitude is that if an admin can't point to a clear policy or a clear danger of harm to the wiki or some kind of harm to another editor, that admin is wrong to block, threaten to block or to use any tools or authority on me. I think mine's the right attitude and Lar's is clearly a bad attitude.
"Shankbone" -- The only way you can have more than a tiny concern about me and Shankbone is by assuming bad faith. I commented briefly on him in two or three posts in the AfD, and those weren't unsympathetic comments either. It simply cannot be more clear to anyone looking at the AfD and DRV that my participation had to do with whether the sourcing was good enough and whether we should follow policy. It's obvious that's what I cared about. It's all I discussed after the first few posts in the AfD and it's all I discussed in the DRV -- that and the closing admin's actions. When my clean-start action was destroyed, not one vote changed in the DRV. And support for my position actually increased in the votes after that. How could my support for keeping the article be some kind of subtle attack on Shankbone when I originally wanted to delete it? And my change of position came automatically and was based on the same principles I voiced originally. I happened to have a new account when I saw the Shankbone AfD, I certainly didn't create the account a year before the article existed and resign from my original account weeks before the article existed in order to hide my identity so that I could somehow hurt Shankbone by opposing and then supporting the existence of the article. That my reasons throughout were perfectly understandable and consistent also makes the idea ridiculous. Look at Lar's comments in the DRV. He was enraged at me. That's why he didn't see it. My earlier conflict with Shankbone was rather mild. I was unnecessarily sarcastic (in, frankly, a nasty way) in a thread at Wikipedia Review (I was irked that he had said a Fox News anchor was gay in a post on his [Shankbone's] blog). During Less Heardvanyou's re-election as admin, I said he was criticizing LHVU for getting involved in too much drama while himself constantly getting involved in too much drama. He then quickly started a discussion on my talk page and I told him I wasn't interested in having a discussion with him -- and that point I decided I should apologize for what I'd said at WR. I also told him at that point that I remained "appalled" at his behavior and might comment again if I happened to run across more appalling behavior. I have a low opinion of his actions -- that doesn't mean I hate him or want harm to come to him. This last discussion with him happened months ago. When it came to WP having an article on him, I think it would have caused a lot of bother for a lot of admins and a different kind of bother for him. (I did have a conflict with him briefly about two years ago, he annoyed me by commenting on my talk page and by his comments about another editor.) This is hardly the stuff of hatreds and vendettas. We actually happen to know just how important my past conflicts with Shankbone were to people involved in the DRV: We know that it didn't make one damn bit of difference. No one changed their mind because of it. (Forgive the length, but you brought it up.)
It seems to me that there's no prohibition on clean-start accounts commenting in things like DRVs for a damn good reason: It doesn't matter unless the situation is so bad that the editor with the new account is actually engaging in disruption. Using the phrase "high drama" seems to be meant by Lar to fudge the fact that "criticism" and "debate" are not actually synonyms for "disruption". Shouldn't clean-start accounts be allowed to do what policy doesn't forbid, especially if a clear case can't be made that they're doing harm? Isn't that just fundamentally fair? And isn't excusing bad blocks and smearing fundamentally unfair? Should this really be so difficult to see? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I crossed out the parts about "arrogance" above. Sometimes what looks like arrogaance isn't. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're at a disadvantage not knowing more about this situation. There are only two senses in which the JohnWBarber account was a sock: In relation to (a) User:Reconstruction and the other accounts I was using and (b) in relationship to Noroton. With regard to the other accounts, that apparently had nothing to do with the block, since Versageek has never referred to it. I agree that I shouldn't have participated in an AfD or DRV with anything other than my main account (technically User:Reconsideration after Noroton resigned and stopped editing on Oct. 5). Having those multiple accounts was a violation by this point, but only technically, since no harm was ever done by them (and no one says there was). Knowledge of the Barber account's connection with those accounts would have revealed nothing of interest to anyone. Regarding the connection between JohnWBarber and Noroton, there was not even a technical violation of WP:SOCK by this point. None. Not even under the "misusing a checkuser account" bullet item. In relation to Noroton, JohnWBarber wasn't a sock any more. So citing current policy doesn't get us anywhere: Not even under current policy was JohnWBarber's participation in the AfD or DRV a violation (with regard to Noroton) or a meaningful violation (with regard to being a sock of Reconsideration).
