User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive7

To leave me a message, click here, type into the box, and click "save page."
Archives of this talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

"As long as you can remember"

Hi Anthony. Re your recent comments, would you care to provide some examples of my "actively encouraging rudeness and puerility" over such an extended period of time? No rush – I'm sure you're busy, as am I.
Cheers pablo 08:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Invisalign

Hi Anthony. I don't know if you already got my ping at the article's Talk page, but I was wondering if you had time to check out my draft that I shared on the Talk page on January 11 for the medical analysis the article needs to be GAN-ready. You may remember that you worked on the page with me a little bit a while back.

Doc James rejected my initial Request Edit, but his feedback was regarding minor copyediting items that were easy to address. I've been following up with him, but it would be great to get a second pair of eyes. It's just a summary of about 2 review articles in pubmed that are less than 5 years old and summarize the literature in-depth; 3 paragraphs and some misc items. CorporateM (Talk) 17:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi CM. I'm on a break from article work at the moment - and I'm especially avoiding health-related topics. Sorry. I know how frustrating it must be for you, trying to walk that bright line. Nice work on that pharmaceuticals CEO's BLP, by the way. I'll let you know if/when I get back to work. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be interested in seeing how that AfD discussion goes; that will be a tough one to close. CorporateM (Talk) 05:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for all your hard work on evidence for the present ArbCom case. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop#Questions for Wifione — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.27.223 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the research and the other hard work was done by others, though - particularly Vejvančický and Peter Damian. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours in detail, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). RfA is not the best place for any discussion, so I thought you may want to ask me some questions in a non-RfA relaxed atmosphere. For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). My FAs/GAs/DYKs are listed on my userpage. Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or {{talkback}} ping). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Depression (mood) article

Hi Anthony; I am having a discussion with another editor about the scope of the article Depression (mood). Could you take a look and offer some input? Thanks and sorry to bring this subject up again, I understand this has been a long term issue. Jim Derby (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hermann Stieve

You're welcome. Nice to see work I did a while ago still holding up. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about:

1. any Indian commercial organisation founded after 1915;
2. any Indian educational institution founded after 1915;
3. biographies of any living or recently deceased person associated with (i) or (ii)

and is restricted to one account.

2.1) Wifione may only regain administrative tools via a successful request for adminship.

3) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A special call

Hi Anthony, would you please go to my user page and write to me at my email address? --Robert Daoust (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of other users' comments

I've reverted this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ because you removed other users' comments without explaining why you removed them. As a rule, it's bad form to remove or edit other users' comments on talk pages or noticeboards. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Was this diff by you at wp:ANI in error? You removed someone's reply in a discussion. --doncram 17:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

C.Fred and Doncram: Definitely unintended. And my comment ended up under the wrong heading. Weird. I edited using the edit tab at the top of the page - rather than just editing a section - and it's a massive page, so I suspect the machine broke it. Is it fixed now? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Where should the "And a stopped clock…" comment have gone? It looks like there may have been an edit conflict, since other editors were adding section headings around the time of your edits. I can restore the comment, but I want to make sure it goes to the right place. Or just retry the add yourself. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've restored it. Thanks for doing that, C.Fred. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Next step

Coffee seems to have used his temporary vanishment to evade scrutiny, and has now returned without any kind of sanction or admonishment for his actions. How shall we ensure that he is held accountable? RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I'm minded to take it to arbcom now. Thinking of naming User:Coffee, User:Knowledgekid87, User:Giano and User:Rationalobserver. Am I missing anyone?

• I'm worried mostly about Coffee's attitude to others - I don't think it's appropriate for someone threatening, blocking or declining unblocks to treat the editor in question with rude, imperious disdain. See User:Floquenbeam's observations on Coffee's talk page - and I've seen at least one other example of the little dictator act. I also have concerns about Coffee's competence, frankly, when dealing with inter-editor disputes.
• I've seen some very disrespectful commentary from Giano recently - some of it definitely sexist-flavoured.
• I've seen several mentions over the last few days of Knowledgekid87's behaviour.
• Then there's Rationalobserver.

Thoughts from all would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I did no such thing (referring to RGloucester's claim above), if I wanted to do that you'd think I would have at least waited till the ANI thread was archived (just saying)... I took User:Jehochman's comments to heart and decided to break for a few days until my mind was clear. Now that I'm feeling less stressed, I've returned to do what I was elected to do. If you want to take me to ArbCom still, that's your decision and I can't change that. But, I would much rather prefer that you just give me a heads up in the future if you notice me making problematic edits, and we avoid the definite mud slinging contest that an ArbCom case of this nature will certainly preclude. I'm not perfect and will never claim to be; I'm a work in progress. I hope you can see that and allow me to work along side you as we make this a better site. With hope, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm still working on the Rationalobserver thing... I'm awaiting a reply from her currently. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your thoughts on a couple of things:

• The blocking of MalleusMaleficarum1486 last year? It happened 2 days after MalleusMaleficarum1486 was warned for a couple of instances of very mild classic newby 1- or 2-revert edit-warring.[1] He had previously shown a readiness and ability to conform to our norms once they were pointed out, and the "disruption" had stopped upon the warning (i.e., 48 hours without a problem). Your decision to decline Malleus's unblock request (that is, reviewing your own block)[2] was very wrong, IMO. Your mea culpa at ANI doesn't work for me:

...I do think in hindsight that it would have been better to allow another admin to review that unblock request, even if I think it would have ended up the same way. Purely because it would ease the concerns of esteemed editors like yourself.

Do you have any further thoughts on the block itself and regarding anything that might be intrinsically wrong about an admin reviewing their own block in that case?

• On your talk page the other day, Foquenbeam mentioned your attitude toward those you're lording it over here. Any thoughts on your attitude toward those you block, threaten to block and decline to unblock, User:Coffee? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1. It's not necessarily a matter of me thinking I was in the right on that call (as I did at the time...), it's that it happened over a year ago and I truly don't think there's a way for me to actually resolve that anymore. If I could turn back time I would have done it differently, but I can't. I could unblock him even now, but I highly, highly, doubt that accounts anywhere close to active anymore. Yes, I screwed it up. That's a more blunt way of saying it I guess. But, I just don't know what I can do now to change that. It was a year ago. If it was more recent I would definitely have a better answer (or at least I hope I would). But, I can definitely say that I shouldn't have reviewed my own block (even if I can't explain my thinking at the time anymore).
2. To me I think the issue he saw with my attitude went beyond the realm of blocking, and I don't think he's particularly wrong. I've definitely got a bit of a flare up temper at times, and it's something I truly hate about myself. But, it's something I'm working on. I have (and yes this is getting into more medical information than I'd rather, but at this point it's less stressful to explain the full picture than to beat around the bush) psychotherapy to address my current state of mental health twice a week... as I'm trying very, very hard to improve upon myself rather than stagnate and repeat the same patterns over and over. So, I hope that soon that won't be as big of a concern, but I truly can't give any promises as it's a personality disorder (on top of my PTSD). If you think that disability is reason for me to lose the bit, then so be it. But, I fully believe that I can work around these issues and still be of help here. That is if my help is still welcome here. I hope it is. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding #1, I'm only interested in your feelings about that block and self-review now - not then. Just to be clear, you blocked that editor for no good reason, that I can see, and then declined the unblock. Do you now believe you had no good reason to block that person, and can you tell me what, precisely, was wrong with you reviewing your own block?

