User talk:Bigtimepeace/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.


that's a big archival move

Keep away from direct sunlight.

Haha, I was looking at recent changes, with my finger on the rollback button. Here's a houseplant to liven the place up some. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to complain about you running over here and sullying my newly fresh and clean talk page, but seeing as you brought such a lovely plant with you, how can I? :-) Oh, and what kind of computer do you have that you can actually operate the rollback button with your bare hands? That's incredible! My stupid mouse and keyboard setup is apparently no longer au courant. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with you that the word "censor" or "censors" is an inappropriate word. I said we don't need censors deciding what content our readers are exposed to which is a clear cut matter of policy and crucial to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's not a personal attack any more than saying we don't want vandals, POV pushers or abusive admins. But I digress. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think your comment speaks for itself. Speaking to another editor you say: "Do you think taking comments out of context is appropriate in a talk page discussion? Do you think you're improving Wikipedia by attacking anyone who has a differing viewpoint and attempts to abide by our guidelines for the inclusion of varyious notable perspectives? If Cheney's views are ridiculous then let them speak for themselves. We don't need censors deciding what content our readers should be exposed to." You are not simply stating policy (actually misstating, since you still don't seem to understand WP:NOTCENSORSED, but there but for the grace of god go I—again), you are clearly directing your comment at a specific editor or editors. And even if you somehow didn't mean it that way, it would likely be read that way, which is why you shouldn't be saying it. But let's cut to the chase here—is it actually necessary for you to use the word "censored" in relation to article content on the Obama articles? I mean, do you feel you must have that in your toolkit as you edit? If so let me know right now—it's still a problem but at least I'll know where you are coming from. If you feel like you can get by without talking about censorship of articles on Obama talk pages, then why don't you just do me a favor and not use those words. It's pretty silly for me to have to put it this way, but this is an inherently silly conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And as we've discussed before, your personal POV and interpretation on policy and word usage, while interesting, isn't based on AGF and civility guidelines that we have to abide by. I go by what the policies actually say. Wikipedia is not censored. There are also policies indicating we include various perspectives including minority viewpoints that are notable. So pointing that out is key to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, particularly on political subjects where we have editors try to impose their opinions on others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. That was clever. You completely switched topics because before we were just talking about the word censored and its usage. But you're right, we have discussed the topics you bring up before, so let's not bother about it again. I'd like to go back to the first thing. Is it necessary for you to talk about "censorship" on the Obama articles? Since I'm an admin trying to help out over there and I'm telling you I see it as a problem which creates a less than cordial editing environment, do you think you could throw me a bone and just not talk about how there is censorship on the articles? You can just say yes or no if you like. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem BTP is that our political content IS censored. It's not supposed to be, but it is. I've made variety of suggestions, general and specific, to address the situation. Censorship is a word with a defined meaning, and I use it in that sense. I've also applied it as specifically described in the Not censored policy. If you have an alternative word that I can use to describe the ommission of notable content that some editors find disagreeable, let me know and I'll be happy to consider using it. In the meantime, I hope you'll help me by focusing on the specific and general content issues and how we can address Wikipedia's current deficiencies as well as the incivility and attacks on anyone seeking to address them. Cheers. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
As I've suggested before, say you're concerned that a given article doesn't measure up in terms of WP:NPOV, because that is the policy you are actually talking about whether you know it or not. You're right that "censored" has a particular meaning, one whose connotation would force us to conclude that there are people actively doing the censoring. That's where the bad faith part comes in, and that's why using that word is unacceptable. If there is censorship then there are censors, and implicitly accusing other editors of censoring (as you have done repeatedly) is a bad-faith personal attack. That's my absolute last time explaining that, and all the warnings (not threats) I have given you about that are in as much effect now as ever.
Please also note that you lose absolutely nothing by saying, "I see some NPOV issues here, the article lacks balance in respect X and respect Y." It speaks directly to your concern, and you avoid impugning the good faith of other editors. Give it a try, please. I think you'll find it a much more constructive approach.
You also might try making some specific suggestions on the Obama articles. I have not seen any from you for quite some time. You've put a lot of complaints like the above here and on article talk pages, but you're not offering much in the way of ideas about how to actually improve the article(s). Other editors need something to respond to besides complaints of censorship.
Obviously our previous conversation about WP:NOTCENSORED had no effect on your thinking, and apparently you did not ask other admins to give their view of that policy as I suggested. You continue to completely misapply and misunderstand it, just so you know. And with that I wish you a very merry rest-of-the-month of May, and also early June. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> If you think saying we are not censored or that we shouldn't act as censors is a personal attack, you are welcome to take the issue to an admin board and seek out a consensus that certain words are verboten. Your position in and of itself is a form of censorship. You're saying that certain words aren't okay even when used generally to discuss article contents. I think your position is outrageous and wrong. When censorship is going on I refuse to be compelled to use another word for it than the one that has a defined meaning that describes it. You continue to assume bad faith on me when all I've done is repeatedly point out policy and suggest ways to abide by it and asked very reasonable questions about where notable criticisms about Obama policies should be included in the encyclopedia, a question you've never answered. You've also assumed bad faith and made attacks on another editor you disagree with. This is unacceptable.

If you wish to put yourself in league with censorship that's on you. I don't share your personal interpretation of policies based on logical extensions and some kind of allusion. The policies are clear. I expect you to abide them. Do not attack and threaten good faith editors who don't happen to share your personal interpretations and perspectives. I've gone over this with you repeatedly and I want to return my focus to editing articles and improving the encyclopedia. You've refused to help address the censorship problem and I think I've been more than patient enough with your verbiage. Wikipedia is NOT censored. We don't omit notable content and notable controversies and notabile criticisms because some people find them personally objectionable. End of story. STOP YOUR THREATS. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To ChildofMidnight - you're so far off base on this it's hard to know where to begin. Wherever we begin, the end point is: do not use article talk pages, and particularly Obama probation pages, to accuse other editors of censorship, whitewashing, wikigaming, politicking, editing out of personal bias, etc. That is unwelcome. In the middle somewhere, shielding disruptive editors, and haranguing and scolding editors who try to deal constructively with the matter, is itself a disruption to the collaborative editing process. You have been warned many times by scores of administrative and non-administrative editors. If you persist you will find yourself prohibited from editing these articles. Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
As someone who thinks their personal biases should be reflected in Wikipedia's article as indicated by inappropriate statements like this:
"he (Dick Cheney) is not terribly relevant to Obama's administration or the policy issue. It is also not clear that anyone is listening to him. Second, there is a backlash from some on the right for every single thing Obama does. That should be reported judiciously if at all here because it's not terribly important, remarkable, or encyclopedic."
your comments are noted as someone who has a long history of pushing your personal perspectives rather than abiding by policy. Please read and understand our NPOV and Censorship policies. We go by independent reliable sources, not your political stands and beliefs, that would be censorship. And while it might be supported by some biased admins, it's wholly inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Your interpretation of NPOV and censorship is nonstandard, and I don't care to track you down that rabbit hole. You have been misrepresenting my edits for many months, which is a toxic way to behave. After writing the above, you just went to WP:3RR on the article page again over this, after recently being blocked for edit warring. Please deal with your own edits, and stop making accusations up about other editors to cover your tracks. You are on thin ice, and it is not going to support much more of your belligerence. If Bigtimepeace catches this in time, they can deal with you. Otherwise, cut it out now or else it's back to AN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Another lie. Here are the diffs provided by Wikidemon: a single reversion of the deletion of an NPOV well sourced statement [1]. Here's the other edit which deals with budget issues [2]. Please note I also tweaked it to make it more NPOV rather than just remove sourced content added by another editor in good faith.
Wikidemon's lies and abuse need to stop. Wikipedia is not censored and the vandalism policy makes clear that it's inappropriate to intentionally undermine it's integrity. It's also improper to and against policy to act as a censor by violating our NPOV policy and abusing processes as he's done with repeated ANI reports that have no merit. Please stop this behavior. Wikidemon's personal attacks and false accusations continue a long term pattern of abusive behavior that's well documented. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of (l) lying, (2) abuse, (3) censorship, (4) vandalism - you've accused me of that half a dozen times in the last month, (5) meritless AN/I reports -- all of mine related to your behavior were absolutely legitimate the best approach under the difficult circumstances you created, (6) personal attacks - have not made any; (7) false accuations - none. And stop leaving bogus retaliatory warnings on my talk page.[3] You are as misguided about WP:3RR as you are about WP:CENSOR. One more revert, 24 hours or not, and you are likely to be blocked longer term. You're on very thin ice. I gave you a 3RR warning to give you a chance to stop rather than taking this immediately to AN/I. Now cut it out. Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace, if you do get this while you're on vacation, could you please look at ChildofMidnight's edits today and consider whether there's anything to be done? I have a feeling it will get worse if nobody jumps in to watch over the Obama articles in your sndrnvr. I'm presently trying to disengage after dealing with the 3RR/EW problem and ChildofMidnight's predictable accusations (see above), but right now COM keeps trying to take a comment of mine out of context as a way of soapboxing against me on his own talk page. I'll probably just ignore it for now because it just isn't worth the trouble, but it isn't fair to me or the Obama articles for editors who come to COM's page to see what's going on to see a selectively edited comment of mine amidst an attack by him. We can't wait indefinitely for ArbCom to deal with it, and I doubt a new AN/I report would be any more smooth then the last ones. Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If I posted this there, I'd be in danger of being likened to the Chinese

For building a great wall. There's a socialism pun in there somewhere. I hear you on the length issue. Grundle has complained that he/his contributions are not taken seriously. He and other editors have complained that Wiki policy is wielded as a fallback by a clique who can't deal with "the facts". I'm addressing the facts. Presumably Grundle is invested enough in this issue to read what I wrote; I didn't write this for anybody who is uninterested in the topic or in the outcome of this discussion. He needs to have the patience to read and understand and process more than a few headlines. As to blog, I suppose I didn't need to disclose the heritage of the cars I've owned, but people wonder what one another's personal relationship to the topic is. Every paragraph is in service of facts that are germane to the three issues at hand, the first being a look forward at Obama's CAFE standards and vehicular deaths from 2011 through 2016 (as 2010 models are already just around the corner...); the second being Grundle's contradiction in damning Obama for seizing the moment and taking the very steps necessary to rectify the historical failures and recalcitrance of the U.S. automotive industry Grundle also damns, at precisely the moment he has the greatest influence on them with the public investment in them, which is yet another thing Grundle damns; and the third being Grundle's propensity in the vast majority of his edits to gravitate towards the most damning quotes of others, surely in part because of a shared personal bias but perhaps oblivious to their poor relationship to facts. Quite honestly, it would take me longer to write a briefer piece than it does to write a longer one. Quite a bit longer than it takes five people to read it.

Speaking of the Chinese, did you know the most popular and prestigious foreign car there is the Buick? Abrazame (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm pretty sure there's a good cultural studies article to be written about the relationship between Chinese car buyers and Buick! That's interesting. And listen, obviously you can write what you want, I'm just, you know, saying. Also I meant what I said when I asked if you had specific suggestions about how to write about CAFE standards, if we move on to that question we can get away from the debate about the USA Today article. And incidentally I'll soon be off-Wiki for a couple of weeks—try not to let anyone crash any small (or large) cars on the Obama articles while I'm gone. And thus do I close, not with a pun, but with a metaphor. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Have a great vacation! Abrazame (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: the toaster thing

Hi Bigtimepeace, I'm fairly certain we've never interacted before. I'm a new admin (as of last week, but I have hung out around the NewPage Patrol and some WikiProjects for a few years now.

I hate drama in all its forms. I make this clear to those I know in real life, to the point of belittling those who contribute to it (which I have civilly not done on Wikipedia), and I have been trying to make it clear here. Far too many man hours are wasted bickering over pointless, trivial, or petty things, and the fact that many Administrators do this is almost tragic, given that this category is chronically populated from what I have seen.

Your handling of this incident was refreshing. You made it clear from the get-go what your intentions were, despite the fact that your position could be twisted to depict you in a negative light. You (seemingly) carefully phrased your comments to make it clear that you were not necessarily "with" this or that group or "against" some other group. When badgered, you asserted your position but did not attack. When you wanted to specifically address the user in question, you posted a well-thought-out message on the user's talk page. When you made an incorrect assumption, you apologized. (forgive me for not digging out the difs :-D)

While I may not necessarily agreed with everything you had to say, I'm glad to see that there are admins like you on Wikipedia. Unfortunately there's no "AntiDrama" barnstar (yet :-D) but consider this one well-deserved:

Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
For dealing with a potentially ugly debate in a most professional and admirable manner. RunningOnBrains(talk page) 03:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Well, back to the office it is...

AfD nomination of Ace of Spades HQ

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ace of Spades HQ. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace of Spades HQ (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For the Love of Ray J (season 2)

I was wondering if you could reconsider your decline of speedy on For the Love of Ray J (season 2). The single reference is an advertisement for a casting call. If you still feel the same, no big deal, as I can take it to AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't think it met the definition of a G11 speedy, despite the bad citation. But another (easier) option than AfD is to simply prod it, and if no one removes the prod it will get deleted I'm sure. If someone does remove it then AfD is probably the way to go. I don't think we should have an article on this, but I generally err on the side of caution in terms of speedy deletions. Hope that helps. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're a winner.

Congratulations! You've won first prize in the "A sock puppet, meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar ..." sweepstakes! See here for details. Paul August 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my proudest moment as a Wikipedian. Verily, I say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for the heads-up. I have submitted a statement. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Dakota Malting and Brewing Company

The close of this discussion seems unsatisfactory as your comments are quite tentative - "bit of a tough call ... not really ... not sure". Please note the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete" and reconsider your close. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The "not really" and "not sure" are a bit out of context. The first was "not really refuted," which I meant in the sense of "not actually refuted" (I was acknowledging that an argument was made, but saying it did not really refute the not-notable argument). The "not sure" related simply to the issue of merging and the fact that the merge target was A) unclear B) something which would likely not be worked on, meaning we would end up with the same article under a different name. If you're interested in working on a general state brewery article we can undelete and move it to a new title, which I said in my closing statement. When I said it was a "bit of a tough call" I meant it exactly as written, which is to say that I was not "in doubt," but rather that I had to think about it and then was able to arrive at a definite judgment (albeit a subjective one, of course). I do think delete was the right thing to do given the arguments at the AfD (and to be frank, your argument, "evidently notable" did not really help the keep side since it was extremely vague—a more detailed keep rationale on your part might have had more of an effect on the end outcome). If you think the close was just plain bad then by all means feel free to take it to WP:DRV (I shan't be offended in the slightest!), and as I said if you have some definite plan for the content please let me know. Hope this is helpful, and let me know if you have other questions or comments about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please userfy the article for me per your comments in the close. I'll see what can be done with it. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Let me know if you're able to turn this into something different that will work in the mainspace. Personally I feel the best place for this content, as suggested in the AfD, would be an article called North Dakota breweries (something similar to Wisconsin breweries but more than a list, which is all that article is), however proceed in whatever manner you think best. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama, Palin, etc.

I get very tired of being lumped into the "liberal bias" chant. Back in September, I was helping to defend the Palin article against POV-pushing marauders, just as I did for the Obama article that wretched night of March 8/9 of this year, against editors whose complaint basically was (and still is) that "there's not enough criticism" of the subject, that being their personal definition of "NPOV". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that I actually got mostly compliments for helping defend Palin, and mostly criticism for helping to defend Obama. So much for "liberal bias" here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have neither a pithy nor particularly thoughtful reply, but editing in political subjects obviously does have its perils. There has been an inordinate amount of drama surrounding the Obama articles, obviously, though I think the fact that a number of editors, including yourself, are recently disengaging from editors with whom they disagree will help alleviate that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't edited the Obama articles in months. That slap in the face in March really turned me off to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Understood, I was referring to your comment somewhere (maybe on the ArbCom page) that you would not be interacting with ChildofMidnight at all. I think that's a capital idea all around. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
There are only so many times I'm willing to pound my head on a particular brick wall. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Zero? Because honestly that first time can hurt like hell. :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason I keep bringing this up is that I hope he might look at what was going on with the Palin article late last summer, before he started here, and the lightbulb might finally come on, and then he might be able to overcome his preconceived ideas. But I don't hold out much hope at this point. He's succumbed to the "poor me syndrome", the martyr role. I've seen that many times here (I nearly succumbed to it myself once), and it just doesn't work. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Dont you agree that Obama's Cairo Speech entailed an innate positive epitome towards Islam & the muslims? I just wanted to mention that in the article. Was that a wrong move? Thanks anyway!Al-minar (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I dunno 'bout that, but the Prez of Iran is mad at Obama now. That should count in Obama's favor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Replied to Al-minar here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure who he was talking to or what he was trying to say. I would have advised him to stick with one-syllable words. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

C of M Burnout.

I think the main problem is that the editor has become burned out and sees conflicts everywhere. To the point, the editor sees everyone who does not agree with his edits on political articles as liberal/POV pushers/etc. More then one person has suggested to them that they take some time off and step away from the project. I feel that this is the only way for the editor to be able to see what other editors have been saying and come back with a clear head and a willing attitude to work with others. What are your thoughts? Brothejr (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could be, but obviously I can't say. I had a positive interaction with C of M on that editor's talk page recently, and am content to leave it at that for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass rape AfD

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to type up such a detailed rationale. Though it's not my preferred result, I'm appreciative for the thought you put into your decision. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was coming here to say the exact same thing. Thanks and cheers, —Ed (TalkContribs) 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated, I think on those kind of AfDs a detailed rationale is pretty much required, plus writing one helps me clarify why I'm doing what I'm doing and even sometimes changes my thinking somewhat (Julian I know you close a lot of AfDs and I'm guessing you've had similar experiences). Obviously it was a tricky one and when I first skimmed it I thought I'd end up going with delete, but after reading through everything it was pretty much inescapable that there was no consensus. Obviously the onus is now on keep voters (and others of course) to actually make this a neutral encyclopedia article, and if that doesn't happen we'll probably be back at AfD in the near future, probably with a different outcome. Thanks again to both of you for your nice notes. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

CoM - Butcher group

In fact I had no idea about a request at WP:ANI when I left the remark. I had seen CoM's request on User:A.K.Nole's talk page and was aware of CoM's mathematical trolling (it cannot be described in any other way) on Talk:Butcher group here [4]. The article has been edited by other mathematical editors who have not borne out in any way CoM's insulting remarks there. I have been sleeping here in France. Mathsci (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of any issues with CoM, your comment here is unacceptable, as it is essentially always unacceptable to call other editors trolls, even if that's what you think, and indeed even if it's true (which I don't think it is in CoM's case—and if you look at the first section on this talk page you'll see that CoM and I have had real disagreements in the past). If you have a problem with another editor for whatever reason, name-calling isn't going to help. Ask for a third opinion, a content RfC, administrator assistance, etc.—or just try talking out the problem a bit even though that can seem like a waste of time. I'm sure (indeed I know) it can be frustrating interacting with editors who know less on a topic than you do, but that does not make it any less necessary to keep a cool head. You've been here a long time so I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know. I don't fetishize WP:CIV and I have enormous respect for content contributors, but at the same time I think the basic idea behind our civility policy is quite sound, and things are a heck of a lot easier if we avoid deriding and assuming bad faith of other editors. I'd very much rather not bother you on your talk page again (or indeed to begin with), so just avoid comments like the one cited above and there's no worries. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if people tried to avoid editing articles where they did not have the necessary background, these problems would not arise. Mathsci (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree with that, but when such things happen we can still assume good faith and stay civil—that's the thing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