I'm not saying it should have been obvious in an instant (I've repeatedly said a CU could well have been suspicious, although I don't think I realized that until I went back and read WP:SOCK after the block). I'm saying that I could have instantly explained what was going on and a CU could have instantly confirmed what I said by looking at diffs. It simply is obvious when you look at my conduct: The edit histories of all the non-Noroton accounts are not huge except for User:Reconsideration, which is about 99 percent edits to year-in-poetry pages, so the history of each of these accounts can be figured out pretty quickly. Anyone who thought I had a conflict with Shankbone with the Noroton account could have readily confirmed that (there's a web page somewhere that shows which pages any two editors have both edited, and a search of noticeboards could have been done pretty quickly).
if Shankbone later discovered your involvement, and that multiple checkusers knew about it but said nothing about it, that would be a scandal. Thank you for discussing this with me, because it's helping me to think about it from another perspective, and this is valuable. I'll have to think more about it, but here are some initial thoughts: If he'd discovered my involvement and the knowledge of checkusers, I assume the checkusers cold say: "We discussed the matter with JohnWBarber, found no violation of policy, specifically no active deception or effort to disrupt, or disruption. [...] What exactly did JohnWBarber do to harm you, David? Do you have any reason to believe what he was doing was meant to harm you?" Now, in fact, we know exactly what David Shankbone's reaction would be, and he must have gone through just about the same thinking to get there. I don't consider his reaction to be extraordinarily graceful, I consider it to be common sense and a lack of animus (perhaps extraordinarily level headed, given some of the other comments that were cropping up -- and notice how those editors shut up once I posted explanations). The fact is, DS and I had a couple of run-ins, not any kind of feud. In order to think I was acting maliciously, there should be a burden of proof on the person who thinks so. Anything else is unfair. Anyway, Versageek's reasoning was based on a reading of my comments at the AfD and DRV that were "deceptive" and "disruptive" (which is what Lar is talking about when he referred to "high drama editing with the sock"). And both Versageek's and Lar's interpretation of WP:SOCK was completely, unacceptably outside of policy (in both letter and spirit).
You're supposed to follow community norms, not just the letter of these policies. I don't believe there was a community norm that I violated. How can there be a community norm for participation by a cleanstart account in an AfD? If you don't want cleanstart accounts participating in certain discussions, that needs to be clearly stated in policy because the harm is just not obvious (you'd probably have to set a time limit on it, because you wouldn't want to say the cleanstart account can't participate forever). But I think your real concern is my participation in a matter involving someone I'd had a conflict with in the past. How would you write up a passage on something that would cover this? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I'm late in responding to this, but just wanted to acknowledge your response. The fact is I'm a bit worn out by the discussion, I don't think the policy can really be any more specific about this without basically getting rid of clean starts and probably pseudonymous editing altogether, and I think that trying to set the policy around your situation would largely be a disaster for that policy. The one possibility I see would be a statement that editors not get involved in decisions (especially contentious decisions involving other editors) where their previous actions could reasonably be seen as relevant (we disagree about whether this was the case, clearly). I think any specific time line would be self-defeating, and at this time would either be shot down or result in "the cleanstart account can't participate forever." To be totally honest my opinion is this: if ArbCom took your case, my best guess it that they would have barred you from using any other accounts in the future without getting their permission (as they have done with other editors), basically because you are (in my opinion) very resistant to respecting the subtleties of community dynamics with regard to alternate accounts. This may or may not have forced them into trying to clarify the intricacies of the policy, although you can see John Vandenberg's rejection comment for why he also thinks your case is not a good one for setting policy. I know you disagree, anyway, and maybe I'm wrong, and surely this comment will come across in the wrong way (a little Wikipedia realpolitik, if you will), but I really have just been through enough discussions about sock policy recently that I can't bear the idea of starting another. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hey JWB. :) Thanks very much for your reorg of the P.C. article. It was very helpful. I was trying to add stuff and thinking about how to group it a little better (the extensive female section seemed a bit weird), and you came and did it up very well. It's great when I'm grinding away on something and someone with fresh eyes on the subject can come in and fix it up. I trimmed the "literarily presitigious" and "early" bits from what you added. I didn't see that in the source and it seemed like unnecessary embellishment. Have a great weekend. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no worries. And I think a fresh start is a great idea and opportunity. I had no idea who you were when I came here to thank you. It's funny how usernames make certain impressions. JohnWBarber seemed very studious and scholarly to me. I assumed you were one of those bigtime senior editors who don't post to the drama boards but just do serious article work. I think some people think I'm a punk or young for my user name (I know some think I'm a woman because there's a song of that title). Anyway, enjoy yourself. Don't forget to let me know when you get your article underway so I can have a look! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Versageek and Lar request: statement length
