User talk:Ched/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

MarkBernstein is ANI again

For again, linking on his talk page and discussing links[1]. The links discuss me off wikipedia. Gamaliel, ever protective doesn't believe it's a violation. May I comment there? --DHeyward (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DHeyward. I'm not able to be on-wiki much at all right now so I will just say this. What I posted at AE was not a final or conclusive statement, so there's nothing in anything I have said that would forbid it. I didn't close or log anything. I would likely suggest avoiding it if you can, but if it's aimed directly at you, I can understand you wanting to defend yourself as well. For my part, I just don't know if you may or not. I'm sorry I can't be much more help. — Ched :  ?  14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm operating under the assumption it's in effect and I need permission from an uninvolved adminstrator. I'm asking for persmission to comment, not judgement as to whether it's allowed without permission. --DHeyward (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OK - yes - you have my permission. — Ched :  ?  16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

TfD

lolololol — Huntster (t @ c) 03:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

:-) — Ched :  ?  03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the people I miss (not the project)

Indeed, "heh!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A simple acknowledgement, years ago, by Less, kept me "in the WP game." Let me thank you now. It is wonderful to "see" you.. Buster Seven Talk 11:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Damned good to see you still about and looking in Mark. I certainly miss your sage voice about the place. I hope life is treating you well, and that you and your family are all doing well as well. (did I just "go to the 'well' one too many times there?). Hey there Buster. — Ched :  ?  13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I shall not reference the herb joke again, remembering how it confused you last time... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL - they were good days. Sad to say, but I become confused even more easily now than I did then. :) — Ched :  ?  11:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

SEO bump by linking website from wikipedia

FYI, my understanding is that we fixed or at least heavily mitigated that SEO bump back in 2007,[2] by switching the software to serve all external links on Wikipedia with the nofollow attribute, so Google stopped assigning any added page rank to pages linked from here. The change was made against a bunch of SEO pressure and in fact we get a lot less link spam now than we did back then. There may be other reasons to not let a link into a talk page, but directly creating page rank for the target site isn't a big factor any more. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well with over 200 variables in Google's algorithms and their penchant for secrecy, it's certainly more complex than I can follow. But alas, I gave up the web-design business more than 10 years ago, so it's no surprise that there are many things that I'm blissfully unaware of. I suppose this is a reference to a post on WP:AE, but given the atmosphere and participants there - I doubt I'll be returning any time soon. Feel free to fix any of my mistakes on said page, I shan't be offended in the least. And thank you for the update; I see now that several folks have confirmed my various suspicions with their merry hi-jinx. Amazing what now passes for acceptable behavior about the project. Best for my BP that I avoid any further involvement. Thanks again for the info 50. HAGD. — Ched :  ?  12:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Bonny Hicks Edit

Thanks for the "thank you"! Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

I had no idea this would take on such epic proportions. I am exhausted, but I will try to respond. I am deliberately not commenting on the Oliver talk page because it is a FA, and I think it best to not inflame things. Several things I want to cover:

• For those who would say my edit was a "revert", you are mistaken. I saw a debate via edits and edit summaries regarding the hidden text, and I did not "revert" to any version, I removed it entirely.

I removed it for several reasons: 1. It violates both WP:OWN and WP:HIDDEN. 2. The context of the hidden text was a pure and unadulterated lie fabrication. I looked at the talk page, the archives, and the FA page. Never was there any consensus established one way or the other regarding iBoxes. The hidden text was purely meant to intimidate others - and the all CAPS part of it was extremely puerile.

• The faux-thread on the talk page was an attempt to establish an alibi after the fact.

Section two.

I have not read through all posts and pages, but I am dumbfounded that the vicious attacks on Dreadstar went without blocks. I do understand that Admins. must have a thick skin, but that was beyond the pale. I do understand, respect, and even admire Harry's efforts to contain the situation, so I won't belabor the issue; other than to say "admin abuse" ... uhh yea. Oh, one more thing - If I ever, and I mean EVER see such behavior again, I WILL block immediately. (If someone wants to ping the offending parties, I have no objections. And I did see at least one warning from HJ, unfortunately classified as "rubish bin")

Section three

I haven't saved "diffs" yet, but I recall Harry mentioning Arbcom, and I fully agree with that. Two things however, ...

1. I strongly disagree that it should be an "infobox" case, but rather a "case/OWN"
2. I would ask that the case be delayed until sometime past late April. One reason being that Arbcom has recently taken a "2 case issue" which will consume a great deal of attention. The second reason being that I would prefer to participate in said case, but am unable to be consistently on wiki at this time.

All that said, I'll drop talk page notices since "ping" seems to be unreliable. — Ched :  ?  23:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer there not be an arbitration case at all. Far too much energy has been expended on this already, an it seems such a trivial thing to get so worked up about. It would be lovely if the warring parties could just sit down and discuss the merits or lack thereof of an infobox for any given article rather than edit-warring over hidden text. The issue may yet land back in ArbCom's court, as it's clear that the original case did little to resolve the Infobox Wars, but if both sides would just take a more constructive approach it needn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't even part of the "infobox wars"; to my knowledge, the two users who attempted to insert an infobox haven't got a clue about the controversy. The article's been infobox-less since Dec, and nobody tried to add one till today. To all appearances, it was two isolated incidents. Take who to Arb for what, exactly? Alakzi (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The context of the hidden text was a pure and unadulterated lie. I looked at the talk page, the archives, and the FA page. ... Well, I've been harping on about how there's not been any consensus for quite some time, but nobody's cared to back me up. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I am not permitted to appear on that page, but backed up, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Harry, I would love to see your vision come to pass, honestly I would. But it's really not about infoboxes - it's about walled gardens and ownership of articles. Actually, I think there was some good from the 2013 case ... I see many folks now working together in that respect. The problem is a few individuals who don't understand the concept of collaboration. I am more than willing to "go with the flow" ... but disruption is not a good thing. IJS — Ched :  ?  00:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• re to Alakzi: Much of what you've said I have taken into consideration. I'm trying to step back and look at a larger picture than the one article. You are very astute, and I appreciate your input - thank you. — Ched :  ?  00:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: .. you are not restricted here in any fashion. You may speak your mind. — Ched :  ?  00:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken, sorry, I am restricted not to make more than two comments on a "topic", wherever. Remember, it was noticed that I asked Ian Rose something. But I have a general solution which hopefully will not count. Develop a kind of edit notice for certain articles which I may not pronounce, saying:

