User talk:LessHeard vanU

Request

Would you please ask this editor to remove his accusation [1] of me being a proxy for socks Please inform him if he does not remove it i will seek an RFE against him for breaking his civility parole. Thanks you mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked. If there is no response, or a negative one, then you can ask an uninvolved admin to redact it per the Probation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked, but said "no evidence presented". On Mark's talk page WMC cited the edit [2] where Mark restored comments by a (since indef blocked) sock account with an edit summary of "rv do a CU first before removing talk page comments, just because the username is pointy does not prove this guy is a sock" which is probably broadly unhelpful. I am not sure what the technical meaning of "proxying for socks" is but restoring edits from an account which experienced users had identified as a clear sock is along the lines of meatpuppeting for a sock anyway and Mark seems to be wrongly asserting every sock is entitled to a CU when most get thrown out on WP:DUCK. --BozMo talk 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Bozmo, it is beside`s the point if it turned out to be scibaby. Removing talk page posts is against policy and it should not have been removed until the editor was actually blocked. LHVU thank you, could you now ask that editor to remove his new attack on me as proxying for IP`s. And please ask him to refrain from making unfounded accusations in the future. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I kind of don't agree. Reasonable grounds for suspecting Scibaby socks is enough for an established editor to revert or strike on sight and tag the talk page with "suspected sock of Scibaby". We don't wait for a CU before acting when reasonable grounds exist and it is better to apologise in rare wrong cases than to give encouragement to the nuisance caused by the socks by dialog in the meantime. IMHO restoring sock edits when struck for reasonable grounds should only be done if you have a good reason to think it is not a sock. --BozMo talk 22:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BozMo. I got confused between this and MN's restoring BLP vio's over at Robert Watson. Well, that makes snarkig a bit harder but: LHVU: how about you bother check up next time you go proxying for MN? (@LHVU, BozMo: I took your comments off my talk page: I think it will be less confusing if instead of a 3-way conversation we just talk here; that way MN won't have to pretend not to be able to speak my name) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:Proxying, you have to be acting on behalf of a banned editor - that is, they request you make an edit you otherwise may not have - to be a proxy. If Mn wants to re-instate an edit on their own initiative, then they can (and that edit can be challenged in the normal manner). Unless it can be evidenced that Mn was requested to make an edit by some banned editor, then it is not proxying and therefore a pa. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe proxying is the wrong word then/ --BozMo talk 22:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we may be using the same word in different senses. I'm using "proxying" in the sense than LHVU is "proxying" for MN - i.e., acting as his proxy, i.e., making edits for him. That is what MN was doing - making edits for the Scibaby sock. He wasn't making the edits for himself. And of course (oh you who speak of knowing policy (LHVU, not BozMo)): you'll notice that MN has the policy wrong: removing talkpage comments from socks of banned users is not against policy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the comment remains removed [3] and I don't see anyone suggesting, now, that it should go back William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "proxying" is quite right here. In article space, sure, adopting a blocked user's edits under your own responsibility is a possibility. But on talk pages, contributions are signed and clearly associated with the user who made them. If another user wants to take on a cause brought by a blocked sock, they can do so under their own name. But you cannot usefully adopt another users personal signed edit. That simply enables block evasion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It was on a talk page. The user had not been blocked at the time. If WMC will not remove the comment i will file an RFE mark nutley (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no regard for the edit, or its validity, but only for that by noting Mn was proxying he was apparently being accused of violating policy. A more accurate description, such as "re-instating subsequently blocked sock's edit", would have been preferable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Are RFEs still meaningful? The last one filed against MN for violating his sourcing parole (Watson, again) was effectively closed by LHU as "don't bother me here, do it at arbcom" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said at my talk: I removed LHVU's original request, as the triangular conversation was awkward. Here it is [4] for convenience. Note the edit summary an unsubstantiated claim such as sock proxying is a pa, so please remove it. Thank you prejudging the issue and requesting removal William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban suggestion

Not that my opinion matters, but I think you have a good idea to topic ban everyone (myself included) from CC/GW pages until the ArbCom is closed. It would of course, upset a good number of people, but I think it is the only way to stop the drama. Just my two cents... GregJackP Boomer! 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(typo?)..."too sense"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence

You has it.

I want a lolcat with that description. Happen to know anyone who makes them? :) NW (Talk) 00:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Um... King Crimson had Lol Coxhill, does that count? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Iz no floont n kitteh, buz kitteh like beer. -Atmoz (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Helpful as always....

Thank you for this. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Block

I wrote on ANI about an admin who is not as bad as Hitler but needs more experience. I suggested that he reapply for admin in January. This person has stopped meaningful article editing.

Anyway, I am threatened with block.

I, hereby, request a block ONLY if the following instructions are followed:

1. VERY IMPORTANT: Block duration for 72 hours to 1 month (your discretion, please be nice).

2. VERY IMPORTANT: Block reason must be "Self requested block".

3. Page protect my user talk page for everyone (Jimbo Wales can be exempted) and any comments made between this request and your block should be archived, not left in place as I can't be checking constantly or it defeats the purpose of a block.

4. Request that the block begin on July 30th.

Thank you. MVOO (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No valid reason, so sorry no block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall decline this request for a self block. It appears that you are seeking to distance yourself from some edits or articles, rather than wanting to take a break from Wikipedia, and possibly pre-empting sanctions. If you are trying to stay out of trouble, I suggest the best way is to either stop engaging in the activities that are creating issues, or disengage yourself from WP (you have been advised how to on your talkpage) for a while. I am sorry I cannot see my way to issuing a block presently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt.whitby

You said; "re your edit to George Harrison

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to George Harrison. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)"

What are you talking about? I don't believe i've edited that page. Feel free to apologise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, is that so? – iridescent 22:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise - now, please do not vandalise that page again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

...that I stole a part of your edit notice on your talk, it seems to explain my bad habits of not responding consistently in a certain place while replying to comments on talk pages. Cheers. Connormah^talk 01:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_amendment, and the subthreads above it. You are being notified as you were one of the users who proposed or discussed the original sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason...

...that we have to keep putting up with [5]this? 68.28.104.246 (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit is very "telling". You're not a sock of another editor, are you? This brand-new editor seems to agree with you[6]. Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think that because I have blocked an editor previously, I am more amenable to blocking them the next time? Whosoever you are a sock of, it is not someone familiar with my sysopping. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrol

Hi there. Do you have time to please mark this article as patrolled? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been marked as such, I cannot see the unpatroled template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

However, the article appears on the new pages backlog as not patrolled (here). Amsaim (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the template, and have now marked it as patrolled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Amsaim (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Or you can find something else to do."[c.bass onhistalk

cantclimstairsinurweelchair?>"Or] you can find something else to do. "![sumother'perls'ther,buthucarzha?+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sven70#Response219.70.23.121 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Meineke active again as IP 90.184.43.166

Hi Less, it looks like IP 90.184.43.166 is active again. See this edit. See also User talk:90.184.43.166. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, with a note that continued vandalism will being longer sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers. DVdm (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

86.178.177.160

Just a quick note to say that this IP which you hard-blocked is almost certainly a dynamic one. This is part of my day job - hope you don't mind the unsolicited input. The RIPE network entry that whois showed you is for a /10 allocation - a range of more than four-million IP addresses - and the address is listed in the DUL database of dynamic IP ranges used by postmasters. Specifically, this is from the range of addresses used by BT's domestic/small business DSL platform in the UK, used not only by BT but by many of the other companies that sell access using BT's platform. The huge majority (99.999%+) of those addresses will be allocated dynamically. Thparkth (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The same person is back again as 66.81.37.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It looks to me like he is using open proxies. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To Thparkth, thanks. I have modified the block to a soft one, so any editor will not be inconvenienced (hopefully the one who used the ip was, at the time). Please feel free to correct my understandings of ip addresses, it is an area where I have poor knowledge. ChrisO, I will take a look and see if there is any point in blocking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC) It seems that this has been addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

rc:moroc-ssyas:npov

mindv aluk/rolbak?-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

:o canaCUpostsuchdata onatalkpg??

You're in Australia using Optus Internet (In Sydney, [7]-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Such information is publicly viewable when an ip address is placed in a Whois lookup page. This can be found on an ip's user or talkpage, alongside their editing history and geolocation details, by any user. CU's are able to determine the ip of a named account, and find this and other information, but are not permitted to divulge such information publicly (and only as required to other holders of advanced permissions). In this case, no policy was broken in noting the general location of the ip editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

a-ta---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment confused me. Are you supporting the original, the loosened modified version of DF, or some third as yet unwritten version? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've made a comment there which you may wish to consider. I note that it might seem like a very long screed, but a lot of light can be found by the end of that tunnel (in the second point anyway). :) I'd have passed this note around to a lot of people, but as I'm out of time at the moment, so I've only passed it to you and BozMO (the only uninvolved admins who have commented in the result section so far). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't

would not have thought this could refer to me... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that - but I still wouldn't want anyone else to think that, so I will amend my text again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Original Podstar

		The Podstar
		For all your efforts in cheering up Bishonen. --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank... LessHeard vanU 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Award

The Tightrope Award, representing the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls.