Your statement on the JohnWBarber, Versageek, Lar case request is excessively lengthy. Readers should not be expected to have to read through 4000 words in order to understand the argument being made by a single editor. Please trim it, or ask a clerk to do so for you. AGK 19:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to condense your initial statement into small paragraphs or bullet points. Focus on why the arbitration committee should hear your case. Then simply have a couple of lines in response to any other statements you want to rebut. If you'd like to have a link to your initial statement in the trimmed version, that would be fine with me. AGK 19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that I was acting in my capacity as a clerk. Flouting my position would seem to me to give the impression of from-on-high dictation, which I dislike doing, but I guess in some cases it can be as unhelpful as it is collegial. The same applies for my userpage, although I both have a clerk icon (the meaning of which is not easy to understand to most, I concede) and am listed on the list of clerks. But I take your point. And thank you for reducing your statement. AGK 21:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia fame
Guess what? You've been mentioned -- quite favorably I should add -- in the new book The World and Wikipedia. If you're interested, I've created a celebratory template, {{World and Wikipedia}}. Feel free to use, modify, etc. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry I can't remember the name) - just dropping a note, that reading up from the bottom (looking for content information for the article) I got to your <sermon> half way up, and it was almost the first bit of useful information on the article. Which is pretty unfortunate, because if you were reading from the top down, that makes a whole page of complete utter trash on the talk page. Isonomia (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification of your continued hatred of me and everything I stand for. What an astonishing level of negative spin you managed to wrap that up in, too. You must be so proud of yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
There is a thread that concerns you here. –xenotalk 15:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Community
FTR, I have a positive impression of ++Lar (in limited interaction), and think he is trying to contribute positively to the global warming brouhaha. That said, I agree with your point, that the community includes all editors, not just admins, so it was not quite correct to say it is for "admins to decide".
As an aside, and apropos of nothing special, I saw a picture of Darien on your user page - I was in Darien yesterday (although mainly because I took the wrong exit. I meant to take exit 35, misremembered it as 36, and realized my error when I saw the town line of Darien.)--SPhilbrickT 14:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tag I was looking for
Hi. Thanks for the work and good humor on List of Danish Poets. I finally found the tag I was thinking of that you might want to make use of {{underconstruction}}. Cheers! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cannondale
Cannondale Historic District was recently split from the Cannondale, Connecticut article. Since you added most of the content in the neighborhood article, would you be able to clarify the distinction between the two areas? The historic district article seems to be confused as to how it is related to the neighborhood. Thanks very much. --Polaron | Talk 17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP
I am a very strong believer in reforming how BLPs get handled, as you would gather from User:Collect/BLP. My run-ins have all been, in fact, defending BLPs from being laced with allegations and tabloid material. That does not mean, moreover, that I feel a Raleigh solution is called for, nor that the manner in which it was implemented was wise. The worst BLPs, in my experience, have been ones where groups of editors work together to add as much damaging material as possible to the BLP. As the readership of those BLPs is three or more orders of magnitude greater than the deleted ones, I would suggest that the energy should be better spent on cleaning those ones up, rather than deleting BLPs which get perhaps 10 views per month. This does not mean "nothing negative" but that once we have three negative items about a person, the next fifty added on are purely Ossa on Pelion. Collect (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the groups of editors adding damaging material is the worst problem -- partly because it's one of the hardest to fix. But I also think the BLP crusaders, much as I dislike the way they're doing this and the way they're treating other people, have identified an area where Wikipedia is in some danger. I don't know how to measure the actual danger (just the number of BLPs or BLPs without references doesn't actually prove we need to be deleting them fast). I'd like to see lists of unreferenced BLPs categorized by subject areas so that WikiProjects and other interested editors could identify them and work on them. That would attract the responsible content editors to the articles most likely to need help. I hate seeing good information get deleted. Thanks for the Raleigh solution! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking a few which have been listed, I find they get between 100 and 200 page views per month. Sarah Palin gets 200,000 page views per month. We are getting sidetracked on to "low viewership BLPs without references generally under 500 words" when the elephant in the room goes unchecked <g>. We can delete the minutiae whenever needed, through extant processes. Then we genially ignore the genuine problem. Assuming 50,000 evil small BLPs, comprising 1 million words, getting 150 views per month -- gives us a maximum of 150 million words which will not be read in a month (I suspect under 2% of them contain anything really scandalous). One non-BLP which does have BLP issues, Prescott Bush, is viewed 16,000 times a month (as a very typical number for WP articles). It has 2,444 words. Number of words per month which could be affected by any controversial or contentious material? Nearly forty million by its lonesome -- and I can assure you that it has had very contentious material placed in it. Or basically we would have to delete more than a quarter of the BLPs which may have nothing worng with them to counter the effect of the one minor article. Indeed, WP is anxious to swat at flies, and ignoring the elephants here <g>. Collect (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone like Sarah Palin has supporters out there (and online here) to defend her. We often get groups of supportive editors hanging around BLPs of famous people. I'm more worried about some school principal who happens to have a BLP (and let's say there's no question of notability). A few kids put in some nasty libel and the article sits there for months or years with it, then somebody else finds the article, reads the awful libel, may not understand what little authority Wikipedia has, and word spreads around the principal's community. It's at some point after all this happens that responsible editors at Wikipedia even hear about it, and the damage is done. At some point, something like this will really blow up in Wikipedia's face, like the Siegenthaler incident or the incident with the professor who was detained at some airport in Canada because of some libelous thing said about him on Wikipedia. There's no way of insuring that Wikipedia isn't used that way, but maybe we can make it less likely. The more I think about it, the more I think wikiprojects are important and should be supported, because they can really alert editors to what articles are both interesting to them and need help. You know, if no one has edited some unimportant BLP for a long while, and if few people are reading it, it may not be so bad if it vanishes. Whenever I think about all this, I keep reminding myself that any position we take here involves some losses and some gains, not all of it very important -- as long as we don't screw up with some emotional reaction. I think I can imagine what contentious material went into the Bush article -- or some of it anyway. At the opposite extreme, I read at Jimbo's talk page that Scott Mac has been, apparently, overprotective of the John Silber article. So much so that obviously proper information has been moved to the talk page. I've met Silber, done research on him, written about him for publication, and I know he's been very controversial in Boston for many years -- and yet Scott Mac seems to be treating him as if he isn't WP:WELLKNOWN. That's what the crusading spirit does to you (or maybe I'm missing something; I'd get involved in that one, but I've got too much on my plate already). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be concerned if such were the actual norm, but the cases examined so far show exceedingly little libel at all. If that is the primary argument, it is like the man seeing a shrink - the shrink asked him why he kept clapping his hands every five minutes, Answer: To keep the elephants away! Shrink: But there are no elephants for a thousand miles from here. Reply: See! It works! BTW, there have been extended periods with remarkably iffy material at Sarah Palin -- all it takes are three determined editors to keep material in, no matter its value. And since we have a mechanism in place for material which ought not be here, it seems to be courting disaster to discard the existing process in favor of gunslingers. Yep - the Posse Comitatus worked, but is it how WP ought to be modeled? Collect (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP
I definitively agree with you that some of the articles that are unreferenced are about people whose inclusion in Wikipedia is desirable. We need to make a strong effort to notify people that are interested in improving them. We need to get those fixed, and get rid of the low quality article about nonnotable people. These have fallen through the cracks because we don't have an organized way to do quality reviews. We need to make a priory of cleaning up this backlog and then organize ways to regularly review our articles. This maintenance phase of article upkeep is extremely important if we are going to raise the quality of Wikipedia articles. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Andrei Khrzhanovsky. Since you had some involvement with the Andrei Khrzhanovsky redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TheTitoDiscuss 21:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Punishment
I read a plot summary of the latest Gibson movie, at least I think that's what I read, and saw some bits about it filming in Mass, but I can't figure out what any of it has to do with my crimes against humanity? Can you connecticut it up for me so I'm not in a confused mass or in a hole? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Based on your comments at the current RfC it appears that you might prefer something more strongly worded than this proposal but I urge you to give it serious consideration as a good compromise position. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion
Let the flock chirp. There's no need to respond to every comment. Either someone with the authority to help will weigh in or not. Anyway, thanks for trying to address a problem constructively. Your thread title is a little strong though, so you might consider toning it down to something more soothing in an effort to model the civil conduct you're seeking. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say that. I suddenly feel dirty just involving myself at AN/I. I thought "ongoing abuse" was OK. I used that title in notifying people, including Tarc about the thread, so I don't want to change it now. Gotta go get some things done before the incoming storm arrives. Thanks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CRU article name
Hello,