There is consensus among the authors of this beautifully crafted article that it looks best with a plain image in the top right corner. Please refrain from even thinking of alternatives, to not disturb their peace of mind.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a general sense of ownership of FAs by the editors who work so hard to get them into shape. And the Wikipedia editors who focus on this specific task respect each other and will support each other should a case on this topic ever come to ARBCOM. When I was a new editor, I made the mistake of going into one article and altering the wording of a paragraph which was immediately reverted with a really nasty edit summary.
I'm of two minds about it, on the one hand, these editors clearly work diligently to improve content and create stronger articles. But on an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, it's deleterious to be bitey towards editors who wander into an article and want to make a contribution. Unfortunately, they are sometimes looked upon as vandals. I should add that I have occasionally seen veteran editors take new editors under their wing if they are seen to have the right stuff but it doesn't happen as often as it shoud. Just some thoughts by a talk page stalker. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Very astute and accurate Liz. (although I'm not surprised). Yes, I can see both sides too. When you put a lot of work into something, it's very disheartening to see others changing it. I also ran into a few issues when I started, but I consider myself as one of the lucky ones because Huntster and a few others helped teach me the ropes and encouraged me when I was down. (although once I went through that RfA thing, apparently I became "obnoxious") In the end though - our core principles say that anyone should feel free to edit here. I can't abide a bully - in real life or on the Internet, so there's times I end up in the deep end without even realizing that I jumped in. I'm not complaining though, and in general I'm proud of 98% of all I've done here. Thank you for your post - it's always a pleasure to chat with you. — Ched :  ?  22:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All fine in general. In the specific case, people had worked on the article from almost the beginning of Wikipedia, added an infobox early, changed it to better in 2006, which was in place until December 2014, when the new owners main editors came in and through it out. I dared to ask and was taken to arbitration enforcement where I was told by Cailil that I violated my restriction, and the next time that happened I would be sanctioned. Right after the infobox case, I left project classical music and joined free speech, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Explain

Can you explain how this, which is unarguably and considerably wrong, isn't casting aspersions? Hipocrite (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

will be back shortly. — Ched :  ?  21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a gut feeling (hunch) that the IP's personal attacks on User:HJ Mitchell were related to the one particular block he made (which I linked to). I have no idea what the Bacon number is, but I'd be surprised if it was a +10. If I'm wrong? meh. I've been wrong before; and will be again. After all, I believe the term was "whole swathes of users/editors of Wikipedia". As far as "casting aspersions" - perhaps you're trying to infer something into 3 words and a link that wouldn't be accurate? — Ched :  ?  22:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request concerning you

Please see WP:A/R/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

noted.

for reference, my edits to the article:

• [3] ...

administrative actions I've taken regarding the article in question:

• ... <looking> ..... uhhhhh .... anybody?

hmmmm .. yea, that seems to be all of them. — Ched :  ?  22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I listed everyone because I'd inevitably be accused of bias if I missed someone. By all means ask to be removed if the case is accepted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'm working on a statement there, and when I'm able I will collect diffs if the case is accepted. — Ched :  ?  22:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Will You Consider my Unblock Case?

Hi, I was impressed by your recent comment, including "Editors make mistakes. Admins make mistakes. It's very easy to jump on a bandwagon to make someone shut-up. Good people have been tossed and lost, we can't change the past; but we can do better in the future. People get pissed when they get blocked, and they tend to blow-off steam - that doesn't make them a permanent undesirable resource." I looked at your userpage and recent edits to see if we have anything in common, but can't really tell.

I was indeffed almost three years ago on a charge of sockpuppetry. It came by way of Timotheus Canens who never warned, gave evidence, or otherwise explained himself. Well, a full year later, when WP:AN/ANI discussed unblocking me, he pointed to a single diff where I spoke angrily to an editor I considered to have been hounding and harassing another editor. About that time or a few months later he also finally disclosed that he was unsure of who I might have been. His silence had been a massive stumbling block for me because people assumed he had "secret evidence."

I had a single account that I abandoned for privacy reasons, and I forthrightly disclosed this in my very first edit. I said I quit that account and wasn't going back (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&oldid=477070007). This is specifically authorized at WP:CLEANSTART though I didn't know about that policy at the time, I was winging it the most honest way I knew of. Oh man, this is going to turn into a novel, I'll just point you to my RFC/U at the end, and you can decide if you'll help me.

It has really been astounding to me how I have been treated, and I've seen in other cases by now it isn't just me. Blockees become essentially non-persons and, sorry but this is a fact, there are certain people that then become emboldened to hound and insult them. I do feel that I attracted hounders, and that is a chief reason why my appeals have failed. In my frustration at the processes not working for me, and my being treated neither fairly nor in accordance with policy, I resorted to clearly-identified IP block evasion. I felt insulted, my honesty was insulted, at being indeffed as a sock, and I wasn't going to prove Canens right in retrospect by starting other accounts, but I could IP block evade and seek unblock that way.

Most recent, I don't know late last year I talked with Nick (Notaspy) on IRC and he agreed to bring up my case at WP:AN/ANI. Nick is the kind of fellow that wants to cover all the bases and he wrote some mini-novella on me there. I said "Nick, the regulars at WP:AN/ANI are typically not the sort to read all this," but he did his thing. At that point I had not even IP block-evaded for 45 days, he was raising the case for me all by the book. So what do I get out of that? Formally banned, not to be revisited for a year. No reason given, it was a "we don't like you" ban. A couple people were instrumental in that discussion: Bwilkins, who responded in 10 minutes flat, which was not even enough time to have read Nick's text, and then quickly Fluffernutter. Both those individuals make repeat appearances each time I seek unblock. Call it a hounder (maybe I'm not supposed to?), call it a flounder, but I feel hounded by them, particularly Bwilkins.

Anyhow this has turned into a novel after all. If you are brave enough to unblock my talkpage only, we'll talk further. Here's my statement at the RFC/U, which is probably the best summary of my case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colton_Cosmic#Statement_of_the_dispute. Please *don't* go by the comments there, which are dominated by the "off with his head" crowd, inform yourself instead by the RFC/U text itself which was certified as neutral by whomever was helping me at the time. Thanks for reading this, whatever you decide. I urge you to give me a chance to respond to any problems in my behavior that you fault. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.171.80 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall details on this, or perhaps I never knew them. I'll have to look around, and check with a few folks before I can respond with anything. It may take a bit of time, but I will try to look. — Ched :  ?  18:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps WP:UTRS would be an option (if you are Cosmic Colton) <also noting that the IP has been blocked, not by me though>. — Ched :  ?  18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unblocking CC would be tantamount to committing Wikisuicide, and would be a bad idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your question to Salvio

As you saw, I removed the message on Dreadstar's page, because Bishzilla ain't worried about being smacked. But you seem to say somebody was smacked — you mean for removing comments on the page? Who? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC).