The Tightrope Award is bestowed on LessHeard vanU for his daring use of "brilliant" and "Tony Sidaway" in the same sentence.[8] Bishonen | talk 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC). And don't you edit conflict me, Rexx! Hello, Little Stupid! B.

...you muchly! User talk:LessHeard vanU 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Input please

I'd appreciate your input and feedback regarding my proposed proposed remedy/enforcement found here. Thanks. Minor4th 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I shall, I think. Nobody will much like it, including me, but it needs to be said. I shall necessarily need to compose myself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Request/suggestion/whatever

Would it be possible for you to condense this down to perhaps a third of its present length? I think there are some important points in there that are struggling to reach the surface under the weight of verbiage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, that is the condensed version! (Neither can I speak in anything than my own voice.) I will reduce the amount of content on the page, however, by redacting most. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What !vote? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I found it, after the fact. Oh well, I suppose I was just following practice in that section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oversight access

Hello LessHeard vanU. I'm informing you that I have turned on the oversight tools on your account. Should you have any questions feel free to ask me, another steward or another local oversighter. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I look forward to receiving the "When and Where to Wave the Big Flags (and How Not To)" pamphlet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• - Congratulations to you LessHeard vanU. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't

I thiught I'd made it pretty clear you were unwelcome on my talk page. But just to be clear: you aren't welcome William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You have made it pretty clear that consider me unwelcome on any page you have ever edited, but you have never said so specifically before. You now have in regard to your talkpage, so I shall refrain from providing you with a sounding board on what others outside your "tightly focussed" gatherings may consider as being part of the wider range of opinion upon editing the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome on my talk page any time, LHvU. And so is WMC. You probably will like it there. As for WMC's prohibition banning you from his echo chamber, it of course is inoperative if you need to place a warning, sanction, or block notice there. As you well know. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are all welcome on my talkpage too. Polargeo (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mine too :) Congrats on oversight LHVU. Minor4th 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Barber

Noroton does not deserve the courtesy of being referred to by whatever username he happens to be using at the moment (he uses more than one). For over three years, this individual has been taking every opportunity to attack me as both Noroton and JohnWBarber; however, the worst of the attacks were committed while under the "Noroton" guise. As part of my defense against this harassment, I feel it is important that everyone is aware that these users are one and the same. I therefore decline your request. I will, however, clarify the username issue by editing my comment accordingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Time's up

Won nun dread and twenny secs thing's on this page. Time for archive 'fur teen', me finks. LOL. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Userpage concerns

Don't know if your new oversight skills are needed here, but I just sent you an e-mail asking you to look at the creation of a user page by a minor revealing their name, location, and school. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Original discussion found here. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My view is that there is not sufficient detail for Oversight to be concerned, and rev/deleting would suffice - however, I shall put the question to those more experienced when I am on my home pc to see what I should do in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

After taking advice I have deleted the page, meaning other admins can view and undelete; it is unlikely that any admin would or even could make use of the content outside of usual WP practices. I have explained the deletion to the editor, as being so people would not be prejudiced by the editors youth. Thanks for the tip-off, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to deal with this. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Another one. Viriditas (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

and another from a few days ago. It also includes pictures in the personal website link. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also to be noted that per WP:CHILD such pages could also be used to elicit responses from other children. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, both deleted. As admins are people with the communities trust I consider that we AGF that none would use or distribute the deleted details, so deletion suffices. I am happy to delete, or suppress if that is required, any personal details by minors or other potentially vulnerable individuals, but would ask that if I am not immediately available that you request deletion by any admin - the less time the information is available the better. Admins should be able to determine if oversight is required also. Again, thanks for your attention in these matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC) addendum If there is going to be a few reports here, I think changing the section header to a more general one will help in protecting the privacy of these instances; so I have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Many thanks LHvU for the fast response. I agree completely. The faster the time such information gets deleted the better. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way all the time. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted category history

Hi Mark, hope you are well. Could you help me with the history of deleted category Category:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award please? Particularly, creation history, and if any speedy tags were added and by whom. DuncanHill (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This cat was created 7 September 2010 by AusTerrapin and nominated for speedy deletion by Are You The Cow Of Pain?, the same day as being previously deleted per discussion. It was deleted under G4, per this previous discussion. I trust this suffices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You sure it wasn't speedied twice? Because Nyttend speedied then restored, then Fastily speedied it again. Was it tagged once or twice? DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah, tagged twice by RUtheCofP? - the second following the undelete by Nyttend. You might have to check if there is any discussion between Nyttend and RUtCoP?, because cat deletion does not depend on the content (which appears to be the reason for undeleting) but the purpose of the cat, and it may be that the undelete was considered incorrect and RUtCoP "represented" the original request rather than make a new one. I suppose a ???? (forgot the acronym - challenge of deletion) might be useful if RUtCoP has no good explanation for the second speedy. You may also gently enquire whether Fastily noted there was a previous speedy req, in case he is aware of any circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Already under discussion, topics include what CSD actually says, should admins talk to other admins when undoing their admin actions, do they need to look at deletion/recreation history when deciding to undo other admin actions, should editors re-tag for speedy after a speedy has been declined (especially if they've previously been told that speedy does not apply to this type of case), etc. Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Special Delivery

File:WCS Beebe Barton 600.jpg

As requested one (slightly used) bathysphere. Shell babelfish 11:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possibly just me, but ...

Could you have a look at User talk:Mdcooper2. Firstly, the user name seems kind of familiar to me (was there a Mdcooper1 as it were?); secondly he/she is clearly not a 'newbie' based on the recent edits; and thirdly, he/she seems intent on turning Sherman Robertson's article into a promotional fansite. I created this article and do not wish to appear overly protective. However, I have already posted a cautionary message on the user's talkpage, which does not seem to have any effect. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for 24 hours for edit warring, and in my notice commented that the account was familiar enough with WP to revert rather than retype (nobody can retype twice in a row without errors). Since I am also convinced that this is not a newbie and is possibly a SPA I think any further transgressions, especially by an ip or a new account, after the sanctions expire should be taken to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Same editor, same article, same 'promotional' editing. This is despite an e-mail correspondence with the user, as follows:

To: "Martin Cooper" [redacted] I did not action the block, and have no powers to remove it. Whilst you may have excluded the external links, statements such as "without doubt the best live performing blues act you will ever likely see" is purely a biased point of view, and without a source to support it, has no place in an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia articles are meant to be balanced, neutral in tone and sourced. They certainly should NOT aim to look like a promotional press release. Can I suggest that, when the block expires, you moderate your future editing to comply with Wikipeda editing policy. Equally, you would be best advised to heed the advice given by other more senior editors, rather than ploughing on regardless.

Derek

--- On Tue, 17/11/09, Martin Cooper [redacted] wrote: From: Martin Cooper [redacted] Subject: Sherman Robertson Wikipedia Page To: derekrbullamore[redacted] Date: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 9:15

Hi Derek,

I see that the Sherman Robertson page I was editing now has a block against any re-edits. I have removed all links to the external links (MySpace and YouTube) as per your request.

However, I do not see why I have been blocked from re-editing. Can this be lifted please.

Many thanks, Martin

You just can not tell some people !?! Sorry to lumber you with this.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked again, this time for 3 days, and left them a message. Hopefully they will now comply with WP's preferred manner of article writing. BTW, I have redacted the email address details of the copy correspondence and rev/del'eted your and my edits - I am assuming you have permission to copy the rest of the email - as this private information should not be publicly viewable. It is best not to disclose private information unless specifically agreed by the other party (which is why I removed part of your email addy also given). Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and your comments are duly noted. I should have been much more circumspect, despite wishing to point out that the blocked user had been in correspondence, and received advice on this matter. Apologies.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking request

Please Block WMC: [9]. This is so bad. He want others to go down with him. I reverted but self reverted. Hopefully you can restore the material. Nsaa (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As ever, there needs to be compliance with WP policy - WP:BRD applies here; if a bold addition is reverted then the matter needs to be discussed until a consensus is formed one way or another. As far as I can see (and I did look) WMC has not violated policy, so there is no question of blocks. I see that WMC has initiated discussion on the talkpage, so that is where you need to argue the case for inclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see that. Why are people getting tired of Wikipedia? This is an obvious case where some politically motivated people do everything to keep a one world understanding in the article. why didn't he just expanded my section instead of blatantly removing it three times ([10][11][12] WP:3RR? )? Nsaa (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• LHvU: I posted a few comments on Nsaa's talk page; would you care to comment there? NW (Talk) 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Beyond My Ken

With all due respect, I think you are jumping the gun with regard to this user. I can see how that might happen, coming as it does on the heels of the AN/I discussion regarding Herostratus. But this seems to me to be a mostly unrelated dispute, and furthermore one that is only in its beginning stages: this is a normal part of the revert-and-discuss cycle. Threatening blocks over such edits is premature; it's not like this is even a multi-day edit war. Maybe you're being a little hard on the guy? Nandesuka (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The point about consensus, and it being non-negotiable, was ignored when I posted it on the talkpage - and WP:BRD does not permit more than one revert. I think that BYK has a valid point regarding the quality of the image, but that does not permit him or anyone to ignore policy. I would note that I am giving him the opportunity to self revert, and that I did not template a long standing contributor. No more edit warring, no need for blocks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Siouxsie

A few anonymous users have been editing badly since a couple of months now and it's enough. I'd like now this page blocked and reserve for properly registred users. Thank you. Carliertwo (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.75.103 (talk)

I am afraid that such low level vandalism from ip's is not sufficient for the article to be semi protected. Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit", and we have to just keep clearing up after them. I will put the article on my watchlist, in case our ip friend returns in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mackay 86

Mackay 86 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

You've previously had cause to speak to this editor about some "interesting" practices (hosting infoboxes in their userspace). I've just been asked (by Begoon (talk)) to take a look at this editor. Apparently, after you spoke to them they engaged in some bizarre image "work" - downloading images from Commons, modifying them, and then using them in articles here. They've built up quite a list of deleted contribs, and have been warned about it by, at least, Begoon and Fastily.