You've been making a variety of anti-me comments on ANI, with (as far as I can tell) declaring our past history. I can't recall the details, but I think I remember it wasn't pleasant. Persons reading your comments without knowing that might feel they weren't getting the full picture. If you can't dig it uip, I'll have to William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now I come to look, I really *can't* find the problem. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33 seems harmless. Maybe I've confused you with someone else. Apologies for the above. And don't worry - it hasn't affeected my ressponses to any of your comments William M. Connolley (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi William, I mentioned at a couple of points that I had taken issue with your actions before (at one point I said, see second sentence, it would likely be inappropriate for me to undo your block because of that), but did not go into the specifics because I did not think it advisable to drudge up old stuff (simply declaring I had taken issue with you before was my way of disclosing where I was coming from to other editors). I think you are remembering past interactions between us, but perhaps in the wrong place.
The one major interaction we had going way back was not so much in relation to the Giovanni ArbCom case, but rather related to some actions you took as an admin prior to that on United States and state terrorism, I believe soon after I became an admin which was over a year ago (basically it related to a block you made and some editing after you had protected the article—you may recall it and if not I can try to find the appropriate links for you, just let me know). I think that was our first interaction and I did criticize you somewhat severely. In the last couple months there have been a few other occasions (maybe three including this one, I'm not sure) where there has been a report about you on ANI and I have commented at least somewhat critically, generally seeing some similar problems in terms of your admin work that I thought I saw with the "state terrorism" article (though I would add that, with respect to the recent CoM block, I pointedly told a couple of editors to lay off the whole "sobriety" nonsense or face a block—that line of argument was completely inappropriate and unfair to you). That's basically the extent of it, not so much any content dispute (there was a little bit of that with the US state terrorism article, though I forget what it was about), and not me bringing any threads to ANI or elsewhere regarding you.
If in the future—assuming another issue comes up on ANI and I comment about something you did as an admin, though I'll be very happy if that doesn't happen—you want me to mention some aspect of our past interaction in more detail I'm happy to do so. I think I stand by basically all of my comments, but I'm certainly not trying to give the impression that there is no history between us, which is why at the outset I mentioned very generally that there was. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it was probably the US-and-terrorism stuff I was remembering. Well, its all water under the bridge now, if I can't remember then I don't care, I don't think you should be under any constraint because of it. Best wishes, William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Your use of "inscrutable" when closing a thread on the Obama talk page is unfortunate, as it appears to my eye that the user whose rant you rolled up was likely Asian. As you may know, the stereotype of the inscruable Oriental has a long history and might even be considered racist. I am not casting aspersions on your motives for using the word, but perhaps you might consider another jab at the thesaurus to come up with a word that doesn´t have so much baggage.-- (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I certainly did not intend it in that way, and while I'm familiar with certain "Orientalist" stereotypes, I had not heard of the myth of the "inscrutable Oriental." Had I know I would have chosen a different wording, as it was I was using "inscrutable" only in its dictionary definition sense ("Difficult to fathom or understand"), which I think was accurate, and not with any remote racial connotation in mind. In any case, I'll refactor the closing note on the article talk page to remove that word. Thanks for pointing this out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NME covers

Hi Bigtimepeace. I don't think there's anything to be done, but I just wanted to let you know that this AfD was likely the result of a banned user evading their ban. See my comment at Talk:List of NME covers#Sock puppetry. Best, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, and obviously I'm glad those socks were sussed out. For what it's worth, aside from the fact that the AfD was started by a sockpuppet, I don't think these accounts really had an effect on the outcome. There were a number of legitimate delete !votes so I think no consensus is still the best way to have closed it out. Obviously the fact that there was at least some level of illegitimacy to this AfD would be worth mentioning if there was ever another one, and hopefully if that happens whoever is participating in a second AfD (not that I think that's needed) would be on the lookout for sockpuppetry. Anyhow thanks for pointing this out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, and may I also say that I believe it was a thoughtful closing statement you made in the AfD. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to userfy deleted page

Would also appreciate rationale for speedy deletion. Thanks! Soniclude (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! no to drama 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! no to drama 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LolCary.jpg The Anti-Drama Barnstar
Thank you for participating in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout 2009, avoiding drama for a full 5 days!--The LegendarySky Attacker 04:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and Cleon Skousen

I have responded on both the Talk:Glenn Beck and Talk:Cleon Skousen pages. I may not be able to put forth anything more until next week, though. --Hardindr (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


:) (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it, it's a bit of a hike to get over there! Sedgwick is in the far west part of the Bronx, over by the Harlem river. It's an interesting area though and I had not been over there before. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick note...

Just a quick note, as my responses on my talk page are already hideously oversized. I'm not putting you on that I disagree with people all the time. LadyofShalott and I had a vigorous disagreement over my making two good faith copy-edits on an article talk page, and I remain 100% convinced to this day that on a collaborative wiki that type of corrective fix is helpful and important. GTBacchus and I remain totally at odds over the handling of a difficult but immensely valuable and prolific editor, and over whether the use of extensive discussion is conducive to encyclopedia building. Drmies is a communist. And DGG and I disagree on many aspects of notability as well as political perspectives, but he's the admin I respect the most for his diligence and inexhaustable efforts, even though he's a bit curmudgeonly for my liking. :) So there you go. I'm not one for going along to get along or cabal building. I think frank discussion, respect, and courtesy are core values of encyclopedia building. And I don't hold grudges against those who disagree with me as long as they do so respectfully. Thanks again for your help. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. (And we allow communists to edit here? WHAT!!! Oh wait - I'm fine with that.) But seriously, I probably was not clear in my point earlier on your talk page (or wherever it was). I was basically saying that there are things that you and I disagree on (e.g. you think I have trouble seeing good faith in the edits of people who might have different politics than me, whereas I don't agree with that assessment at all). I was simply saying that there was no need to rehash the disagreements (not that you were really doing that) and that we could just agree to disagree with respect to those issues about which we disagree. I think that's basically the sentiment you're expressing above. So perhaps we can agree to agree? Feels kind of weird, but I'm down!  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not meaning to rehash or to dig up an old feud. I was trying to explain the disagreement so it could be differentiated and distinctified from my likes and dislikes as far as editors and admins are concerned. :) (Certainly the ones that agree with me are the smartest and most competent if that helps. :)
But seriously, I very much appreciate your help and your diligence in investigating and taking the time to identify the "truth in editing" that showed there was no ill will or any sort of campaign push on my part. I think sometimes I get in trouble because I like to think that actions (or in this case edits) speak for themselves, but it's just so easy to take things out of context and to smear here, and I know there are misunderstandings that also happen. But I can't really be bothered to do a lot of sorting through past edits, and I'm a big believer that the best defense is a good offense, so I'm not great at defending myself. :) I make so many edits all over the place I often lose track and can't always keep track of the wheres, whys and what fors, but there usually was a reason that made sense to me at the time for my editing.
I checked out Obama's presidency section the other day. It still seemed pretty thin. Aren't you supposed to be beefing that up? Hahahaha. Be good! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I dropped any effort at improving that section for the time being (I really haven't been paying a lot of attention to the Obama pages actually). It was hard to rouse much interest in working on it unfortunately and other things came up, though I'll probably come back to it. That section does (and always will given the flow of events) need improvement. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a pity that any content contributors willing to make the hard slog it takes to improve that subject matter is prohibited from doing so. I looked for your assertion that any mention of subjects starting with O is prohibited on my part, but it looks to me like the sanctions apply to articles and article talk pages. I'm having fun leaving this comment because your edit summary said something about last message, so I'm thinking I get the last word. I don't think Aitias, Tarc, Arcayne and Baseball Bugs should be blocked right away. But if their disruption and policy violating behaviors continue I don't think there's much choice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A regrettable unblock

Well, have to say that is quite a shame. I would think that such a clear pattern of prodding the edges of the topic ban, and 2 similar "watch it, you're breaking your restrictions here" warnings within the last month have gone unheeded would be sufficient to warrant at least paltry 24h timeout. It is never about what was done, never an acceptance of responsibility, it is always the others that are the big and nasty oppressive Cabal of Doom. Note the coda on both your talk page and on the AN/I, calling for a block of myself, Aitias, Arcayne and Baseball Bugs for "disruption and policy violating behaviors", because we dare to voice support of an ArbCom restriction. The horror! This is the same road that the likes of Betacommand and ScienceApologist go down; good editing is allowed to excuse bad behavior. I have little doubt we'll be reinventing this wheel again when CoM has another oops! did I do that? moment in yet another article within the topic area. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate to call for disruptive and persistent policy violators like you and Baseball Bugs to be blocked or banned. The damage you do to the encyclopedia is enormous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And yet you cannot ever be bothered to point out what these mysterious "disruptive and persistent policy violators" are. I've lost track of how many venues...ArbCom, AN/I, AN, ArbCom Amendments, did I miss any?...where you've made these vague, McCarthy-like accusations against users and admins alike. Ever stop for a moment to consider that the problem may be you, and not the Cabal? Tarc (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
To C of M, if you feel that way about Tarc, Baseball Bugs, or anyone else, then you need to present evidence to that effect to administrators and/or to ArbCom, as has been suggested to you before. You have said in the past that you do not want to do that, and that would be fine so long as you refrain from calling them disruptive policy violators and the like in multiple venues, but that (unfortunately) continues. Your attitude seems to be, "why won't an admin block them?" but you have not shown cause to do so. I have warned Baseball Bugs (not Tarc I think) for behavior in the past but have not seen cause to block, just as I have previously warned but not blocked you. If there is truly a pattern of disruption here you really need to spell it out with diffs and ask for administrative help. Not fun, but that's how things work around here I'm afraid. If you don't want to do that, okay, but then drop the issue and leave off the accusations. It should also be said that the fact that Tarc commented about you in an ANI thread is not itself disruptive in the slightest.
But having said that, I would suggest to Tarc that it might be better to avoid commenting on C of M if at all possible. There are plenty of other editors and admins who will be able to weigh in on any issues, and it might actually be more productive for you to hang back when a thread like the recent ANI one comes up. Of course if you see a problem feel free to bring it up, and it's your choice about whether to comment on ANI threads, obviously, but it might be good for you to step back a bit.
Finally in reply to Tarc's original post here, I think part of why we disagree about the unblock I performed comes in your phrase "24h timeout." I'm a stickler for the notion of blocks being preventive not punitive ("timeout" somewhat suggests the latter) and since C of M had agreed not to edit the articles that had caused the problem the block was simply not necessary. If he starts editing them again all the sudden, which is highly unlikely I'd say, then a re-block would be necessary. While C of M has made clear mistakes in the past, I don't think there was anything all that problematic here. If you read what I wrote on ANI, I think it's pretty clear that C of M did not have Obama in mind when he started editing the Gates articles. I'm 95% sure this was an innocent mistake, and therefore not a big deal at all. I know you see a long term pattern of problem editing, I just don't think this recent incident was at all an example of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking of "24h timeout" in a preventative sense, as this user cannot seem to find the line of where the topic ban ends and normal editing begins. The prevention of editing while such a line is demarcated (for the 3rd time) for him would have been wise. But seeing how the 24h would've been just about up by now if allowed to stand, its neither here nor there now. So, looking towards the future...
I appreciate the advice, but I will have to decline the suggestion of comment avoidance. Past history or not, if a user is stepping out of line I have no qualms about tossing in the proverbial 2 pennies. ChildofMidnight has a remarkable ability to dig his own holes; all I do is flick a kiddie-sized shovel in when I stumble across, usually because I have AN and AN/I on the watchlist. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick question for Tarc in terms of the "3rd time" comment - I know about the issue with commenting in the Gerald Walpin AfD (which I really think was a genuine misunderstanding, the Arb remedy said "articles" but generally these restrictions are construed broadly which not everyone knows, and C of M agreed not to comment on it anymore after the issue was pointed out to him), but what was the other "crossing the topic ban line" issue? If you're thinking of the "can C of M comment on Wikidemon or vice versa?" issue that was brought before the Arbs, I likewise don't see that as a willful violation, and indeed the Arbs had to clarify the matter. Unless I'm forgetting or unaware of something I guess I don't see a real pattern of violating the topic ban in any willful fashion, just a couple of occasions where the line was a bit fuzzy and where C of M agreed to stop editing in manner x once the issue was pointed out to him. I think that kind of thing comes up with some frequency in broad topic bans. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I noted both in that AN thread. :) #1 was the AfD and #2 was to the Walpin article itself. Which when you look at it now is kind of interesting; if I was told that I was banned from an AfD on an article about a particular person, I'd probably assume said ban extended to another article relating to the person as well.Tarc (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I missed the edit to the Walpin talk page somehow. That was clearly problematic, and would indeed have been cause for a block. I still think the AfD situation and this most recent issue are honest mistakes, but in any case C of M should be well aware of the issue by now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
As long as #4 doesn't become a Python-esque "don't do that again, or I have have to ask you to not do that again in stronger terms!", sounds good. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Now that you make me think of that scene, "Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person!" would probably be a good default response to most of the stuff that comes up on ANI. I don't think I'll test that out though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

help needed

Hi Geoff - could you have a look at Ann Dunham please? Cladeal832 has made a change in her place of birth and removed material about her father without discussion, making the change 3 times yesterday on that page alone and also in several other articles. I asked that he wait for discussion and consensus, but he just repeated his argument and then unilaterally made the change. I don't know where she was born, but I know that is not a reliable source. And his argument seems to me to verge on OR. I have to look back, but I think we had the wording for a while stating that sources give different places of birth for her - and that's ok with me if indeed reliable sources do - but it seems to me that it's not ok for one editor to unilaterally make changes when they are questioned, especially in an article that's part of the article probation arrangement. So, a word from you might be helpful. I left a note on his page here (also see his history on that page) and the relevant non-discussion is at Talk:Ann Dunham#Birthplace; the changes he made are here, here, nd here in this article. Thanks Tvoz/talk 08:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, I'll take a look at this and see if I can be of assistance but don't have time to do so at the moment as I have some things to do before I teach this afternoon. However I'll be able to get to it by this evening (east coast time). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've commented on Cladeal832's talk page and the Ann Dunham talk page. Cla was clearly in the wrong in terms of edit warring, and if that happens again I would not hesitate to block since I've now warned him twice for this. He ought not have forced in the change to Wichita, but it seems as likely to be right as the Fort Leavenworth birth so I think it's fine to leave it there for now. The sourcing issue seems particularly dicey here, unless something more definitive turns up. It actually might not be a bad idea to try to contact Obama's people (who exactly I don't know) and see if they can point you to a better secondary source that gives her place of birth. Obviously them saying "trust me, it's Fort Leavenworth" is not acceptable, but I don't think it would be too ORish if they said "see _____ web link" so long as that was a reliable source. In the end it's a fairly small issue and perhaps not worth that much trouble, also it might just be the kind of thing to which we cannot get the answer, as that happens all the time in history, naturally. Anyhow I'll check back and see your thoughts on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on ANI

Thanks for your constructive comments on the David Fuchs related ANI thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who fed that hydra by making more than one or two comments should get a trout slap. Have a nice night. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem George, though I'm not sure they helped much. And I believe I made two comments C of M, so I'm not sure if you think that worthy of a trout slap or not, but regardless the matter is obviously closed now (thankfully). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to regret CoM's unblock?

Another edit to Gerald Walpin?. I have one foot out the extra-long weekend getaway...not alot of time to dig, but I am fairly certain that our buddy's ArbCom restriction on Obama-related topics is still in effect. If you have a moment, can you take a peek? Tarc (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there was some confusion here, see this discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was dumping something pretty cut n dried on your lap here. :) Tarc (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up

Thank you for letting me know about the ArbCom clarification. It has completely taken me by surprise, as I had assumed (and I believe quite rightly) that the sanctions were meant to run concurrently. If it is confirmed that they are supposed to run successively, I will absolutely be appealing. It was already an excessive punishment that did not seem to have anything to do with the facts, but this new issue is shocking. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Fayssal may be wrong in assuming that the sanctions do not run concurrently. That's actually rather illogical, and I'm going to leave another note on the clarification page explaining my thinking on that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


You have been involved in Arbcom enforcement discussions on my talk page, in ANI discussions, and on the Arbcom page. Saying you aren't involved in enforcing the remedies is silliness.

You say you've "refrained from responding" to "accusations" against you, even as you make accusations and attacks against me. You've been relentlessly on the attack with me on various boards for a long time now. You make comments like "I think what you are saying is nonsense."

Statements like "Whatever it is you're talking about (or possibly misremembering)" are also antagonistic. If you want to know what I'm talking about just ask.

You say I'm "ignoring" your point and "unwilling to engage" (borderline personal attacks according to your standards) even though I responded quite clearly to your point saying: "Suggesting that editors are not allowed to comment on censorship, harassment and NPOV violations at a noticeboard is ridiculous." I didn't make any personal attacks at ANI, but I provided numerous diffs of personal attacks against me. I haven't seen any actions taken yet based on them and I'm not holding my breath. That editor has been warned repeatedly.

I noted that I think you act in good faith, but acting improperly and inappropriately is still a problem when it's done in good faith. "So what exactly is the issue?" That is the issue.

You also say, "There is still confusion about the ArbCom remedies," yet even when they are clarified and you can see you made a mistake in interpreting them you don't adjust your behavior or take any corrective action. Why is it so hard for you to apologize for mistakes you've made? Instead you simply move on to new arguments and attacks.

You say I "have admittedly violated them" after I acknowledged that I ONCE made an edit I shouldn't have, adding a link. Instead of respecting my willingness to recognize where I made a mistake, you use it to attack me. Compare my actions to how you've behaved even after an Arbcom points out that you've been in the wrong on the remedies. Instead of acknowledging your mistake, you continue going on the attack with new arguments. I suggest to you that making an effort to correct your mistakes, apologizing would be a good start, would be a better approach. When a bad block is made, don't try and work out a new rationale for it, correct it.

You are not fair or impartial, and your insistence on seeing things your way is unfortunate. You did the same thing with Grundle, and are obviously so passionate about your personal opinions and politics that you are unable to accept other people's viewpoints as having merit and validity.

As I indicated previously, I'd like to return to article contributions now. That's what I'm here for. That's why I generally avoid reporting stuff I see, like Sarek's abusive behavior on his talk page, unless it's particularly egregious. Your behavior is pretty egregious, so I'm pointing it out to you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

When you post a reply to this, post diffs about my behavior or I will remove the comment. I will no longer engage in any discussion with you about my supposed "egregiousness" if you do not provide diffs. This is a firm rule (at least for me) when it comes to our user talk page communication as of right now.
On your talk page you said I have been "repeatedly trying to impose false restrictions on me at AfD, my own talk page, and other places." Where and when did I do this? I already asked you (making you're statement "If you want to know what I'm talking about just ask" odd since I did that twice in my last comment and you did not answer) but am asking again. Please provide diffs or at least links to discussion threads, because I do not know how I have, for example, tried to (falsely) restrict your behavior on your own talk page. I also don't think I commented on any direct AfD issue at the time, but you yourself agreed not to comment on an Obama-related AfD. Regardless it is still unclear to me whether that is necessary or not given the ArbCom case.
I don't think any reasonable person reading this exchange would view my comments about you "ignoring" my point and and being "unwilling to engage" as even "borderline" personal attacks—they are not even close to that. It is objectively true that you did not respond to the point I made about Sarek's block rationale, and indeed you still have not. And, yes, I listed out a string of complaints you made against me ("trying to attack [you] and defending abuse and harassment by others," "acting improperly and against the Arbcom remedies," "antagonistic behavior," of "going after" you, of not being "very fair or impartial," and of acting in a manner that is "pretty appalling") and then said I thought that was nonsense. Again, the idea that what you said about me was fine and dandy, but then my calling it nonsense was an "attack" will probably not strike most objective observers as credible.
You have violated your ArbCom remedy at the Obama list thing (which I didn't even see), at Talk:Gerald Walpin [5], and at Henry Louis Gates arrest incident [6]. So the idea that you "ONCE made an edit [you] shouldn't have" is categorically not true. As I said at the time, both of those were apparently honest mistakes. I did not, in my comment on your talk page, use those edits to attack you, I said you clearly had trouble fully understanding the ArbCom restrictions, and as such wondered why were you launching attacks against others (like me) who may not have been clear on certain issues. I have not asked you to apologize for breaking your topic ban at the Gerald Walpin talk page (and elsewhere), and have no idea why you would want me to apologize for whatever it is you think I did (and again I still don't know what that is because you have not specifically said—simply commenting on issues relating to your topic ban is obviously not an example of improper ArbCom enforcement).
As I said I'll need diffs, links to discussion threads, etc. in order to continue this conversation. If you do not provide them I'll take that as de facto evidence that you do not have specific examples of me "acting improperly and against the Arbcom remedies" as you claimed previously. My personal tolerance for conversations with you where you complain loudly about my admin behavior but provide no evidence whatsoever has officially reached zero, and I will not be participating in them anymore. If you can't be bothered to dig up diffs, then please do not post here again about this matter. If you tell me specifically what it is you are concerned about then I will be happy to engage, but I cannot address vague generalities. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of looking into this, at least for the AfD issue. I think all I've ever had to say about you and the Walpin AfD was said here. My thinking there was based largely on these comments from several Arbs, which Wizardman seems to be contradicting. I did not restrict you at the AfD (another admin reverted your comment), and indeed all I did there was close it as keep which was what you had argued for. The problem with the AfD issue is that the Arbs seem to be contradicting themselves on whether AfDs fall under a topic ban or not. Because of the confusion, there is no need to accuse anyone of doing anything improper or call for apologies. I'll still be waiting for you to explain how I improperly tried to restrict your behavior on your own talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You attack me for pointing out that you placed false restrictions on me saying that's not true, and then even after you find the diff showing you the exact behavior I described, you continue to go after me. Here's a link to you aggressively enforcing the Arbcom restrictions and trying to place improper restrictions on me here. Now please examine your own behavior and stop attacking me and accusing me of making false statements when the diffs are all there to support my true and accurate statements. You're welcome to look through them at your leisure. I am here to edit articles. I just want the hounding, attacks, and stalking to stop. That's why I left articles and an AfD alone even when they weren't about Obama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Good god man, I just provided that link myself! Why are you putting it there again, and what actually bothers you about what I said there? I've already explained my feelings on that issue in the preceding comment, and you did not respond to the substance. You had no problem with avoiding the AfD at the time, and did not complain about anything I said there when I said it. I did not remove your comment at the AfD, and indeed only commented after the fact (and not really about the AfD—I just said Walpin was Obama related which is clearly true). My basis for saying you ought not comment on the AfD were specific remarks (linked above) from several arbs about the general issue of topic bans. Nothing I said in that thread was remotely "aggressive," and you have not explained how saying you cannot edit an AfD is "improper" when you did not complain about it at the time. Wizardman's recent comment suggests you could have edited the AfD (we'll see if other Arbs agree), but I was interpreting the remedies in what seemed the appropriate way and was not the only admin who saw it that way. Still waiting for you to explain how I improperly tried to restrict your behavior on your own talk page—I'm not discussing the AfD issue anymore until we hear from the Arbs on it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I had no problem with avoiding the AfD? An AfD of an article I created and wanted to work on? Good god man. And how nice that you weren't actually the one to remove my comments (wasn't it Bugs?). You make quite a team. It's nice that you can wash your hands of something you're involved in as long as you're not the one to pull the trigger. Just like you haven't been involved in enforcing Arbcom restrictions against me. Here's the link. If you look you can find diffs for all my other statements as well.
Walpin is not an article about Obama and it never was. Every political article in the U.S. has some relation to Obama. He's the freaking president. Stop aiding and abetting those hounding me. Stop filing reports involving me. If you want to do something about personal attacks and clear abuse then stop Bugs from continuing to stalk me. I'm here to work on articles not to deal with all these frivolous filings and endless harassment. Wizardman explained the remedies to you, and you're still not happy. So now you're trying to get them changed. For heavens sake leave me alone and stop encouraging those who are hounding me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are more than a few inaccuracies in your statement:

  1. Your AfD edit was reverted by admin User:CIreland, not Bugs. I linked to that, so I'm surprised you didn't notice.
  2. This is how you reacted to it, and I guess I take "don't have any complaints with your actions" to mean you didn't have a problem. Apparently you do now.
  3. Gerald Walpin is not an article about Obama, but it is about a man fired by Obama. You are topic banned "from Obama-related articles for six months." Gerald Walpin is Obama related. I genuinely thought you understood this, but you seem to now be suggesting that articles without the word "Obama" in the title (or something similar) are okay for you to edit, and that you were simply being nice by avoiding the Walpin article. That is emphatically not the situation with your topic ban (ask an Arb if you don't believe me).
  4. I do not believe I have ever "filed" a "report" involving you. I've asked ArbCom to clarify remedies in the Obama case—believe it or not it's not always about you, and the remedies in question do apply to other editors.
  5. Wizardman has not yet responded to anything I have asked, he made a comment to one other user, and I'm asking him to clarify that. That kind of thing is pretty routine, and we do actually allow followup questions around here.
  6. I am trying to get Baseball Bugs to stop interacting with you. I was typing a note to that effect before you ever posted about the issue on ANI. I'm sorry that you seem to not appreciate those efforts, and that you somehow think I'm on his "team" when I'm asking him to stay away from you. That's a strange reading of the situation.
  7. I'm not trying to get any remedies "changed" and have clearly never said that. I'm asking for clarity about how to read them, and noted here "I just want clarity on the Obama remedies, and if the Arbs say C of M can edit Obama-related AfDs and comment on Obama-related ANI threads I am fine with that since the committee defines how the remedies are to be worded and construed."
  8. It's hard to know how to take a request from someone to "leave them alone" when said person has posted to my talk page several times in the last four hours. I am not bothering you in the slightest right now except to respond to you here on my talk page. I left a note for arbitrator Wizardman and am waiting to hear back from that editor or other Arbs regarding my questions, which only partially relate to you.

Perhaps it would be best for you to let this alone for awhile and wait to hear from the Arbs. That's my plan, and I don't really have anything else to say to you at the moment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"When I made the AfD post I didn't know that I'd be prohibited from an AfD discussion. It doesn't have much to do with the issues involved in the Arbcom discussion, but if those are the rules there's not really much I can do about it." That comment is from the diff you gave me. What did you want me to do? File another Arb hearing? Cla8 or whatever his name is was clearly acting in good faith, so after I came online and saw that people had come to my defense I tried to tone it all down. I just want to be left the alone to work on articles collegially. If that meant not working on that article then okay. Here's a couple diffs of my comments on the matter: [7] and[8]. I think I've been clear all along that I don't think that article is included, but I abided by the suggestions and directions I was given. Obviously I'm not happy about it. I'm not happy about the topic ban either. I'm just doing the bast I can. And keep in mind that when I created that article there was already one on the firing. I thought the BLP should be separate because it's only one part of the man's career. If every article that is in some way related to Obama is included in the ban then I might as well be banned from all political subjects. He's the president. Oh and Bongo left you a question on my page, but can you guys discuss it on his page? I'm tired of it all. I hope you're never harassed with all this nonsense, but if you are you would have a lot more empathy for how unpleasant it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I responded to Bongomatic at that editor's talk page. You are not banned from all political topics, just things which relate to Obama. He literally fired Gerald Walpin (so that's a pretty close connection, right?), but Obama has very little to do with literally thousands of other political topics and personages in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. Just err on the side of caution. You only have a few months left in your ban, so it should not be that hard.
I've spent a lot of time dealing with this Obama stuff (including dealing with dozens of posts by you to my talk page wherein you complain vociferously about me), and in general it's not pleasant, so I perhaps have more empathy for your situation than you think. I also know you have a lot more control over your situation than you think, and that many of your problems are of your own making. Part of the problem is that you seemingly cannot acknowledge that. Your ArbCom restrictions and other issues you have had to deal with are not simply indicative of some deep-seated corruption or bias at Wikipedia, to a significant degree they stem from the fact that you do not deal very well with conflict on Wikipedia. I know you're friendly with a number of editors here, and you might consider asking them how they would evaluate you in terms of your conflict resolution skills. Please believe me when I say I'm just trying to give you good advice which I think would help you—there are things you could easily change (regardless of what anyone else does) that would make 95% of your problems go away. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bongomatic 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So block me.

He IS a Bigot. He first engages in blatantly anti-Atheist commentary, then expands it to Anti-semitic commentary. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The former may well have happened (I have not looked into the background), but you're reading into the situation a great deal to infer the latter. I'm a fan of the quote you paraphrased, but it was said in reference to the Nazis, so I'm not at all sure the editor was baiting you on religious or ethnic grounds by simply mentioning that. Incidentally I'm a raging atheist and literally half of my friends are Jewish, so in general I'm probably nearly as sensitive to anti-Semitism and anti-atheism as you are. But even given that, I still don't call folks on Wikipedia bigots (though I have run across a few who I would describe as such in real life) because I think it's a shitty idea to do that for like 30 different reasons.
I have no interest in blocking you (I'm not certain, but I don't think I've ever blocked a regular contributor for civility, or possibly for anything at all), I just want you to not make those kind of comments anymore. If you keep doing it I suppose I (or someone else) will need to block you, but doing that would be stupid and annoying and dumb and also stupid. Ironically your comments actually hurt/distract from your cause, which seems to be going well, as the editor will apparently be barred from RfA discussions. So maybe you can just be happy about that and let the personal beef die down. It's really just not worth pursuing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The restrictions you imposed

Please note that the restriction you imposed does not fall under Obama probation, so any appeals may not be granted by you - they'd require a community consensus or ArbCom intervention. I've explained the reasons of principle further at the ANI. In line with good faith, I believe this was a mistake rather than something more deliberate, and have reversed your logging accordingly. If you would like me to explain this further, please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just read your message on my talk. It seems it took me a while to go through all the tabs I opened in my browser, and respond to the things I needed to. :S Apologies for the delay first of all, particularly in being unable to notify you in a timely manner. I'll take a look at what you said at the ANI thread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'll be going offline (to bed) fairly soon, and might not have a chance to respond to you for awhile if you have more to say about the matter. You can reply on ANI if you like, though it might be easier to just discuss things here. I'm not happy about how you handled this, but I don't think anything more needs to be done with the restrictions, so user talk pages might be a more appropriate place for the discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
One of the biggest causes of some of your misunderstandings would be the unreasonably delayed notification; I appreciate that - and again, apologize. In another way, I could've worded my initial response at ANI a little bit better. That said, I hope I've clarified those misunderstandings, as well as my position in my response at ANI. If you think there's anything we need to still discuss, user talk pages are probably a better place - but if you feel you should respond at ANI to something I said there, you are most welcome to do so also. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that CoM has already breached the restriction when he said The diffs at the top of the thread speak for themselves. Numerous admins have asked the editor to cease the inappropriate behavior for months. Stalking, harassment and personal attacks are unacceptable, and I hope that this solution will remedy the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC). → ROUX  21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
If the restrictions have been implemented then close the thread. Editors are objecting, so it's obviously not a closed issue. The idea that I shouldn't be allowed to comment in an ANI thread about editing restrictions that apply to me is beyond ridiculous. Roux's comments seem disruptive and unhelpful. If the issue is closed, close the thread. If it's not, then stop trying to censor and censure me for commenting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Crowley-Gates an Obama related page?

I have a request for clarification with regard to Obama article probation and the Gatesgate/"beer summit" article (more properly the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident); for example, specifically, Are discussions about the White House get together with officer Gates, Obama's friend Professor Gates and the president subject to its strictures? We are discussing this matter here (Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident#Note: Features of "Obama article probation" that pertain to this page); and, since you're no doubt the premier admin involved with Obama article probation issues, if you'd be able to chime in on our discussion I think your input would be greatly valued and appreciated. ↜Just M E here , now 14:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm also adding a query regarding this question to WP:ANI. (I hope that's the best venue. Please advise!) Here's the link: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is Crowley-Gates an Obama related page?. ↜Just M E here , now 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Replied at ANI. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you consent to help out as an admin if we have problems relating to article probation on this page? ↜Just M E here , now 16:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, strong argument you gave in the tfd! ---- BigTimePeace, supposing the ANI thread's closing admin doesn't discern a consensus: since I'm in favor of it, the three options I can think of for me to pursue in that case would be
  1. (Bold) just go ahead and try re-templating [edited: Gatesgate's talkpage as part of "Obama articles probation"] just to see if it might well hold?
  2. (Rvt) drop the matter, figuring that a mixed consensus should default to not trying to retemplate its talkpage as the article's being under article probation? or
  3. (Discuss) post a poll on the topic on Gatesgate's talkpage (similar to the "in/out, arrest-photos poll" that's going on there now)?
What would be your opinion about which way I should procede (that is, in this scenario where the ANI were to be closed "no consensus")? ↜Just M E here , now 12:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
BigTimePeace, I've striked the above cos I've now got some direction with regard to this same question from xeno on his talkpage. Thanks! ↜Just M E here , now 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, and as far as I'm concerned it's up to you how to proceed. If you're asking about the template, the tfd result will obviously probably help determine the next course. As to helping out on the Gates article, I'm not watching it, but if problems develop you can feel free to contact me and I'll come have a look. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thx! ↜Just M E here , now 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(Oh, by templating I'd only meant the "article probation" template, sorry!) ↜Just M E here , now 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Angela Davis

I have read your comment, but as I am interested to see if other people know or care about this (to me) puzzeling issue I rather not write anything on the BPP discussion page right now. And perhaps your scepticism about her importance for the party goes too far. At least in France and Germany she was incredibly popular, Eldridge Cleaver and Kathleen Cleaver were heroes here for a hard hard-core of leftists, like the later RZ founders, but Davis put the black liberation struggle and the BPP on the map, Which may have saved her but also Abu Jamal.--Radh (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Angela Davis is/was a big deal in general, my point was simply that she might not be worth mentioning in the main BPP article as she was not, from what I know (and I actually know quite a lot about the topic), a key member of that group, though admittedly she ultimately became one of the more famous people to be associated with it. I'm not sure why you find the overall issue "puzzling" (Angela Davis was connected to the BPP, clearly, and I don't think that's controversial), but Talk:Black Panther Party isn't really an appropriate place to work out general questions about the subject matter, rather it's just for working on the article itself. If you feel some sort of change needs to be made to the article you should mention it specifically on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we are really that far apart, I hope I have not pretended to know a great deal about the inner workings of the BPP. But, to change the topic slightly: on German Wikipedia Richard Aoki was called a founder of the Party. I have toned that down a bit, but it still implies he and David Hilliard helped set up the Party. Is this basically correct? --Radh (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries, and I would not pretend to be a full-blown expert either, but I have done some academic research involving the Panthers (in a rather specific manner relating to ideology). My understanding is that Hilliard became more important as time went on (and was actually much criticized for his leadership) but I don't know about Aoki. I'm not sure what their exact involvement was early on, and it would also depend on what is meant by "setting up" the Party. It was very much a Huey and Bobby thing at first, but I don't know how quickly that changed after their initial successes "patrolling the police" in Oakland. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I had never even heard of Richard Aoki when I read on de-Wikip. that he had set up the Party with Newton and Seale! Bizarr, but if the Aoki information on Panther sites and esp. a Richard Masato Aoki memorial site is basically correct he debated the 10 points with Newton and Seale before and after they were written down, they had discussed stuff for a year before the Party was set up, etc.--Radh (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Impostor account(s)

I had previously posted this info on User talk:Versageek and User talk:Jpgordon, whom I think are checkusers. This is FYI in case you didn't already know:

The account Childof12AM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious impostor of User:ChildofMidnight. He shows no contribs [9] because his attempts to edit my page (and presumably to stir something up) were blocked. I just wonder if this is part of the Liebman family of socks, or if its coming from somewhere else, like maybe the Pioneercourthouse sockfarm? Those are the most obvious possibilities that come to mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And another impostor, calling himself BBBfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) turned up, also trying to foment trouble, i.e. to interfere with the contact ban between me and User:ChildofMidnight. I'm suspicious of Pioneercourthouse, just because he's also been active in the last couple of days. However, PCH is jumping from one country to another with his IP's, so there's probably not much that can be done there except to whack the moles as they pop up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed the first note somehow yesterday, not sure how. Anyhow it seems this has been taken care of and both accounts blocked. It's obviously someone trying to stir up trouble, but I don't know about the two sockfarms you reference so cannot guess as to the sockmaster. As you say it's likely we'll just have to deal with these sort of impostor accounts one at a time if they continue to crop up. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it's been covered. So for you this turns out to be more of an FYI. Luckily, neither CoM nor I were born yesterday and are not so easily fooled, so whatever trouble the socks were trying to cause went nowhere except to get themselves blocked. If this starts to be a recurring problem, i.e. significantly more frequent than it is now, we'll probably have to open a formal investigation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The intriguing one is the user BO2ip01, a sleeper sock of these 2 new ones that was created on June 14th! That's around the time that various socks were hassling BQZip01. There's an impostor sockfarm out there somewhere, but it's eluding our grasp. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know anything about BQZip01 being hassled by socks, and in general sock investigations are not my specialty. One time I accidentally sussed out some socks from a farm who were editing the Obama article, but that was pretty much a freak occurrence. I probably cannot be of much help figuring out what's going on here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And I'm afraid I have more experience with socks than I wish I did. I would say the first time dealing with such was in connection with User:Tecmobowl a couple of years ago. The frustrating thing is when checkusers are only willing to go so far. Forget being an admin, being a checkuser is what I would want to be - except that I lack the technical expertise needed. So I have to rely on the kindness of strangers, as the saying goes. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


I accidentally set my big timepiece down on orange peelings the other day. I took it to the repair shop. The guy asked me what happened. I told him it was a watch on the rind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You eat oranges? That strikes me as somewhat "1990s", but to each their own I suppose.
Took me awhile to get your joke there. I should be more familiar with the works of Lillian Hellman, but they strike me as somewhat "1930s." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hellman? That would be mayonaisse, which would have a different punch line. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hi, thanks for taking a look into WP:WQA#William S. Saturn and his tendentious editing. I would have commented there that the filing seems to be redundant and in the wrong venue, but the presence of another editor who I'm not supposed to interact with, and your request to hold back, probably mean that I'll stay away. I want to point out a little background, in case you haven't made the connection. That the editor has been uncivil is pretty obvious. But that's the tip of the iceberg. The bigger issue is repeated edit warring, fringe-y content additions, and messy meta-discussions. They've been to AN/I a few times, with the Obama arbitration parties squaring off on either side, which resulted in blocks, which in turn relates to the (uncharacteristically hasty, in my opinion) stay-away order you recently brokered. Perhaps the parties who just came out of Arbcom have nobody to blame but themselves when they continue to get into arguments. However, I think this poor editor is a victim of someone else's editing disputes. Sure, they are a long-time editor engaging in behavioral violations. But in the chaos, nobody has taken the time to patiently counsel this editor, set some expectations about the limits of civility, and so on. So I don't think they've had a proper chance to acclimate to the Obama pages. This reminds me of the early days with User:Grundle2600, who was capable of causing real trouble but also a very decent chap capable of listening and being friendly and collegial. I sense that this editor too is sincere and well-meaning. If people can get past his content position, which is apparent approval of some fringe political theories, I think he has a chance and shouldn't be written off. You'll see that when he actually explained his specific objections on the Birther page, I personally agreed with about half of them. However, I also observe that he's being coached and incited to be combative. I brought all this up in my request for clarification.[10] Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vaguely related, I was drawing an analogy between the birthers and the moon hoaxsters, and although I thought I was talking to Soxwon, I've zapped my comments on advice of Wikidemon, just so no one will get the wrong idea. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've posted a note to William here, which is where I think it should be left for now, barring further discussion between myself and that user on his talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maltese Cross

Hi! Thank you for notifying my about the discussion!

  • 1. I found articles which state definitively that Libya financed the production company that made Maltese Cross
  • 2. I found an article from The Independent which quoted Swire on his attributing motives to the anti-film group.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Replied on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Where to obtain the text of a deleted article

I'd like to get the text of 8 articles that were recently deleted, just for personal use. I was told I should ask the admin who deleted them This was for I will watch here for a reply. Hope you can help. Tkech (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Details forthcoming on your talk page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

RE: [11]

  1. REDIRECT Template:WikiThanks

I've held off commenting on that case (mainly because I did not care to be involved), but I quite dislike the notion that "difficult articles" (nationalist disputes, conspiracy theory-related topics, etc.) require the kind of admin behavior that WMC regularly exhibits. I was just dropping by to check on the status of the proposed decision and felt obligated to leave a note on that particular talk page thread, though I doubt it will have much of an effect on anyone. The Arbs seem extremely split (to an abnormal degree) on what to do about Connolley, so the ultimate remedy might well end up being less restrictive than I would like (I'd be fine with even a temporary desysopping, though I understand the view that those are bad ideas in general). Even if WMC gets off relatively easy in this case, I think the problem with his approach to adminship is now abundantly clear. Either he adjusts course and stops the cowboy adminship (that's my preferred option—I know he has a lot to contribute to the project), or we'll be back at ArbCom at some point in the future due to another bad block (or whatever), at which point a desysop will be inevitable.