Thank you again Bishonen. My use of the term "smacked" was in reference to the 1 hour desysop of Dreadstar by motion. Had there been a case proper, then multiple violations of WP:NPA would have been entered into evidence, but those people will apparently now continue with their ... <thinking> ... same method of editing. Having once (long ago) given an editor back their talk page access (but still blocked), I learned never to mess with Arbcom if one wants to remain here. Sadly, I fear that my 'Zilla is not as formidable as the great and honorable original Bishzilla. Thank you again for respecting the dignity of a fellow editor. — Ched :  ?  22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Ched, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Infoboxes II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

reference

Chromatic aberration — Ched :  ?  17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you ;) - how do you like this DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Very nice Gerda. — Ched :  ?  23:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the case they closed today (should have waited for April Fool): collaboration is possible, and yes in classical music, see piano and opera ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope it works out well for people working in those areas. — Ched :  ?  15:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Opera is just fine, - I see more diva-behaviour in the other field, but not by Smerus who produces interesting articles and that's it. Do I care if they have an infobox? No. Do I care if Chopin has an infobox? No. Do I care if new editors are reverted without clarifying? Yes. Do I care if a tradition of 10 years is ignored, and the new version is labeled a "consensus"? Yes. Not without irony: I was told only today (see Talk:List of Bach cantatas) that the proper way to do a major rewrite of an article is to announce it on the talk beforehand, notifying previous editors, isn't that interesting? Back to articles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well - I'm always glad to see people working together. I have no comment on the other items - at this time. — Ched :  ?  17:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

watch the invisible bird for 1 April, - some found it not April Fool enough, I love it, - reminding me how we met ;) - DYK that you were the first Wikipedian to send me an email? Consolation it was, to be remembered, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article, although I've only read the lead so far. No, I didn't know that about email. :-) — Ched :  ?  23:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

visible - was a DYK article back then which made it to the stats, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OHHHH ... I had missed that little item. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Buh bye

I will return on or after 2 April. Not really up for the anal annual antics this year. — Ched :  ?  02:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Smart fellow! Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

yea ... I just wasn't in the mood this year. Always a pleasure to see you though Montanabw. Note: I really did find it amusing that my spell checker's first choice for "anual" was "anal" though ... — Ched :  ?  03:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I do that most years. I turned up this year and got grumpy. Worm^TT(talk) 07:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In hindsight, I probably should have as well. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey there Dave and Kelap - nice of you to stop by. Yea - guess I missed the "decaffeinated Jimbo" and the "Saint Kosher" (Gregory Kohs (?)) issues. Would that be "Kosher in a bucket"? or "Hell in a Saint"? — Ched :  ?  18:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think what surprises me is that I look at all the RfCs about April Fools' Day from years past and this outraged reaction from some Wikipedia editors is so predictable. Every April 1st, some editor is going to alter some text/images and there will be folks who are very upset about it. And it'll happen again in 365 days. Compared to years past, it seems like this year was relatively tame. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Liz. My first year or two here with an actual account, there were a bunch of AfD and RfA pages as well; all of which were steeped in said humor - well - actually a few of them were pretty funny. There was one AfD to delete Earth .... lol. Another tradition was to copy User:Pedro's sig. (that I never did give up ... :)). Yes, some humor I do enjoy - but the bickering over what was funny and what wasn't became the prevailing wind - so I sort of lost interest. — Ched :  ?  19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Although it wasn't spontaneous (the editor asked permission ahead of time), I did like this inversion of a user page. It only lasted for 2 hours but edit histories are forever. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Liz ... yes that was VERY cute. :) — Ched :  ?  03:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Traveling

• Note - I will be traveling from April 12th through April 22nd. I'm not sure what my access to the internet will be, although I'll say that the area in Illinois I'm headed for doesn't have a particularly strong infrastructure. I'm hoping to get back to honest 'pedia work by the end of the month though. — Ched :  ?  19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Query

Is it possible to delete this edit summary? Menendez might be guilty but this edit summary is very pointy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure Ched is around, so I've deleted it and warned the user (mildly, as they're new). Thanks, Liz. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC).

Not sure if this is your problem, but pinging

FWIW, I saw you post at RationalObserver's talk page, so that's why I'm posting to you. I think it is important that any unblocking administrator consider the material that RationalObserver has removed from her talk page, such as my comment linked here. While she has that right (to remove material), it is, nonetheless, to be noted that what I had to say is highly relevant: [4]. Montanabw^(talk) 02:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw .. I think there is a HUGE misunderstanding here.

first I had absolutely NO intention of unblocking - in fact, if anything, I considered DECLINING the unblock request. Second, yes - I did notice that there is a very deliberate and selective .. ummm ... choice of what's left on RO's talk page. Third, my hope was that any incoming administrator would notice that I placed the "officially" in bold ... followed by "decline". The fact is that there is a HUGE history here, and I've only read through a small part of it. Hence my LACK of administrative actions. For any other incoming ...

• My understanding is that there was a block ..
• after discussion with admin. Coffee, RO agreed to certain terms in order to be unblocked.

* One of terms was that if there was any violation whatsoever, then a 6 month block would be enacted.

• After unblocking RO, Coffee stated that if RO failed to adhere to the agreed upon proper behavior promises, that he (Coffee) would block RO for 6 months.
• RO failed to live up to their commitment.
• Coffee saw the violation, and lived up to his commitment.

• Now .. FYI ... I've just had a MAJOR change in my personal life dumped in my lap. No offense intended to any individual whatsoever .. but I'd like to forget this website for a bit .. I have a real life I have to attend to. I'll get back to here when I can. Email me if there's anything really important. — Ched :  ?  02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Edited per email request — Ched :  ?  18:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Just wanted to jump online for a moment to wish everyone a happy Easter. If it's not a holiday you celebrate - ... well then, just have a great weekend. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  06:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Ched. The closest I came to see resurrection here, - remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin protection

Did you mean to fully protect that? Alakzi (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For 24 hours - and posted at WP:RFPP for review. It may be the WP:WRONGVERSION, but hopefully someone with more time than I can review it and make a call. If it keeps an editor from being blocked - I thought it was worth a try. — Ched :  ?  17:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You semi'd a page with edit warring by autoconfirmed users Ched, no worries, I upped it for you. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup - sorry about not being clear. Alakzi (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Always glad to have "eyes on" :-) — Ched :  ?  17:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You know where to send the cheque. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

ROTF-LMBO .. headed your way - wrapped in bacon too.. :) — Ched :  ?  17:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

LB

In my experience with Lightbreather, and I've had my fair share including sharing a 6 month Topic ban, I have come to know LB as a person who must have the last word in any discussion. They are obviously not alone in this drive/urge/tendency on this site, but I feel it compels LB at times to say things that probably shouldn't be said. That combined with how horrific of a communication medium this site can be at times and its fairly easy to see how LB can get into "trouble" over and over[5]. But, at the end of the day, its still LB choosing to hit that Save page button. My 2 cents... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall ever working with them on any articles myself; but thank you for your input. — Ched :  ?  05:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Are You Going to Respond?

"I don't recall details on this, or perhaps I never knew them. I'll have to look around, and check with a few folks before I can respond with anything. It may take a bit of time, but I will try to look. — Ched :  ? 18:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC) And perhaps WP:UTRS would be an option (if you are Cosmic Colton) <also noting that the IP has been blocked, not by me though>. — Ched :  ? 18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"

"Unblocking CC would be tantamount to committing Wikisuicide, and would be a bad idea. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"

Ched, it's been a couple weeks. Are you going to respond or shall I take this as "my response is not to respond?" Lukeno94 is among my hounders. He serially shows up to revert me when I try to talk to people on their talkpages. At my RFC/U he was a dogged persistent critic, firing off insults (like "can't be trusted") and arguing extendedly at those that supported me. It is quite personalized and goes beyond anything envisioned as a normal patroller application of WP:EVADE. If you're interested I also posted at Jimbo's talkpage an hour or so ago. Was reverted but you can find it. Could use some help here, but not going to stick around your talkpage if you won't. Colton Cosmic.