More recently, Mackay 86 appears to have discovered templates - specifically, altering them and causing problems on articles transcluding them . DrKiernan and Begoon have both tried to raise this with Mackay 86; the usual response is to blank their talk page.

I'm inclined to issue a short(ish) "attention getting" block, but wondered if you had any thoughts first?

Thanks for your help, TFOWR 16:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would block them indefinitely, and they can be unblocked the second (and there's little shorter than that) they agree to contribute according to the WP ethos, after noting their response to Begoon. As before, they appear uninterested in working collegially and per consensus. Looking through their contrib list, it appears that most of what they do is change things in accordance with their perception of how things should be (there being almost no talkpage contributions). They are presently a time sink, and blocking them appears appropriate - although I would not be very surprised if they were to commence socking immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you're right. On the basis that indefinite != forever, I've done just that. Thanks for your advice. TFOWR 20:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Thanks --intelati^(Call) 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--intelati^(Call) 04:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes!

Hello Mark - Yes back I think many of my edits are a bit dated on reflection and did enjoy editing Reedgunner (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ChaosMaster16

Thanks for the quick and well considered response at the ANI thread - appreciated. I've done my best with this guy, but it's not working. Excellent rationale for not blacklisting. On a related note, I have watchlisted this user: Pinknp (talk), who recently arrived at my talkpage identifying as the user's sister, but has not edited since I hinted at my concerns in User_talk:Begoon#ChaosMaster16. I guess we'll see...  Begoon•talk 21:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be the guy/girl with their finger on the pulse - I think it safe to leave to you and AussieLegend to pick up on any suspicious activity. If you think you smell a sock, leave me a note and I will look into it - and if the "sister" is not editing then short blocks on ip editors should not effect her regardless. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem - that's the second occasion in 2 days I've been extremely impressed with, and grateful for, your judgement, by the way - and not just because you agreed with me :=). Thanks.  Begoon•talk 21:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Best if we don't try for three in a row, though, eh? (Not unless there is an emergency, anyway.) I'd hate to disappoint us... What was the first? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mackay 86 - but yes, I agree - happy coincidence. Buses don't generally really come in 3's - that's just what people think.  Begoon•talk 21:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI response

I will be responding at ANI, but a careful response requires more time than I have immediately free. Please note that that TPH posted a string of uncivil invective to my talk page, repeatedly reposted it after I removed it, then eventually removed most of the invective with what passes for an apology about his "being bitchy." It is rather surprising to find that he posted a version of the same complaints to ANI, then posted the pseudo-apology to my talk page without complying with the ANI notification requirement. It hardly seems consistent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I shall await your considered response - I am looking at ways by which interactions may be reduced in an effort to avoid having to place "official" sanctions or restrictions, so you might want to put such options into your comments at ANI. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deh Cho Bridge

The IP was correct to change Highway 1 to Highway 3. If you look at Yellowknife Highway (Highway 3) and Northwest Territories Highway 1 it's clear which of the two it should have linked to. Also in the first sentence of the Deh Cho article it says "...of the Mackenzie River on Highway 3 near Fort Providence, Northwest Territories, Canada." Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, looking through the majority of their edits the ip was engaged in low nuisance vandalism and I thought I just found one that had not been caught previously... Always the issue when dealing with these types of ip's. Thanks for the correction and heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that most of us have been caught out reverting the one good edit stuck in the middle of several vandalistic ones. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe's talk page

Hmmm .... IIRC, I didn't really revert anything on BlueRobe's talk page. Unless I'm mistaken, I think a quick inspection would show that. BigK HeX (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh .. I see. On this edit, I just used the undo button to add back in only the talk page section, to house a new comment that I forgot to place before he deleted the section. I wouldn't really have considered it a revert [just the section header without any of the deleted comments], but I could be wrong about that. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Phaedriel

You do realize she's been MIA over 3 years? Nice gesture though. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why I wrote it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I worked with her. Kirill and I helped her get the Native American portal to FP status. Great user. One of the most popular ever. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the event you're not watching

KnowIG has asked that I request you answer a query on their user talk. I am not taking a position in the matter, just relaying a message. Thanks Tiderolls 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well...so much for that experiment. Tiderolls 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is still only a couple of hours from the block, and I don't think anyone can really be judged on their immediate responses. Let them sleep on it, and consider what is being said. Perhaps after a few days or so they may start think about whether they should change the way they approach things, and then there is the potential for progress to be made. Thanks for your efforts in this, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is 24.236.248.179

Check the Admin Noticeboard thing you just got about me. If you're going to ban me, read that first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.248.179 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The only person getting you banned is yourself - if you conduct yourself according to policy and practice then you don't get banned (we don't ban ip addresses, in fact, but we will block them for extended periods if found necessary.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the admin noticeboard thing about me? Was it deleted? It's not there anymore. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your block of 60.240.231.203

He cleared his talk page while still blocked, which I believe is not allowed. I've reverted it. Might be needed to watch it. 124.180.193.176 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Chocolate biscuit jar

Just FYI after reading your note at ANI, while I was blocked I tried a couple of CSD's unsuccessfully. Maybe deletion counts as editing. Rich Farmbrough, 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

I should think so, but I am not so concerned as to wish to get myself blocked so I can find out the limits... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ted Heath (bandleader)

Mark, I do not know the best way to go about this one. I know you will ! There is a relatively inexperienced editor, User talk:Nijaedthih, who has taken on this article, which I spotted back in June 2010 as needing some serious attention. It was unsourced, breezy, anecdotal etc. He/she is battling away alone, turning the piece around (it is on my watchlist) and doing a great job. He/she, I feel, just needs a bit of support, guidance and an experienced hand (mentoring, maybe) to oil the wheels. Whilst my love of music is wide-ranging, this subject matter is really not my cup of tea, and I am busy elsewhere. Is there somebody nice you could point in the right direction, and help give the editor a deserved pat on the back, and a guiding hand ?

It makes a change from the usual moans, doesn't it. The editor might be appalled that I've suggested such a thing; but he/she is battling away gamely without any support or assistance. Many thanks again,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article apparently falls under the aegis of two wikiprojects; I don't know how active they are - for all I know, you are the only active member of both! - but perhaps those might be good places to request some gentle shepherding? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ta, will do.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hsmg20

I hate to be a bother, but User:Hsmg20 is at it again. In his latest edit (here), he changed a link that pointed to Fenerbahçe, renaming it Sikikbahçe ("sikik" is Turkish for "f*ck" or "f*cking"). It's quite unfortunate because he has made some useful contributions to Galatasaray-related pages, but this kind of rival bashing and whatnot has no place on WP. Thank you for your time and I hope this is resolved soon. Regards, Invisibletr (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have enacted a 72 hour block, and noted that any further disruption will incur a 2 week block. I trust that this will not continue, but if it does I would ask that you let me know. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

re re image at Creampie (sexual act)

Oh, OK. I looked up RfC, and they are supposed to stay open for thirty days. I didn't know that. But, you know, the RfC had pretty much run its course, in that no new commentors were coming in, and there was only a desultory back-and-forth on technical matters going on, between editors who had already made their point. So I figured, well, this seems to have died out, let's sum up where we are and put it to bed.

So, you know, it was a mistake. Because RfC's are, technically, supposed to run for thirty days, I now see. I didn't look up the rule, I just applied common sense as I saw it. So it was a mistake.

But it was a minor, good-faith, technical mistake.

And so you threatened to block me. You know, you could have pointed out the rule or something. I'm a reasonable person. I don't mind having it pointed out if I make an error.

But you didn't do that. Instead, you decided that threatening to block me was a good idea. In my view, this shows a gross misunderstanding of what you are supposed to be about, here.

First of all, your blocking privileges are supposed to be used against vandals, disruptive editors, and that sort of thing. They were given to you to help the Wikipedia run smoothly. Not to annoy and threaten established editors with whom you, personally, disagree (your other comments make clear what your opinion on the matter at hand is).