Incidentally I noticed in your evidence (somewhere) you listed BernardL as an admin. I'm 99% sure he isn't one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tenditious Editing in William Gates

Hi, an editor, Jayen466, is insisting with have three references to the same press release including mention in the lead, a large quotebox, and now this [12]. While he brought up the topic on the talk page here, instead of waiting, he just put in the information that's disputed. Perhaps a polite warning is due given his single minded focus on reintroducing the same fact over and over. Nobody is saying it should not be in the article, but there's an issue of weight and process here. He's spoiling for an edit war and if you read the comment from other editors in that section, there really is disagreement about his POV. Mattnad (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the edit and read the talk page conversation, and from what I can gather this is still at the level of a run-of-the-mill content dispute. You might well be right in your view of the matter, but I'm not seeing anything in Jayen's conduct that would at all warrant a warning from an administrator—even under the rather strict terms of Obama article probation. Based on a quick scan of the recent edit history, there clearly are some disagreements about article content, but for now I'd recommend continuing the discussion on the talk page. Apologies if that advice comes off as anodyne and otherwise unhelpful, but I see no cause for warnings or other administrative action at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to be cautious here so that the article is not locked down due warring with a single minded editor. See his comment about the booking photo on the commons [13]. This is not your garden variety content dispute. Mattnad (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well if edit warring becomes a problem let me know, though obviously it's best to avoid it in the first place. To be honest, the issue of whether, where, and how often we mention that Gates was held for "4 hours" seems incredibly trivial to me. Just reading the talk thread it's hard to understand why it's such a point of contention, but in any case I don't see any real cause for concern at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No argument there. Anyway, the length of incarceration time is not the issue for me, but the expectation that we plaster the press release all over the article. I'll probably go in and remove the quotebox later since it seems out of whack that that's given so much attention. How that's more prominent than something said by Obama is beyond me.Mattnad (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Old deleted article to userspace?

Hey there, if there's anything redeemable in Ultraviolence (band), could you dump it into User:Tarc/tmp? Came across some of my old gabber tapes the other day, might take a stab at getting it up to passable notability standards. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll find it at User:Tarc/Ultraviolence (band) (it's better to just start a new page). If you think you demonstrate notability and source it thoroughly enough you could probably just move it back into mainspace, though obviously someone still might AfD it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. It reads like a tour/promo flyer right now, but I'm fairly sure it is passable via WP:BAND #5. Surprised there's still an image around, as this is the only article that links to it, it should've been orphaned ages ago. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration or RFC/U

I think it has become clear that the environment on the Glenn Beck isn't suitable for collaborative, consensus editing or for that matter civil editing. As the admin in charge, do you think that the time has come for user conduct RFCs or Arbitration (as the RFC failed). Soxwon (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are even close to Arbitration (this is still just a content dispute, and the Arbs would not take the case as it stands right now), and user conduct RfCs don't really strike me as constructive for this either, particularly since they are usually employed for more general concerns about a certain editor. Despite the difficulties, I'd like to see if some progress can be made. I think if the temperatures can come down a bit it might be possible to work together. People who are unable to do that can probably be dealt with individually, but I think most everyone there is editing in good faith, it's just that the discussions and edit warring have spun out of control. It's only been a few days since I stepped in and took any admin action, so let's see how it goes for awhile—certainly the edit warring has already calmed down to some degree. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering ThuranX's history of personal attacks and the fact that there was another incident on another page, I've brought it to WP:AN/I per recommendation's at WP:WQA. I'm tired of it and this needs to stop. Soxwon (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable response to the situation, and I'll look in over at that thread in a moment. As you say ThuranX does have a history of incivility, and I myself have warned him for it on a couple of occasions in the past. It's extremely unfortunate (and unnecessary), particularly since we do a terrible job of handling uncivil editors who also do good work (as seems to be the case for Thuran). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm glad he's there. I know I can have a bit of a strong feeling for WP:BLP for anyone (and a conservative bias most likely) and having someone to check me on that is good. It's just the constant accusations of whitewashing and agendas that get me. I would be in favor of just a warning if it would stop the commentary, but I don't think that's going to be the case... Soxwon (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX would undoubtedly be very helpful at that page, and to some degree already has been, if he would simply lay off the incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Anyhow I've commented on ANI and we'll see if the discussion leads anywhere—like I said we generally don't come up with easy solutions (or indeed any solutions) to these kind of issues. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what do you think should be included in the article (or are you still forced to use the cone of silence?) Soxwon (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Cone of silence all the way! Unless I change my mind and just jump into the debate at some point, in which case I would not be using the admin tools obviously. I'm not too decided on many of the specifics actually. Beck is incredibly controversial, and indeed being controversial and provocative is a huge part of his "thing" so to speak, and it's obvious we have to talk about some of the reactions to what he has said and catalog some of his views, a number of which will seem inherently "controversial" to many (I think this is part of the problem—simply reporting what Beck said can come off as bias or criticism, because some of the things he says are, quite frankly, pretty out there in American politics).
As I said on the article talk page, I don't think there are actually easy answers. The whole "Obama is racist" think was pretty easy to justify because it led to advertisers pulling out and a whole slew of stories, but otherwise it gets more dicey. It is absolutely true that BLPs cannot contain every bit of notable criticism of that figure, but we also can't completely "whitewash" them obviously. I think we're experiencing a general issue with these kind of articles of late whereby "controversy" sections and "controversy" spinoff articles are becoming verboten, but we are not necessarily doing a good job incorporating "controversial" details about a particular person into their life. About a week ago the "Michael Moore controversies" article was redirected to Michael Moore, with some of the content apparently being merged. Perhaps not enough though given that Moore, like Beck, is very much a provocateur and as such himself the site of much controversy. So like I said I think the debate goes beyond Glenn Beck and is very much colored by our (justifiably) increasing sensitivity to BLP matters.
I guess that's a long way of saying "I don't know," but since events change quickly, and we are describing Beck's career in its most important (and still unfolding) phase, I think it makes things easier if we realize that we can (and will) change it all later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Gaydenver

What vandalism? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Gwen, I don't understand what you are asking. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Where is the vandalism? Diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Did I say there was vandalism? I'm sorry but you need to point me to whatever it is that prompted this note. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh I get it, it's linked in the block message. I thought I was using a different template so I'll change that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, your block notice put it as vandalism, but there was no vandalism, if you change the block notice to match the block log (disruption) I'll have no worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed now, thanks for catching that. I thought I was using a general "you've been blocked" template but obviously I wasn't (I prefer to put in a specific note anyway, and just use the templates to make unblock requests easier). Those template things are not my speciality, and I generally have to hunt around for the right one when implementing a block. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:TW ? ;p –xenotalk 20:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I never noticed Twinkle has automated block messages (I assume that's what you mean), probably because I started using it way before I became an admin and never took a close look at it afterward. I just use it for warnings, putting things up for AfD, etc. I'll take a look at that, though the browser I'm using right now (my Firefox was acting up) doesn't even have Twinkle configured (or whatever the word is). As you can tell, I am a brilliant computer programmer! Learning the code for the mdash a year or two ago was a massive achievement for me, and I'm still feeling really good about it. Please don't harsh my mellow by telling me there are other, even fancier things of which I am unaware—I beg you! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I won't tell you about User:Animum/easyblock.js. And yes, Twinkle has a nice robust list of blocking templates. You can even configure it to show the blocking templates by default, if you use them more than the warning templates. –xenotalk 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for ignoring my faux request, that's helpful info! I definitely warn more than I block, but I'll take advantage of Twinkle's block messages next time I have to do the latter. Cheers. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile he's on his 4th unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Preventing that editor from being able to edit their own talk page seems to have been required, unfortunately. I guess we'll see what happens when they come off their block but my hopes are not very high. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Likewise :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Maybe I'm being paranoid, but isn't it weird that 4 new editors sign up within 2 hours of each other and all of them basically limit their commentary to the Glenn Beck talk page? Soxwon (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and you're of course right that it is pretty suspicious. I would file an SPI report and ask for a Checkuser to be run, but honestly once I finish the Glenn Beck talk page comment I'm currently writing I'm off to bed and I just don't feel like dealing with this before then. I'll try to get to it tomorrow (though I may or may not be able to), but if anyone else wants to file a report in the meantime by all means have at it. Right now the accounts are not causing a problem, and one or more might be completely legitimate (perhaps spurred there by some of the internet chatter about the Glenn Beck article), but the last thing we need on that talk page is a sockfarm taking over the discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I had even more red flags after two started agreeing, and they all seem to be pro-Beck... Soxwon (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, that's the kicker—if it is socking it's pretty damn amateurish. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Report filed [14]. Soxwon (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Klein

Would you be interested in helping (or at least giving me pointers, online or by email) how to deal with Aaron Klein, famously the World Net Daily writer whose Jerusalem21 account was the focus of the whole Obama debacle? It seems pretty obvious that someone from his office continues to sock as an IP editor, and there is some bad blood. On the other hand, whatever his views on life he seems like a decent chap who just happens to have a lot of chutzpa and wants a name for himself, and if he really wants to be around on Wikipedia we could maybe bring him into the fold, lift the indefinite block, let bygones be bygones, and ask him to work with us in good spirits to get his article in good shape... If having a good article on Wikipedia indirectly leads to self-promotion, so be it. All articles should have that problem. As a model I've got a pretty good working relationship with the real-life Ted Frank (I saved his article from deletion and there had been some bad blood there in the past) when he notices a problem with his article. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So is this an issue that's ongoing at Aaron Klein, or is it somewhere else, or both? I just know the rough background to the Obama/WND thing but I was not watching the article closely then. And is User:Jerusalem21 actually Klein? I thought that was someone who worked with or for him. If so is Klein himself actually banned from Wikipedia? I really don't know. If he isn't he could maybe even just start editing, but if he wants the person who operated the Jerusalem21 account to be able to edit again then that would be a different matter.
I don't think I want to get much involved in this right now (it would be different if Klein himself was reaching out and asking to brought "into the fold," but from what you say that does not seem to be happening as yet), but I don't think there would be anything wrong with you getting in touch with him. You could try sending an e-mail explaining that you want to let bygones be bygones as it were and, since it seems likely that someone at his office is still editing, create a situation where he or someone he works with is able to help maintain his article, at the least by making suggestions and comments on the talk page. I think that would have to be ratified by the community at ANI or somewhere, and you also might want to talk to User:Wehwalt, who indeffed the Jerusalem21 account, before you get too far down the road. It's entirely possible though, obviously, that Klein doesn't care much for Wikipedia, doesn't want to be directly involved, and just wants to keep his entry up to his standards, so any efforts to reach out on your part might not yield much. If you do do that though, and he expresses interest, I would definitely be willing to consider helping to bring him into the community, so to speak, if others think that's a good idea. It might not go over well since it caused such a brouhaha before. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's actually a pretty unique situation, a person admitting in real life to having someone do proxy editing for them. To start with, we cannot accept on face value as true anything Klein says about the incident, or the Jerusalem21 account and various IP accounts in league with it. The article he wrote about Wikipedia was somewhere on in the conceptual triangle between fabricated, deliberately misleading, and simply wrong. Further, the Wikipedia accounts were clearly editing deceptively and in bad faith per Wikipedia policies. After that, why should we believe that his claim that an assistant did the edits is more honest than other claims that we know are false? Being a bad Wikipedian does not make someone a bad person off Wikipedia, any more than violating the code of journalistic ethics makes you a bad person if you are not a journalist. Politicians and businesspeople manipulate news stories all the time in service of their political and business ends, and journalists violate the political and business code in pursuit of journalism. We all have our roles. Nevertheless, the press has been judging "wiki fiddlers" who are "caught red handed" (as the Australian paper describes Klein) in a bad light. Whoever was operating those accounts was doing so in a less than honest way. What Klein admitted to, which may or may not be what happened, is directing an assistant to use the Jerusalem21 account to make test edits to add birther material to the Obama article to see what would happen. Right there, that is proxy editing. It would be meatpuppeting if he and the other editor were editing out of some implicit understanding, tag-teaming, or helping each other out. But editing the encyclopedia on behalf of another person is a very significant no-no. In fact, depending on the closeness of supervision, the edits can be attributed to Klein no matter who was at the keyboard. Claiming he didn't make them because it was his assistant would be like an Enron executive claiming that he did not commit investment fraud because it was actually his secretary who was typing while he was dictating. Under agency theory, it doesn't matter whose fingers were on the keys. This wasn't a casual case of some summer intern being overeager with an assignment - the same account and IP editors had been adding promotional material to Klein's article, and sometimes edit warring over that, for three years, and were widely regarded as COI/socks of Klein. If Klein were to appear on Wikipedia, we woud have a sockpuppeteer whose socks were blocked. As long as he admits he's the puppeteer and isn't operating other accounts, that may be fine. But if a random account connected to Klein pops up, it's just another sock. In practice, most any blocked / banned editor is welcome back as long as they edit constructively. Klein seems to be in the business of creating media stunts so he can write about them and self-promote himself and his publication. I think he wants his Wikipedia article to cover some of the controversies he has stirred up, whether notable (or true) or not. When you think of that, it's not all that evil to play journalism games. Some of the great writers and social commentators of all time made up stories and gamed the press - Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce, Ken Kesey, Ben Franklin... so that puts Klein in good company. It's just an anathema to the media they are hoaxing, in this case Wikipedia. He's not an angry tendentious editor, I think he's just having some fun. That's why I think there's some hope. He can have what he wants, his very own Wikipedia article that makes him out for who he is and does not cast judgment on him... and if he's willing to do that without causing a mess I think there's room for that because he does pass the notability threshold, and there are reliable sources. I think I'll approach him on my own, and if I get a positive response I think he can just go ahead and start... but to cover all the bases I'll post to WP:AN at that point to make sure nobody objects. Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States

Re, Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States, PROD removal,

Fair enough, I appreciate your reasoning; my worry is that it is such a vague title, and thus a magnet for original research. I'll have a think about it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably a problem as well, but if it is then so is the other one about supporters of same-sex marriage. Perhaps they should both be put up for AfD together, maybe they'll end up deleted or maybe someone will come up with a good solution to deal with both of them at the same time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of marriage equality in the United States

Hi, I just wanted to say that I actully support and want the title "Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" back for the article I made. Orginally all this info was on the Same-sex Marriage in the United States article which caused undue weight so in result I made this topic (Which now has problems sadly wit hthe title and such). Anyways here is the talk: Talk:Supporters of marriage equality in the United States#Title renaming I would thank any help or input you could offer =). Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (AT)

Okay, I'll take a look when I get a chance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


I sent you one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


I take the degradation of the world's largest encyclopedia very seriously. Book burning, censorship, and bias promote ignorance and do real damage. I'm well aware of the history of the Nazis and it disgusts me that Wikipedia's admins, including yourself, and aribtration committee have chosen to follow a course of actions that is chilling to open discourse and does real harm to our cause. Undermining the good faith efforts of those who want to build a free, fair and open information source is obscene. That it is achieved with a campaign of harassment and intimidation is an outrage. Maybe you feel as though you weren't the one who lit the fire in this recent round, but you certainly helped in the round up and build up of the pile. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting view (for reference C of M is replying to an e-mail I sent him advising him to remove imagery and text on his talk page which likens Wikipedia to Nazi Germany), and since I know you don't like to use diffs to make your case regarding the injustices on Wikipedia, perhaps a simple quantification will be helpful here. On a scale of 1 to 100, where 1 is magical unicorns who feed the hungry, spread happiness, and write a terrific encyclopedia, and where 100 is the Nazis with their book burning and censorship (and some other stuff I think--I'm not familiar with the whole history myself!), what number would you give my admin work on Wikipedia, or the work of the admin corps as a whole? Feel free to be exact, or to round up or down if that's easier. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Bigtimepeace has helped CoM many times as opposed to CoM's assessment. It is really disappointing me not only the eerie comparison with Nazi and the attacks toward really good-faith editors.--Caspian blue 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


As an admin, can you perhaps inform the discussion? Do you think a press release by his publisher/publicist touting his"candor" is a reliable source? I do not. ThanksJimintheatl (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on how it is used and worded, and whether or not there are other sources involved. I'm actually steering clear of the content conversations on that page for now though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the claim is that he's popular because of his candor. Any popular and controversial public figure could make the same claim. But it would be hard to prove. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand the issue, I'll just leave it for the other editors to work out though since I've been doing some "adminly" things on that page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
And "candor", as I see it, is just marketingspeak for "outspokenness". So a popular outspoken commentator is popular because he's outspoken. That's hardly a news flash. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Talk:Glenn_Beck#Anti-Beck_spoof_website? We are getting more sources for this, and some are reliable. I'm very cautious on this material due to its defamatory nature. Seems one thing to put it in a news story, and another to put it in an encyclopedia. The intent of the meme is to spread it.. "do no harm" makes me pause. The legal aspects seem to be unique, though not sure if such would justify it in Beck's biography or in some ancillary article on trademark or domain name law. I did make a suggestion for an inclusion once we received better sources. Thanks for any guidance you could provide. Morphh (talk) 12:41, 03 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Bigtimepeace, here is a heads up concerning my posting to the Bio of Living Person Noticeboard about a new article about the website: "Glenn Beck's dispute with Eiland-Hall over EH's use of Beck's name in a "parody" domain name." ↜Just M E here , now 15:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


I don't understand why you have to be rude and leave message on my talk page when you could have simply left them in the discussion page. I didn't read your message I simply deleted it. If you want to talk met me in the discussion page in his article. Dumaka (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page, which is pretty standard around here. Had you read it you would have seen it asked you to discuss the matter on the article talk page which you are now doing and that it was not rude in the slightest. There is absolutely nothing to get worked up about here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right, You were not being rude. I just don't like when people leave me messages on my talk page when it can be discussed elsewhere. My apologies for my accusations. Dumaka (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey BTP. I wasn't surprised by your comments supporting a dubious block against me. But I really must object to your smear that "ChildofMidnight writes a bunch of articles about strange food items and other off-beat topics and that's great..." Misrepresenting, demeaning and diminshing my contributions has been a regular meme from those going after me and I don't appreciate it coming from you.

I have made very substantial contributions on new page patrol, AfD, RfA, the noticeboards, and across a huge swath of articles on subjects great and small, often in collegial collaboration on difficult and disputed subjects. I deal with difficult editors all the time and have only had a recurring problem with one editor in particular and a small group of editors who share the same political ideology and disruptive approach to editing where they go after anyone who disagrees with them. They regularly engage in ad hominem attacks rather then focusing on the article content and sourcing issues and use policy and guidelines as a cudgel to harass other editors instead of working through disputes to resolve them accordign to our rules.

You have a different perspective, fine. But I am offended by your smear and minimization of my devoted article work. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean the comment as a smear in the slightest, and was quite serious when I said the work in question was "great"—just read what I wrote literally. I did not refer to every type of work you do, obviously, and was simply pointing out that you have done a lot of good work creating more off-beat articles. I'm not familiar with your every contribution, but your user page shows that you like to write on semi-quirky food-related topics and that you do a lot of it—pointing that out was not meant as a slight or minimization in any way. The flip side to that was that you run into a lot of trouble in political areas, and I think most readers would see that I was contrasting what I see as a problematic editing pattern (relating to politics) with a very constructive one (creating new articles in one topic area). I know you make contributions all over the place and I never said otherwise. I hope that clears it up and I'd like to now consider the matter closed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Statements like "ChildofMidnight writes a bunch of articles about strange food items and other off-beat topics and that's great" have been used repeatedly to try to minimize my contributions and to make it look like my only useful contributions are to fringey areas of the encyclopedia. That is grossly inaccurate. I make exceptional contributions across a wide swath of articles including MANY political subjects where editing is often difficult and contentious. If editors were encouraged to focus on article content and sourcing issues, instead of ad hominem attacks we could get a great deal more done. Your statement plays into the character assasinations and pigeon holing. As you haven't amended or clarified it we're not done. You've offended and smeared me with a misleading and inaccurate statement about the nature of my editing, and at the very least you would do well to correct your mistake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with the original statement (except for the way you reacted to it, which is your problem not mine), particularly since I further clarified it to you here which apparently means nothing to you. Believe it or not, you cannot require me to refer to your article work in a certain way, and it's more than a bit uncouth to badger me into changing my comment because you don't think it praises your work sufficiently. It's downright rude coming from someone who has accused me (dozens of times) of being a censor, a POV pusher, abusive, an enabler of thugs and (in what for me was the last straw) akin to Nazi stormtroopers. Honestly you should be amazed I complimented you at all and left it at that, rather than trying to force me to think about you the way that you think about yourself. I'll also point out that you are literally the only editor I know who has the chutzpah to say "I make exceptional contributions." When your Wiki-ego is that firmly intact, you should not really be bothered by the perceived (but not actually real) slights of others.
Luckily for you, I do want you to go away, so I have made this change which explains that you make other good contributions besides the contributions you highlight most prominently on your own user page—namely creation of articles related to food. Next time I make mention of the fact that you do good work I'll be sure to include a full list of every area of the encyclopedia to which you contribute in order to avoid your 37th unwarranted and unsupported complaint about me on my talk page (did you know that, after me, you are the most frequent editor of this page with 75 edits? And almost every edit is you complaining about something terrible I did that no one else thinks is terrible except you! How fun for me!).
Now please go away as you are severely harshing my mellow, namely my previous pledge to not interact with you directly anymore. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Your edit summary was a bit pointy, but I apprecite your making the clarification. Your original statement was very problematic and (intentional or not) was consistent with those made by others trying to belittle me and my work. Have a nice day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No no, the edit summary was quite accurate as an explanation for the edit. You clearly complained right here on this thread that I was not giving you enough credit for all the good work you do so I amended my statement, which I did not think was actually necessary. The original statement I made was only problematic for one person (you) because you decided to make it a problem, which is to say you should not have bothered me about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere have I ever asked you to give me credit for my contributions. But I do expect you not to smear me or belittle my work. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, but since I clearly have not done that at all (I complimented you, but only about some of the work you've done, which you felt was a problem), you have nothing to complain about, and absolutely no reason to even tell me that you expect me not to smear or belittle you, anymore than I would have a reason to tell you that I expect you not to throw water balloons at my living room window. Please don't read into my comments perceived slights that exist only in your own head—that's what I expect.
Now please leave my talk page. I don't want to have to ask a third time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AIV Report

I see where you are coming from but I did see that the last warning the user was issued was a level four which led me to believe that I should then report him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talkcontribs)

Replied here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


I was just wondering what you think I should do to prepare if you don't think I am ready? Anything you can provide would be helpful.