Can you put into your own words what you think Floquenbeam and I are addressing when we discuss your treatment of others here? If you'd like me to clarify my thinking on that, I will. But if you think you know what my and Floquenbeam's concerns are, I'd appreciate hearing it in your own words, User:Coffee. (No rush. Really. Take your time. Days if you like.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes I, after discussing this now again with Sandy and looking at the block myself, believe that block was done out of order. The clear reason I shouldn't have reviewed the unblock myself was due to it not allowing an impartial admin to come in and see the error. If I hadn't have reviewed it myself, that editor may very well still be here and may even be contributing positively to the site. That's the sort of error I don't like to repeat, and don't intend to.
2. I will indeed take some time to fully explain this portion (as I do fully understand the concern here); I'm headed to lunch and to run some errands right now but responding to this is currently my first priority, so I'll get to it as soon as I return. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's bedtime here. Take your time. Sleep on it if you like. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I feel that the root cause of the issue is my military training. What you're seeing come out of me is something I've been molded into over past 6 years. As, the way we do things there is quite different than the way we do things here. While in the military, even though we're considering ourselves to serve along side each other, there is still a form of solid hierarchy... and the attitude, as one could call it, of being very firm is just accepted there. Here, it is not. In fact, here in text form it comes across as very bitey, or, as you put it, as "imperious disdain". It's something I've become retrospectively aware of, and it's something I intend to work on. But, once again, I do not expect to be perfect at this. 6 years of culturing doesn't flow away overnight; it's a transition. I'm currently transitioning out of the military, as I'm being medically retired, so I expect it will happen much less over time. But, I'm completely fine with being called out on it in the future if I don't catch myself falling into the same pattern again. - My answer here isn't to excuse it, but to show you the underlying reason. It's something I imagine you'd completely understand if you came from this background. But, I fully understand your concern, and I'm glad that you and others have brought it to my attention so I can better myself. As I said, if you see me falling down that particular rabbit hole again in the future... feel free to guide me out of it at any time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Coffee; I hope you're well. Since it seems that you are asking others to bring it to your attention should you again "fall down" this "particular rabbit hole", I'm wondering how I might have phrased this in a way that would have gotten your attention more than it seems to have? I'm unsure what I might have said differently ??? I was, at the time, as troubled by what the other editor continued to get away with as I was by the block/unblock request, but my post to you didn't seem to register. I'd hate to think the only option would be a trip to ANI, which is rarely productive. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: I literally can't recall what I was thinking at that juncture; now, if you came up to me with the same points, I would have gone a completely different route. Which is understandably distressing for you, but believe me it's even more so for myself. While I will stand by my actions the vast majority of the time, this is one occasion where I think I completely failed somehow. A lot has happened in the past year (including my, albeit abusive, father's death), and my perspective has changed quite a bit. Perhaps some of that is why I see it differently now, but I have no clue. I'm frustrated with my lack of memory on this, and I truly wish I could do this one over. But, that's obviously not an option. If there was something I could do at this point I would. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Coffee; I know that stressful times in my life have impacted my memory. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Coffee. Can I ask some questions about the recent blocks discussed at that ANI thread (the unblock of Rationalobserver and the blocks on Giano and Eric)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm open to discussing anything. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I'll get back to you when I've reviewed those blocks again. This might take a while. I'll ping you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I do think a removal of blocking tools for a month would be a good idea, unless Jehochman has a better idea, he raised some very good points earlier on what to do here. Just so he can have more time to think about using them more wisely. Long term, I suspect that a leopard will never change his spots and he'll have to be desysopped. I'd give him one chance to reform.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Coffee, please, confirm that you won't use the block or unblock tool until further notice. If you do that, I think various concerns will be set aside, and there probably won't be any need for an ArbCom case. After some period of time, I'm not sure how long, if you feel like you are ready to use those tools again, you can ask a few of us who have been involved in the discussion what we think, and we'll figure it out at that point. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman. If Coffee took the initiative to address the concerns that various people shared in the AN/I thread, that would be the best solution. No one wants ArbCom involved if it isn't necessary. It is very simple. Acknowledge the concerns, and address them with substantial action. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's happening. I'm slowly walking through the issues with him in this quiet backwater. We'll get to the recent blocks later. One thing at a time. No deadline. Sweet dreams. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Things that are a bother to me:

• 1. Rational initially was not made aware of this discussion involving an SPI which is a serious thing.
• 2. How driven the cause there is to try and find by whatever means a way that Rational is linked to a sock account. With the time and energy focused on that one could be writing GA class articles or be doing cleanup work here on Wikipedia.
• 3. rational had given her previous account to arbcom but the sock hunt still continues.
• 4. How many "sexist-flavoured" comments as mentioned above Giano has made in addition to the ones made towards Coffee.
• 5. How all of this hasn't ended yet.
• 6. Lightbreather was mentioned in the forum post I feel it would be the right thing to let her know.

Im no saint either, I know the fact that I was blocked recently. My biggest regret is doing the same thing I am against which is talking about other editors behind their backs on talk pages. Lastly ask yourselves if you do bring all of this to arbcom what is the result you are hoping for? For me, id like to move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I really think it should be kept away from arb. Coffee, can you agree to be more careful with the blocking tools and avoid future situations where you know there's going to be a big reaction? If so I think that's all we need here. If he continues to misuse tools then a desysopping eventually will be in order.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Coffee, I can understand that a person used the governance processes of the military might be used to them. You have no idea how much I wish sometimes that we had the same governance policies here. I think just not using the block button in any contested areas, or regarding any contested editors, is probably more than enough. If RO is Mattisse, I honestly think the evidence will accumulate dramatically rather quickly, and a determination will ultimately be rather easy. And, FWIW, I regret to say, that a person declaring one previous account may well have been unable to avoid editing under other accounts, some of which might have been blocked/banned or eligible for same for sockpuppetry. Sometimes people admit to driving too fast "to the hospital" to get away from the bank they just robbed or something like that. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A whole lotta folks need to get off of this Mattisse = RO train, because it detracts from ... everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking for evidence of socking after being primed

Sandy Georgia suggested it was suspicious that I found my way to FAC after only one month. But looking at the first contribs of others I noticed that Giano first edited FAC after two days, stating, among other things, "Such a trivial objection should not impede John Dee becoming a featured article." He returned there four days later and said: "An excellent article from this editor who is always well informed, astute, and providing an expert and 21st century view essential to keep these important cultural subjects alive." But Giano's account at this point was 6 days old, so how did he know "this editor who is always well informed, astute" within one week of registering? After only nine days he made this comment at FAC: "fixed Woburn Abbey was uploaded by a User, now tagged; and second, a scan of 300 year old print is by virtue of age PD", which might seem like advanced knowledge of tagging and PD rules for a nine-day-old account. In fact he made 33 edits to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates within his first 22 days. No, I'm not making an argument that Giano is a sock of a returning user. I am merely pointing out that if you look at contribs already primed to see a sock you might look at a user in a biased light.

Sitush's fifth edit was to create a list of usernames for administrator attention, and their 9th edit shows a pretty good grasp of template mark-up.

A quick glance at Ddstretch's early contribs shows that their third edit was to AfD, adding a pretty good keep rationale for someone who had never before edited that space. It also shows that by their third day of editing they had been accused of being a sock, and I assume the rather well-formed keep rationale was what inspired the accusation. On their fifth day of editing they returned to AfD with this comment: "Weak Delete: One reading the WP:WEB requirements, it can be seen that this entry does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB, and, furthermore, is a commercial site, and so its entry could be viewed merely as advertising." That's a pretty good understanding of AfD after only five days, especially if you are looking at their contributions under the presupposition that they are a sock, as Anthony is doing with me.

In Sandy Georgia's fourth edit, from her first day of editing, she says, "Wow. Last time I checked in on this entry, it was not great, but it was passable. Now it’s a trainwreck. Since there seem to have been some editing wars, I will include a discussion of things that need to be addressed before making editing changes myself. The entire article is alarming, and I hesitate to edit in the presence of editing controversy." Her advice for the editors there was more than 950 words and 5800 characters long. Again, this is her fourth edit to Wikipedia. She started a mediation case with her fifth and sixth edits, again on her first day of editing. She made 70 edits on her first day, and more than 100 on her second day editing.

Seriously, pick an editor at random and look thought their first 500 edits for evidence of having been here before, and you might be shocked at how many accounts look odd. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC) A few more examples:

• John Carter's first edit shows a good understanding of banners, Wikiprojects, and redirects.

• Karanacs's 14th edit on their second day of editing yielded a pretty decent stub.

• Floquenbeam immediately started editing disambiguation pages. I don't think I knew what that was on my first day here.