Second of all, as an admin, you are supposed to protect and defend the Wikipedia generally. Who is making a mockery and laughing stock of the Wikipedia, me or the people defending this dreadful image? We are having a dreadful time attracting women readers and editors, and frat-boy scrawls like this image aren't helping. You are not required as an admin to have the judgment and maturity to consider things like this, but you certainly aren't supposed to make things worse.

You didn't block me, so you could say that, technically, you didn't misuse use admin rights. But you did threaten to block me, and that's bad too. I don't know you, and I assume that as an admin you do lots of useful and needful things around here, and I appreciate that. But this particular action is a disgrace. I sure as heck hope you don't treat other uses like this, and if you do, you probably are not a good fit for the admin corps. But nobody's perfect, and I'm willing assume that you are just having a bad or something, and I'm willing to let it go. But please don't let it happen again. Herostratus (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. That's different. Well let's see.

Well, BRD violation. OK, granted. I did not know that. Hard to keep up on all the details of all the rules.

Well, then we with your diffs we are getting into some complicated threading here. There was an ANI post (the diff is here). OK that was 20 days ago. (Just to make sure I wasn't misremembering anything, I painstakingly recreated the history leading up to the ANI post, which is here). Anyway that ANI post was awhile ago and anything prior to that ANI post could have been handled there, I guess. If I recall there wasn't any decision made at the ANI.

Wait I minute. I didn't "remove" any images, I replaced the image with one substantively similar. There's a big difference.

re "male, for various good reasons I won't go into here"... I just didn't want to go into them solely for the reason that I didn't want to sidetrack the existing discussion with tangential points, because the discussion (IIRC) was then about Remove/Keep of the current image, and going into details of other options would have just confused the thread. I did expand on this later, when it was called for. And I would have expanded on it right then if someone had asked me. Anyway, you know, saying "this is not the proper manner of making an argument, if you have reasons then you owe it to others to clarify them" is a reasonable statement for one editor to make to another. But in my view "this is not the proper manner of making an argument, if you have reasons then you owe it to others to clarify them and I will block you if you don't make your arguments in a manner to my liking" is not a reasonable statement. And that is what we are talking about here, right? You are explaining reasons that you have threatened to block me, and this is one of them.

OK, what it the deal with this? You seriously are chastizing me for this? Now this is getting silly. I am allowed reasonable leeway in making points. Obviously my point is that it's unkind to our users to use images that will make them queasy. I don't have to point to a policy for every single statement. Actually, I think there is a policy somewhere about shock images, IIRC.

Oh, OK, animals. OK, didn't like the animals. OK, fine, no animals, OK? I've already conceded this. I'll address this in more detail in a minute.

Oh, that was you with the interspecies / frankly bizarre thing. Wait a second... that was you? Sorry, I didn't realize that. To be honest, I don't much keep track of who is who except inasmuch as necessary for the thread to make sense. Well, no wonder you're upset. Wait a minute... let me get this straight: you're in an editing dispute with me, and your way of dealing with that is to block me? Isn't there some kind of rule against that, or something?

Right, the closing. I screwed that up, didn't I? I already apologized for that, and will do so as many times as you require, I guess. "Consensus must change"? Is that a rule? Where does it say that? Silly rule, if it is a rule.

OK, I read your closing paragraph. Well, hmmmm. I mean, I read and contribute to various talk pages, and there's a certain amount of give-and-take, you know. Most statements don't point to a policy. There's a lot of things that go into making the Wikipedia. Policy is all well and good, but let's not get all crazy about it. After all WP:IAR is a policy too. You know, it'd be one thing if I was saying "Such-and-such is a policy, but to hell with that, let's ignore it". But I'm not. I'm just saying like "I think we should do such-and-such" but without attaching "per WP:RULE" to it. This is a blockable offense? But I do get it that you don't like me. Fair enough.

OK, just to finish up with some meta issues. Here's my take: you're mad because I tweaked you a little bit with the animal thing. OK, understandable. But here's the thing - I wouldn't say this on the article talk page, of course, but just talking privately between ourselves: c'mon. Do you really not get that the whole thing is completely ludicrous? Here we are arguing over a poorly drawn scrawl illustrating a sub-notable article of porno trivia like it's the Magna Carta. I mean, as someone correctly pointed out, it looks like it came from a 7th grader's notebook. And when he showed it to his friend, what would be his friend's reaction? Why, he'd laugh until his subsidized milk came out his nose. Maybe he's wiser than we great solons. But I apologize if your feelings were hurt. But in my opinion, when I run into situations like that, I find that rolling my eyes or muttering "what an asshole" to myself and moving on is better than, you know, threatening to block the person.

Also, I don't want to let you off the hook for being an involved editor and threatening to block me. You are not supposed to do that, so don't.

So, all in all, I have to mostly respectfully disagree with your review of my activities. But thank you for putting the time and effort into it. I'd recommend just letting it go, and moving on from here. Herostratus (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please clear all mentions of deleted usernames

Can you remove the revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_Maple_Leafs&oldid=389758033, since its edit summary contains the deleted user's name. It is painfully ironic that you deleted that user's edits, but another person reverted it with the edit summary containing that user's name. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. One of the glitches of semi-auto editing, it may include material in the summary that was removed by RevDel from the original post. No lasting harm done, and thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

please restore

Left message at ani. Interested in your proposal but have questions. Unfortunately, laptop crashed while traveling. Back on oct 18. Now on blackberry with poor reception, which is next to impossible! In the meantime can you restore SAQ article and Oxford theory articles? Marknutley's changes of oct 10 are outrageous and in no way reflect the agreed upon process.Smatprt (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have returned and am willing to discuss any proposal you wish to make. Smatprt (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I will have to review the discussion at the ani sub-page and... I am about to crash (target area; my bed!) also. I will take this up again tomorrow evening, my time. I trust this is okay? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course - after all, you waited for me! Could you also review this RFC, [[13]], as it is entirely related to the bigger issues at play here, and details the various pages involved, as well as the process that we had all agreed to follow (but seems to have been scuttled by the rather bold edits of Oct 10th.) Thanks again and happy dreams. Smatprt (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely

(Was going to reply there but Roger has already collapsed it). Regarding this: "Your self serving belligerence does you and (and far far more importantly) the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming no good at all." -- absolutely. Everyone always assumed I was a skeptic because I was critical of WMC and his supporters. In reality, I was critical because I didn't want someone who acted like that on my side. But don't tell that to the "my way or the highway" crowd. ATren (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy that! Who wants climate change prevention must prevent human disruption to maintain a stabilized environment. It's the fundamental principle of sustainability. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

SAQ

I just found your question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt from a few days ago - thank you for your kind words and support, but I am not sure that I have enough Wikipedia time at the moment to show sufficient follow through that I would not end up sabotaging your potentially valuable proposal. Sorry. Some other time, yes? - 2/0 (cont.) 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, although my hopes of a "clean break/start" between the participants are very much dwindling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Tbsdy lives

Is there more to the deletion there than meets the eye? There's a discussion on ANI about it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was. As noted in my deletion rationale I advised ArbCom of the circumstances, but what I disclosed is not open to discussion. I would note, here (because I do not want a sysop to sysop discussion of technicalities at ANI), that Tbsdy did not RTV but retired the account with a request to blank his talkpage - which was granted and confirmed by NYB (here is the archived discussion, which is a little illuminating as is this one), who you might also like to run this past. It is possible that undeleting the talkpage is not a problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already notified NYB. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That is extremely unfair. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What is? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your caveat....

I think your "caveat" above is very much not enforceable. If I mail you e.g. a copy of Microsoft Word (hey, I may be in a nasty mood), you will no get off if you redistribute it. For one, you cannot prove that I have read the text. For another, I have not agreed to it, and as such it cannot be binding to me. And thirdly, the assumption that I cabn or have obtained all the copyright releases for you to arbitrarily distribute whatever I send you is unreasonable. On the principle that one should not make a rule one cannot enforce, I would suggest you change or remove it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to remove it, as it has been in place (in one form or another) for some little time - but I will explain it a bit, if you wish. To take your example, you should not mail me a copy of Word - you cannot disclaim your responsibility in the matter if I were stupid enough to redistribute it and caught the attention of the lawyers; it stops anyone washing their hands of their part of an improper action, noy a get out of gaol free card for me. As for not agreeing to the conditions, then you should not email me (and especially with sensitive material you might not wish to see make public). It is like those links people are sometimes tempted to click on websites, by taking that action you are agreeing to abide by the conditions pertaining. Unlike those websites I am not going to empty your bank account or have your pc host my unsuitable files, and very likely I am not going to pass on any part of your message - but I could if I felt that it contained material that was better in the public domain, or was seen by others, and no claim of privacy or confidentiality would stop me (except matters regarding Oversight and access to the privileged channels consequent to those responsibilities.)