P.S. I do believe that you as an administrator can delete my administrator request if I request that you do so, and since you think I am not prepared enough I would be fine with you removing it.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk Contribs 06:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleon Skousen

I came across your remarks in reference to Cleon Skousen on the Glenn Beck talk page and agree with your rationale. In the coming days I am going to try to improve and expand Skousen's article and introduce a section on Beck's article in reference to his influence. Your collaboration, assistance, suggestions, and feedback is of course welcome and appreciated if you have the time. Nice to meet you.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I was waiting for a bit more feedback but was going to add in an additional sentence or two on Skousen to Beck's article at some point. If you want to work on that maybe just weigh on the talk page discussion at some point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I took your advice and have done so on the talk page.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Redesigning discussion groups, wiki way

Big, I am wondering if you'd like to help us redesign our discussion group to make it more compatible with the traditional wiki decision making processes? I was thinking that since most concerns are related to possible problems with WP:CANVASS you could help us design a wiki page, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe, which would eliminate the need to announce Wikipedia content discussions off wiki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any huge brilliant ideas I'm afraid, but I guess something along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard was what I had in mind. That project seems to rely on this deletion sorting system, but I see no reason why AfDs and other key discussions could not just be listed on a main noticeboard page which anyone is welcome (indeed encouraged) to edit and watchlist. It doesn't have to be anything too fancy, and the LGBT noticeboard page is probably a decent enough model. So maybe you could just create Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard (or a similar page, but I'm guessing that's the best general place to do it even though there are not that many project members) and invite/urge everyone who might have an interest in it to watchlist the page and add discussions to the page which may be of interest to other editors. I think that would solve the canvassing problem pretty handily so long as the page was widely publicized.
Regardless of whether something like that gets created or not, I think it's great you're looking into other avenues for publicizing discussions. Just to relate my own experience with something similar, a now-retired user had a noticeboard for "conspiracy theory-oriented Afds". I was a bit wary of that, not because I'm a notorious conspiracy theorist (quite the contrary!) but because sometimes some of the things listed there seemed to have been listed for more political, as opposed to notability, reasons. So at first I objected, but then I simply watchlisted the noticeboard and participated in many of the AfDs (sometimes agreeing with the proposed deletion, sometimes not). It worked fairly well I think. If there was an Eastern Euro topics noticeboard, it would be most effective if the active editors on all sides were committed to keeping an eye on it and listing related discussions at the page. Probably the ideal thing would be for the ethic among all active editors in that area to feel that key discussions must be listed at that page, and to fail to do so would be a bit of a faux pas.
There might well be problems with this approach which I'm not seeing, but that's what comes to mind. As far as page design—good god am I not your man! Graphic design and coding know-how are pretty far from my specialties. But if you work up something I'd be glad to take a look at it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert warnings @ Glenn Beck

So twice now you have warned me about making 2 reverts on the article. The 1st time I thought you were a little too quick with the warning and was a slightly peeved but this time I want to thank you. Your work on the article and (IMO more importantly) the talk page has been invaluable and is most appreciated. Moreover, in retrospect, your note on my talk page was exactly what I needed to push me to take a break and have a nice cup of Earl Grey. Thank you for being the voice of reason. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad you feel I've been helpful so far. Things seemed to have calmed down a lot from where they were a few weeks ago (fingers crossed) and editors are working together pretty well which is great. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Lies, damned lies and statistics" (Mark Twain)

Some political stats from New Jersey (the state where I live)! ;^) ↜Just M E here , now 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


I've read some of the exchanges you have had with Cptnono and the Glenn Beck article. As far as him editing to "make a point", read the most recent edits he has made and the corresponding edits on the talk page to get a feel for whether or not you think he is doing more of the same today. Let's just say that I'm not a fan of his ways of "communication". Thanks for looking into this. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY and the Glenn Beck article

Because you did such a bang-up job with stepping in last week over what was happening in the Glenn Beck article, may I impose upon you to try and do more of the same in the same article - this time concerning reversion actions being taken by ObserverNY? The heavy-handedness of some editors of this article is starting to become more than annoying and ridiculous (IMO). For the most recent examples, please see the article's talk section entitled, "Break" (at the end of the section). Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Bigtimepeace, I've made a proposal on the talkpage about sort of a "volutary probation" [Edited: a mutual agreement among regulars to stingently follow existing editing guidelines with almost a zero tolerance for our not doing so] for the Glenn Beck page -- here: Talk:Glenn Beck#another break. Would you consent to be available to us as a go-to admin for counsel and/or administrative action, if needed? (If we were to agree to this idea, that is.) ↜Just M E here , now 22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
To both, I'm out of town right now and don't really have time to look at the situation over there, however I'll check in on it late Monday or sometime on Tuesday. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion sought

I am seeking your honest and frank opinion. Over three months have passed since I was given a topic ban on Obama-related articles for 6 months (although I voluntarily began avoiding these articles on June 1). Since then, I have tried to keep my nose clean, avoid drama, and remain a productive Wikipedian. I did get involved in a bit of argy-bargy at DreamHost (which involved another brief flirtation with ArbCom), but other than that it's been a relatively peaceful four months. I was wondering if you thought it would be worth my while appealing to ArbCom to have my topic ban either partially or fully lifted, on the basis of good behavior? I would still remain under the one-revert-per-week-per-page limitation, of course. What do you think? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well rather than giving you a definitive answer (it's much easier to hedge!) let me mention a few things to think about and then maybe you can go from there. First of all, as you say, you have had a fairly (or maybe very) clean nose from what I can tell, and I do think the ArbCom appreciates that (it stands in contrast to the other topic-banned editor, who has ended up before the committee and on ANI for a variety of Obama-related issues). If you just wait out the topic ban without asking for it to be shortened, with no problems along the way, and if upon returning to Obama editing none of the problems seen before crop up, you will likely stand yourself in very good stead with the committee. I think the Arbs, like most editors, are very impressed with someone who makes a few mistakes, accepts any sanctions gracefully but goes on editing, and then improves their behavior going forward. Asking them to shorten your "sentence", so to speak, might (while perfectly legitimate as a request) create a bit of an "oh god, this stuff again!" involuntary reaction among some of the Arbs who are sick of hearing about Obama drama. This would be a possible drawback, but it's also quite possible they would just hear your plea fairly and not at all be bothered by it.
If you decide you do want to do this, you should probably think in terms of explaining why you want/need to return to editing those articles earlier (akin to how an RfA candidate needs to explain why they need the admin tools). Do you think one or more of the Obama articles needs help in terms of management of talk page discussion? Do you have specific content suggestions you feel are important and which you would like to be able to discuss now because some article or articles are falling behind in terms of quality? Et cetera. If it's more just, "I'd like to head back over there and get back into the mix," that's probably not a strong enough justification to rescind the ban a bit early. If you do pursue this route, you might also propose certain restrictions on yourself so it's thought of more as being on "probation." For example you could agree to only edit article talk pages if you are mainly just interested in helping with the contentious discussions there, which would mean there's no risk of edit warring (Grundle2600 recently came off a community-imposed political articles topic ban which still allowed him to comment on article talk pages, so there's a very recent precedent for this). Also since I think the main issue for you in the past (as I think you acknowledge) has been an occasional tendency to lapse into incivility when you get frustrated, you could tell the Arbs that if anything like that crops up again (even once) you're willing to go right back onto the topic ban for the remainder of the original time. In that case what you'd basically be asking is to be let out on "parole" a couple of months early. The key then would be to not screw up at all, because to be taken off a topic ban and then throw around a couple of attack type comments which get you back on the topic ban would obviously not make you look very good.
In the end the main thing is probably how important it is to you to try to have the ban ended prior to the 6-month date. If you feel there's stuff you need to/should be doing over there which would really help the project, then I'd say probably go for it. If you don't really mind waiting a bit longer (basically 2 1/2 months by next week) then it might be better to just continue doing what you've been doing, which is working in other areas and avoiding anything remotely connected to Obama. In the end it's obviously not that big of a deal either way, so I wouldn't stress it too much. Let me know what you decide. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I really appreciate you taking the time to come up with a thoughtful and insightful response. After thinking about it for a bit, I don't think my reasons for wanting to appeal the topic ban are adequate. My main reason for asking you about this was simply because I found the entire topic fascinating, so I enjoyed editing the articles and participating in the debates (although not the arguments). Another reason was that the articles had a common group of editors I enjoyed working with (including yourself), and not being able to participate has resulted in what I like to call "a sense of social reward" being somewhat diminished - although I realize that social aspects of Wikipedia are more of a consequence of participation than any sort of project goal. Neither of these seem particularly significant, so I suppose waiting out the topic ban is probably the best way to go. Thank you for being my "go-to guy" on these sorts of matters. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem, sounds like a good choice to me. It'll be December before you know it! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan.png Wikis Take Manhattan

Next: Saturday October 10
This box: view  talk  edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.


WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets


Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.



You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What goes up...

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
Nice job of popping that balloon. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While I supported deletion, that was an admirable closure, and the only proper one that an uninvolved administrator could make. As the cherry on top, it was well written. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly sir I disagree with your action. It was your power and right to do it. There was no real harm in letting the discussion run the full length. Odds are after 7 full days we will have enough perspective to know weather this is a worth while topic or not.--Hfarmer (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It's more likely that after 7 days we'd have had another 100 pages of wibbling, and still no consensus - good call. DB103245talk 11:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Dropping a line to support your bold closure. The actions suggested make complete sense in light of the volume and venomous content of the comments, and the suggestion to wait a month before restarting AFD make proper sense. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Nice one, well done and well explained - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse this barnstar. I was thinking of giving you a barnstar myself, but one barnstar per action is enough. I happen to disagree with one of the finer points you made in your closer, and have said as much on in the related media blitz. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse (obviously) and thanks for doing that. –xenotalk 14:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Keegan (in spite of the tl;dr closing statement) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse - thank you for bearing balls. Also kind of intriguing how a DRV started up on your talk page. @harej 15:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with the closure, the barnstar, and with Keegan's side compliment on the good writing. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly endorse the barnstar and commend you for wading knee-deep through that mess of a discussion and providing one of the most thoughtful, evenhanded and well-reasoned closures that I've seen. —David Levy 18:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Brilliant close. I fully intend on quoting your rationale in the future as an essay. ~ Amory (utc) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks to Colonel Warden for the barnstar and to all the other editors for their comments here. While I initially though a DRV was a bad idea, it's already been closed and thus has not wasted a lot of time, while also allowing us to see that most editors are happy with the early close of the AfD, so I think it's actually good that Prodego opened that. Hopefully at some point soon we can figure out better ways to deal with these kind of AfDs and the immediate creation of "big new news" articles that spawn them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer - could you drop me a line when you get that essay ready? I'd love to read it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse - You were right, there was going to be no consensus no matter how long the AFD discussion ran. Closing the discussion early as "no consensus" was a tough call, but a good one. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Indeed, well done, and well said. (Had to include the diff, since I took the time to grab it.) Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Colorado balloon incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Colorado balloon incident. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Prodego talk 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, obviously I disagree but I'll leave it up to the community to decide what to do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grundle2600: continued problems

This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you guys made the right call in the end. After getting topic banned, Grundle immediately went and whined about it at Free Republic and claims to have contacted Matt Drudge as well. Sorry you wasted so much of your time trying to "save" this guy from himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well that was an unfortunate reaction, and no doubt would only have deepened the sense that an indefinite topic ban was necessary. Too bad it had to come to that, but I don't think there was any way around it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oshkosh Area United Way

I noticed that you deleted Oshkosh Area United Way as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". When I encounter an article that seems to be advertising but which has a possibly notable subject, I prefer to cut it back to a neutral stub rather than tag it for neutral deletion. Some evidence of notability can be found in [ this Google News archive search[. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be one approach, but I did not think it was the right one here. The article was written as a pure advertisement (quite blatantly and badly) and those kind of things cannot just sit around in my view. Sure, I could try to stub it down and find sources, but when trying to clean up some of the stuff in the speedy delete category I'm not going to stop and do that every or even most of the time (I'm sure you can imagine how much time that could take up in order to be done properly). There's absolutely nothing stopping you or any other editor (including the one who originally wrote the article, and I'd offer them tips if they asked me) from re-creating that article in a non advert way using actual sources. Since there was very little if anything usable from the deleted version (it was written in a "we" tone with no sourcing), your suggestion would basically require me to create the article from scratch. I just think that's a somewhat unrealistic expectation for an admin going through deleting blatantly spammish material and other things that really do need to be speedy deleted. There's a permanent backlog there as I'm sure you know.
FYI I don't think I'm an overly trigger happy admin on CSDs and I do sometimes do quick clean up on articles I come across when looking at CSD requests. You may have noticed I declined the speedy delete request for William E. Bentley (which you later helped save at AfD) and somewhat wikified the article after doing so. I don't think the situation with Oshkosh Area United Way was analogous, and would add that the sources a Gnews search for the past 20 years turns up which you mention above (7 articles, none which appear to be focused on the organization) don't suggest a particularly notable group.
Thanks for your feedback though even if I disagree with your argument, and feel free to comment to me on other issues like this in the future. For what it's worth I've seen you around AfD before and from what I can recall you seem to do very good work there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor

this [15] and this [16] at User talk:Jake Wartenberg#Request for examples of no-consensus deletions. I'd appreciate it. I posted responses on the Shankbone DRV talk page and at AFD. If you think I haven't done everything I could to answer any remaining concerns, feel free to tell me. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area
Last: 09/13/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Promises, promises

You have a funny way of keeping your word Bigtimepeace. I could have sworn you promised to cease your abusive attacks, threats, and intimidation against me. I have done my best to avoid conversing and interacting with you because of your past behavior and per your request, but if you are going to launch slanderous attacks and distortions against me then I will, of course, have to respond. Do you want me to produce the diff where you noted your politics (therby disproving false claims at ANI)? Or the ones of your talk page history where you promised to stop coming after me? I think it would be better if we went our separate ways and focused on improving the encyclopedia. You do make article contributions don't you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the second sentence, I'm afraid you were mistaken. I never "promised to cease [my] abusive attacks, threats, and intimidation against [you]" any more than I promised to stop beating my girlfriend, since I do and did neither of those things. I did say I was "utterly done interacting" (that may or may not be an exact quote) with you directly (I'll find the diff if it's important to you). That meant I was done talking to you, which has continued to be the case excepting the two occasions (including this one) when you have come to my talk page. If other editors want to start an RFC on your behavior I'll hold my nose and dive in because I think you cause some problems around here and an RFC might be one step in the direction of a solution that would help everyone including you. I could participate in that and still avoid interacting with you—something which I decided to do after you repeatedly compared other editors to Nazis.
I never denied that I mentioned something about my politics. What I did not do, and what you incorrectly asserted I did do, was "brag about being to the left of Obama politically." I know exactly what you are talking about, but your characterization of the incident is ludicrous. The context of me first mentioning something about my political views was a discussion (which we previously had discussed here FYI) I started on the Barack Obama talk page with the section title "concrete proposal for adding in a bit of criticism." This was many months ago, but it was during a time when many (including you) were calling for more criticism in his bio article, and I was actually trying to address that concern. When others were objecting to my proposal, I mentioned something about either voting for Obama and/or being on the political left as a way to say that not everyone who thought the article could use some more criticism was a conservative anti-Obama person. That's the "bragging" to which you so bizarrely refer.
This is the deep irony of you repeatedly throwing in my face the fact that I was once or twice up front about some aspect of my politics in the interests of being transparent during a discussion. While doing so, I was agreeing with a larger point you were making! I think this might be a consistent problematic pattern for you C of M. Sometimes you become so convinced that someone is against you, that you do not even listen to what they are saying, or look at the facts of the matter at hand. On multiple occasions (prior to the ArbCom case, which I don't think I really even participated in) I asked you to come over and help work on the Barack Obama article, for example by expanding the presidency section, which I thought needed criticism and general expansion. I was being completely serious, but you never took me up on that. You did lob grenades at me every time I warned you or Grundle2600 about a problematic edit, or did something else that made you see red. Obviously at some point you decided I was abusive and editing with an agenda and now I can never convince you otherwise, the actual facts be damned.
I wish you viewed Wikipedia less as a battlefield, and I think if you did you'd have a lot less difficulty here. Unlike the way in which you view me, I don't think you edit with an agenda. I'm quite certain that you are doing what you think is best for the project (and that most of the things you do are good for the project). Just because someone disagrees with what you do, or even sees it as disruptive, does not mean that they are an enemy of you or Wikipedia (you often seem to think that someone who is the former is also the latter). I've said this to you before but I'll say it again—you do not handle criticism very well, at least on Wikipedia. It's important to try to see things from the perspective of others on this project, obviously. I see your points about Barack Obama and some other related articles being too whitewashed or controlled, and while I haven't even looked at those in awhile certainly there were ways in the past in which I would have agreed with you. Sometimes I see your comments at ANI or elsewhere about abusive admins, and while I don't think you go about it in at all the right way, I think there are real concerns about administrator abuse of power and, even more so, lack of accountability, and I think that it's important that people speak up about that. I've spoken out against the behavior of some of the admins about whom you have complained the most, including at least one (now desysopped) before you ever started editing here.
In turn you might try to see things a bit from my perspective. One aspect of that, which relates directly to you, is that nearly every time you come to this talk page (which is very often relative to all other people on earth) you launch into attack mode and accuse me of terrible things. I've edited here for a good while and had a lot of interactions (including a number of heated ones), and you are literally the only person who has ever done that. The comment you left above was not, in my view, at all respectful to me (including the apparent and unsubtle dig at my contributions). I have no problem with you disagreeing with things that I do or say (has anyone about whom you have complained here on Wikipedia taken as much time to respond to those complaints as I have?), but please do so a bit more respectfully (e.g. avoid accusations of slander, abuse, threats, etc.) and without trying to pick a fight. Again from my perspective, the above comment looks more like the latter than an effort to actually have a discussion, and I'm asking you to try to see things from where I sit. I spent more time writing this then I expected but I hope some of it is getting through. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


I asked you to refactor in the section above (titled "Please refactor"). Would you please do so? Would you please reply? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not have time to deal with this when I saw you last message and completely forgot about it since then (I didn't really edit at all last weekend, Halloween and football and dinner parties took up my time). I'll go add a note to those comments now, though it really does not seem like a big deal to me since I've already taken back the sentiment elsewhere. However if it's important to you no problem, obviously. Incidentally my comments on that page are not the only ones you would presumably take issue with (see the reply of Hipocrite to one of my posts). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I know, I know. One step at a time. Appreciate it. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood shooting