IFF you are Colton Cosmic (see: Joe job) then I would say to see WP:Standard offer. After some research and talking to a few folks - no, I can't unilaterally unblock you. If there's a need for further explanation, then I'll do so when I get back home. signed: Ched (not at home) 99.148.145.220 (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's me. I've never been impersonated that I know of. WP:OFFER is just a cruel joke as it pertains to me, because it forces me to grovel and apologize for something I never did, plus the demands on me from several are that I identify my prior account. They'll be in a position to stymie my unblock even if I crawl around WP:AN/ANI kissing everyone's feet six months from now. You may suggest it sincerely, but a lot of people just want to sucker me into it, and then laugh as I stay blocked. Plus Offer is just an essay. If it were for real, then it would be implemented by setting my block to six months right now, and extending it only on further policy violation. You want to do that? A cruel joke. I have already been blocked for three years for something I never did, so what is the point of shoving another six months on there? But if that's your answer, that's your answer. Thanks at least for responding. Colton Cosmic.

I'm not a fan of making people "grovel", just want them to say they won't do the things they got blocked for again. (and then stick to it). 99.148.145.220 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't quite got the message that I didn't do what I am blocked for. Your whole preconception here (as is the preconception at WP:OFFER) is that all blocks are legitimate and non-abusive and it is always the editor at fault. To make me say I won't sock anymore is to force me to into the lie that I ever did. Ched, I don't think *you* want to see groveling but that is what a great number of your fellow administrators are after. Colton Cosmic.

Oh I got the message. (you think you did nothing wrong, and should be unbanned and unblocked). MY point is that regardless of your views, the community feels you're not ready to return yet. Even if you are correct, if I were to unilaterally unblock you - it would be against the community. THAT, would be a misuse of my tools. IFF you honestly wanted to just edit quietly, rather than prolong drama, then you would wait things out a while without popping in with the "Hey, I'm Colton Cosmic, I was mistreated, and I found an unblocked IP address that I can edit from". Rather you would simply, and quietly, wait - create an account, and edit in non-confrontational ways. (see: WP:FRESHSTART ... or perhaps it's WP:CLEANSTART)

Without a doubt, I do think there are many times editors have been mistreated, and blocked unjustly. But I am not not a "God-King" on wiki - just a lowly member of the unwashed masses that has a couple buttons. I'm not advocating "socking", but the truth is that WP:SOCK is more about poor behavior than about "who" someone is. (IMHO). Just take a break, and return to editing in quite and productive ways - and it's likely that you won't be bothered. I do wish you the best of luck, no matter what choices you make however. Cheers. signed: Ched (not at home) 99.148.146.132 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ched, I agree that you are entitled to politely close our communication on your talkpage with a "fare thee well" paragraph. I disagree that you are entitled to precede that farewell with a paragraph with a number of comments misrepresenting and misjudging me. Firstly, I never said "I did nothing wrong." I said I didn't do what I was blocked for, which was socking. One of the things I owned up to was that I was uncivil in an interaction with a person an editor I believed had been wikihounding and taunting another for no less than two years. But I wasn't blocked for incivility. When I say "I'm innocent of socking," your answer should not be to hold me to a standard that, sock or not, I must never have done a thing wrong.

Secondly, you say, pedantically, that "the community" finds me wanting. You are talking not about a representative sampling of all of Wikipedia's editors and administrators, rather you refer to a self-selecting subset of nearly universally administrative participants that are regulars at WP:AN/ANI. In my ban, the discussion there was kicked off within ten minutes by Bwilkins, who has been my long-term hounder since 2012. He propositioned, without any reasoning or explanation at all (although such is mandated by policy) that I be banned with soonest appeal in a year. This despite the fact I hadn't even block-evaded in 45 days. I had also asked Bwilkins to stay off my talkpage no less than six times in the preceding couple years, which he disregarded each time, until his fellow administrator finally told him to stay off. He since been desysoped for a pattern of conduct unbecoming. In the banning discussion, which included a great deal of explanatory text by Nick that Bwilkins could not have possibly read in the ten minutes before calling for my ban, many others quickly piled on to agree, little or none providing any reasoning. It was mobbing behavior and I'd ask you not to shorthand it as "the will of the community" again.

Thirdly, you call me drama seeker for block evasion, because of your view that I should just consent to my false blocking as a sock by... starting to sock! Honesty and policy, not a personal enjoyment of the drama, prohibit me this course. This solution you recommend, in which you say I could proceed quietly and unmolestedly, I actually think there are several "sock hunter" admins who rather would pursue me doggedly, with checkuser, regarding mine as a prized scalp, not sharing your viewpoint of "let him edit peacefully if he gets along."I'd also be left looking over my shoulder nervously for the future of my Wikipedia editing. I'd also not be able to edit the WP:OPTOUT initiative which I've come to believe is the most important contribution I could make.

Finally, I never asked you to be a "God King" and unblock me. I asked for your help in getting unblocked. There are many ways you could do it, such as unblocking my talkpage to discuss the matter further, bringing it up at a neutral place such as a fellow admin you respect to talk about the matter outside the drama boards, or even as last resort bringing it up again with your thoughts at WP:AN/ANI and saying you think I should at least be allowed to defend myself against my long-term critics. If you don't want to do that, fine, I have now set the record straight with you. Fare thee well. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.101.181.149 (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have anything further to add. — Ched :  ?  22:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	It's not for a difficult decision or a tedious task, it's for caring enough to sort out an IP block of a decent editor. That's what we need admins to do more. RexxS (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm speechless RexxS. Although I quit "collecting" and saving things like this a few years back, I do have to admit that this particular one has always been something I hoped to one day earn. I am humbled, and thank you very much. It is one that I'll save. — Ched :  ?  16:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ched

Thanks for your comments. Well you might have liked mine, but yours were very nice to receive too.

Well I think you might find it difficult with some of the people on here, but that doesn't surprise me really. You're active in the policing aspects of WP, and so you see mostly the worst of the bunch! I think there is a lot good people on here, but you just don't see them much at places like ANI.

Well my experiences of admins have mostly been favourable, or at least so far! I think that's mainly because I've managed to mostly show some degree of self control; but I can see how it easy to lose this. Being reverted is never easy. I was active in linguistics at one point, but I lost my patience with the people I dealt with; but maybe I'll return at some point. You've got to stand up for yourself to some extent, but you've also got to know when to back down. So it's a learning curve, but with rewards if you stick with it. I think one thing in my favour is that I have taken breaks in the past, which I feel helped a lot.