I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the issue which lead me to place that caveat on my pages. That is fine, but I would like to have thought that it was assumed that it was done for the better conduct of my activities on this website. I regret that there seems to be some elements of animosity in comments between us, and about me by comments made by you elsewhere, but I still consider you to be one of the more reasonable editors I interacted over on the AGW article enforcement pages - I disagreed with some of your stances and choices, but did not stop assuming you were acting in what you felt was in the best interests of the project. If you do not assume the same of me, then I feel that I must have failed in some way to make that apparent - and that is a matter of some further regret for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with the climate change case. Sorry if I gave that impression. Indeed, apart from our disagreement about the relative and absolute appropriateness and value of contributions by Lar and WMC in the area, I don't think we've had major disagreements. And I purr like a cat when people compliment my English.

No, I'm not aware what particular incident caused you to put up this text, but I understand your intention. I even support it to certain degree, although I'm more of the "if you send me something, you grant me a reasonable license to share and discuss it with others to a reasonable extend, unless you explicitly request privacy" persuasion. But I don't think your text achieves what it sets out to achieve, while on the other hand appearing somewhat impolite. It almost certainly has no legal value - a "click-through" is very different from a "mail-to". As a computer scientist, I cannot stand warts. This is a wart. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is nothing to do with CC/arbcom/ER etc., but I do think that everyone got a little corroded by the toxicity those places were prone to... I am pretty satisfied that the wording achieves the desired effect, and it is certainly intended to dissuade people from sending me obnoxious emails and then protesting that their privacy has been abused if I were to disclose some contents; I haven't received any such emails (and have not made public any mail I have received - although I have passed on one or two on my own cognizance), so I feel it has worked. I am content with it, and for people to judge me in part upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Schutzstuffel Gaming Clan

Thank you for blocking creator of page. You are one of the people who do very good job and Wikipedia needs more people like you. Again, thank you. Kingtehmann (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem - thank you for tagging it and reporting the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi Records

Have I gone a bit overboard regarding my tagging of this article ? A second opinion is always useful. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you have missed out {{advert}}... ;~) I agree that the article is not encyclopedic, and might benefit from heavy stubbing, but you might consider using the {{multiple issues}} template, remove the individual ones, and provide the detail on the talkpage. There is always the possibility that any COI editorship may remove any template or comment you leave, so you may wish to watch the article for a while to see if that happens - if it does then let me know and I will apply the required clue stick. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will do.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a co-mentor

Hi. :) I am looking for a co-mentor to help me out with User:Malke 2010. Malke was blocked for a month in June 2010 after several prior blocks. You probably don't remember the situation at ANI, since it's been a while back. I had interacted with Malke previously (after blocking her myself, actually), and since I believe that Malke is operating in good faith volunteered to mentor her. My personal goal has been to get her through a month of active editing without disruption. Malke has made great strides since then (she is much better at responding civilly to others), but we have a ways to go yet, I think. She still seems to me to be uncomfortable with criticism, though, and I believe that my mingling the roles of advising and admonishing are putting obstacles to our progress. I'm hoping that you might be willing to help out. Specifically, I'm looking for somebody neutral, fair and rational to note when Malke crosses the line into disruption. Neutral, fair and rational, I think, very well describe you. :) If you are willing to help out, I would not ask you to follow Malke around yourself, but perhaps just to keep an eye on User:Malke_2010/Mentorship. I'll let you know if she winds up at ANI or AN or any community discussion boards or if there are significant complaints about her behavior that I observe. I think having a neutral party who can point out the line if she crosses (or approaches) it and take any admin action that might be necessary would be helpful. As I said above, I do believe she is working in good faith, and I do believe she has made good progress, so it's my hope that no admin actions would ever be necessary and that she'll never draw near the line. If this is something you'd be up for, please let me know. I have spoken with Malke about it via e-mail, and she is willing to give it a shot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If flattery is on the agenda, then I am always willing... Seriously, I have reviewed the discussion you linked to and note that it was me that suggested further mentoring with a view to changing the then reaction to criticism, etc. - so I suppose that I should be prepared to play my part in that; since I am not undertaking any onerous responsibilities presently then I am willing to co-mentor Malke 2010. I note that my input at the linked discussion was challenged by Malke then, but I assume that you have suggested me as a co-mentor and Malke is agreeable. On that basis please take this as my formal acceptance of the request. I will add the Mentorship page and her talkpage on my watchlist. I should be grateful if you could confirm that Malke is happy with all of this, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (Oh, and thanks for the consideration!)

Thank you. I have suggested you specifically, and Malke has agreed. :) I very much appreciate your willingness to help out; I think things will progress more smoothly this way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I shall formally introduce myself to Malke. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Revdel

For revdel at Talk:Kosovo - you need to delete the offending revision, as well as all intermediate revisions up to but not including the revision in which the offending text was removed :). I'm sorta surprised that an oversighter made this mistake... T. Canens (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt

Hi. Would you be willing to place a section at the bottom of the above that summarises where this is at, including explaining the voluntary topic ban and the next step as you see it? It would help us uninvolveds who are being asked to make a contribution, to understand exactly where it would help to contribute. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

3 ?s

LessHeard, is it permissible for me to edit our sandbox version of the page? Smatprt moved copies into the mainspace for his RfC, and I want to work on incorporating hamiltonstones's suggestions while I'm topic-banned so I can drop them into the article once the AN/I is finished. If not, no big deal.

Speaking of which, do you have an idea of how long this will take? It appears to me that everyone pretty much has had their say.

One other question: I'm thinking about opening an AN/I on myself because of the comments by Schoenbaum, Softlavender, and Bertaut, which Smatprt reposted, and challenge them to produce the diffs to support their comments. Is that a good idea? Paul Barlow tracked down one of Softlavender's assertions, and I spent some time last night going through the interactions between Schoenbaum and myself, and it's obvious that they're merely echoing Smatprt verbatim and misrepresenting my conduct. Since Ncmvocalist's remonstration back in May (which I posted on my user page as a reminder), my conduct has been impeccable, and even before that it never approached the level they claim.

I ask this because I understand it's important for editors to maintain their reputations on Wikipedia, and I have begun to challenge editors when I feel mine has been besmirched by "careless" comments that appear to be driven by advocacy. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, continue to edit the sandbox draft, although clarifying the changes made clearly in the edit summary and noting it is a work in progress both on the page and at the RfC will help reviewers of both the draft and the RfC. I think the ANI length relates to the success of the RfC, if the latter provides a good way in which the article can be written then the ANI page simply becomes moribund. RfC's are generally held open for 30 days unless a very strong consensus emerges beforehand, but anyway more than a couple of weeks. This allows truly independent reviewers to find it, look at the data, and make comments. If the RfC fails to address the issues, then the ANI restarts and takes for as long as is needed - although I doubt anything new will be produced and it is a case of someone reviewing the content and deciding whether and upon whom sanctions should be applied.

I am not sure if opening a ANI discussion on yourself is ever good, but opening one on other editors whose behaviour is a matter of concern is reasonable; you may wish to see if they participate in the RfC's to the effect that you have issues with first, because that makes the matter contemporary. If you take up issues that are historical there may be a lack of urgency on the part of the readership, since there is no present apparent disruption.

re reputations - it really is not as important as the content that remains in an article; we all would prefer to be respected, but the editing model of this place - and why collegiate and consensual practices are pushed so hard - means that there will always be someone who thinks poorly of your contributions; disruption to the project is far more likely to be responded to than the feelings of an editor (outside of general application of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.)

I trust the above proves helpful.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off on calling for diffs from those who left those comments until they do so again.

I don't see the AfC going anywhere. Smatprt has reposted some comments from the SAQ talk page as well as some old comments from the previous AfC so that it appears that some activity is taking place that really isn't, but he's neglected to repost the later SAQ talkpage comments critical of his version, so I'm not really sure how that RfC is relevant to anything. He has a problem with overexposure, and most editors ignore his repeated calls for outside input because they've learned it is largely a waste of their time.

My view is that dispute resolution should resolve disputes, not maintain the status quo, which in my experience guarantees that the problem will come up again, as this one has for the past four years. Letting problems fester by kicking them down the road is not good for Wikipedia, as Wrad pointed out before leaving in disgust.

Just my 2p. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair comment. My experience of content disputes that originate in the real world is that when disruption is countered by blocks and bans that a new "champion" of the viewpoint arrives and starts over the same issues again - and often in good faith, because they see what appears to be a lack of input from a particular viewpoint. My preferred method is to get the different viewpoint holders to be able to work as close to harmoniously as is possible, so when this new editor turns up they find an established forum for discussing all aspects of the subject. This is what I am attempting here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that would be the most desirable result, but you might want to query ScienceApologist, Dougweller, and EdJohnston about the success of their efforts along those lines with the same cast of characters.

The William Shakespeare article suffered quite a bit from such interpolations, but since it achieved FA status the problem has been reduced to manageability, at least. My idea is that articles subject to vandalisation and advocacy editing should be closed for editing except to editors who have the "key", which could be a password or a special status. That would greatly reduce the need for constantly patrolling and probably make half the admins redundant!