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it was no problem. Thanks for your explanation about the years in poetry pages and how the countires should be organised. I did wonder at the time whether one entry, as was the case for György Petri, was substantial enough for its own new section. I can certainly see the logic in the way you've got it organised, I'll definitely keep this in mind for the future. Thanks for the advice :) Fallschirmjäger 16:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for My Way killings
On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article My Way killings, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Screwtape's guide to bringing up a plagiarism complaint on Wikipedia
That was a truly fine thing to post right then and right there. Thank you. I hope it gets some people to see what they're doing and dial things back a bit. ++Lar: t/c 06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Lar said; damn near sprayed my coffee across my desk :D EyeSerenetalk 08:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your ANI post
Although it doesn't change my view on BLP issues as a whole, your post about the You're So Vain article on ANI was fun enough that I plan to work it into a speech I'll be giving on BLP issues at a conference later this year. I'll provide full attribution and send you a link if it is published. Trusting that this has your permission. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your edit of my Wikipedia page
Just a note on your recent decision to delete my page. Spuyten Duyvil is by no means a vanity press. In fact my work was solicited for publication with that publisher, with whom I had had no previous contact. They are a well-established literary press. My first book, Stone, was publ. by Copper Beech Press, also not a vanity press, & well-respected. I not only contributed to the anthology Glass of Green Tea, I co-edited it. I'm not sure the people editing this page were very well-informed about "notability" int he poetry world.
- online version of a graduate paper on another book, In RI. This paper is by an Italian translator of my work (she solicited the book from me for translation). This book also received notice in an Italian newspaper (for which I don't have a reference).
re Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement
I would "officially" request that the ongoing Request not be referred to on either of the AfD's mentioned. I would prefer that the RfE does not become a venue for arguing the merits of the specific processes. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling....
I know its hard, and Americans seem to be unable to ever spell my given name correctly. But my family name is the same as that of Charles M. Schulz, who apparently is spelled that way even in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need a rest
To elaborate my point, I think you've stretched everybody's patience to near breaking point over the past few days. You're lashing out in all directions and this speaks to your judgement. Take a rest from Wikipedia, and try to remember that these are humans you're dealing with. They don't like to be taken for fools. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 02:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be when I tried to WP:SNOW close somebody else's AfD nomination .....? Mmmmmmmm, no. Would that be when I tried to prematurely close that same person's AN/I thread about the improper closing of that AfD nomination .....? Mmmmmmmmm, no, not there either. As I recall, I lashed out at you neither on your talk page or at ANI (although I did complain), or later at the GenSanctions complaint talk page. Seems to me I've been pretty unlashinglike.
Did I "lash out" at ChrisO? Nope. I defended myself from what I considered his poor conduct. Conduct so poor that it repeatedly violated not just the sanctions regime, but ordinary civil conduct -- and I mean "ordinary civil conduct" in real life. Did I miss your suggestion somewhere to ChrisO to not "lash out" or "stretch everybody's patience to near breaking point" by not filing frivolous, nuisance complaints? Where is the diff of any of that, TS? I've made a normal AfD and had to work hard just to keep the page from being closed. Gosh, this could all almost make a guy forget there's a general sanctions regime in place. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)minor addition -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At I said, you're lashing out. You've readily illustrated that while purporting to do the opposite. Take a rest, if not from Wikipedia, at least from this area that seems to cause you to behave so oddly. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 07:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing an AfD down without cause and trying to close down an AN/I thread look more like odd behavior, and (although I wouldn't accuse you of it) would be more consistent with lashing out. Making a comment on one AfD, starting another, discussing the problems with the existence of the article at that AfD, defending the existence of the AfD at AN/I, defending myself from an unfair complaint and filing a complaint -- nothing odd in that. You've readily illustrated that while purporting to do the opposite You're at the point where you need to stop making these derogatory statements or start backing them up with evidence, Tony. That would show if your vague comments are anchored in something like a concrete problem with my actions. One could reasonably hypothesize (but not firmly state) that an alternative reason for your statements would be that you're incredibly uncomfortable with the actual facts, reasoning and policy I'm bringing up that show just how embarassingly POV the Climate change denial article is. You should clear up whether the reasons for your odd actions and statements here are due to one or the other or to some other reason. It would make me much happier if, for instance, the reason for all this flurry on your part, including unorthodox actions and unsubstantiated statements, were from sincere but misplaced concerns, which I'll continue to assume until I see evidence to the contrary. I haven't chacked -- have you counseled ChrisO yet? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.