• Newyorkbrad referenced WP:NPOV in their 6th edit, made on their second day of editing. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is how you spend your time (and ours), just after asking to be given a chance to show you can be productive, I suspect you won't be around much longer. It's telling that you don't see the difference between your editing and any of the editors named above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My only point is that Anthony's evidence of having been here is inherently flawed. Are you suggesting that my defense is disruptive? Because there are like 12 prosecutors here and no defense attorney. I think my point about priming is key. It's an issue of confirmation bias, not personality profiling. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's also telling that you have chosen to dredge up old comments from an SPI that closed in your favor (that was the place for it, this is not-- which means that if this is your best effort at being productive, well ... good luck with that). And by the way, if you're going to quote me, please do so correctly. What I said, in the proper place to be saying it, was:

• ... this first edit within a month to FAC is quite atypical of any new FAC reviewer-- in fact, it is atypical for experienced FAC reviewers. This is an editor who appears to know FAC better than frequent FAC reviewers, on their first post. SandyGeorgia 02:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And that remains accurate, within any context. Very few FAC reviewers reference the criteria as you did. If you want to show yourself valuable as you said to Floquenbeam, then how about leaving your old SPI where it was-- closed in your favor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the SPI, but that is a good example. Yes, I referenced the criteria, but if you look at the FAC page you'll see that three other people, including Spike Wilbury mentioned the criteria before I made my comment. I was just mimicking them. By reading FAC reviews you can learn a lot about what's expected. Also, the criteria are all on one page, so you can learn them in a matter of minutes. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, the editor who nomed the article linked to the FAC Criteria in the opening comments: "I believe it meets all the FA criteria". Spike Wilbury referenced them in pretty much the same way as I did, but two days before. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The SPI concluded there was not evidence to run a CU on you and ItsLassieTIme. Closed, archived, done. I guess you're not going to take yes for an answer. Continuing an issue after it was closed at SPI isn't very "valuable" or "productive", but now that you've brought it up again, it does remind me of the behaviors of several sockmasters I've encountered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "primed", no, that's not happening here. Most of the editors you list above clearly had some (varying degrees of) prior experience. One looks like a quick learner and one, I know for a fact, had a significant prior account under their real name. I'm not seeing what I want to see in your early edits, I'm seeing what's there, just as we're both seeing what's there in those others' early efforts.

I reject your claim that you became the editor you are simply by lurking and IP editing. It's possible, of course. But we can only deal in probability here, so I'm sticking with the highly probable explanation.

I've seen evidence of extreme swings on your part between conciliation and persecution and evidence of you going after editors who have the temerity to criticise your work. These traits get people banned here, eventually. You're heading for it now, and it is reasonable to assume you've been through it before.

Now, I don't have any history with you in this incarnation, so unlike others here it's going to take some time for me to decide for myself if your time is up again. Why don't you just get on with things now - as you've said you will - and demonstrate that you can work with others. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect to Rationalobserver's comments about my early editing behaviour: you are omitting to take into account my real-life activities prior to joining Wikipedia: I was an academic researcher and consultant in research design for 24 years before being retired in 2002. Since I was also a consultant advising various UK bodies whether to accept research grants from other academic researchers, one of the skills I had to have was how to quickly read and assess information, and then how to formulate and write a well-reasoned answer to the question "Should we give money to these people?". I also developed special expertise in informal logic and argumentation theory, which is designed to look at ways of improving our reasoning and how to write a good argumentative essay or report. I have deliberately declined to edit in these areas since joining wikipedia, and eventually settled on UK local history, because I as aware of various conflicts of interest and other problems that could arise if I did.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• With respect to Rationalobserver's comments about my early editing behaviour: I can assure everyone, I have nothing to hide, I had been editing as a fairly high profile IP for ages before registering for the 'Giano' account, which I did because at that time I was fairly committed to Featured Articles and felt it added more weight to comments, and also the IP was registered to a company owned by me - so there was a privacy issue too. So no dark and nasty secrets. As for formatting and all that complicated stuff - well I still can't do any of that. Giano (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• And you could write an essay about that last line :)

  It doesn't appear that RO read or digested the post from Floquenbeam describing the new editor traits that typically lead to blocks or how that behavior differs from every editor described above, to which RO responded by saying, "If you give me some time you'll see that I can be a valuable member of this community." I'm not taking the bait of describing the circumstances of my first edits as a registered user: I think Floquenbeam has it covered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting feedback

• I'm requesting some feedback about this whole thing. I admit I was upset about Rationalobserver's unblock and unclear how it was going to be enforced, so I asked Coffee.[3] What ensued were accusations against me and a discussion about how I was a sockpuppet. I received no clear answer from Coffee. Please tell me frankly if I was out of line. I had no intention of pursuing this with him, although I feel the result of my question was very unsatisfactory. I just need some guidance here and would appreciate comments about my behaviour. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  Coffee gave you an extremely clear and succinct answer to your original questions. Since I believe in the adage "least said, soonest mended" I won't comment further at this stage, but I join others in asking you to drop the stick now. --Mirokado (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC) -- updated Mirokado (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Mirokado, but the block was for "(disruptive editing and attacking messages on a variety of talk pages" and not specifically to do with Eric/Drmies. So how does that answer my question? EChastain (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Echastain, would you like to quit while you're behind, or would you like to declare any previous accounts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Haven't you heard? I'm a sockpuppet of Sue Rangell. Just look on Coffee's talk page for evidence. Also, the same people brought it up on my talk recently. Look there. EChastain (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Knock it off. This doesn't belong on Anthony's talk page, and you know where it does belong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, You asked here, SandyGeorgia, so I answered here. What did you mean then about "would you like to declare any previous accounts?" EChastain (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  I want to echo other editors in saying that this shows an attachment towards Rational User talk:Coffee#Are these edits allowed under your unblock of Rationalobserver?. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Aussie Gators

AHC, do you have time to scour your Australian references for material on these guys: Duncan Armstrong and Mark Stockwell? Both were big-time Aussie Olympic swimmers who have University of Florida connections (and they both married Florida Gator women swimmers). I'm finishing up a couple of other Florida Gator swimmer bios for GA review, but I'd like to focus on Armstrong and Stockwell in the near future. I'll also need to someone to check the articles for Aussie verbiage and style when I'm done. Can I get your interest? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Dirtlawyer1, I'm too busy chasing wraiths. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, AHC. Not sure of the exact meaning of your metaphor, but I assume it has something to do with the recent ANI matters and the talk page threads above. When you've run your haints to ground, ping me. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Haints. Cool that's going in my lexicon. (It's in reference to the previous two or three threads.) Soldier on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you know we Southerners do have a colorful lexicon. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
• New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
• TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ARBCASE

Did you decide that the arb case on Coffee was a bad idea? I just noticed they had quietly came back and wondered how many people realized it or if it had became a non issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No. I thought I'd let things cool down a little. I asked him/her yesterday if s/he'd had any further thoughts about this, and it seems his/her view is that there is no problem. I'll ask him/her some more questions - about the unblock of RO, and the block of Giano and Eric - tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm presently going through Coffee's blocking over the last 12 months. This'll take some time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks if you need assistance let me know. I will do what I can. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think he's not that bad. He does need to watch the blocking in hot-button areas (and the impersonating Jimmy!), but he's had a mini "admin review" here and elsewhere recently - let's see how he goes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being impartial Anthony; your comment definitely improves my faith in myself a bit. :) I am by no means perfect, (I like to consider myself a work in progress, slowly improving [hopefully] over time), so feel free to pull me aside for as many admin reviews as you wish - if you find it necessary in the future. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science Conference

Hello Anthony, You're receiving this update because you asked to be informed about the Wikipedia Science Conference taking place in London on 2nd and 3rd of September. Thanks for your interest.

The call for proposals is now public and session proposals are coming in. The two keynotes, and some other invited speakers, have graciously accepted. In mid-May we will bring together a programme, a publicity poster, and an online booking form. Then we'll begin the main publicity and will need your help getting the word out.