I also think the idea of two competing drafts the way the two SAQ drafts were done could also be a good solution for articles that draw a lot of edit warring. For one thing, it gets the disruption off the main page for a time and I believe it produces better articles. If kamikaze editors try to hijack the mainspace article, they can be told that the article is undergoing renovation and be pointed to the appropriate sandbox space to make their contributions. It's a thought, anyway. One thing is for sure in my mind: Wikipedia is entering a more mature stage where the old ways are going to have to be modified if it seriously intends to try to achieve its goals. The "anybody can edit" model doesn't work all that well on mature articles and those that demand some type of expertise. Cheers LH. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it's a general point, and not related to the dispute, I'd like to comment on that last point Tom. No, no. Citizendium does that. For any recurrent problem, there's no one solution but several, at least outside the real world where fundamental interests predetermine a restriction of choice. Most articles, written by an academic with competence, take a week or two, no more. Many are written quickly here when conditions are optimal. But for articles that drag on in the slough of despond, despite huge efforts, and intrinsic importance, for years, you don't need to create an elite class, above 'hoi polloi' editors. All you really need do is impose an interim of tighter rules for editing. I.e., in the stuff we've done, you could resolve most disputes by simply restricting RS to quality academic imprints, which any editor, democratically, can access. With that simple criterion, all editors would be compelled to actually read up the best current published research on the topic of a conflicted page, and the more you read at that level, the harder it is for anyone, pro- or contra-, to keep faith with prejudices that they might otherwise take to be rationally grounded ideas. The politics of knowledge is troubled enough, without us creating tiers of privilege. Method is everything, and anyone, with a will can have a shake at it, and spear the topic, de verily (sorry). Cheers Nishidani (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't create "tiers of privilege". On troubled articles that are mature I'm saying that they shouldn't be accessible to any SPA editor with an agenda and a computer. I dunno, I'm just thinking out loud. But a group such as WP:Wikiproject Shakespeare could play an active role patrolling their areas of interest and be self-regulating. Instead of constantly seeking dispute resolution because of individual editors clashing, the project could take care of most of the article patrolling and seek dispute resolution only when its own members couldn't come to a consensus.

My second point about writing articles away from the mainpages I think is spot on. The current SAQ page, despite its flaws (which are being mended), is a very high-quality product that would have been impossible to write with 30 different editors. And it took considerably longer than a week or two to research and write. My theory is that once you get a pretty good article that's obviously written to a NPOV, the community at large can tweak it and the checks and balances of the process will ensure that the neutrality remains. With the process as it is, it's impossible to achieve a quality article with a NPOV, much less maintain one. It was difficult to do so with a controversial topic in the past, and the situation has only gotten worse since we took the WS article to FA lo these many (almost three) years ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PL290#Guidelines.2C_Policies.2C_Principles_and_Pillars --andreasegde (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC disappeared

Greetings, for some reason (due I think to a slew of page moves), the RFC on the two SAQ drafts is no where to be found. Everything seems to be a jumble. Can you assist? Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again - I think I fixed it, but wow! I've never seen an RFC completely disappear before like that. How on earth did that happen?? Anyhow, it's now here [[14]], where the related discussions are happening. Sorry for any confusion... I think... Smatprt (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

Sorry to bother you, Less. I don't mind being tracked and threatened, I'm used to it. But this second notice on the AN/1 page, aside from telling me I'm warned, explicitly advises readers of that page not to take any note of the subpage. I don't think that proper. (I'm very reluctant of even noting this stuff. I can't stand having to read the enormous threads this kind of thing can kick up) Regards.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignore it, it is not from an uninvolved party nor anyone who is attempting to resolve the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to say that I have never, ever, had any interaction with User:Sven Manguard, and as far as I am aware, he has never edited any of the SAQ articles. So I think that makes him an uninvolved party. I certainly don't condone much of what he wrote (more specifically the way he wrote it, which was not helpful to anyone), but I just wanted to be clear that I did not solicit his participation, and that he has not been involved in any of these disputes. Smatprt (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question had edited the sub-page previously and, in my opinion FWIW, not in a manner which appeared constructive; and that is all I meant by my comments. I am, it must be realised by now, being careful not to apportion blame for past and present issues but try and resolve this through the parties to the dispute being able to work together. As such I am disinterested in claim and counterclaim, but only in getting good work out of the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

checking in on a few things

Hi again. I wanted to make sure I was living up to the current agreement. Since the voluntary ban, I have focussed on two of my favorite tasks: reverting vandalism on my watchlist pages (mostly the Shakespeare play articles where the kids love to point out that Shakespeare (or various characters) "is gay" "is a penis", and other lovely thoughts; and working on formating issues (for example I have been working to standardize the character lists in all the Shakespeare plays). But I also made a few edits I wanted to make sure were ok. First - I adopted the mainstream SAQ view and reverted some authorship nonsense here [[15]]; and second I saw some fact tags and supplied references here [[16]]. I just wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing in regards to our experiment. Please let me know if I'm on the right track (or not). Best. Smatprt (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say both are fine; the first was reverting vandalism - whoever wrote that was obviously intending to be disruptive - and the second is supplying the ref's as requested by a third party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong call, I'm afraid. The Oxfordian Charlton Ogburn is not a reliable source. He's a notoriously bad source, absolutely no credentials in Elizabethan historiography, and never used as a source for anything in peer-reviewed academic works on that period, which exist in profligate abundance. That has been noted for several months now, and I'm sure Smatprt is thoroughly familiar with the fact that strong technical objections per WP:RS have been repeatedly made about using him. I didn't revert the provocation because my understanding of your call that we voluntarily desist from Shakespeare related pages is that I at least should not fix it. Just for the record. I have no intention of replying if a thread develops. We all make mistakes, and no one, esp. a busy admin can be expected to twig to every nuance in the inhuman volume of edits they must supervise. RegardsNishidani (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Two questions, i) can Smatprt comment on the use of a disputed source, and ii) is Smatprt able to supply a ref that is not challenged and substitute it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Smartpt's use of such non-RS sources is one of the basic problems we've had with his edits. Although it's been explained to him again and again, he persists in using them because they support his POV. I saw this edit (of course, we're all stalking each other) earlier, but I don't like the tattling that dispute resolution seems to encourage in some, nor do I feel it is in my purview to challenge his edits or comment on them.

My understanding of the edict is that we refrain from any editing of the articles in question except for vandalism. Any other edits are to be pasted on the talk page and discussed. Certainly providing a fringe source that is not WP:RS and has drawn objections is a biased edit, IMO. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame if Smatprt is gaming the voluntary topic ban, because this is really the only way that editors are not going to be officially sanctioned. I would hope that S will either revert of sub that reference. I think the bottom line of what is allowed is that only non-confrontational edits should be made, even if the editor does not consider them confrontational personally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to respond. First - in my edit summary, I asked if I was allowed to make the edit and received no response. (Looking at the article, I see that Tom and Nishidani have now removed Ogburn from the article entirely. This is astounding to me as in their own article, they even list his book as one of the authorship question milestones saying "1984 Charlton Ogburn, Jr. publishes The Mysterious William Shakespeare: the Myth and the Reality, securing Oxford as the most popular theory".) Second, the Ogburn publication meets the RS requirements (reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and has never been denied as an RS by any noticeboard that I am aware of. Yes, Tom and Nishidani have siad its not RS, but they have said that about most publications they disagree with. It's like crying wolf - eventually it becomes meaningless because they are pretty much against anything that is in opposition with their own POV.

Anyhow, I want to get this straight - are you saying that anything deemed controversial by the opposing party is off limits, because if so, both Nelson and Shapiro's works have been raised in the many arguments and counter-arguements, yet they continue to be used by both Tom and Nishidani. Here is one that Tom just made [[17] for example. Is that gaming the system as well? Particularly in lieu of this conversation [[18]]? In any case, I can certainly revert the edits in question if you direct me to do so. But in all fairness, will Nelson and Shapiro as refs be reverted as well?

And if i'm unclear - let me state that I object to using Shapiro and Nelson to characterize the SAQ because they are not neutral commentators. (Nelson was even described by Tom as a "muckraker", yet he and Nishidani continue to rely on his biased account of Oxford's life). As such, Shapiro and Nelson are controversial in the way they are being used repeatedly by Tom and Nishidani. And now that I go back to several of the articles in question, I see that they have repeatedly removed reliable sources like Ogburn and Anderson (who meet the RS requirements - reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and substituted them with Nelson and Shapiro. It was my understanding that in cases like this, both references should be used. This has not been the case.

Finally, I also object to Tom pushing for DYK publication of his "list of authorship candidates" at the same time that we are under this topic ban - a list he knows to be controversial based on prior comments, as well as these comments [[19]] I left several days ago. Smatprt (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that any edit that would be considered controversial - and by controversial I mean opposed by other editors, even if the writer considers it non-controversial regardless of others opinions - should be avoided. That is what topic ban means, and to make clear what an official topic ban would consider the minimum, not to make any edit that might potentially be objected to. If this is to work, there should be no content editing upon these articles - anti vandalism and spelling typo corrections are all that might be done without reference, and no more adding references per requests where the reliability is questioned. It is by having editors realising how restrictive this can be that hopefully progress toward a collegiate editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I replaced one of the offending Ogburn refs with this edit: [[20]]. Please let me know if this (Atlantic Monthly), too, is deemed non-RS. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I promised I wouldn't come back on this, and it has nothing to do with the above, which I find incomprehensible gossip, ignoring the real issue which deals with wiki protocols on sources, and fringe subjects.