Hi, I've been having a conversation (via the article talk page and our own pages) with over a source which he raised on the talk page. Essentially, this source (I think it's the Wall St Journal) gives an earlier time for the events than the WP article and (frankly, every) other news source I've seen. Obviously, with so much information coming out so quickly and the various corrections we've had to make (number of victims, number of shooters etc) it's important to make sure the source is accurate and the WP article is up to date. I wondered if you had an opinion? I'll put it here for your convenience HJMitchell You rang? 06:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ (at least in its reportage) is normally an extremely reliable source, but I wonder if they did not just make an error here. As you say other sources seem to say otherwise in terms of the time (1:34), and as is noted by the Houston Chronicle (and no doubt others) here "U.S. military forces worldwide observed a moment of silence this afternoon to mark the moment 24 hours earlier, at 1:34 p.m., that a gunman killed 13 people..." Ultimately our best source as to the time is the people in charge of Fort Hood, so if U.S. military forces worldwide observed a moment of silence (Congress did this as well incidentally) at 1:34 the next day, I'll assume that's the correct time and the Journal just made a mistake. I think we should leave the article as it is for now, though obviously if more info comes out we can adjust accordingly. I'll link to my comment here on the article talk page so and others can see it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of anything else to support it and the overwhelming contradiction by every other news agency I've seen, I'm inclined to agree. Just thought it was worth raising. Thanks, HJMitchell You rang? 06:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
For keeping your cool on this and other pages. Your level-headedness and civility is greatly appreciated. Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments

There's a request for comments on whether Wikipedia:Notability (news events) should be a guideline. As you've commented on AfD debates on articles that might be covered by this proposal, you might wish to comment here. Thanks. Fences&Windows 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I was going to contact a lot of people who've commented on such AfDs with a similar note, but the number involved in just the Colorado Balloon Boy AfD debate has made me reconsider. So this wasn't intended as canvassing! Fences&Windows 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the note and I'll take a look at to some point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


I don't recall you being active in Waterboarding (at least recently), so perhaps you could be an uninvolved administrator here. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have a chance to take a look at this, and it's now been marked resolved and archived. William S. Saturn was obviously warned which I think was the appropriate action. Without having looked into the full situation in much detail I can say that his editing has been problematic (I know this from past and recent experience) and there seem to be multiple administrators aware of the issues at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm doing my best to stay away from him. He can be a bit WP:DIS. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for a very eloquent comment. Very much a pleasant surprise that it came from you. Best regards, Durova366 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Like you, I too am always surprised when I say something eloquent! (I jest, I jest—I know what you meant, but there's a more amusing way in which your straightforward compliment can be read.  :-) ) I thought the editor's response to your concern was (indeed still is) childish and offensive and it pissed me off enough to say something about it (though I'm just a boy, it's quite easy to rouse my deep-seated feminist ire—I blame too much academic reading, a high female-to-male friend ratio, and growing up in the 80s watching shows like Kate & Allie, Murphy Brown, and Designing Women without realizing how they were warping my fragile mind). Anyway having needlessly inflammatory stuff on his user page was bad enough, but getting snarky with another editor after being quite justifiably called on it just isn't acceptable. Systemic bias is enough of a problem around here as it is.
Finally while we may have disagreed in the past on a number of occasions (the specifics of most of which I cannot even recall, and we've definitely agreed on a number of issues), don't be at all surprised to find me taking your part on a given issue or backing up your argument when I think it's right, which is not infrequently (also don't be surprised to find me saying, "yo, you are like so wrong here!"...except more eloquently than that...hopefully). In all seriousness though, and as I've said before, I have a lot of respect for the work you do here. Any past disagreements are nothing more than that and play little or no role in how I might evaluate a comment or argument of yours which I happen to come across. Thanks for the note, and best regards to you as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the comments on my talk page, I found your personal attacks to be offensive. But I have thick skin. Then I saw the continuation of the personal attacks on this page. I find it to be highly inappropriate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you were offended. I would point out that I commented only on your behavior, and not remotely about you as a person, and in my book calling out someone on the way they are acting is not at all a "personal attack." My comments were strongly worded and admittedly harsh, but I stand by them and certainly did not make them lightly. You did not bother to reply to anything I said, so I have no idea what you found "offensive" or "inappropriate" in particular. Here on my talk page I referred to your response to another editor's concern as being "childish and offensive" as well as "snarky" and to the image on your user page as being "needlessly inflammatory." Again harsh, but I think accurate, and again these are behavioral descriptions backed up with some logic. I'd respond to your complaint here with more specificity but I do not know what you found to be "highly inappropriate" other than the fact that I vehemently disagreed with the way you were behaving. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't understand how the image is "degrading of women," which seems to be the basis of the criticism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I did not say it was degrading of women (and that was not the original complaint by Durova either), though many would find it to be so. I think I explained pretty well, at least from my point of view, the problem with the image, namely that it's not safe for work, school, etc. You said you didn't agree with that argument but I can't imagine why, unless you think every workplace and school on earth is okay with their employees or students viewing that kind of material at work or school. Durova also pointed out that the image would be off-putting to some female contributors, and surely you can understand how that would be so. Additionally, considering that we are writing an encyclopedia and that none of us actually "own" our user pages, I don't think images like that are very "professional", for lack of a better word. In a sense Wikipedia is a (volunteer) workplace, and our user pages could be thought of as office cubicles or desks which we do not own but rather are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (they own the servers). I would bet a very large sum of money that you would not post a blowup of the photo in question on your office cubicle wall in a real-world job, and it's not so different when we are dealing with a volunteer project that is trying to foster a collegial working environment and also produce a well-written encyclopedia that will be respected and used by millions of people from all walks of life. Anyhow you've removed it from your user page (not sure why you feel it's necessary to then put it on your talk page, but whatever) which is appreciated. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Endless Manhattan Streets and Etc

You managed to come up with the explanation for the situation I think I wish I could have thought up, and I do see the need to run them through RfD in bulk if needbe. In hindsight, I misinterpreted the purpose of the ANI as a "well should we not allow this (to avoid precedent)?" and that deletion would have been a aftereffect of making a statement quazi-officially adding to apparently growing desires to include every street for anywhere whatsoever. It's true there's nothing wrong with the redirects-- they're just incredibly superfluous and not a one will probably ever see a hit. I don't have any intention on requesting deletes out of semantics-- waste of everyone's time.... If I ever see a new article on NPP using the street name wikified under suggestion a place it notable because it's on that street? Different story. I'm just oddly particular about precedence and wish we had a database for it, since it would spare troubles in later conflicts. Consensus can change of course, but a starting point is always good where possible Anyway, thanks for your consideration on the matter and helping me hit myself over the head with a hammer to remind myself that I've done enough RfD for one day. Cheers~ daTheisen(talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Datheisen, I understood the basic concern, and obviously had we been talking about the creation of stubbed articles (rather than redirects) for every East-West street in Manhattan it might well have been a different story. I agree that the redirects will likely not be all that useful, but on the other hand as a New Yorker (and enough of a Wikinerd to know that you can get straight to particular article titles by using parentheses and a more specific phrasing) I might actually type 46th Street (Manhattan) into the search box if I had some reason to look into more specifics about that street (which for someone like me interested in urban history is not as odd as it might sound). In any case no harm done at all by bringing it up for discussion, and perhaps we'll even have full-blown articles on all of the Manhattan cross streets at some point—odds are actually good that a lot of folks would find that useful given the historic and cultural significance of NYC. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Big

Looking at my dynamic list of Many administrators. And noticed your name. then I saw your last edit, to see if you were still active and noticed you closed the ANI I was in. Good call.

I was interested in getting a copy of User:KPS4Parents transferred to User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents or emailed to me. I know this is a user page, but it was not deleted by the user, it is a topic which was brought up to me by Collect discussed at User_talk:Collect#Odd_Mfd.3F. Ikip (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored and userfied per your request, and have left a note on User:Collect's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Have a wonderful turkey day tomorrow. Best wishes. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


For confirming my opinion of the article which was so quickly deleted and my concern that those who deleted it were not acting in accord with reasonable courtesy to new editors! Collect (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

More thanks

Thanks for the good questions at my RfA, and for the words of support. I'll take it slowly, it'll be a while until I get to Colorado balloon incident levels of boldness in my admin actions. Fences&Windows 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom comment

Bravo. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I can only assume it was the cranberry sauce reference that ultimately elicited your cheer. I don't touch the stuff myself, but I know it's beloved by many! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


I was wondering if you could possibly userfy User:GVK BIO to User:Marcusmax/Sandbox 2. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 20:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Couple quick questions—are you aware of the article GVK Bio Sciences? It's the same topic obviously. Some of the content on the deleted user page might be able to augment that entry, but it might be better to simply e-mail the content to you rather than userfying. If that's okay with you that's how I'll proceed since I see your e-mail is enabled. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes that would be smarter, thanks! -Marcusmax(speak) 00:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You should have e-mail from me, if not let me know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a copyvio, oh well what can you do. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous correction

With regard to this edit of a protected page, could you please undo it? "Judgement" is the British English spelling and the article is written in British English; the spellings shouldn't be altered to the American versions per WP:ENGVAR. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rule Britannia

[17] The article has been claimed as a British subject, with the Union Jack planted somewhere on the talk page, so Queen's English and Her spelling rule: therefore "judgement" the way they spell it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I see I'm late to the party. Shoulda checked. I'm making my heading a subheading (too good to get rid of). JohnWBarber (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for showing good judgment in restoring the proper spelling of judgement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks to Chris and John for the tip, I've reverted myself so now we are back to the original spelling. Oddly I'd never realized that "judgement" was proper spelling in British English as I'm generally fairly aware of the differences in American and British spelling, punctuation, etc. I find that extra "e" terribly uncouth myself, but of course I bow before the Rule Brittania edict and WP:ENGVAR. Sorry to cause the trouble, and I guess it should teach me to edit over protection even when I'm just "fixing" a spelling error. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've written judgment a gazillion times in various jobs and every time I do it I have to think about keeping the extra "e" out because I'm just itching to do it. I guess I used to read too many British magazines and books in my misspent youth (I have to think about "criticize" too. Over time, I think UK and US styles will slowly converge, but probably no faster than the metric system coming here (in other words, probably not in our lifetimes). Wikipedia's made some interesting compromises beyond WP:ENGVAR, such as putting commas outside some quotes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It's odd because like you I've read a ton of stuff written in British English but somehow haven't noticed the spelling of the word judgment, or have noticed it in the past but managed to delete that part of my brain (I do that from time to time). Oddly, not long after seeing your last note here on my talk page I was reading a few pages of Keith Thomas's terrific new book and right there after a couple of paragraphs was "judgement" plain as day (and I'm quite convinced Keith Thomas knows how to spell!). It was sorta like buying a car (which is thankfully not necessary for me as a subway rider) and then "realizing" that that make and model is all over the road. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Just out of curiosity, do you think that this would technically prevent me from possibly participating in this, if it ever happened? I feel, for example, that I have been prevented from requesting enforcement of certain ArbCom sanctions because of that body's failure to clarify whether or not that would violate an interaction restriction. This would seem to be a related issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, you probably ought not participate in a user conduct RfC (if it occured) per the ArbCom ruling. Technically the ruling just says that you cannot "interact" and simply participating in that editor's RfC would not have to lead to interaction, but my read is that it would go against the spirit if not the letter of the ruling. If it comes to that point and you would like to participate in some fashion your best bet would be to contact the committee and ask them if that would be acceptable. Finally in terms of requesting enforcement, one way to go about it would be to e-mail the Arbs or an admin if you see something troublesome but don't want to risk violating your restriction. That too somewhat goes against the spirit though, and I'd say you would only want to report something if it seemed particularly problematic and no one else noticed it. This is just my feeling though and by no means the official word on the matter—I tend to believe one should err on the side of caution when it comes to ArbCom restrictions.
One thing that I'm concerned by is that that the interaction ban between you and C of M (and C of M and Wikidemon) seems to be permanent per the wording. The topic ban applied to you and C of M is up in a couple of weeks, and I'm guessing both of you will return to editing Obama pages which is obviously fine. You and Wikidemon have obviously been very heavy participants on Obama talk pages in the past, and C of M is fairly verbose too. Since you'll all be able to edit there and weigh in whenever you care to I wonder if the interaction ban might be difficult to stick to even if you are trying to (for example you might be taking different positions in the same talk page thread which starts to get pretty dicey). It might be useful to clarify with ArbCom how that is to be dealt with. Let me know if you have any thoughts about that, otherwise I might file a request for clarification at some point in the next week or so, or just contact an individual Arb which might be the easier route. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I was just talking to Wikidemon about that very possibility (see his talk page). I'm certainly planning to return to editing those articles (although I will be starting "small", in lower-trafficked sub-articles to start with). It seems inevitable that the condition you postulate will arise, so certainly a clarification will need to be sought, but the interaction restriction technically prevents me from seeking that clarification (how effed-up is that?). I did ask Carcharoth about how to handle enforcement matters a while back, but nothing was resolved. Matters might be further complicated by the ArbCom elections, of course. Over the past few months, I have found myself effectively "hounded out" of certain articles or discussions simply because CoM either turned up, or was somehow previously involved. A recent acrimonious AfD that I participated in turned out to be an article created by CoM (although I was not aware of this until long after I !voted), and I was effectively told to bugger off. I found myself surrounded by editing buddies and acquaintances of CoM, all attacking every comment or statement I made - very unpleasant. Certainly it would be helpful if the scope of these interaction restrictions could be clarified in some way. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll look into this at some point, either in the immediate future or later in the weekend. I'll probably post a note to an Arb to see if that elicits anything and then file a request for clarification if they prefer, though really just some quick advice on how these situations have been dealt with in the past is probably sufficient. You don't have to worry about doing anything for now. It's better for all three of you if there is some clarity about this matter by the time we get to the end of December. (PS--That photo you linked to on Wikidemon's talk page is ridiculous—it's also a cultural studies article just waiting to happen.) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(after ec) I think we should take a wait and see approach rather than anyone filing a peremptory request for clarification. Arbcom has not been very eager to deal with hypothetical concerns absent an actual dispute. For that reason it might be better to see if the parties do come too close for comfort, and ask for clarification then. Asking informally how they have handled these things in the past is also a good idea. I would likely scoot away on my own rather than interacting on the Obama pages, and would certainly respect an administrator's request to do so. Arbcom and the admins who frequent its pages seem content to assume that the interaction bans were reasonable and effective based on the narrow window of time and content they examined in the Obama articles case, rather than looking at the broader picture against which the they are rather arbitrary. The experiences of the interaction-banned editors were likely no worse than several dozen other editors at this point who weren't in that particular forum at that particular time. On the specific question of participating in the RfC I would say no, thank goodness. During the various requests for clarification and enforcement following the ruling, several arbitrators opined that the ArbCom interaction ban precludes disparaging the other or participating in administrators' meta-pages about the other. That would seem to cover an RfC. However, an RfC may be incomplete (or may not, depending on its scope) without noting the history of this group of editors so perhaps it ought to be mentioned for the record by someone else. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Our talk page comments obviously crossed one another, but I fully agree with you that "asking informally how they have handled these things in the past" is the best way to start. Like I said on Wikidemon's talk page I'll let you know if I hear anything useful from an Arb. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That all seems fine with me. I suppose that in the event of a "clash" of some kind, we can always point to this discussion for evidence that we have considered the matter in advance and are thus trying to do the right thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears that I have just been accused of violating the interaction ban by participating in this discussion, and also accused without evidence of past violations. You appear to have let that slide, and the interaction ban pretty much forces me to do the same. It has been a rocky ride since the Arbcom decision, and I am very concerned over what this bodes for my situation a few weeks from now. Setting process and Wikipedia lingo to the side for the moment, what's the realistic likelihood that this could go well and do you have any suggestions for how I can make that happen? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I was coming here to post a reportback so to speak in terms of the conversations I had with ChildofMidnight and Carcharoth. I definitely think it best to let the accusation, such as it was, you refer to slide—if C of M sees this conversation as problematic per the terms of the interaction ban that is his right, even though I disagree with that assessment as I said on his talk page. We are trying to discuss something here that in a sense isn't even supposed to be discussed (which I think is a bit ridiculous as I think do you), and given that I'm not interested in getting anyone in trouble for just having the conversation, or commenting on the nature of the conversation. It's best to just let it drop.
After discussing with Carcharoth and ChildofMidnight I personally think it advisable to take a wait and see approach for now. Carcharoth thought it was perhaps best to take the matter before the whole committee, however C of M thinks the restrictions are clear enough. I am still willing to do the former if either you or Scjessey think that is important, but on the other hand I wonder if it isn't better to simply wait until an issue comes up (though hopefully that won't happen) so the Arbs can deal with a specific problem rather than a theoretical one. Additionally ChildofMidnight did not say whether he would be returning to editing on the Obama articles, and if he doesn't then a lot of this is moot. Arguably the one good thing to come out of this is that the three of you, one admin, and an Arbitrator are now aware of the issue and have considered it which could help head off any problems. My suggestion would be to continue editing as you have been, and if and when ChildofMidnight begins editing Obama articles again (and this advice also applies to him and Scjessey) obviously avoid any interaction with or mention of him. If you run into a grey area or some other problem, come talk to me or another admin about it. If we need clarification from the committee at that point I can seek that so you don't have to.
As to the likelihood of things going well in the end, I really could not say. Hopefully there are no problems, but if they come up you should feel free to leave me a note here or even send me an e-mail (if you don't want to risk falling afoul a prohibition from ArbCom) and I will look into it. Also you can refer to this conversation in the future as demonstrating that everyone was trying to be thoughtful and proactive about these issues before any problems came up.
If anyone prefers that I ask the committee directly about this now I am willing to do that, however it strikes me as perhaps not the best route as I said. Not sure if this is helpful or not but hopefully somewhat, and also I'll be offline for awhile now but will check back later obviously. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any present need. But it is important to have a safe place to raise concerns, ask for advice, and request help if a violation has occurred or the editing situation has otherwise become untenable to the point where I cannot continue work on an article without an interaction. Obviously it would be best if I never need to do that, but the accusation in light of the history of this matter gives me concern that there will be trouble unless I have means to avoid it, for reasons that as you put it are not supposed to be discussed. You can reference the various Arbcom archive pages from June onwards for what happens when there is not a safe way to report violations under an interaction ban. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Interaction has already taken place to some extent, either by subtle euphemism or proxy - or simply by accident. Further interaction would seem inevitable. I always thought Wikipedia was a big enough place that avoidance would be easy, but it turns out that I run into CoM quite often. I've had to start actively checking who originally created articles before participating in AfD discussions because I've twice got embroiled in particularly contentious examples, only to discover later that CoM created the articles. Partly this is down to the nature of those articles, because they often seem to skirt the lines of notability or appropriateness. Personally, I would rather see this largely-unworkable and difficult-to-define restriction lifted rather than clarified, since existing policies concerning civility and good faith would seem to be more than sufficient. All that being said, I am somewhat reluctant to court controversy by seeking a clarification at this stage, given that some are viewing this very discussion as a violation of the interaction restriction. This is a ridiculous situation, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
And again. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the above comments I still suggest waiting until a specific problem comes up (for example Scjessey participating in an AfD and then realizing it's problematic because of who created the article) and then putting the question to ArbCom when there is a specific incident for them to consider. I would say it's unlikely that ArbCom will lift the restriction, and frankly I'm not sure lifting it would be a good thing for anyone concerned. What ArbCom might be able to do is clarify the boundaries more completely, or work up a way for questions or concerns to be quickly addressed (perhaps appointing an uninvolved admin as a mediator, which would not be me since C of M does not see me as a fair judge of these issues). A big part of avoiding trouble though is not sweating the small stuff whenever possible. So if Scjessey ends up at an AfD and is catching flack from certain editors for being there, the best thing to do is just walk away. Similarly the implicit accusations here on my talk page can be safely ignored—no one is really paying them any attention, and they are certainly not at a high profile page like ANI or ArbCom pages. Again for now please consider this talk page a safe place to raise concerns, and if you are worried about making a comment here that could be viewed as a violation of a restriction you can also send an e-mail. I generally prefer everything to happen on-wiki, but in a case where one is supposed to avoid interaction with or even discussion of another editor I think sending an e-mail to an admin if a concern comes up is totally fine. I'd like to put this issue to rest for now though as it doesn't seem anything needs to be done at the moment and I think the relevant parties are aware of the situation and the possible ways to proceed which is at least somewhat valuable if issues come up in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, wait and see. Thanks for your time on this. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, twelve days later still waiting and seeing. And freshly accused yet again of the above being an Arbcom sanctions violation, both on this page[18] and on another administrator's page [19] where I am also called a "POV pusher" with a "leftist agenda". The stay-away order would seem to preclude me from responding directly even when personally accused. Would you consider contacting Arbcom about this, either informally or to file a request for clarification or enforcement? Also, it would be helpful to let John Carter know that this accusation is without reasonable basis. This is most unfortunate, and I hope it can stop. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm all that happy about those characterizations either, but I've decided not to take them to heart. Personally, I would prefer to see the interaction restriction lifted in the hope that I can make peace with CoM - or at least make a stab at it. We have ideological differences, but it is clear we love this project and want to make it as best we can. With common ground like that, I would hope there was a way forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
As you might both have seen from my recent contributions, I'm working on a draft user conduct RfC on C of M, to which John Carter has also signed on. I'm out of town for the holidays for the next 12 days or so and will have not-so-great internet access (also not a lot of time or inclination to do stuff on Wikipedia), however I'm going to work to get the RfC "live" by the end of the weekend. Hopefully it will get a lot of input from other editors, and I think it's the best way to deal with the situation at this point. Given that, I don't think it would be a good idea to put anything to ArbCom now regarding the specific incidents you mention above. Honestly it would be best to just stop talking about it for now, unless the other party chooses to escalate the situation which hopefully will not happen. Note that I'm not trying to avoid the issue here, as I'm going to be investing quite a lot of time in the RfC which will be able to cover a lot more ground. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort, but the situation is already being escalated. Do you think it's going to de-escalate after you file the RfC? A few paragraphs above I used the word "realistic" to distinguish it from Wikipedia process. Realistically, we who have next to nothing to do with the situation will be dragged through the mud in a process in which some of us are threatened with punishment should we participate. You are a neutral administrator, accusations aside. There are quite a few others. Why can't someone administer? That's the point of the position. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I told C of M long ago that I would not enforce Obama arbitration remedies against him since he did not see me as being impartial. I do not agree and do not think it was at all necessary for me to do that, but I did it as a courtesy. The fact that I am now preparing an RfC I think makes me definitely not neutral at this point. Given that I could not use administrative tools in this situation. I could file a report at arbitration enforcement, but so could anyone. However I very much do not think that is a good idea right now. I understand your frustration, but if you or anyone else reported C of M for what he said (which was largely him saying "why didn't someone report those other guys for what they said?") I don't think anything good would happen. All it would look like is that you are are dangerously close to violating the spirit if not the letter of certain restrictions. As long as you are not getting reported on noticeboards (and you are not), I would again ask you to please consider dropping this.
And I don't think the situation will de-escalate after the RfC (quite the opposite), but I think we'll get the community's views on the record which will be a very large positive. If specific comments are made about you there the odds are very good that they will be dealt with, but your best bet is to stay out of it, even if that's extremely difficult. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
So the situation will escalate, meaning I will be the subject of more unsupported accusations before a community of editors largely unfamiliar with the situation (who tend in such instances to assume two sides fighting), while I am restrained from saying anything. That's a pretty lousy outcome considering I'm at the passive receiving end of all this - just like you and dozens of others here. Whatever process has been brought to bear is probably hurting, not helping. The mess could have been dealt with at the beginning by a strong administrator who refuses to be cowed. I will stay away and I am staying away, just as I have since arbcom's remedy was enacted. I'm not asking to participate, only that in my absence somebody makes sure that the interaction ban is not cover to paint me as a bad faith editor. If somebody deals with that, that's all I'm asking for. I've been called far worse under the ban - a Nazi, thug, bully, what have you, and it took a lot of my kicking people in the shins in the form of direct requests to Arbcom to get that to stop, while my use of even that forum was portrayed as a bad act. I'm a productive content editor, and also active managing articles and resolving disputes. I try not to boast about my value to the encyclopedia (200+ new articles with collectively close to a million views per month) because it's neither here nor there when the issue is uncivil behavior. I'm a firm behavior that all must follow the same standard, whatever our contributions. But all this is a considerable drain on productivity and goodwill... all this antagonism does seriously impact my ability to improve the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but there have been no silver bullets for dealing with the kind of problems you are describing, and "strong administrators who refuse to be cowed" are routinely reversed by other administrators when they take actions against civility violations by strong content contributors, as you surely know. I'm not asking you to not be frustrated, I'm just saying it's a persistent problem pretty much all over the place, i.e. there's a general failure here beyond the specific situation you are discussing. In the end, regarding this situation, I think an RfC is the best step forward right now and the best way to ultimately deal with your specific concerns, even if it takes a while and things get a little "worse" in the meantime. That sucks, and maybe a better path could have been taken long ago, but we are where we are right now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I see the only reasonable course to take right now is just to ignore the accusations, antagonism and innuendo. CoM has found himself the subject of multiple ANI threads, each one pushing him closer to being blocked or banned as more and more administrators object to the way he inserts himself into threads that are of no real concern of his. He's digging his own grave, and sooner or later there will be nothing to stop him falling in. Meanwhile, the topic bans expire on Monday, and all this may get resolved shortly thereafter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Hbar_Lab wiki page