Anyway, all the best. --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Mrjulesd. Very kind thoughts, and I agree with most if not all of what you've said. Perhaps I'll elaborate on my own thoughts when I have more time. Best always. — Ched :  ?  18:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

LB

In my experience with Lightbreather, and I've had my fair share including sharing a 6 month Topic ban, I have come to know LB as a person who must have the last word in any discussion. They are obviously not alone in this drive/urge/tendency on this site, but I feel it compels LB at times to say things that probably shouldn't be said. That combined with how horrific of a communication medium this site can be at times and its fairly easy to see how LB can get into "trouble" over and over[6]. But, at the end of the day, its still LB choosing to hit that Save page button. My 2 cents... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall ever working with them on any articles myself; but thank you for your input. — Ched :  ?  05:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The comment you made on their Talk page is what prompted my note. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And the "answer" I got was VERY telling .. at least to me. There are times it appears that those who thump their chest the most about the all hailed "civility" - are actually so much more disruptive, and counterproductive, than the folks who simply say what they are thinking. Oh well - there seem to be plenty of eyes on it now. I guess all we can do is await the outcome - and then go through the whole thing again a month from now. So much time wasted on giving folks WP:ROPE, when clearly the AGF has been thoroughly exhausted - but I suppose that is the way of the wiki world. Nice to meet you by the way Scalhotrod - I hope your other ventures here are enjoyable ones. Best. — Ched :  ?  17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched, nice to virtually meet you as well... :) Unfortunately, I think that I have acquired a "virtual stink" via my interactions with LB. There was even an Admin was considering recommending me for RfA, but when I offered up background about mine and LBs interaction, they decided it was best to wait, quite a while actually. This goes back to when LB declared that they were retiring from WP because it was too incivil[7], obviously to renounce that later[8]. This also lead to a block for Sockpuppeting around the same time[9].

That said, I know LB is capable of collaborative work. I said as much and gave examples in my comments at ANI[10], but they seem to be driven by something else other than building an encyclopedia.

Quite frankly, and since so many are talking about "baiting comments", the most appalling thing that LB has done in my opinion was to bait the Coordinator for the Firearms Project, Mike Searson. I commented on this as well at ANI, but that is a prime example of LBs disruptive influence. Granted, he took the bait, but now we have a project coordinator that is Topic banned from part of the subject matter they oversee. Another Editor and I have come up with a possible solution that involves a collaborative task force to compartmentalize the Gun Politics articles away from the technical and historical articles of the main Firearms Project. We're calling it the Gun Politics Task Force (GPTF) and its my intention that it have 3 coordinators. One each from the Firearms, Law, and Politics projects to represent their respective views.

Nice to make your acquaintance. Regardless of the outcome of these events, I hope things calm down a bit and we can all get back to the business at hand... :) Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Intertranswiki

Hi. In 2009 you joined up for the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. The project has since ceased activity but is currently being given a kick start due to its importance and the coordination needed to translate content from other wikipedias. If you're still active and are still interested please visit the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and add a {{tick}} by your name within the next week so the project can do a recount and update. Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

huh? The only other language I speak is this. So - whatchew talkin 'bout? — Ched :  ?  09:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

perhaps you forgot one since 2009? - Did you know that we have now WP:QAIPOST (where I will post this)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do admit that my memory isn't exactly the best anymore. :-) — Ched :  ?  09:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Any post for the POST? I made two, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Posted there. ty. — Ched :  ?  11:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Self Canvass

The Wikipedia is serious businez.

• Ched Like the {{like}} template.
• Ched {{trout}} and  Dislike naughty TfD
• Ched need to find @Bishonen: "big trout" (stockfish?) for people.
• Ched say buh-bye now. — Ched :  ?  11:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Are these really nominated again?  Dislike . --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Use {{subst:User:Darwinbish/Stockfish}}. Bishonen, bah. For templates for all seasons, check my userpage! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 11:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

Why thank you little ankle biter. Very glad to see that you monitor master's pings. :).

And Kelapstick .. Yep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_26#Like_and_Dislike. grrrrr. — Ched :  ?  11:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If these templates are a source of enjoyment to some, they can keep them in their userspace, the way we do with the myriads of userboxes. {{Dislike}}'s doc even suggested changing the text to "hate"; that must go a long way towards "social interaction". Alakzi (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You have your views, and I have mine; but we seem to disagree on this particular issue. Hopefully we shall agree on some future issue. — Ched :  ?  11:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note also: If you don't care for them, you are not required to use them - IJS. — Ched :  ?  11:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted a bold relisting by the nominator. Can we get someone to put a lid on it? Alakzi (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be able to make the call myself, as I've already voiced a view in the XfD. Actually I haven't even looked back since I registered my "keep" vote. My time has been so limited. There is a place to request closes, but I'm not sure of the link. — Ched :  ?  16:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, in case you want that. (I try to stay away from the notice boards.) 2 precious people put a retired sign up today, - trying to stay calm --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I was gonna suggest we slip this one under the WP:IAR rag, but I've been told everybody gets their knickers in a twist over "involved" closures - even when they're entirely uncontroversial. TfD is usually backlogged; with the exception of Plastikspork, no other admin regularly attends to TfD. I don't know what's happened to Martijn, either; he's definitely missed. Alakzi (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers!

I Like Ched, but I  Dislike wet blankets who think we should delete all user- and talk-space icons, user boxes, barn stars and other goofy graphic devices that humanize Wikipedia behind the curtain. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I think it's time to update the "dislike" icon to match the "like" thumb's up, don't you? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree on the update - but it's been AGES since I did ANY kind of code work. Let me get some real life stuff done, and I'll have a look at it though. Actually - prolly just rotate the graphic 180 degrees (maybe mirror) and use that. I think I can handle that.