Please put in a session proposal if you've been thinking of doing so: the deadline is the 8th May. This is far from the only way to be involved. The conference will need session moderators, a programme review group, and other volunteers: if there is a specific role you are interested in, or if you have any other questions, please email me at m.l.poulterbristol.ac.uk.

There will be a large "unconference" session in the programme and - fingers crossed - a "hackathon" event two days later on the Saturday, so even if you do not have a proposal accepted, you will have a chance to shape the conference activities.

Please pass on the word to any colleagues who might want to put in a proposal or help the conference in any way. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Wanted your opinion

User:Discuss-Dubious/article influence Inspired by Jayen's suggestions in the recent Arbcom case. Where should we go with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discuss-Dubious (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Discuss-Dubious, I don't know. You could ask User:CorporateM who is an ethical paid editor. He might have some ideas. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Privacy - Let's not publish the IP address of non-logged-in editors

Regarding your suggestion on Jimbo's Talk page to make IPs anonymous, is there a discussion on this somewhere in a proper venue where I can "vote" my support of your proposal? CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM: mw:Requests for comment/Exposure of user IP addresses is related. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop Lecturing Me on my Page

You know, Anthony, I regarded you as straightforward and an online friend of mine. But I'm tending to appraise you differently now, and your [edit] bull at my talkpage where you feign conversation knowing I can't respond, and purport to distance yourself from that sockpuppet's comment while really echoing it for all my WP:AN/ANI talkpage stalkers to gander, already knowing my answer. [Edit]. If you really thought I should be unbanned, as you claim, you would have said it at the latest WP:AN/ANI mobbing I had to endure. Other than that, I'm not going to dignify your bull with a conversation. Colton Cosmic.

Colton, I put in a lot of time on your drubbing, and argued to the best of my ability at your RFC/U for your return to editing. I've said all along that your block was stupid and wrong. On Bishonen's page you whine about the fact that I looked at every edit you did and picked out anything remotely problematical. (Has it occurred to you how much time that took?) You spin that as though I was cherry-picking stuff to make you look bad.

I'm not sure whether you're genuinely missing what I was doing there, but in case you are I'll explain it. You were being jumped up and down on by everybody, and the reasons they were offering for that seemed shallow to me. So I looked at everything you'd done and picked out everything anyone had thrown at you and explained as clearly as I could that, really, there was nothing wrong with any of it - certainly nothing blockable - but also why it would look like a duck and bad in other ways to busy admins, that they're not perfect and that you've pissed them off enough to ensure they'll never revisit their decision.

You whine here about me not voting for your return at a subsequent ANI discussion. What am I, your fucking lackey? I don't owe you anything you self-absorbed little prat. By that stage it was obvious to me and would be to you if you pulled your head out of your spiteful self-pitying arse for five seconds that there is no way (no way) this group of people will have you back as either Colton Cosmic or Triptych.

Being a whiny, spiteful, self-absorbed/-pitying person is not, of itself, a blockable offense, and for that reason I believe you're being treated poorly here and if I thought it wouldn't be a complete waste of readers' time, I would say so at a relevant venue. Now shoo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually preferred where you said "fuck off" before replacing it with "shoo." I don't think one is entitled to initiate things with a post on someone's talkpage and then tell him or her "shoo" when he or she responds. But don't worry I won't hang around. What I wrote at Bishonen's page regarding your comment was I think a respectful perspective on what you did. I don't think I suggested you were spinning things (though a lot of people do). I think I described your placing yourself in the shoes of a suspicious admin as an exercise on your part. I didn't put you down at all. I even praised you.

My objection (note: not "whine") wasn't that you failed to support me at that last WP:AN/ANI gang gagging and beating, it was that you later posted your lecture at my talkpage that you thought I should be unblocked, but you said something at that group beating, and it wasn't that. I didn't expect you to be my lackey, but to be consistent, especially if you're going to lecture me.

Although I tried to acknowledge it above, it is true that you spent a lot of time trying to help me at my RFC/U, and I remain grateful for that. Since then our interactions, or I should say your statements at or about me because typically I can't respond, have been of another character. My constantly being muted and reverted while people accuse and pass judgement on me is very frustrating to endure. Yet although I was frustrated by you doing more of that, you tried to help me in the past, so I should not have used some of the strong terms I did above, so I went ahead and edited them out. Good day. Colton Cosmic. PS: Though you criticize me as "self" this and "self" that above, I believe that my contributions and so forth show here and there a person that is concerned with helping others.

I know you are. And I've been a little harsh. For that I apologise. Your constant dissing of other people at the other place though, often on the basis of no or poorly-understood or incomplete evidence, is wearing very thin with me. I meant what I said on your talk page. It's the structure that's the problem. Now shoo. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant

You put up $1,000 of your own money? CorporateM (Talk) 01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hobbies can be expensive. I'm getting back into photography after many years ... now that's an expensive pastime. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Youtube links

Stoney Poneys rock! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As do David Gilmour and Bruce and M. Ward (IMO). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Your music tastes good. [4] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sweet. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Idiots

"Nothing guarantees failure in an on-wiki argument like having an idiot on your side." Hah! That's so true, and so pithily expressed, that I wish I'd thought of it and added it to my list. Rationalobserver is pretty clearly Mattisse (talk · contribs), for what it's worth. On another note, your new userpage makes me a bit nauseous (the graphic, not the sentiment), but perhaps that's the point? MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) Where is the quote from? (2) Please send your evidence about RO to me or, even better, to someone else. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe to @Dennis Brown:, who seems to have some opinions regarding this matter as well, although he is, completely understandably, less active right now. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

'Ya think? No one has asked me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I do seem to remember you indicated you knew Mattisse rather well, and it would be useful to know whether you see any similarity. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you viewed my (fictitious) block log lately? Suffice it to say that I know to whom, when and where to submit Mattisse SPI info (and that would not be to Dennis Brown). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And if you haven't submitted anything yet, that would mean that you don't think there to be sufficient reason to. Fair enough. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to submit anything. While I respect Brad's judgement, and Dennis', as an admin I can just act if I think that an account is a sockpuppet. The evidence is in Rationalobserver's behavior. The whole thin-skinned, passive-aggressive, eggshell-armed-with-a-hammer victim-bully routine was perfected by Mattisse, and that's the same behavior I see from Rationalobserver. There aren't many others with that particular blend of dysfunctional habits of interaction, and when you combine the behavioral pattern with Rationalobserver's choice of targets and grudges, it seems pretty obvious that these are the same person.

In general, over 9 (!) years or so here, I've found that intuitive appraisals by experienced editors are more reliable than seemingly objective, data-heavy "evidence" in determining sockpuppetry, a concept which was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in Blink. Anyhow, I would have acted already, except that Rationalobserver's userpage states that she identified her previous accounts to ArbCom. So I have an email out to the ArbCom mailing list on that subject, and will await a response before doing anything with regard to Rationalobserver. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) FWIW, I was directing the comment at Sandy, not you. And I mentioned the name of Dennis because I think he has indicated that he might be himself fairly sure that RO is someone's sock, but doesn't necessarily know whose. I suppose there is a not unreasonable possibility that RO is maybe a possible valid "alternate account" of someone who may have been engaged in sockpuppetry with other names - I honestly don't know. I remember dealing with PassaMethod myself, and I acknowledge that sometimes the circumstantial evidence can be damning enough. But I'm not getting any bells ringing myself regarding RO, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver is an alternate account—she's indicated as much herself, although of course she hasn't indicated whose alternate account. And I could certainly be wrong here about Mattisse, which is one reason why I'm not jumping in to do anything at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, here Rationalobserver says, "I had one previous account that I used for a couple of weeks that I made the mistake of using my real name for." The early behaviour of this account evinces a great deal more experience than two weeks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt we're being lied to, although of course that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right about the identity of the account owner. Sandy has a lot more experience than I do when it comes to Mattisse, so I'm happy to defer to her judgement. MastCell ^Talk 01:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess my point is it is so obvious that this person is lying to the community about his/her former history here, and they are so disruptive, and so clearly prosecuting old vendettas, that this alone - without any need to identify the actual former account/s (ItsLassieTime, Colonel Henry, both of them, Mattisse) - justifies them being permanently blocked. Would you do the honours, please? ;o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You are making a big mistake here. Please give me until the end of March to prove you wrong. If I am what you say I am I won't be able to be productive for that long, and I will go back to the behaviors you say I cannot help but do. I am not currently disrupting anything or causing any problems, and your assumptions are frighteningly inaccurate. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a moment that you can do that for a month. Just at this moment, I'm not addressing your disruption of this project, per se, but the fact that you are a returning banned disruptive user. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You're just wrong about that. I think you might be identifying personality types, but I've never been banned or blocked before this account. There is nothing more dangerous than an intelligent person who is wrong, but convinced they are right. How about 90 days then? Could a banned sock-troll avoid drama for that long? Rationalobserver (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