Dear Bigtimepeace, it recently came to my attention that a page I have submitted about hBar Lab has been remove by you. The reason being that "Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".

I agree that the page under discussion is about hBar Lab, a commercial web service and maybe that the importance of such a web service has not been underlined properly. However, I can easily find in wikipedia, similar pages of commercial companies/products. For example, why the following pages are still visible, if hBar Lab has been removed?

I would like to underline, that hBar Lab is probably first web service in the world for the calculation of molecular properties. It's concept is disruptive and innovative and the software would allow universities and companies to speed up their research and reduce R&D costs. Which by the end, it will end in shorter time to market for new drugs which could safe the life of people. For this reason it would be nice if you could re-consider your decision.

Hope you could re-consider your decision.

Kind Regards

hbarlab —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbarlab (talkcontribs) 10:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there's a couple of things worth pointing out here. First, I would maybe agree with you that some of the other articles you mention above might not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. The fact is there are things which could/should be deleted which sit around for awhile—we simply don't catch everything. But there's a bit of a maxim around here that the argument that "other stuff exists" is not generally a very good one—i.e. the fact that there is an article about a similar topic does not mean an article about your topic is warranted.
The problem with the Hbar Lab article is that there was not what we call a "credible assertion of notability"—that is, there was no indication from the article text that the subject passed our guideline on notability, which is one of the requirements for inclusion of a given topic/company/person etc. in Wikipedia. In order to be considered notable and ultimately avoid deletion, you would have to demonstrate that hBar Lab has been covered at least somewhat substantially in multiple reliable sources—meaning that magazines, journals, newspapers, trade publications, etc. have written about the service in some detail, beyond just giving it a passing mention. A quick google search suggests there may not be a lot of coverage, but if it's out there that would be grounds for restoring the article.
I'm not going to un-delete the article at this point, but I am willing to restore it to your userspace ("userfy" it as we say) which would allow you to work on it further in order to demonstrate notability, but would not make the article visible to readers perusing Wikipedia. In order to do that though you are going to have to change your username or open a different account (either is fine). We have a policy that says that "explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you. Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted..." If you want to change your username to something unique to you (it doesn't have to identify you at all, just has to be unlike any other username here on Wikipedia) you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions. You also could simply create a new user account as I said and then I can just block the old account so it cannot be used anymore.
Hopefully this all makes sense, but if not let me know. Your best bet now is to acquire a new (or changed) username first, and then if you want me to move the deleted article into your userspace just come back here and let me know and I'll take care of that. If you are able to find sources that discuss hBar Lab sufficiently that it seems to possibly pass our notability guidelines then I can help you get the article back into the Wikipedia mainspace, but we'll take it one step at a time for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Great News!!!

Bacon Materializer

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P.

Also, if there are any editors that I am unable to notify about this event, please let them know that they are most welcome to participate. It is located in my userspace only as a convenience, and if I need to move it somewhere else for their benefit I would be more than happy to do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a delicious project. Not sure I'll have enough porktastic inspiration to come up with any articles, but if I see any way I can pitch in I will.
Incidentally I recently saw this photo on another editor's talk page and figured you would be a fan of it. One of the more awesome pieces of Americana I've seen in awhile. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Discussing arbcom restrictions is clearly acceptable. The restrictions simply require that those affected refrain from making comments directly to or about each other directly. Doing so is a clear violation and if it continues to happen it's going to be a problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dawood Ibrahim article

Dear Bigtimepeace: Thanks for your comment on the Dawood article. While I understand that some of the new information is portions of news/other articles but please also I've mentioned them as quotes from newspapers (which are copied as it is) and have also refernced the source appropriately, in which case, they can't be termed as copyright violations. If you think that there is any copyvio, please correct that portion of the article and/or reword it and/or summarize it but please don't delete information because information regarding Don Dawood's early years and criminal-career is scarce and is very difficult to find. However, I've worked hard and collected information from many, many different sources and referenced them appropriately so that any Wikipedian is able to get any/all info. regarding Dawood very easily. As such, I'm reverting your edit. I hope you will understand. Thanks. --Bugnot (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will try to do my best to reword the article as you have mentioned but please don't delete the info completely due to the reasons mentioned above. Thanks --Bugnot (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Conversation continued on Talk:Dawood Ibrahim. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace: OK, I'm not going to revert back again and again because my intention is of benefiting Wikipedia, not of harming it. However, as I'm confused as to which edits are copyvios and which are not, I sincerely request you kindly to take some time and reword or summarize the Dawood Ibrahim article as well as the other articles (especially Abu Salem and Hasan Ali Khan) because full information on these people is very difficult to find on a single page and, being an experienced user, you're in a much better position to do the required improvements than I am. Let me know what you think. Regards.--Bugnot (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I really cannot spare the time to work on these articles, and I don't even know about the topics. If you copy and past text from another source into Wikipedia (excepting short quotes), then you are violating copyright—that's the easiest way to think about it. What you need to do is use the sources to get basic information, but then write that up in your own words, perhaps with an occasional quotation (cited of course) here and there. Can you maybe work up a sample of something along those lines and then I'll take a look at it? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Another AFD?

Would you object if I either prodded or re-start the AFD. Maybe if there is strong anti-merge sentiment, keep is the decision. Or it may be delete. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is 10 months sufficient time to relist a AFD? Not too soon, correct? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you would prod, but as to restarting the AfD, yes, I would object for now—see my last comment on WP:AN. Let's just wait and see what the closing admin says. If it were me I could not care less if the merged material was deleted, and if MBisansz has a similar attitude than I think we can drop it which is the ideal solution. Please do not do anything until he weighs in. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't care less if the merged material was deleted? That is what you want. I do not object to the deletion of Asa's material in the West Baltimore article per se, but what I am very confused about is the 100% defiance of the AFD decision. By discussing it on AN, we can actually form an acceptable way of doing things. AN could decide that if editors editing the target of the merged material object, they can defy the AFD. Or the targets of the merge could have the AFD reconsidered. Or have the AFD reconsidered, sort of a runoff, with merge rejected so either delete or keep. We'll sort this out sooner, I'm sure! Peace man, Bigtimepeace! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, I have to go to bed. Please don't think that I am fighting you. I just wanted to clarify the process, that's all. In all likelihood, your West Baltimore article will remain nice and neat, just like you want it! And the process question will probably be resolved in 2-3 hours, certainly not more than a day! Don't worry! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I actually don't care at all about the West Baltimore article—I heard about the AfD via the WP:EVENT policy page as I mentioned on the article talk page. I'm sure the whole thing will get straightened out eventually. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Original Barnstar.png The Discussion Barnstar
Awarded to Bigtimepeace for calm discussion to try to resolve a policy and practical matter without resorting to name calling or unrelated accusations Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I received your message. Calling someone borderline disruptive can hurt people's feelings. Some editors might feel that it is accusatory, not borderline.

While you seem opposed to contacting other editors, this has been useful. An editor that I contacted did not fight on AN but did point out that the editors who edit the target of a merge may be unhappy if merged contents are added. Both editors that I contacted were reasonable editors, not POV pushers.

Another unaddressed point is the whole question of the AN discussion. If an AFD is decided as merge, the decision should be followed. The instructions say to use deletion review if one disagrees. The instructions do not say to ignore the results or to allow a 2nd AFD. Allowing a revote occasionally happens in life so having it as a policy proposal would not be unheard of.

The West Baltimore article is essentially unchanged since February so one may think that the merge decision still stands. Only if there are changes, could deletion/reversion of the merge material be considered.

There is the danger that AFD could be decided as merged as a ploy for deletion. For example, the Balloon Boy incident was hotly debated. It was decided as keep. A manipulative person wanting deletion but thinking that a delete decision could be challenged could make the decision of merge to Colorado, knowing very well that the Colorado editors could try to delete it. Maybe the target article editors should have the right to send the merge back to AFD to decide whether to keep or delete and reject merge. That would be reasonable and would happen to probably only 0.5% to 1% of AFD, so it wouldn't increase workload much.

So the conclusion of the AN section/post was that I want to let the West Baltimore matter rest and go either way but that the correct procedure remains unresolved. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


After thinking it over, I think the best way is for the adminstrator to "ask" the object/target of the proposed merged if they are willing to take it, particularly if there is some doubt. If they take some of it, then merge is ok. If they don't want any of it, then the administrator can take that into account about whether to keep or delete. The administrator can "ask" the receiving talk page maybe 2 days before closing. This doesn't have to be policy but just common courtesy that is optional for the administrator. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to make that suggestion at the appropriate page if you are so inclined, though on the face I'd say there are some obvious problems with it. This issue has already wasted way, way too much of my time and I'm not really interested in dealing with it further if that's at all possible. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy of contents from Curtis Loftis?

Yes sir, I was wondering if you could email me the old log of the article that is mentioned in this URL.

Thank you --ForrrestMaster (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you the full text of the article per your request. Let me know if there's any problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for responding, but I never got the email. Could you send it to [redacted] instead?--ForrrestMaster (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Done, you should have it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop censoring real information

My post on Presidency of Barack Obama is not vandalism. The awarding to him of the Nobel Peace Prize is highly controversial, so I mentioned that fact in the article. I put a reference to a reputable website (, so this information is obviously true. Stating true information is not vandalism. (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I was reverting, rather I was reverting this edit were you made reference to "Communistic intentions" (whatever that means). Your previous edit was reverted in the process, and while not vandalism it was highly POV. Obviously don't add the "communistic intentions" garbage back in, and if you want to talk about the controversy over the Nobel Peace Prize discuss it on the talk page first. I would have no problem with a section on the awarding of the prize including the controversy, but we can't describe it in a POV fashion in the lead, so I'll again be reverting you in a moment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You reverted my edit saying the awarding of the Nobel Prize was controversial, so don't say you didn't. Go look at the page history. It is neutral point of view to say it was controversial, because it is controversial. Simply stating the facts is neutral. Go look at POV. It says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There is a major point of view that he shouldn't have received the award, so it is very controversial. I referenced a major, reputable website ( In the edit summary you said "Reverted 2 edits by identified as vandalism to last revision by DD2K. using TW". Don't say it is vandalism if it isn't. (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted it, which is what I said, but I also said that edit was not the one that led me to revert, which is simply true. The tool I was using to revert will revert all consecutive edits by the same user in one swoop, and the main edit I was reverting was the "communist intentions" one, which in my book is indeed vandalism. You're studiously ignoring that edit for some reason, but the fact is that's what I was looking at when I reverted and did not even notice the previous edit at first. The previous edit was not vandalism and technically should not have been classified as such, meaning a should not have reverted in the exact fashion I did, but it was a serious NPOV problem as a said above and I would have reverted it as well, albeit with a different edit summary. This is not something worth getting upset over.
Again, I fully agree that we can discuss the Nobel as being controversial, but we need to do so in the body of the article, not in the lead. There are many adjectives that could be applied to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize ("deserved," "surprising", "controversial," "undeserved," etc.) and many sources which could be found to back up those adjectives. We do not pick one of those at random and stick that in the lead. Please continue this conversation on the article talk page since that is where it belongs, and at least own up to the "communist intentions" edit you made which was clearly ridiculous and not in good faith, and is the whole reason you were reverted by me, even if another edit got caught up in it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Controversial is the most descriptive word, and is accurate. If I instead said "deserved" or "undeserved", it would not be neutral because it represents only one group of people. By saying "controversial", I simply say that there are many disagreements on the subject. Stating it is controversial doesn't support or object to the awarding of the Nobel Prize, it simply states that there are vast disagreements on the subject. There is no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned where it states he received the prize. It isn't taking a up a lot of space, and it isn't making the introduction significantly longer. It is one word that makes the sentence much more descriptive. As for the communistic intentions, it is not vandalism. Before the election, he said "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." Redistribution of wealth is communism. That quote proves Obama supports redistribution of wealth. Therefore he must be a communist. (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I hate to break this to you, but if redistribution of wealth is communism, then George W. Bush (and really every American president) was a communist, since he supported levying taxes against American citizens and then using that to fund things the government wanted to do. When I am taxed (as I am) and my money goes in part to pay for someone else's Social Security, or for a new airplane for the U.S. military, that is redistribution of wealth. Things would be a lot easier politically in the U.S. if people understood that basic fact. Regardless, what you say about communism and Obama is patently absurd and not something you can find in reliable sources. You are welcome to parrot the farcical talking points of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck on a blog somewhere, but please don't waste my time with it here.
And as I already said, take the conversation about the word "controversial" to the article talk page. I simply don't agree with you and you are not going to convince me, but you might have some luck convincing others (though frankly I highly doubt it). That conversation can be continued on the article talk page but please don't post again here, thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon Ferrara

You're right about the redirect and lack of need for speedy deletion, I should have thought of that and will try to remember it for the future. Thanks --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Somewhat unrelated to the request I declined, the article was speedily deleted once before for not indicating the importance of the subject, but the current version does assert notability so an A7 speedy deletion would not be appropriate. It might be worth taking it to AfD though if the notability of the person is questionable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi. needs to be blocked for persistent vandalism. Thanks for your time.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that IP address has not been active in a few hours, and only one warning was left here, so no need to block right now. In the future if you come across vandalism please be sure to warn the user appropriately (escalating up to a final warning) and then make a report to WP:AIV which is a page a number of administrators watch. If you leave a note like the one above for just a single administrator they might not be online right then to deal with it, so AIV is the best way to have someone look at a problematic vandal quickly (but again, only if they have already been warned on more than one occasion). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, but I wasn't sure what the proper protocol was, so I notified the first admin I could find, which was you. I appreciate your time.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm asking for quite a lot but I'll do it anyways

Dear Bigtimepeace; Is there any way you have the time and would be willing to spend some of it on this article in a no ANI, no RFC/RFC/U, or other dramatized way? I know it is quite something I'm asking you for but my post on ANI where I tried to just get one single admin's attention to do so before it would escalate into a big drama (and as I expected it is happening by now). Your that kind of admin who IMO always tried to calm things down before they escalated and that's the reason I'm asking you now (also I know by now I should've done it this way in the first place). I don't want to give you cherry-picked diffs but sure I should give you some (diffs) to threads and pages that are by now part of the whole mess. The article's and talk page's history are of course a given so here are some others: At ANI: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PilgrimRose and Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher: Some admin with time on hand out there before it's getting out of hand?; PilgrimRose's talk page history; Rturus's talk page history; AniMate's talkpage where you find some ANI related thread (please forgive my huge mistakes in spelling and grammar over there) and at LeadSongDog, a seemly nice fellow where you can also find some diffs. (List might be not up to date as I didn't have the time to check on today's changes). So anyways, if you're up to it great, if not I'll understand. thanks for reading and Happy Holydays, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of this yet and I don't know the background, but I'll take a look later tonight when I need a break from reading and see if there's anything I can do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much even if afterwards you decide to leave it alone. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I've read through pretty much all of the relevant background (after closing the ANI thread) and left a comment here on the article talk page. I don't think any action against any specific editor is needed or advisable at this time, and it seems things might be calming down somewhat. I don't want to get involved in the specific content questions, but I do think an RfC could be useful if those are proving difficult to resolve (I saw that you were skeptical of content RfCs on AniMate's talk page, and while I would definitely agree that sometimes they don't help matters, at other times they can help resolve content disputes—worth a shot I think). Anyhow not sure how much help that will be but the comment seemed the best way for me to offer help at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding a wikilink to edit summaries in your comment there, I hope you don't mind. I note that one of the editors has never used one and I surmise that xhe may not know how or why. Regards, LeadSongDog come howl 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks LSD (trippy!), also I replied here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated for your effort. I'll recommend you for the first Wiki-Nobel peace price (ones it's created). Big Thanks. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Character Assassination