Note: I do respect those who simply want to "write" and "read" encyclopedia style articles. But I think there has to be some element of enjoyment for those with a more artistic and playful personality as well. The youth of today, and the nature of online technology, have to be reflected in the Wiki culture if we are to keep pace with an ever changing world. If we fail to adopt new things (which I normally resist myself), then we become obsolete; and something "better" (read: newer) takes our place. I freely admit to being an old curmudgeon, but I've spent a lot of years, and endure a lot of aches and pains - so it's a title I wear proudly. But I still try to "surrender gracefully to the times of this generation" (paraphrased and modified from my user page quote). Anyway - let me get some required R/L done, and I'll see what I can do. TY for your post. — Ched :  ?  12:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually fall in the category of reader and writer of encyclopedia articles, but I also recognize that the worker bees need to lighten up from time to time. It's good for morale and it builds camaraderie. I used to think the barn stars, wiki-otters, etc., were beyond goofy, but then I decided to embrace the madness. We could use more of that around here, properly employed. It's hard to go to the mat against someone with whom you've previously been friendly -- and that usually works in both directions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dirtlawyer, I think we actually agree on that one! Like. Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In the past, we agreed on most things, Montana, and I hope we do so again in the future. As for the Like template/icon, I rarely use it, but I oppose its deletion because it's harmless and the repeated attempts by a vocal minority to delete it are another symptom of unnecessary "instruction creep" throughout Wikipedia. I'm also put off by the attempts by some to misrepresent NOTFACEBOOK, when clearly most who cite it as a reason for deletion have never read it. In an ideal world, folks should not demand enforcement of the rules in one breath, and then misrepresent what the rules are with the next. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Who might the vocal minority be? Apart from the nominator, only two other people !voted to keep. We did not badger anybody; we said what we wanted to, responded civilly to queries, and moved on when there was nothing more to add. Can we stop with splitting people into factions? It's beginning to get on my nerves. Alakzi (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, it appears that the nominator and current "delete" voters are completely unaware of the checkered TfD history of this template. There is significant history. Several determined folks previously used every argument imaginable to delete this template, including five TfDs on Wikipedia in the space of about two and a half years -- and another two on Commons for possible copyright infringement, which ultimately led to a redesign of the icon. The same arguments (or slight variations thereof) were advanced each time, considered, analyzed and rejected. The present TfD installment is very mild compared to the exaggerated claims and rhetoric of past "delete" !voters; if you review the previous TfDs, the members of the "vocal minority" are self-evident. This is a subject where reasonable people may disagree, and in the current TfD discussion everyone appears to be disagreeing in an agreeable fashion. Enough said. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you were referring to previous nominations? Regardless, I am now distracted by the line-height discrepancy between your and my comment; I wonder if it's related to this. Alakzi (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, if I'm criticizing you, I will generally say, "Hey, Alakzi, I'm criticizing you." It saves on the guesswork. I had not used the "like" template since it was redesigned from the previous blue rectangle (a possible Facebook copyright infringement) to the present green circle. As you noted, clearly the text's line height is irregular because of the size of the icon template relative to the text, which is a minor problem in user and talk-space. If the icon were used in article or template-space, I would already be talking to you about how we could fix it. FYI, the potential line-height discrepancy was one of the first things I checked when you and I started fiddling with Template:Medal a couple of weeks ago -- I tend to be far more conscious of these types of typography, graphics and layout and design issues than the typical Wikipedia editor. It's a basic principal of good layout and design that inset or in-line graphics should never interfere with line-spacing and/or line height of main body text -- it looks amateurish, and it can usually be easily avoided. I often see the problem on Wikipedia when editors use mathematics or scientific symbols in in-line text, rather than than using an inset or or block paragraph to separate equations and the like from surrounding article text. As for the coding diff linked above, I could not say. I know quite a lot about typography and graphic design, but -- as you know -- my great frustration is that I don't have the coding skills to implement my own ideas in a computer/internet environment. OTH, perhaps it's better that way . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that. ;-) No, I didn't mean the increase in line-height caused by the icon. The line-height of my message beginning with "Who might the vocal. . ." is greater than yours beginning with "Alakzi, it appears that. . .". This applies to the whole paragraph. It must've been caused by a recent typographic alteration. Alakzi (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) DL and Alakzi ... if you two have issues with each other, could you please take it to your own talk pages? If it's all about the "like"and "dislike" templates (I haven't read through the responses since I got back yet), then the discussion/debate belongs on XfD page. I have agreed with both of you at points, and I have disagreed with you both at points. In this case, I support the "keep" end of the templates. I don't mind discussing my views here with either one of you - but if there's some sort of issue between the two of you, then my talk isn't the place to hash it out. — Ched :  ?  21:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ched, I'm on very good terms with Dirtlawyer1. We both tend to be quite frank but mean no disrespect. I've probably collaborated with Dirtlawyer1 more than anybody else here. Alakzi (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Like ... I'm sorry - I couldn't resist. Great, then it's ok for me to speak my mind too. I do have to temper my words for adminy crap where I have to be accountable - held to a higher standard etc. But good to know that I can be blunt. — Ched :  ?  22:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi hit the nail on the head: plenty of give-and-take between us, but he has nothing but my respect. He is the brains behind all of my template projects, I've grown to depend on his expertise, and he keeps me within the bounds of the technically feasible. He's also a good second opinion on a lot of things. He's a keeper -- even if he does want to delete the damn thumb's up icon! Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Who retired?

@Gerda Arendt:

• " 2 precious people put a retired sign up today, - trying to stay calm --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)"

Who retired? — Ched :  ?  23:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Giano (with the user page by Jack Merridew who is "buried" in the small urn on the right) and Hafspajen the pic person without gender on WP, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh .. truly a loss for wiki. I was just over there the other evening, and left due to some rather ... unfortunate discussion. I'll drop by either his or his aunt's page and wish them well in their travels the first chance I get. I'd seen the Hafspajen name, but I'm not familiar with them, still, I'm always saddened when an editor of quality decides to leave. Hopefully in time, minds will change. — Ched :  ?  03:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Old grudges die so hard"

And that you would defend the use of this personal hobby website in a Featured article (indeed, in any article, since it is not a reliable source) is proof of that.

And that Wikipedia hosted an article based on a personal hobby website for about ten years-- which is probably now mirrored all over the place-- will make it doubly hard to now correct the article.

Would you mind, in the future, avoiding personalization and confining your commentary on article discussions to the relevant standards? (I realize you've never written an FA, but WP:RS applies to all articles, not just Featured articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

whatever — Ched :  ?  13:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant. You drag out your old grudge on a page where it has no place, waste a bunch of time, and "whatever" is all you have to say for yourself. Does Wikipedia bring this out in you? If so, consider another long break. Alternately, consider ... manning up to your mistake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may butt in. . . I think there's a misunderstanding here. Ched thought you called scouting a hobby, but you didn't; you called the website a hobby website, meaning that it's been published by a non-professional - which appears to be entirely correct. Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

well, look who's here, speaking on behalf of others again. If Ched made a mistake, CHED can own up to it and apologize, and remove his personalization from the review. Perhaps it is CHED's grudges that lead to him misreading the obvious, and is something he might think about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for attempting to diffuse the situation. I shan't be making the same mistake again. Alakzi (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, chill out and leave Ched alone. You what grudge he is talking about, (involving an editor who no longer edits wikipedia) and I really don't feel like spelling it out here. You may be going through all the older FAs to review them, but you hit a nerve when you hit this one. Just let it be and try to not tell other people that they need long breaks—that's really rather snotty. Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And, now, you are again not reading or trying to understand FAR. *I* did not "hit this one", and it is *NOT* *even* on the URFA list. DrKiernan nominated it at FAR (where I am just another reviewer), Wimvandorst (an editor with whom I worked several times and is the main architect of that work) was the FAC nominator, and if there is any "grudge" going on here, it looks like people weighing in with an agenda based on it being a scouting article. Further, anyone who follows FAR will recognize that it is an article in the content area where DrK works most frequently (that is, he wasn't "targeting" any editor-- heraldry, royalty, etc is the area he knows and works in).