May I ask you some questions, Rationalobserver? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, but can we please do it in a separate sub-section? This one is getting difficult to navigate. Rationalobserver (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. I've got guests, and I'll need to reread some things. I'll ping you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I'll be logging out soon, so this will have to wait until tomorrow. Rationalobserver (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see your block log, Sandy. Very pertinent, though mine is better. I'll send you my thoughts about Mattisse privately some day, not that they're worth much. My lack of intuiton in socking matters is notorious. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

I'll email you through the interface, since I've changed email addresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on investigation with the Intersec Contribs tool, I think it is  Likely that Mattisse == Rationalobserver, based on much greater article overlap between these two than between Rationalobserver and every other high volume contributor I've tested. Jehochman ^Talk 23:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

See, I think that's the kind of quasi-statistical approach that can be misleading. I don't think we have any idea of the distribution of article overlap between unrelated accounts, which makes it impossible to say that any given degree of overlap is significant. And of course this test is very sensitive to the set of "other high volume contributors" whom we choose to test against. Anyhow, I could well be wrong here—it wouldn't be the first time—and I don't have the patience for the usual fallout of intervening in these sorts of situations, which is why I rarely do so anymore. It's just not a defensible use of my time. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Jeh, how 'bout you go post that amateur analysis to Arsten's page and see if his finger is on the block button?

How is it that ANI is infested with socks right now, every user talk page of significance on the Wikipedia contains speculation about who's who in the world of sockmasters, and yet I get blocked for asking why someone *claimed* in his own words to be the publisher of an article that was published by a red-linked account?? Am I the only one who can't even ask a logical question?

And in the meantime, has anyone yet figured out if ColonelHenry was ItsLassieTime? [5] And why is there no page documenting ILT behaviors?

On the statistical usefulness of the analysis of intersecting contribs, look at my intersection with just about anyone who has ever been active at FA, GA, DYK or anything on the main page; I'm half the Wikipedia on that score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ask not what you can do for the numbers, but what can the numbers do for you." Jehochman ^Talk 11:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, MastCell, I got the Mattisse vibe extremely strongly from rationalobserver on Talk:Donner Party this week. I'm horrid at identifying socks, but goodness, those arguments and the drama over the next few days was some major deja vu. The biggest out-of-character thing was that RO originally was being "nice" to me, and Mattisse never liked me. Thanks to all of you who are trying to figure it out. Karanacs (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to all of my pithy sayings, MastCell and yes, that's the point. (Think Clockwork Orange.) Newyorkbrad it's from here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• First, I love that quote Mastcell. We've all found ourselves in that situation before. Second, someone doing an investigation can only really do it with a target, you can't do it blind and hope to find a match. Even CU seldom works that way, and this particular case, CU is almost guaranteed to be completely useless, and perhaps even harmful to the case. Is RO==Mattisse? I don't know. I've had a couple of emails in the last 6 months making the claim (and these were reliable people), but I wouldn't make the claim without my own investigation. This would take one or two weeks to accomplish, assuming you have a real life. It isn't easy. Few who are experienced enough are going to be willing or able to invest this much time. I'm not the SPI expert, I've just done my share, but I know you can't conclude a case like this in an hour or two. My comment that RO wasn't their first account has proven to be true, but that was pretty easy to determine, no special skills were needed. The longer the trail of socks a master has, the more difficult it is to investigate, and Wikipedia is dripping with socks right now. What we need is more CUs, particularly more with real investigatory experience (here and/or real world) to do actual investigations, with or without the CU tools. We also need more admin patrolling SPI. They probably need more clerks cleaning up as well. Our current environment is such that it is easier to sock than go through BASC, and human nature being what it is, we shouldn't be shocked if they choose the easiest path with the highest success rate: socking. The solution is handling ALL SPI cases better, by having more humans working it. Then manpower isn't a problem with complicated cases like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone who needs "an hour or two" to recognize Mattisse, shouldn't be trying to recognize Mattisse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And anyone that makes a block in two hours against a master that has morphed this many times, without compiling a complete case, probably shouldn't be working SPI cases. Some blocks can be determined in minutes, Mattisse isn't one of those. And if you limit admin work only to those admin that have worked the case before, you just cut out 98% of the admin force, so be prepared to get in line and wait. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, why should we care what other accounts this obvious liar has controlled? At least, why should we keep them here while we figure that out? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a controversial position. If it is someone who is not adding any value to the encyclopedia, only edit warring and causing problems, then it is an easy decision, and an admin will often block via "sock of someone, master unknown", which isn't super common, but acceptable. If someone is creating content and the like, it becomes more difficult, politically. If they have revealed their other identity to Arb, then anything needs to be coordinated with Arb if possible, as we don't have all the info. While there is no policy that says we MUST coordinate (from a technical point), the political reality is that some Arbs have historically been very hostile when you do that, irrespective of you having the authority as admin (trust me). That is an unrelated problem, however. Like I said before, politics is the problem and I've yet to see anyone do a full blown investigation, which is what policy says should be done. Or maybe they have and I just don't know about it. Anyway, this is stuff that admin have to worry about, and fortunately, I'm not an admin right now and don't have the time. Again, it all boils down to insufficient resources at SPI, and a lack of will to solve these kinds of problems by the Foundation and Community both. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe they have and I just don't know about it. Maybe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've nearly finished my review of Rationalobserver's early days and there's no doubt in my mind this is a returning very experienced banned editor. Next I'll look deeper into the dramas, and if it looks like he/she's more trouble than they're worth, I'll make the case and ask an admin to block him/her as an obvious, unknown banned editor. If there's really nothing behind all the chaos that follows him/her around - just a bunch of evil people picking on him/her for no good reason, I'll drop it - or turn my attention to his/her persecutors. As you rightly point out, this kind of thing is a total time sink. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that your investigation lacks the hundreds of IP edits I've made over the years, starting sometime around 2006. So if it looks like I knew too much for only having two accounts it's because I learned a lot by anonymous editing, which I did for years off and on. Also, I had my previous account for several weeks, most of which I spent reading policies, guidelines, and discussions without necessarily taking part in them or making edits. I think that point is getting lost in the shuffle, as editors always seem to be judged by their edits only, but I learn a lot from watching and reading. I think it's a contradiction to encourage IP editors to make accounts, because I'll bet lots of them get accused of being socks when they do. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actual IP editors who make accounts, show unexpected competence for a newbie, and go on to not stir up trouble all the time are almost never accused of being socks. Editors who claim to be an IP editor who has made a new account, but who claim to have a little previous experience when it suits them and claim to have a lot of previous experience when it suits them, and go on to snipe and cause trouble and refight battles that almost certainly existed prior to account creation, almost always are accused of being socks.

I would say, if you stop getting into fights, turn the occasional other cheek, leave the passive aggression at the door, and focus solely on what you claim to be interested in focusing on, you will have a long and prosperous editing career, and won't be blocked as a sock even if you are one. If you don't, I suspect very soon you will be blocked as a likely sock, whether you are one or not.