I am rather disappointed by your resolution to this ANI. It seems to me that you have totally failed to recognise my attempts to placate PilgrimRose and paid no attention to her persistent character assassination of me. I have posted something here on my talk page and I would be grateful if you could spare the time to review what I have written and I would appreciate any comments. I really don't want to be seen as some pedant who drags things on and on but I also don't see why PilgrimRose should be allowed to indulge in character assassination of me with no rebuke, restitution or even a comment. Obviously I wouldn't really want to start a RfC/U but I am at a loss - should I just "suck it up" and "take one for the team"? When an editor uses a "refactoring" to misquote another editor and make a character attack, surely that is "rude, manipulative and disingenuous"? Am I wrong to ask an editor to retract a deliberate falsehood? How can my objection to her character assassination be an insult or attack? Are there other words for "rude, manipulative and disingenuous" that they wouldn't take as an insult? I really would value your opinion here if you can spare the time to fully read my post on my talk page and the diffs that I have referenced, thanks. rturus (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I read your post (as well as the relevant diffs cited there prior to that), and while I am sympathetic to your complaints, the short of it to my mind is that you should indeed "suck it up" and "take one for the team." PilgrimRose has not really carried her or himself very well in this matter so far, and I am aware of the issues here. At the same time they have not done anything egregiously uncivil, and as you've admitted one or two of your comments also were not phrased very well and contributed somewhat to a negative atmosphere (the fact that you retracted and apologized for them is definitely something I noted and is very helpful). I think "character assassination" is a bit strong as a term, though I do think PilgrimRose mischaracterized some of your comments and completely ignored your good faith efforts to reach out and apologize for any offense you might have caused. You came out looking better as a result, and I truly believe it is best to just let this go for now. There's nothing to do here in terms of blocking or even really warning since there is not an ongoing issue at the moment. Unfortunately, these kind of spats of incivility come up all the time here on Wikipedia and as such it's often necessary to try to let the relatively small stuff slide (and I do think this is relatively small stuff as of right now, even though it's legitimate for you to be bothered by it).
As I said I am aware of the issues here though and am concerned about PilgrimRose's editing patterns. If possible I'd recommend continuing to work on the article as best you can without slipping into uncivil commentary (we all do it from time to time, but obviously it's a good thing to avoid), and if problems come up again please do not hesitate to contact me. I'm sorry if that seems inadequate, but the very fact that some people are now aware that there is an issue means that future problems are likely to be dealt with more swiftly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your words, I do appreciate you taking the time to do that. I think I am more irritated by the fact that PilgrimRose is continuing with her "crusade" and is using her misrepresentation of me and my words to divert attention from her "agenda". I just don't see that I will be able to get a retraction from her so I am minded to indeed leave it go for now. Thanks again. rturus (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ophélie Bretnacher


you delated the text on O B. But it's a very important case in Europe, involving France and Hungary Raymondnivet (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I wrote it again

Best regards --Raymondnivet (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an important case, but until we have an article on it (obviously the article on Bretnacher was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher), it does not make sense to include mention of this event in List of people who disappeared mysteriously, since all of the disappearances there need to be notable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you answer : . In addition I would like to come back on the sentence of Hell In a bucket: “One day your article might get there, that time is not now” and make additional comments: Without wiki, the only information which are provided today are via journalists without double-checking who can often report bias or wrong information : WIKI is the only universal place where the information can be challenged, crossed-checked, summarized, stabilised and updated on a reliable manner. In Hungary the main source of information on the case are tabloids like Blikk and Bors. They are totally unreliable, only interested in selling paper rather than to report facts and truth, keeping Hungarian people totally away from the truth (Hungarian newspapers launched crazy accusations on Italian students pretending to be in close relation with the Hungarian police. These crazy accusations were translated by google and spread also in France). And this is just an example of the fact that once such a bi-national case is only reported by journalists, some stabilisation (certification) has to be done somewhere reachable from everybody : WIKIPEDIA is this only place, and the current exchange between us is the proof of that. And this “authentic information safeguarding” has to be done now, not in five years. This is not a Franco-French case, but a French-Hungarian case and de facto an European case. Given the constraint of Hungarian language, the article in English language (the only single vector of communication within Europe, where French is maybe better than Hungarian but totally surpassed by English) is essential to keep quality of information at the same level in Hungary and France and reachable to the community of ERASMUS, for whom it is a notable case. It was asked to the members of European parliament to make a minute of silence when the death of Ophélie was announced. European promoters are uncomfortable with this case because it is a symbol of collateral damages of European construction : ERASMUS has been implemented to facilitate the student mobility within Europe but when a problem appears (such as Ophélie case), the former way of doing “business” in Europe is going on : no justice cooperation between countries, administrative nightmare for the victims, predominance of diplomatic agenda over the human rights and for the European new entrants of the EU, going on with communist way of doing justice and human rights. That is why this case is notable at European level, because it is collateral damage of European construction. My last point will be regarding the free encyclopaedia principle of WIKI. As seen in “1984” of Georges Ornwel or in the movie “Brazil”, you know how information control is important for countries in deficit of democracy. You know that even our own countries (USA and France) are able to use information as a tool to do borderline things in term of democracy. You know that former communist countries are still in a process of learning democracy, even those which are already part of the EU. Former communist countries are marketing themselves as safe and modern places to get the money from rich Western countries through tourism, investment and any other business. The case Ophélie is part of that, it is also notable for that reason. It is not one of the numerous disappearance case, but it is a similar case to the one in Croatia with the Australian girl Britt Lapthorne whose story was very similar and close to a diplomatic incident between Australia and Croatia (For Ophélie it was also close to the diplomatic incident and the family had to visit the Hungarian embassy in Paris on January 11, 2009 at the end of its March for Ophélie” in order to show that the actions were was not against Hungary but simply for Ophélie). Here Wikipedia is providing what democracy has been waiting for decades, a way to guaranty that information is not manipulated but simply made reachable and reliable for anybody. Regarding the figures when you compare to other cases in Anglo-Saxon countries, don’t forget that France and Hungary lag behind these countries in term of internet usage, and the case Ophélie was forecast in prime time on all the national TV in Hungary and in France during the winter 08-09. You are probably right, maybe the article need to be re-worked to emphasised better the reason why it is notable. And anyway, the exchange we had are the proof that the quality of the information will be permanently challenged on Wikipedia Raymondnivet (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Do not worry about having bothered me about this. The one obstacle I can see, potentially, is finding the two people who have attempted to resolve a single dispute with CoM, as is part of the minimum requirements of an RfCU. The best thing I can propose is to basically watch the various noticeboads (which I already do) and see when and if problematic behavior appears again. At that point, just request that one or two (depending on whehter you want to be involved or not) admins or mediators try to step in and resolve the issue, or maybe file a Wikiquette Alert. At this point, it probably would be somewhat unfair to just bring up a laundry list of prior actions, without having a current situation to specifically point to which meets the minimum requirements. If that is what you choose to do, you may well find that the draft page gets nominated for deletion at some point, if no incident occurs quickly, perhaps as some form of lingering threat should CoM ever misbehave again. Should that happen, I'm not sure what to say, other than maybe it might be possible to copy onto disk or into e-mail for future use. John Carter (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with you guys coming after me and I have a problem with Bigtimepeace's refusal to enforce Arbcom restrictions on his talkpage. We don't need editors pushing their politics through biased enforcements and attacks on good faith contributors. Shape up or ship out kiddos. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I already explained to you that I did not view the discussion to which you refer on my talk page as being in violation of ArbCom restrictions, though I noted that some other observer might disagree. You could have e-mailed the committee about it at the time if you had a problem with it. I don't really have anything else to say about that situation.
I'm not surprised that you would have a problem with a possible user conduct RfC about your behavior, but there a lot of people (not just me) who have been calling for it. Of course if and when it becomes active you'll have a chance to present your side of the situation, and I for one am still open to avoiding an RfC if you are willing to address some of the problems (particularly regarding your attacks on other contributors) that have been brought to your attention for many months now by many people. Very recently you made it clear that the subject was closed, so an RfC seemed to me the only choice. I very much do not relish that choice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


RE: [20] (Your comments above)

Bigtimepeace, I really enjoyed your comments. Although I agree with your asessment that scholars will be studying the "giano" case for years to come, and thought this was extremely insightful, I don't think you needed to inflate Giano's ego anymore that it may already be by saying this. I maybe completely wrong, but I suspect editors like Giano and ChildofMidnight actively seek out conflicts and attention, and enjoy being in the central issue in an argument.

That said, here you go:

Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
This Socratic Barnstar is awared to Bigtimepeace for his extremely skilled and eloquent arguments.Ikip 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the barnstar, and if you were thinking I took a bit of time in formulating that comment/argument (thus warranting a "socratic" reference) you were right! You are also undoubtedly right that certain users seek out conflict for their own personal reasons, but it's generally impossible to tell whether that's what is going on or whether the person in question has more idealistic motivations. My suspicion is that most of us who have a lot of edits to Wikipedia do, from time to time, seek out conflict (ranging from very minor to blowing-up-the-project major) for less-than-encyclopedic reasons. Probably usually we don't even know we're doing it, the same way someone might go out with friends and instigate an argument or heated debate because they had a bad day and kind of felt like picking a fight.
I'm not so worried about the inflating of egos thing, in part because I think the point should be pretty obvious that the "scholars will study this" aspect of my comment was in reference to the whole, larger "Giano" imbroglio of the past however many years (be it a debate about civility, offsite mailing lists, the nature of ArbCom, the sometimes conflict between heavy content contributors and those who contribute little or no content, etc.) rather than anything about Giano the individual. There's obviously already a lot of scholarship about Wikipedia and will be tons more in the future (the fact that most of the interaction here is permanently archived in an easily accessible fashion is a dream come true for sociologists, historians, anthropologists, etc.), and I think it's sometimes useful to remember how interesting what we are all doing here is (in good, bad, and at times just plain ridiculous ways) and how much the mechanics of the project will itself be the subject of future inquiry.
Anyhow thanks again, and best wishes to you, your family, and your friends over the holidays. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
...and yet, with the truth so readily available many editors here make up, misremember, misconstrue, and misrepresent things in the face of a record that is as plain as day, or say something one day and deny saying it the next. Having such a huge, unfiltered, hard-to-search record reminds me of the oft-mentioned differences between data, information, knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom. To which I would add propaganda. Outside commentators, some in pieces that would otherwise be deemed reliable sources per our guideline, get things totally wrong when all they have to do is examine our record or have their fact checkers do the same. I just came across an opinion piece[21] where the inaccuracies do not seem innocent. But back to the question of conflict, there is no harm in seeking out conflicts in order to help out, as long as one is truly helping and not creating unneeded conflicts. Scholars will perhaps conclude that a pseudo-anonymous meritocracy is one of the models for producing knowledge (others being authoritarian hierarchies, kinship societies, religions and cults, professional scholarly institutions, etc.) and that meritocracies, like market economies, need rules and rule enforcement in order not to get off track to the point of failure. Wikipedia as a temporary autonomous zone has stayed on mission far longer and larger than any other online project I can think of, so maybe the question to study is how it fared so well when most other anonymous user-contribution sites drifted into chaos and irrelevance. In any event we do have rules and rules must be enforced, so there is a role for at least some people to confront others about their trouble-making. A tendency to avoid conflict at all costs and give flagrant rule violators every last chance and benefit of the doubt is a considerable harm to the project, and sacrifices a huge amount of time and goodwill of the silent (and not-so-silent) majority of editors who do try and usually succeed in doing the right thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Theoretically one of the benefits of academic scholarship on Wikipedia will simply be that it will be done in a far more careful and thoughtful fashion than is newsy reportage. Much mainstream reporting about Wikipedia is remarkably dumb and ill-informed, but then again that's par for the course with a lot of journalism these days. Probably like most people I have at times been on the "inside" of certain situations that ended up being covered in the media, and I've always marveled at the fact that, basically every time, the news stories in question missed crucial context, misrepresented the reality of the situation in some fashion, or simply got basic facts blatantly wrong—unsurprisingly Wikipedians will see similar issues in mainstream reporting about how Wikipedia works, but I for one hope that articles in sociological and historical journals will do a much better job.
I think there's both a tendency to avoid and a tendency to exacerbate (or rather bring to a head) conflict around here and both can be good or bad depending on the context. It's difficult to make authoritative statements about the efficacy of conflict resolution on Wikipedia, in part because the results are so varied and, to an even larger degree, because so much of it is under the radar (we don't tend to notice the stuff that works unless we are directly involved, only the stuff that doesn't work and blows up on one of the drama boards or in an ArbCom case).
And the fact that editors misrepresent the reality of a situation despite clear evidence to the contrary is to be expected, unfortunately. Obviously it also happens all the time in political, historical, and intra-familial debates in the real world. Given that we still have the Flat Earth Club and thousands of groups that are essentially the equivalent, there's little that surprises me on Wikipedia or in real life when it comes to misrepresenting reality. One of the most remarkable things about human beings is our ability to lie to ourselves when it's necessary on some level for our psychological well-being or even survival. I've always found Nietzsche to be one of the more profound thinkers in human history, and one of his (generally brilliant, except when he's talking about women...dude was a terrible misogynist) aphorisms from Beyond Good and Evil is relevant to this discussion: "'I have done that,' says my memory. 'I cannot have done that,' says my pride, and remains inexorable. Eventually--memory yields." I think we've all been there before, though we wouldn't admit it later! Anyhow enough philosophizing, I have to do some real-world work now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point about what we notice. Like lawyers, judges, police, reporters, physicians, even accountants, our attention tends to focus on the exceptions to the normal routines not the long copacetic stretches. And then we abstract them to find patterns based on an incomplete picture filtered through our own unique personal experiences. We have the same mix of aggressive types, timid types, and passive-aggressive behavior as real life, albeit through a geek filter. There are some who enjoy participating in drama, some who cause it effortlessly without even knowing or admitting it, a few who actually enjoy watching it, and some who gain satisfaction by telling other people to keep their heads down because they are causing drama. If you did a random sampling of articles I think you would find that: (1) most changes are uncontroversial; (2) there are innumerable typos and other small errors, and a great amount of editing is just to fix those, to update figures, add new events as they occur, etc; (3) changes to brief and new articles are generally helpful, whereas most changes made to mature articles degrade them and are reverted; (4) other than the top articles, many are not adequately watched so they either become stale, or suffer entropy over time. Also, sadly, the Pokemon Effect is waning thanks to some rather dogged deletionists. Regarding Nietzsche, I would ascribe the cognitive aspect of memory (memories are organic thought processes rather than holographic recordings - they are constantly refreshed, reconstructed, reinterpreted, and concocted) to the way our brains are glued together. But some people can train themselves to be a little more objective and evidence based than others. It takes some discipline. In the early days people thought the Internet would spell the end of tyranny, ignorance, exploitation, corruption, racism, and other ills of society because of universal access to an uncensorable well of all of human knowledge. What's so stark about Wikipedia, as opposed to the rest of the world, is that all the evidence is still here (minus a little that has been oversighted or deleted), and it is all uniformly presented and of identical credibility (so we don't have the problem of evaluating the reliability of evidence, or deciding which of two conflicting exhibits is true - it is all true). Yet, despite near-perfect conditions (they would be more perfect with some better search and analysis tools) two people can look at the exact same edit history and reach opposite conclusions about what happened. Oh, well. I should go create some more articles about clowns. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You guys write too many words. It makes my head hurt. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is invited on a sock case regarding Murder of Meredith Kercher

Hello Bigtimepeace. LeadSongDog believes you may still be watching the dispute on the Kercher article. If you do, maybe you could take a look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77 to see what sanctions you can recommend. (The checkuser findings are in, and only the blocking decision remains). EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No big ideas regarding sanctions I'm afraid, but I've commented. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Concerns about edit warring"

Responded. Please don't say things like that in an ArbCom case unless you are going to back it up with concrete evidence. It's basically reinforcing the misrepresentations made by That Guy, who has again forced me to defend myself unnecessarily. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the recent report here (at which you obviously were not sanctioned) where there were indeed concerns (even if nothing came of it, in part because of protection). I don't think a 3RR report was warranted there, but there were several "undo" edits in a short period of time and that is relevant I think when considering lifting a 1RR restriction. I'm not trying to cause you any trouble or reinforce any misrepresentations, but I do genuinely see that incident as being indicative of "concerns about edit warring" and think I would have been remiss not to mention that in my comment. If you want me to clarify my comment in some way I'd be happy to do that, but I do stand by the notion that there have been some concerns with edit warring. One way to clarify would be to say that these have been fairly minor and that there does not (at least from what I know) seem to have been any problems with that on the Obama articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
That was a bogus report, quite frankly, that was "augmented" by Caspian blue's commentary. Bear in mind that there are two separate issues there. One involved POV-pushing by an SPA, and the other involved the infamous "Climategate scandal" language that would've been a serious violation of NPOV. Besides, I don't think you really needed to draw any additional attention to it after his royal highness had already made it an issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the context but I don't doubt your characterization, and the article in question has been a heated one. I know you're frustrated with the current situation at the request for amendment and that's understandable, but try to avoid "HRH"-like terms with respect to C of M since they don't really help you or anyone else. In any case, I've amended my statement to reflect the fact that any concerns about edit warring seem minor to me. Please understand that I'm just trying to call it like I see it here, and I do think you were reverting too much on that page, though as I said it was not something you should have been sanctioned for in my view. We might just have to agree to disagree on the former point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A note

Just to comment here, I've noticed the request to amend but I'm avoiding it. I am unhappy being accused of bad faith there, and more before a more relevant audience elsewhere.[22] This seems to be getting worse, without any action from me, but I don't see what good can come out of my participation. Without getting into the details I think lifting the 1RR restriction would be a bad idea in Sceptre's case and Stevertigo's. Because Scjessey has not asked for relief I won't comment there. He could possibly avoid further criticism by asking his name to be withdrawn. In fact, the most graceful thing to do would be for Sceptre to withdraw the entire request because I don't think a good case has been made. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good to avoid since you have not come up by name over there. It probably would be good for Sceptre to withdraw the request, but if he does not I imagine the Arbs will not act on it in any fashion and it will soon be forgotten. At the diff you link to above you are also not actually named, though it's obvious to anyone familiar with the situation that you are being implicitly referenced. It's a user talk page and of the relatively small number of people who will read that most won't know what he's talking about, and others won't particularly care. I really think it's the kind of thing you need to ignore as I've said before, in part because it probably does not violate the letter of the ArbCom restrictions (though arguably the spirit). In general there's been too much "talking about the other person kinda (but not really) talking about me" (which gets to be a bit of a positive feedback loop), and probably the best thing is for everyone to completely disengage (and for individuals to do so even if the other person is not). Though it may be frustrating to stay silent, the more it gets talked about (even if one is only "defending" oneself) the more it gets perpetuated. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Wikidemon's idea about withdrawing is excellent, and I have just requested that very thing. I'm not seeking my restriction to be amended, so why am I party to an amendment in the first place? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


I notice another ArbCom filing in which I am indirectly mentioned.[23] I want to avoid participating in or commenting on this one in particular, if that is all possible. I cannot foresee any good coming of it, and I wonder if Sceptre might be encouraged to withdraw it lest things get out of hand. There are a couple mistaken assumptions that seem to have crept in but are not really there in the standing interaction bans. First, the parties have not been enjoined from mentioning each other, even by name. The subject of most of my earlier requests for clarification and enforcement was some rather distressing name-calling, and to my chagrin Arbcom has not come out with a clear statement on this. Second, there is no prohibition on commenting and interacting before Arbcom itself. Again, the subject was raised, opinions differed, and Arbcom did not clarify. On both fronts Arbcom ought to issue a clarification before it enforces an as-yet unstated interpretation of the policy that it has had ample opportunity to address. Better yet, this should not be an issue at all because I don't see why the parties need to be concerned with each other at all. Anyway, if it comes to it and my participation gets brought up again, I'm wondering if you could convey for the record that I have declined to become involved, and perhaps try to encourage the parties not to drag me into it? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That request has already been closed with no action (quite rightly I think) so no worries here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks. It just goes to show you that many things, if ignored, go away. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)