I will however, if (permission requested) LessHeard vanU has both the curiosity and patience to invite me to do so, explain why that edit was, as I said above, 'provocative', and not only patently challenged the terms of the ban, but, if examined, showed why extreme scruple in sourcing (which is what Tom and I have insisted on) is critically important here. What Smatprt did, perhaps inadvertently, I don't know, perfectly illustrates why wikipedia must exercise extreme care in sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt must have forgotten that he inserted two Ogburn refs, because he replaced only one.

Tom - I said "one of the", so obviously I didn't "forget". Smatprt (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And I take umbrage at the edit summary, "replaced ref since Tom has deemed Ogburn non-RS". This is the type of passive-aggressive reframing and blurring he uses to confuse the issue and which (I admit) works on some editors to make it seem as if it is our behaviour, not Wiki policy, that is constraining his ability to edit. I have not "deemed Ogburn non-RS"; the guidelines for editing fringe articles has deemed it such. Of course, Smatprt does not consider the SAQ a fringe topic, merely a minority viewpoint. His idea of neutrality is to give equal time and space to Oxford and Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(resp to Smatprt)If you are not certain the new ref is RS then you should not have made it - and if you know it is RS then your language is unhelpful. I don't care if you don't like each other or the views held, I just don't want it's presence corroding the editing environment - its absence will make it better for you and, more importantly, new editors.

I am certain it is RS - but I can never be certain of what objections might be raised (especially based on Nishidani's "extreme" policy). I read the RS requirements and see that my sources comply.Smatprt (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually glad Nishidani weighed in. He says that he and Tom require an "extreme scruple in sourcing" - but is that Wikipedia policy? Both publishing houses that produce the Anderson and Ogburn books comply with RS requirements:"reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - but that is not good enough for the "extreme" sourcing requirement required by Tom and Nishidani.Smatprt (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(resp to Nishidani) If I had the patience I would be a content producer, not an admin (I am certainly unable to be both!) If you object to a source or unadulterated viewpoint I AGF that you have reason to, as I AGF the concerns of editors regarding you or someone else's editing - it is up to the disputants to work out how these issues can be addressed and accommodated; because if that does not happen then it will be up to the next set of contributors to attempt it, because the current disputants will be topic banned. I can't sort out the content disputes, because I do not have the knowledge to do so - but I can try and get you muppets to stop pushing each other and get some article writing done.

(resp to Tom Reedy) I have to say that there is little passive-aggressive commentary from you, since there is no passive voice at all. I know that you bridle at the manner in which Smatprt edits the articles, how they conducts themselves, and the viewpoint, but it does not seem to have occurred to you that if you wish to continue to edit the articles then allowances are going to have to be made on all sides, because my reading of other uninvolved editors/admins comments is that you are all up for topic banning - of varying lengths - if there is not a resolution. If you have points to make, and per the AGF mentioned already I acknowledge you do, then they are going to have to be resolved between you. Think of it this way, if none of you are really happy with the outcome then at least there is something you can agree upon. Then you can work on it, so that you are all least unhappy with the end result. None of you are newbie enough to be mentored, and I do not think there is an admin that is going to try to resolve the content dispute. You are left with each other, and my attempt to form a working relationship between you that results in each of you staying able to edit these articles. Just can we all try a little harder to sort this out? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I notice once again that this topic has sprawled all over the page, as is customary for any dispute in this series. Every page is turned into an interminable series of excuses and diversions, even a simple DYK submission. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Muppet? Look, I can't stand these disputes. I like writing pages, and that's my record. I did 850 edits on the SAQ page alone, on an admin's request, and 180 odd in 4 days, on de Vere to get it sourced properly, and I'm a whingeing muppet, and must be topic banned for being disputatious instead of constructive?

Okay, this is what you don't see (it's not part of an admin's brief) and what I, and I suppose Tom, have had to put up wth for several months.

Warning: WP:TLDR threat. But it appears necessary to untangle this mess, and show why the ban was violated.

The source required was for the words ‘Oxford was one of the leading patrons of the Elizabethen age’. I thought none of us could edit that page except for vandalism. I certainly did not think that it could be edited by gaming the rules to reintroduce disputed material via apparent sourcing. I fully expected the text to lie there untouched, until this issue could be sorted out, which for me is behavioural and related to methodology in writing reliable articles.

What the second edit did was apparently satisfy a demand I put (not a third party) that a remark I could find no adequate RS for, and which had been around for years, be supplied with a reliable source, which everyone who edits with me knows means ‘a reputable academic work by an authority on the specific issue.

I had asked for this because, when he began to restore the old version after my comprehensive revision per academic sources, he reintroduced this phrasing here. I then requested he source it reliably here, on the 19th.of the current month. Then the voluntary ban came into effect.

Today, despite the ban, Smatprt provided two sources.

One is Ogburn, and he knows I, Tom or anyone else who takes academic sourcing as the default guarantee for historical articles, have always challenged the use of Ogburn. I thought that provocative, a throwing down the gauntlet, both to yourself and to myself and perhaps Tom,

But the real irony consists in the second source he provided, namely note 4.

This refers us to an article by Dave Gilyeat, ‘Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford: The real Shakespeare?’ source the BBC, 27 November 2009, dealing with reactions to Kurt Kreiler's Mann der Shakespeare erfand: Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

The BBC is RS but not, assuredly, if it is cited on historical details that come from a journalist, Dave Gilyeat, who has no background in the subject. Gilyeat did indeed, at the head of his article, write that Oxford ‘was one of the leading patrons of the Elizabethan age,’ and therefore, on the surface, Smatprt had found exactly what I asked for, indeed a source that mirrored the lead’s disputed wording verbatim.

An admin looking at this would say, Nishidani can't object. He asked for an RS and the BBC is RS.

Well, not here. That source was odd. Reading the article earlier today, much of its content sounded like many back issues of the wiki article, and I felt the author probably wrote much of the background using an earlier version of wiki as a source. The article was published on the BBC website on the 27 November 2009. If you examine the wiki page on de Vere for that day, to see what Gilyeat might have consulted while writing his piece for the BBC, you will find this, reflecting the last edit before that day, i.e. 25 November 2009, where indeed precisely these words ‘‘was one of the leading patrons of the Elizabethan age,’ occur in the lead

It’s either an extraordinary coincidence, or simply, as is often the case, one more proof that a good deal of the world’s RS journalism piggybacks on the free labour of us wikipedians.

So. Who introduced that material into Wikipedia, which so caught Gilyeat’s eye?Smatprt did, introducing it into lead here on 22:57, 12 July 2009. with the edit summary ‘added information on Oxford's patronage to lede.’

So there you have it, and it is only a snippet of the deeper background of the differences that have wracked these Shakespearean pages for so long. An editor writes unsubstantiated stuff, and defends it for years. Journalists on mainstream papers quote it, and when an academic drops in and asks for a reliable source, expecting a book, he is dished up with a ref that turns out to be a refraction of the challenged editor's own original research, inserted years ago, through an unwitting journalist's piece which harvested it, and now is cited by the challenged editor to 'prove' an external reliable source confirms his own WP:OR. Smatprt’s ‘source’ is himself, via Gilyeat, who is quoting him!

That's the nub of it, and that's why I insist on academic sources. And that's why I found this gaming use of himself as a reliable source 'provocative'.Nishidani (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but...

Why are we arguing these sources? You are all voluntarily topic banned, so it should not matter; get your drafts completed, get the views from the RfC, hammer out something that you both can live with - yes, we go by WP's standard on RS, but simply being published by a reliable house is not enough, the source needs to be considered reliable also toward the topic it is addressing, and that can be argued on the RS noticeboard... - and find a way to not get topic banned in real WP life. How hard is it? Me, I'm going to bed... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Deep breath. (a) I was banned from a page by an editor (b) I asked for my rights to be restored (c) arguments ensued, several admins said the other editor deserved a sanction (d) result. I'm topic banned. (e) lesson, don't take 5 months out of your life, as an ex-academic, and do 1,000 edits on two troubled pages to fix them with WP:RS because you'll only be hit with 'muppet' and sentenced to repeat the exercise. Thank goodness, whatever happens, I'm scheduled to fly out within a few weeks where computers aren't used.Nishidani (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"How hard is it?" When you're dealing with a disruptive SPA POV-pusher, it's apparently 10 months hard at least. What I want to know is why is it so hard for Wikipedia to enforce its own core principles and standards?

I think Nishidani's point is that bad sourcing and editing have repercussions far afield from the insular world of Wikipedia politics and edit wars. As a former journalist, I can tell you that many news stories are written in hours--not days--and that Wikipedia text is copied and pasted onto the page and then rearranged like so much word salad to give it a gloss of originality, and the very fact that it appears in print lends it an authority it doesn't have on the Internet.