Someone who naturally has almost all of the personality traits of a long-term disruptive banned editor isn't given the same assumption of good faith as everyone else. It might not seem fair to that person, but once it's explained to them I would think it wouldn't be surprising, and it's a reasonable way for a website with an open editing model to try to limit the damage that such a person can do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are good points; I agree. My first account was never accused, but I never got into a fight with it either. FWIW, I have stopped bickering with people, and I pledge to keep it that way. If you give me some time you'll see that I can be a valuable member of this community. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RO does produce content, even if initially some were questioned, so I'm not convinced she's all bad. If she just learned to stop saying what she thinks about other users and silently got on with it and took care with her work I don't think most of us would have a problem with her. The name Matisse I'm obviously familiar with, but honestly can't remember the character of the editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, Mattisse was active at FAC and highly active at GA. Lots of decent content created, lots of reviews, and LOTS of disruption. The disruption eventually got her community banned. Criticism of her articles was met with immediate response - either personal attacks against the other editor, or, more likely, disruption on their articles or nominations. She'd nitpick over nonsense, deliberately misinterpret policies, and essentially get down to the ludicrous (an example of this would be RO's insistence that Donner Party doesn't meet WP:SUMMARY because the background paragraph mentions the names of the five kids rather than just say the widow had 5 kids). She'd follow editors around and make it pretty much impossible to get any new work done because you're defending yourself. Eric Corbett was one of her frequent targets. When caught out, she'd plead ignorance, that she was too new or inexperienced to know better, that she was so so sorry and it would NEVER happen again. At the same time, she'd interpet everything said about her or her articles in the worst possible light, so some of it must be "justified". Repeat pattern 2-5 days later. The socks I've known about generally started out as good contributors, but after a few months or so it's like she couldn't resist, and she got back to the same tricks. If this is really Mattisse, then the disruption pattern has started and it will only escalate. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

In which case we can wait a bit to see if disruption progresses as feared, and then indef block. This will take less work than punching all the tickets at SPI. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Perfect summary from Karanacs-- some small changes, but the basics have not changed since 2006, and it doesn't take an hour or two to detect a Mattisse sock. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The character of Matisse I do remember better now, that was more familiar to me. Seems a long time ago though. The only bad egg I remember from the old period on here is User:Sarvagnya! Sarvagnya wasn't one of the well known general troublemakers, but he used to troll Bollywood articles and attack them for what he considered unreliable sources. I was pretty ignorant of the general nonsense in those days though... I really tend to forget most of the big names who were banned years back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that Matisse is one in 400 million, because any English speaker that matches her personality profile must be the same individual. NE Ent 14:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Un-archiving this just to note that User:Coffee blocked User:Rationalobserver for 6 months for continued disruption a couple of days ago. I don't know what prompted that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason was that because she was stupid enough to post on Victoria's talk-page. Her mistake has since been acknowledged by her and she is trying to move forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of Knowledgekid87's statement

After banning Victoriaearle from her Rose-Baley Party article and trying to find problems with articles that she thought Victoriaearle wrote or was a co-nominator of, RO continued to post on Victoriaearle's page, hassling her, which should have been clear to RO by 2 Mar: [6], Then on 2 April, RO posted 18 times on Victoriaearle's talk, immediately after she deleted a conciliatory post from Victoriaearle on her own page, saying she wanted no contact with Victoriaearle.

(And you know, Kk87, that RO had multiple conversations with you previously on her own talk page saying she felt Victoriaearle was trying to forcibly "monitor" among other false and derogatory statements.) I believe you were blocked for a short time after RO was (the one Coffee unblocked) for stirring the pot. At the same time, RO was making derogatory statements about Eric Corbett and carrying on disruptively on Talk:Donner Party and engaging in other disruptive behaviour.

RO immediately deletes posts she doesn't like from her talk page, making clear histories there difficult to find. EChastain (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

p.s. RO says on 3 March 2015 above on this thread: "Please give me until the end of March to prove you wrong. If I am what you say I am I won't be able to be productive for that long, and I will go back to the behaviors you say I cannot help but do. I am not currently disrupting anything or causing any problems, and your assumptions are frighteningly inaccurate." Well, she didn't make it. EChastain (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell it was stupid for RO to continue communication with Victoria. Aside from that she has promoted good articles and has worked well with not everyone but a handful of other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes you discuss stuff

Yes, you discuss stuff ... My contribution to the discussion has been to give my strongly-held opinion that the discussion (or rather, the four or five simultaneous discussions) are not worth having. I don't think anything I said was rude. Please feel free to continue to discuss, but I continue to believe that you are engaging in a gigantic waste of time. Cheers. David.thompson.esq (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to repeat it, especially not in large bold, to different editors in the same thread. But, and you're not the only one here by any means, also, telling people that they shouldn't discuss stuff here is oppressive. You may not want to discuss the topic but clearly others do, and that's an appropriate forum. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You clearly want to discuss stuff. Discuss, then, till you drop. But at the time I made my comments regarding the Hillary Dennis Rodman page, it was clear that the discussion was a tarpit, and, indeed, that there were multiple discussions, none of which could get anywhere. There were for some reason four or five simultaneous discussions on the talk page, plus a discussion on the wikisump page, plus god knows what else. It was impossible to participate in the "discussion" without repeating my comment(s), because when I made may comments there multiple wikithreads on the same topic. If I omitted to participate in all 6 or 9 discussions, I might have failed to participate in the one discussion where alleged consensus was destined to occur. In fact, of course, none of these discussions have gotten anywhere, for reasons that have everything to do with the failings I originally pointed out (tl;dr text stretching on for days, utter deadlock, zero importance of the issue discussed), and nothing to do with my rude or destructive comments. I think such avalanches of wikidrivel are an embarrassment to the project, and destructive of it. I expressed what I expressed in bold because of the sheer bulk of text in these multiple pointless discussions. If I oppressed anyone into not discussing this stupid topic further I am glad, and utterly unrepentant. Hopefully such discouraged people went off and wrote or improved articles. Looking at your recent contributions to the project of Wikipedia, you could spend a great deal less time on talk pages, and more on articles, and the project would be better for it. That's not up to me though. Discuss, till you drop, but please don't ask me to stop telling you what a colossal, incredible, gigantic and supercalifragic waste of time your pointless discussion of HRC-->HC is. That is part of the discussion, I would have thought, if discussion is sacred, and if discussion is not sacred, then there is no basis to your complaint. Signing off now, to write or improve an article the next time I log on, yours sincerely, David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment. Still, don't tell people not to discuss stuff, and don't bold your comments like that. I'm generally on a break from article work at the moment ... though I'm doing a little as we speak. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I came back to your page to delete my own prior comment as unnecessarily confrontational, but here you've gone and taken the high road by not responding in kind, so I'll leave it, and leave you with best wishes. David.thompson.esq (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Testing the kitten feature

With wikilove from Peter Damian (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stable Wikipedia

Hi Anthony - I left a message on Fae's page. It would really help if you could confirm we had been discussing the idea of a 'stable Wikipedia' in August. Peter Damian (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

BLPs with negative information

Hi. I saw that you had joined an off-wiki discussion on "The most hostile BLP you've ever seen". Perhaps you could add another example for discussion there: William G. Steiner, and his son Scott Steiner (judge). The latter article has an interesting edit history; start from the beginning and note how it evolved over time. As an amateur editor without any formal training in how to handle these issues, as I suppose most professionals probably have, I'm curious to see what others think about how to handle negative information about BLP subjects. Disclosure: I ran into the article about the son because it was tagged as an orphan. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058. We're all amateurs. Well, most of us. I've removed a section from Scott's article because the first paragraph describes an investigation that led to no charges and we don't usually report such things, and the second paragraph is WP:UNDUE and unsourced. Hasn't he been a naughty boy?

I prefer not to proxy for people, but you could drop a note about these articles in that forum thread if you think it warrants it. I may be missing something, but it just looks to me like typical shitty Wikipedia "biography" writing. Am I missing something? What is it about the edit history of Scott's article that you think is interesting? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, I would have left a note on the page of the guy who started the discussion, if they weren't blocked here. Maybe they stalk this page and will notice.