I will "leave Ched alone" when he and co. drop the grudge. Clearly, Wikipedia brings out something in Ched that I see often, while others seem to have a different experience of him. It has never been quite so evident as in what he did here. There is something to be said about the character of those who always rush to defend Wikifriends, but can't seem to acknowledge when they are plain ole wrong and furthering BATTLEGROUND. Good on DrK for paying attention to just how bad this "FA" was, and for bringing it forward, because it has never even been on my radar. What *is* on my radar now is that I supported (back in 2006) other work by Wimvandorst, so now I need to go back and see if we did this kind of work often back then, and if I supported other deficient articles. All of the necessary work could proceed with much less agida if Ched would drop his grudge, and you would stop defending grudge-bearing behavior. There is no place for this kind of stuff with such a clearly deficient article, and apologies do not come that hard to people of substance and character. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sandy, your frequency to say "you just don't understand" to people and to assume that it is their behavior and not your own is part of the problem. When you say, "Clearly, Wikipedia brings out something in Ched that I see often" - no, Sandy, it's your own behavior that "brings out" these responses. Not wikipedia. Your own failure to willingly forgive certain people for past issues—particularly when you were wrong to begin with— and to continue to characterize them inaccurately years later— has been an ongoing problem a number of us have seen in you. But it is probably best for us all to drop this stick and just let the process proceed apace. I do suggest that perhaps it would avoid any further drama if you have some other editor finish the FAR on Baden-Powell, though. Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Chiming in as someone who's (AFAIK) on speaking terms with all parties, has no opinion on scouting, and has no horse in this race—regardless of any underlying issues, on this particular occasion Sandy is correct and Ched is wrong. "Hobby site" means a website someone runs as a hobby, which falls under WP:SPS and aside from a very few exceptions* isn't appropriate as a source on Wikipedia; not a website about a hobby. (Ched/Montana, presumably neither of you are seriously contending that pinetreeweb.com, which explicitly says at the top that it's just someone's personal website, is actually a reliable source; it also includes the self-published www.thepeerage.com, jamroll.org and www.weyriver.co.uk, and the user-created infed.org and Find a Grave.) As Sandy says, she's not even the person who raised the sourcing issues or sent the article to FAR. I do agree that it would probably be easier for all concerned if she stepped back from the FAR—it won't affect the result, since short of a complete rebuilding there's minimal possibility of it surviving at FAR. – iridescent 11:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  *The exceptions are (1) when the author of the site is the subject of the article or a notable critic of the article subject, and thus their personal website is legitimate as a source for their opinions, (2) when the person running the site is a significant academic who runs their website as a "for further information see my website" adjunct to their published works, or (3) when the website itself is the subject of the article. None appears to apply in this case.

There are some other quaint exceptions ("the exception that proves the rule", perhaps?). The one that comes immediately to mind is the guy who spent years cataloguing Russian/Soviet military aircraft and putting the information on his "hobby site". It turned out to be the most accurate source - more up-to-date than Janes! - and even the CIA used it. He wan't an academic, nor a published expert (apart from his self-published hobby site), but when the site was taken to RSN, the overwhelming opinion was that it was a reliable source - which of course it was in the non-Wikipedia sense. Consider this one: there's no decent published biography of Robert Thurston Dart, but one of his students is a friend of mine and he wrote a biography that I made into a website. Over the years, the information there has been augmented by other of Dart's students, many of whom are hugely eminent in modern Classical music. The question is: at what point does the hobby site become a reliable source? As the commercial model of publishing diverges from web 2.0, not every biography is going to have the imprimatur of a commercial publishing house. At some point, Wikipedians are going to have to take a deep breath and figure out a broader mechanism for deciding on what a reliable source might be. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• TY all for comments. I will try to reply tonight. — Ched :  ?  16:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Listening to people on this project has made me want to spend less time here. I can't recall the last time I've had a pleasant interaction. Alakzi (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of good folks around Alakzi. Sorry, just not up for editing right now - so whatever happens to the article is fine with me. Hopefully some time within the next few days I'll get back. — Ched :  ?  02:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And you're one of the good folks, Alakzi. Nil carborundum. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think RS as are all of our policies are guides rather than definitive which is why we have an Ignore all rules aspect to WP. There's a point were common sense comes into play. Its often in arguments rather than discussions about sources where policy and guidelines become weapons rather than markers towards better practice in sourcing, And I don't mean best. When editors drop individual and personal positions and instead have as a major concern the best content, great collaboration and great articles can be a result. In an ideal environment editors would look together at sources and could perhaps agree that the best source may not always be the one that falls within the confines of a definite view of policy. I am in no way arguing for less than reliable sources. I am arguing for excellent editor collaboration and the resultant agreements as to what sources are best in any given situation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC))

I agree with olive, though it may be that some of these articles may also never pass GA/FA status due to the source material... yet I've seen some FACs pass because the material looks RS, even though it's actually crap...but only those of us with some expertise recognize them as crap, but on the internet no one knows you are a dog... Hmmm Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Sandy: I will come and go here as I damned well please. — Ched :  ?  05:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look later on this week. — Ched :  ?  11:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

All things considered, .. I may consider saying nothing. — Ched :  ?  05:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been leaning that way myself. I made a brief comment, but no evidence. Not my circus, not really. Montanabw^(talk) 17:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Feels like capitulation and loss of dignity: I filed amendment, - we have too many victims. Dona nobis pacem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As somebody who suffers from anxiety, I believe people on this site have just got too much energy. Alakzi (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

At my age? ... I wish I had a bit more of that energy. — Ched :  ?  18:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not you, but editors who exhibit this sort of tomfoolery. I'm not a proud person, which makes it is somewhat unlikely that I'd take the bait, but many other people will. Apologies for hijacking the thread with my own frustrations. Alakzi (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• @ Montanabw ... I used to care about what was best for the project as a whole - for all the good it did. Thinking "IDGAF" may apply, and thinking about just turning in my tools. I'll wait a day or two, perhaps my feelings will change, but there's something really not right about it all. I know what's been posted "Female, 55 years old" etc. .. but it really feels to me like "Male, 20 years old, trolling for the lulz". IDK ... maybe I'll just take a break.
• @ Gerda I'm not sure what to say. "dignity" implies "integrity" to me .. and that's hard to come by on this site. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how someone gets sanctioned at an Arbcom level without ever being blocked ... OH WAIT ... IIRC ... there was never even a freakin warning in your case. Whatever - I probably shouldn't be here considering my "mood". Hope everyone has a great day. — Ched :  ?  17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• As an aside - I choose not to discuss the term "victim" — Ched :  ?  18:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say about two who blocked themselves, but perhaps you have a better term. * ... that Ernst Pepping's 1948 Missa Dona nobis pacem (grant us peace) for unaccompanied eight-part choir may have been the composer's "personal plea"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@L235:, as far as I know, I have never been a party to ANY Iban. If I am mistaken, could you please link me to WHERE an Iban between LB and I took place? (perhaps you've deposited this notice on the wrong user's page?)