Fringe promoters know that any publicity is good, and indeed research has proven that people continue to believe ideas that are repeated often even if they have been proven wrong and told so. The main goal for fringe theorists is to keep their ideas out there as long as possible, and Wikipedia has done an admirable job of helping them keep their ideas in front of readers and lending it authority by association.

The dispute process is gamed by advocates who misuse the system to delay any resolution and turn NPOV and RS standards on their heads. Smatprt actually says that any mention of Shakespeare's play writing in the lead of Shakespeare's life is unbalanced because it is challenged by anti-Stratfordians. We've been to RS and fringe noticeboards, and nothing changes, because every case mysteriously gets delayed on one pretence or another and ends up being diverted and going down blind alleys until fatigue sets in, and the admins who sentence the disputants to "learn how to edit co-operatively" know next to nothing about the topic and so are taken in by Smatprt's tactics of "fairness", which portrays adherence to Wikipedia standards as lack of good faith and being disruptive.

And BTW, why is a supposed "historical fact" being supported by a TV network article anyway?

If you've never heard it, listen to Dwight Yoakam's "Sorry You Asked". It sums up how every admin who ever stepped into this mess with the best of intentions feels. There's a reason they never comment on current SAQ disputes.

I don't think I need to say another word for the rest of this dispute unless someone asks me a question. Sorry for bending your ear this long. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Josephs

I think this should be speedied, not just AFD. The talk on WP:AN/I#Adam Josephs says "speedy" but the notice is not. What say you? Bielle (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any discussion on ANI or AN, but a review of the article leads me to think that you could place a speedy template on it - notability would be my thinking - and see what happens. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. I got a blue link for the AN/I diff, but the discussion is actually at WP:Help desk#Proofreading Request Adam Josephs. I think the problem is more the negative nature of the article than the notability, though notability is also an issue. Thanks for the advice. I can deal with it, if nothing has happened in the meantime, once I am home at my own computer again. Bielle (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is something about BLP's and being notable for only one event (where the event may be notable, but not the individuals). I am sure you can track it down. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

note

I saw your note, and anticipating what you're probably going to advise, I have taken ANI off my watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

...and what is that to do with getting that recipe for cannelloni? Mail me! That is an admin command, dammit! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sent. It may be awhile before I have a chance to reply to your reply, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I shall just have to set the pan to simmer... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your email. I have to tell that I haven't the vaguest idea how to prepare cannelloni. I'm such a bad cook I've been known to burn water. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some guidance?

Could you provide me some examples of what you are looking for? I must admit that I am finding it difficult to figure out what you want when I can't go 5 minutes without being accused of something else.Smatprt (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Look at the discussion at the ANI page, the majority is in respect to issues relating to your editing of articles and your viewpoint in what is appropriate - and how - to be included in article space. Address them, and not the issues with other editors contributions; there is also third party commentary in regard to that, which is their responsibility to respond to. Look to article space where you and the other parties are in agreement, see where you differ and investigate whether you can agree to remove examples of each others more inflammatory content, and perhaps agree a trade off where some is kept. Lastly, recognise that you are the leading established editor with a preference for the Oxfordian viewpoint regarding WS's purported authorship, and whether your absence will mean that there will be a lack of informed comment regarding that issue in the future. I do not doubt that were you to be removed that others would take up that mantle, but are they so familiar with the WP way to be as effective as you might?

You are editing toward a fringe viewpoint, not a minority one - recognise that and the fact that the very vast majority of non specialist readers, and most of the informed readership, do not have an issue with who wrote the plays. You may not agree with the consensus, but you must recognise its existence. Once you acknowlege that, then you can work to make the articles that deal with that aspect to be the best encyclopedic references possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I need to absorb all this because you are pretty much dead on with all your points. Up until 10 months ago, I could relate to so much of what you list above. On the SAQ page, for example, in addition to myself, there was a mainstream editor or two like OldMoonraker, and some general authorship editors like Afasmit, who kept each other in check, you might say. There were no big blow-ups (except when we all endured a series of Sockpuppet attacks from the last anti-Stratfordian to get banned). For the last 10 months, though, it's been blow-up after blow-up, probably as much my fault as anyone else, but regardless of blame, it sure had my active participation, which I do regret. So, yeah, I would love to figure out how to get back to a more positive experience, and in the process, a better encyclopedia. I do remember a recent instance where I tried real hard, and still had no success at any kind of compromise. Some uninvolved editors got involved and still, nothing. This is the incident [[21]]. I guess my big question is, how could I have handled this article differently? How would you have approached it?Smatprt (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I will get back to you later on the specifics re the link - my beer goggles are on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded to Nishidani first because I had the big yellow band appear when I logged on, but a lot of what I said applies to your query; you have to acknowledge that the academic consensus is that the plays, etc., were written by William Shakespeare, and that there is a lot of material that can be used to support that viewpoint. Since that consensus also acknowledges the existence of counterclaims, even if it is considered with disdain, permits the noting of it within the WS article, and also permits the creation of articles around those claims. Those articles are allowed to be sourced by any RS that reference the subject matter, and need not be put to extraordinary levels of academic excellence; WP levels are sufficient. Even with the thorny question of the claims of "suppression" of anti-Stratford sentiment or research can be sourced to those RS that reference it, because they are good sources for the argument. All you needed to do, and what you should do now, in recognise that you are editing a minority or fringe group of articles, apply WP policy and practice to those, and not attempt to deprecate the majority consensus in those articles where that applies. Per WP:NOTSOAP, Wikipedia is not the place to try and right great wrongs by emphasising a viewpoint that does not have that degree of acceptance in the wider world. I trust both these responses provides you with a basis on how you might review your past actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a brief note

Sorry for this, but it niggled my sleep since I read it, Less. The Climate change analogy. There, it is a matter essentially of scientists, majority and minority, clashing over the interpretation of data. Both sides know that there are ground rules, the fundamental protocols of verification, use of statistics, arguing logically from data, constituting the scientific method. In the area under dispute, the accepted mainstream methodology of historical study is not accepted by the fringe, so there is no ground for dialogue between the parties (mainstream and fringe rsearchers). That is the decisive difference. And it is why I, and I think Tom, have insisted that in writing these articles, they be written from books and research which are conducted in terms of peer-reviewed, textually verifiable, documentary analysis and academic approaches, as per WP:RS. For the alternative sources are written almost invariably by a diverse assortment of writers, true believers, who do not underwrite the standard research methodology, having no bakground in Elizabethan studies, who frequently assert that the whole mainstream, method-based 'establishment' is engaged in a conspiracy or cover-up to suppress them, when in fact the crux of the 'establishment' position is that the 'unorthodox' refuse to abide by the customary principles of scholarship. The apparent impasse is not, in my view, one of personalities, but of different attitudes to what constitutes reliable method. I won't be round when mediation is undertaken, but I do hope this key clash in principles forms part of it. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Very much the analogy, and you are surely aware that I was involved in that situation. The basic premise is much the same; the mainstream and "academic/professional" consensus view is that William of Stratford wrote or was at least the primary author of the works of Shakespeare, but even within those ranks there is acknowledgement that there are those who disagree (with one or two favoured candidates as the alternative). The article on William Shakespeare would be quite correct to neutrally note that this is the case, and there should be articles devoted to those claims - one prime one with references to the cases put forward, and possibly sub-ones regarding the suggested alternatives. There is no need to note the claims, however, in articles regarding any of Shakespeare's plays, sonnets, other writings, and especially when the project template to be found on every relevant article already includes that link. So far, so good. However, and very much like the recent Climate Change matter, there is no need to deprecate or diminish the references that are used to source the claims for the non-Stratford theories because they do not have the academic clout of the sources that are used to buttress the claims for William Shakespeare. A book written by a non academic, and reviewed by a third party, is fine to reference and detail the claims by that individual, regardless of their lack of weight with the academic majority - because the article is not about that larger consensus, but the specific pov. This last is a hurdle that a number of the Climate Change majority consensus supporting editors could not and even now cannot negotiate - references regarded as unsound by the mainstream viewpoint are still valid as sources for the non-mainstream POV. As I hoped would be the case with Climate Change articles, and hope now for this matter, that this is recognised by those who subscribe to the majority consensus pov.

That latter was what I was attempting with my first suggestion when I became involved - that editors write the opposing pov articles in the same way they would write for articles in accordance with their pov; you simply find the best references for that area and use them neutrally to source the article. After that, you trust the readership to recognise that sources that are printed by universities and academia carry more weight than a previously unknown publishing house when balancing claim and counterclaim. You are never going to convince the diehards, so just make the case to the average plus readership.

I hope that this clarifies my actions in these matters - whereas I am personally in agreement with the mainstream and professional consensus, I want the articles that articulate the alternative view to be presented and sourced in accordance with WP policy and practice and use those references that support them neutrally and without comment. Same position as I took with Climate Change. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)