The bio was apparently started by the subject's wife, as a puff-piece about her recent "Judge-Elect" husband. But later she had second thoughts. 75.19.164.10 requested speedy deletion, but speedy deletion was declined. The IP then edited it down to a one-sentence stub, but was reverted twice, by different editors. So then she logged in to request the speedy deletion. That didn't make any difference, as she was again reverted, without explanation. A bot even reverted one of her attempts at content removal. So then she escalated it to a {{Proposed deletion}}, reason "I am the author and wish to delete it or at least reduce it. Too many personal details." Another editor reverted the prod, with edit summary "Oppose deletion, appears notable". A second prod attempt was again reverted, "decline prod, if it needs to be deleted, it should go to AFD, there are too many sources available to delete on prod". That was at 17:42, 27 December 2012, which was before the first negative information hit the article. I think the question of notability at this point is reasonable – we don't have articles about most local officials (judges, deputy district attorneys, etc.), do we? The first negative news was added 22:16, 6 March 2013. Had the article been deleted, that may never have happened. Of course, the question of notability has now been complicated by the scandalous news. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Wbm1058, Scott's article might have been deleted at AFD before the scandal blew up but the sociopaths that crawl all over the deletion process here would be unlikely to tolerate its deletion now that there's something really shameful in it.

If you have the time and energy, nominate it for deletion. But thoroughly read up on the notability criteria before you do. You might be able to argue that he's only notable for one event. I don't know, I almost never involve myself there. I don't care for the company.

You can create an account at Wikipediocracy, you know. They don't bite. ... Actually sometimes they do. But with an account you can read all the threads - not just the public ones - and navigation is easier ... and you can raise issues like this one that you believe need airing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Stable wikipedia

here. Peter Damian (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"No professional philosophers (who have deadlines on papers and whose contributions to Wikipedia have no CV value) will want to build any sandcastles on the shore here." I love that metaphor. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not original to me, sadly. Peter Damian (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to steal it.

Don't bother trying to engage Jimmy on this. 1. You don't need to - he's irrelevant. 2. If he does ever think, derr, umm, this looks like it might be another idea whose time has come, and jumps onto it, he'll just fuck it up, like he did last time, and blame you. Or, if it limps forward in a stunted, imperfect shadow of what it might have been, he'll take all the glory and declare himself the sole inventor of the idea and the greatest encyclopedist since Diderot, like last time.

Deal with the WMF, not the show pony. I'm not ready to meet with Kourosh yet on my initiative but when that time comes I'll try to hold it in London and get you along. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK sounds fine to me but would like to see progress, being the optimist I am. Who is Kourosh? http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/27/wmf-welcomes-vp-partnerships/ Peter Damian (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyber's RfA

Hey - I may have come across wrong. I didn't mean to sound like anyone who opposes doesn't appreciate him. My mistake if that's what it sounded like. I only took note with that one particular comment.--v/r - TP 21:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're conducting yourself well there, and agree some of those opposes are off the wall. CP and I had an email exchange. I explained that I'm just not able to judge his/her fitness to manage article content (rev. del., page protection, page deletion, etc.) or others' behaviour (blocking, threatening to block, unblocking, etc.).

User:TParis the problem here is bundling technical permissions in with content-control and social-control permissions in the admin kit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I may be late to this discussion and may not have followed everything that was said. Just wanted to leave a note to say that Cyberpower is already a template editor, which allows (assuming protect bits are correctly set) editing protected templates. HTH, Samsara 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

As am I! I got template editor to do a job that was ultimately done by another. All these purely technical permissions should be bundled into a technical kit and given to any editor who has proven trustworthy and competent in matters technical. Blocking people for anything but very obvious vandalism should be reserved for people who have proven themselves to be competent in people management, and page protection, deletion, etc. should be reserved for people with a lot of article work under their belt. I, Template Editor, have spoken. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Science Conference

Hi, this is another update on the Wikipedia Science Conference taking place in London on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd of September.

• Booking has opened at just 29 pounds, including lunch on both days.
• Take a look at the (pretty much final) programme if you haven’t seen it yet. With 18 plenary speakers - three from overseas - as well as the large unconference section, there’s a lot going on, and the Royal Society of Chemistry is sponsoring a wine reception in the evening.
• We are also in the full swing of publicity. Emails have been, and are, going out to funders, scholarly societies, and university departments, but any additional promotion is appreciated. Please share a link, or tell colleagues in relevant fora. All publicity material for the conference is, of course, freely licenced for you to adapt.
• After the conference there will be two hackathons: one Cambridge on the Friday, the other hosted by Wikimedia UK in London on the Saturday. These are being led by Daniel Mietchen and Stefan Kasberger. Follow the link for more details.

I hope you’re excited as I am about this event. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh hi

Disclaimers, then?  — Scott • talk 18:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Err. Are you really ready? (I've spent 18 months only partially redeeming myself from the last time.) But, if you really want to ...

On another matter, can you please ping me if there's something happening on WO that you think I should attend to? I've decided I should stop looking there before I say something (else) I regret. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh! Well, it's more like, if you decide to try again, I'm game. And sure - will do.  — Scott • talk 09:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll stick to one thing at a time for now. Presently, I'm focussed on this. If that works as well as it might, it'll make the prominent medical disclaimer a bit less urgent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

KWW and The Rambling Man case

Hello, Anthonyhcole,
Your contribution to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop was reverted because the workshop phase of the case was closed on Tuesday, July 21st. Feel free to discuss the Proposed Decision once it is posted. Let me know if you have any question, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Keira Knightley

I won't re-add it because I don't particularly care, but regarding this edit, Keira Knightley is arguably the world's most famous dyslexic after Richard Branson, and has discussed the fact that she was given acting lessons as a reward for learning to read in numerous interviews throughout her career. (Sample: "I started acting when I was six, and the reason I started acting was because they found out that I was dyslexic, and I’d wanted to act. I wanted to have an agent and do it properly and all the rest of it, and my teacher at school said, “Well, if you’ve got a carrot to dangle in front of her, because she has to learn to read.” They said, “Well, she wants to act,” and they said, “Well, use it. Let her do it.” So I was only ever allowed to act during some holidays, and only if my grades went up. So it was used as that kind of thing. But they also thought it would, that I’d get it out of my system, so they were like, “Oh, brilliant, she’ll hate it. Within two years, this will be done. It will be a phase and it’ll go away,” and it didn’t".)

The ADHD claim, I'm more sceptical of; ADHD as a diagnosis is virtually non-existent in the UK (which follows ICD-10 rather than DSM), and given her openness about dyslexia I would think she'd mention ADHD as well if she'd been diagnosed. – iridescent 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. Fixed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard GGC Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts so far to help tidy the GG article. Koncorde (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure, Koncorde. I'm done there now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for running the numbers on blocked supporters/opposers at WP:BARC!

~ Rob^Talk 06:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Strelly Harris

Joseph Strelly Harris perfect all thats needed are stubs at the moment as the written content will available soon we then add that and expand to our hearts content Gnangarra 08:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Google donations banner 17 Sept 2015 Australia.PNG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Google donations banner 17 Sept 2015 Australia.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

You just edited in the word "Nazi" as a joke? Do you know how many people died because of Nazis? Have some respect. 119.81.31.4 (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the heads-up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Anthonyhcole. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

No rush ...

but happy anniversary anyway. pablo 10:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good point. Soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Editor_redacting_another.27s_comment_on_this_board
• User:Pablo_X/CERFC
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement/Phase_one
• Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_10#Next_phase_of_discussion
• (Still looking) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

undos

Ok then, what possible productive outcome can come from that discussion, seeing where it has already sunk to? Mdann52 (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, stop edit warring over the thread, or you will end up blocked. Personally, I agree it can remain open for the time being, but edit warring is not the solution. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You're a little late. Peace reigns. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sycophants?

I make a comment on Eric's talk page and just over an hour later you're portraying the contributors there as mewling sycophants and sexists. I don't appreciate being called names and I find it particularly galling to be called a sycophant by someone who hangs around the founder's talk page. If you carry on with these personal attacks I will ask to have you blocked. Richerman (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely no one would block someone just for calling someone else a sycophant. Worm^TT(talk) 14:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Kudos

for your retraction at Jimbos page. I wish Eric hadn't said that, partly because it is so easy to take out of context. It is especially unfortunate that it arose at that time. I thought the comments of gorillawarfare were eye-opening (at least for me-not the existence, but the extent of the harassment) and I thought it was turning into a potentially useful discussion when it got sidetracked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric's comment in that conversation among strangers and colleagues warranted a timely, serious sanction. IMO. Don't lose sight of the vast improvement in Eric's behaviour since the ArbCom restrictions on insulting and belittling have been in place.

As for the sanctions on discussing the gender gap, I have no problem with them. I'd like to see such a ban extended to a few others, who make a point of drowning out any possiblity of sensible discussion on the topic with their streams of ill-informed, ignorant and sexist blather. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(Commenting in this out-of-the-way locale because I have zero interest in being drawn into any wider discussion of Eric Corbett or his blocks) I don't know that the comment in question looks any better in context. It posits that if a woman is called a "cunt", it is likely her own fault for "acting like one". That's a remarkably unhelpful viewpoint, even if not directed at any one person in particular. MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind invitation "Anthony Cole would like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond?", but I suspect your account has been compromised. I'm declining anyway. Giano (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Compromised by Linkedin, actually. They're raiding my contacts. I've closed my Linkedin account. And they're still sending invites. There's a word for that kind of operator. it'll come to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I won't out you, but I don't think our chosen careers have a great deal in common. Even if they did, networking would have to be very long distance. Giano (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, to be clear, I didn't invite you to be my Linkedin friend, or whatever they call it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well! There's no need to belabour the point. You could do an awful lot worse than have dearest Giano as a friend. Wikipedia is becoming a very strange place indeed, full of very odd people, and one day you'll need all the friends you can find, and need to watch your back - I'm told there's fungusy type people on the warpath. Only the other day, I saw a couple, full of piercings and holes and whatnot, editing away in a very strange fashion - plotting I shouldn't be surprised. Why do these young people stick all this metal in themselves at least when I'm taken by the good Lord, I shall go to my family vault and not a scrap metal establishment. Then, there's that poor Mr Corbett editing away writing this encyclopedia single handedly - what thanks does he get? None at all! I know he does have a gynecological turn of phrase, but then so does my little man in Harley Street and he's just been given a knighthood. I just don't understand this world. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Gaaaah! When my fag told me to come to the window and see who's pulled into the drive, I assumed he'd been at my absinthe again.

Yes, my Lady, I am racking up the foes. I just don't seem to be able to keep my stud-encrusted mouth shut. I can't think why I'm being so mean to Mr C.

There's nothing I'd like more than to have your naughty nephew as a friend but, well, you know how he can be, and being seen with him might negatively impact my chances in the upcoming election, so, sadly, at least until that's behind us, I shan't be able to acknowledge him in good company, Even then, if that goes as well as I earnestly hope, the blossoming of our alliance may have to wait until my plan to replace Jimbo is fully realised. I'm sure you understand.

Thank you so much for condescending to grace my page with your presence; I am genuinely humbled. I do hope that little "downstairs" problem resolves soon for you.

With regret and sincere respect, ever yours,

--Anthonyhcole, Esq. (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No matter, no matter! Oh how lucky you are to still have a "fag". Giano had them at school in both senses - addictive and practical. I'm sure our American friends will be very confused. Personally, I gave them up when it was no longer fashionable, and I have to say that horrid smell is so odious. Good luck Mr Cole, opportunity seldom strikes twice - I'll withdraw my proffered patronage. You will need all the luck you can get. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated, my Lady. I assure you there will be pardons on offer for all those I respect should I prevail. (Sebastian's been with me since Eton. I couldn't bear to part with him. He does a marvellous job on my shoes, and no one warms the toilet seat quite like him.)

My deep respect, affection, etc.

--Anthonyhcole, Esq. (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

While well aware you are not my greatest fan I nonetheless appreciate the help here [7]. COding and the links are sometimes swahali to me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A redirect for discussion that may be of interest to you

Here. Should she be anonymized? There are probably technical ways to do that, while preserving attribution. The history of the redirect could be moved to another title, without leaving behind a redirect. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I just haven't thought enough about the issues around that, Wbm, to have anything of value to contribute. Sorry. I almost never deal with redirects.

That poor kid. It looks like her troubles aren't over, either. How sad. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Stable version

• Version from 1 October 2015: "any biomedical information in articles"[8]
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"[9]
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[10]
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[11]
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[12]
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[13]
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"[14]
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"[15]

The version that you reverted[16] has been stable for at least five years. Please self-revert to the stable version while the issue is being discussed on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI

You may wish to be aware of this. Montanabw^(talk) 04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lordy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Love

Anthony, anytime you want to get into a fist fight over who loves the project more, I'm right here. Also, I assume you know I wear glasses so you can't hit me in the face: it would be ungentlemanly. (BTW, for language: we teach writing in an audience-oriented manner, and my talk page's audience is not like that in article or project talk space...) Drmies (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree a user's talk page is a special space, up to a point. I believe you well crossed that point - especially (but not just) given that RO identifies as female. There are some things that just aren't apropriate anywhere on this project. I realise it's contentious and I'm talking about a new norm. I do wish you would throw it open for discussion among your friends, though, if it's not too boring for them (mine are sick of hearing about Wikipedia), and get some thoughts on it from outside this peculiar little echo chamber.

Best of luck in the elections. I know you'll be a force for reason and the general good there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

curious

Hello Anthony. I have a ton of respect for the work you do here, so I thought you deserved honest answers. I'm not sure why you thought I was the "wrong person for the job". Tell me what you're thinking. — Ched :  ?  19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to you piling on with sexualised mocking of RO earlier this year. [17]

I think a block was in order there. Or at least a break from editing and time to reflect. If I'd had the tool I'd have done it myself. And indefinite isn't infinite and all. But throwing your tool about there, given your constant, blind support for Eric and your sexualised herr herr yuk yuk heh haw hawing in Drmies's talk page linked above, just, understandably, stirs up suspician, resentment, outrage. If you'd let the discussion unfold and waited for a genuinely non-partisan admin to do the job, well, I just think it would have been better. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

RE RO at ANI

Can we keep the discussion off the suggestion section? Its actually moving towards a reasonable consensus (if begrudging in a few cases) and I suspect your latest questions are just going to incite a rehash of the evidnce above. No need to extend it any longer than necessary. (FYI I agree with your interpretation of Godots reaction.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, too late. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I would have been happy to delete it if it hadn't been answered. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthony from Josie

Hello Anthony (good evening!) - I'm just testing out each part of the reviewer instructions ... Josie Breen (BMJ) (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Josie. Looking good. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Well done

This Peter Damian (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. That means a lot to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Archives of this talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

White House hospitality toward African Americans

I have come across White House hospitality toward African Americans again. I nominated it for deletion a couple of years ago, but withdraw the nomination after you indicated your intent to expand it. Do you still plan to do this? StAnselm (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No. There's an article in it, but presently it's just the Washington dinner and the DePriest tea, which are both well covered in their own articles. I won't oppose deletion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of White House hospitality toward African Americans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White House hospitality toward African Americans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White House hospitality toward African Americans (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StAnselm (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Only if you want to. It could probably go either way at this stage. StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Archives of this talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

White House hospitality toward African Americans

I have come across White House hospitality toward African Americans again. I nominated it for deletion a couple of years ago, but withdraw the nomination after you indicated your intent to expand it. Do you still plan to do this? StAnselm (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No. There's an article in it, but presently it's just the Washington dinner and the DePriest tea, which are both well covered in their own articles. I won't oppose deletion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of White House hospitality toward African Americans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White House hospitality toward African Americans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White House hospitality toward African Americans (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StAnselm (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Only if you want to. It could probably go either way at this stage. StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)