Further, if there are an "unusual number of participants with interaction bans" related to LB - then why on earth are we wasting time with an Arbitration case? It should be obvious where the disruption is coming from by now, and the simple solution is clear: block, and let the rest of us get on with building an encyclopedia. I'm not chastising "the messenger" here, but you may want to relay that to the powers that be. — Ched :  ?  13:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The Committee directed that I notify everyone who commented in the case request. Recommendations for the proposed decision may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. Thank you. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Ched :  ?  13:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy Mothers Day

I haven't checked to see if it is celebrated outside the US; but, Happy Mothers Day to all the great moms out there. I hope you have a wonderful day. — Ched :  ?  14:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Like - and for reference, they celebrate on a different day in the UK (and some other places). Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Too late, Ched - I've already been given a bollocking for forgetting. Alakzi (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• We have Mothering Sunday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

TY for the info folks. — Ched :  ?  13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving sidewalks

Variable high speed moving sidewalk at the international pier, Terminal 1, Toronto Pearson International Airport

As discussed elsewhere, there is actually a video (not by me), notice how the panels split, effectively doubling in size, making the sidewalk travel faster in the middle than at the ends (I am sure that is a scientifically inaccurate description). Come to think of it, it's sort of like a TARDIS, faster on the inside (yes Drmies, that is a Doctor Who joke). It's reliability is so poor, there is an entire thread dedicated to its operational status at the Air Canada subforum at FlyerTalk. But when it moves, it moves quickly.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

very cool. @Kelapstick: ... will send you an email tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  02:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies/Ched and me

It may interest you to know that Wanda Battle led Maurice Manning, me, and a group of Lutherans from Minnesota in a version of "This Little Light" in Dr. King's church. It felt wonderfully spiritual. Dude, I got to sit in his office! Anyway, I thought of you--if it hadn't been for you I wouldn't have known the lyrics. :) Drmies (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoa... Wait a second - hold the phone. Are you telling me that you got to sit in the basement office of the church of the Dr. King? Dude, I am sooo green with envy right now. (and see how things get started).

OK - let me backup a bit and record for history how this came about. A while back I ran into this little gem, which I shared with my friend Gerda A. (not pinging her yet - because it's to be a surprise once we get done; or at least ready for prime time). Anyway, that video sent chills up my spine, and brought back memories of my Bible school days and summer camps. Gerda mentioned that there wasn't an article for Mr. Loes, so this happened, but never went further. (guess I can delete that now).

Drmies, I want to thank you for offering me a path back to article work, and I choose to take that path. I wish I had any singing ability so I could share an experience like yours ... but perhaps the good Lord will smile and grant me that gift the next time around. :-). As I was away for a bit on vacation (pics), I have plenty of work to get caught up on. I'll check the local book store for anything on Loes, and hopefully by the weekend I can get the bulk of it added in. Thank you again (so much) for offering to work with me on this. It's more appreciated than you can imagine. — Ched :  ?  09:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Killings by law enforcement

Following on from our Facebook discussion, the figures for police killings all come from sub articles of List of killings by law enforcement officers. The population figures are from the country article infoboxes, the calculations are my own. * indicates incomplete data.

Year	USA*	UK	Canada*	China*	Germany*
2015 (Jan-Apr)	156	0	13	0	1
2014	628	1	20	12	0
2013	342	0	10	9	1
2012	611	1	6	1	4
2011	166	1	6	0	3
2010	227	1	7	0	3
2009	63	3	1	1	1
TOTAL	2193	7	63	23	13
Population	320,760,000	63,182,000	35,675,834	1,357,380,000	80,716,000
Killings per 1 million	6.84	0.11	1.77	0.02	0.16

Based on [11] Australian police fatally shot 105 people between 1989 and 2011. Assuming an even distribution to convert to the 6¼ year-period used for the other countries, that's 29.8 killings or 1.25 killings per million people. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Thryduulf. I'm heading out for a bit, but do want to go over this a bit. (didn't know that was you on FB :)) Cheers. — Ched :  ?  11:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

People

People will be who they are - let them. Avoid those who are hurtful to your heart and soul. Be yourself, be true to your heart, and do not hurt others. Cherish each day, for tomorrow is never promised. — Ched :  ?  05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

still ... [12]

Is a bureaucrat's BARC worse than his bite?

Ced, you're familiar with this but it was already 2 years ago. Something has to be done so I'm going to start the ball rolling very soon. Following several recent general discussions on the topic, I have completely reworked it and I would very much appreciate your updated comments on the talk page. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

Context: [13]. I told a partial truth ... the real question is why the heck I logged back in after logging out last April? (actually it was because I came across articles that were so bad I feel compelled to make exceedingly rare Ent - mainspace edits). But anyway, I think the reason I came back to this wikt:sausage factory is the continued survival against all odds of editors (some even have admin bits) who approach things with humanity and common sense. In other words, I blame you (et. al.): Thanks for nothing! NE Ent 15:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to say here. Thank you? :). I've managed to avoid posting at AN/I for a fair amount of time, and I'd prefer to continue that trend. (In fact, I very seldom edit at all - but I do try to read when time permits) I am glad to see you back. I'll also say that that particular hill is not one I really want to make a stand on. Some of the things running through my mind are:

1. The "banned" editor does have exceptional technical skills.
2. Arbcom could have revoked the talk page access at any point over the last 3 years, but hasn't
3. Most of the discussion there seems to be geared towards work on various technical tools for the project.
4. The "new" reverting editor seems to have a very .... ummmm ... unusual edit history. (OBVIOUSLY not a "new" editor)

I think at this point, unless I am specifically "paged" to respond, I'll just watch from afar. Really good to see you around Ent. You HAVE been missed. — Ched :  ?  15:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion if a user is breaking a rule to improve or maintain Wikipedia and not causing harm, then policy allows us to ignore that. This would be a good time. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 16:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My view as well, and if it comes down to a "support leaving page open" vs. "oppose and lock page" issue, then I would support him being allowed to address the various tool issues that he works on at his talk page. I do understand that there's a LOT of history with that user, and wiki has an unforgiving memory. Perhaps there are things known only to Arbcom that I'm unaware of, but I always felt that Delta/Beta had the best of intentions (even if his personal communication skills often drew the ire of others.) It's not a hill I want to do battle on, but much of the talk page seemed to be providing a useful service to the project - and for me, that's worth something.

Kinda nice to see the old moniker/sig back in play - and TY for your note. ;-) — Ched :  ?  16:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you…

…for pointing out the obvious. That so many people are willing to discuss the idea of a Sleepshop on Wikipedia as if it's an idea even warranting the slightest discussion says many things about the pondlife which infests Jimbo's talkpage, none of it good. ‑ iridescent 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, it was difficult to refrain from speaking much more bluntly; but I tried to maintain acceptable 'wiki-speak'. I have not posted to that page in years (precisely for the reasons you mention) - but I felt that the (original) post was beyond the pale. Had the target been toward religion, sex, race, nationality, or a multitude of other "stereotypes", it's likely that there would now be an indef. in place. I suppose that given the history, I shouldn't be surprised - but it did trouble me, and I felt I needed to say so. — Ched :  ?  23:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That was a completely ridiculous post on his part. Intothatdarkness 20:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In some fairness with regards to the example you mention, that Ebionites case has been going on for eight years now with no sign of coming to any kind of resolution, so I can't really blame the participants for becoming cranky at times. ‑ iridescent 00:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair and valid point on that particular link I posted. I will also admit that I've never followed John's editing. Perhaps the thread on Jimbo's page is a one off. I'll think on this. — Ched :  ?  01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC) ... By the way - I liked the Logan's Run reference. I do enjoy Sci-Fi. :-) — Ched :  ?  01:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia is simply Dark City, then. NE Ent 01:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Rhetorical question.

Irony, or paradox?[14]

I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability. ~ Ron White — Ched :  ?  04:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Abagnale may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• measures in federal detention centers. She also handed over a business card from "Sean O'Riley" (later revealed to be [[Joseph Shea (FBI agent}|Joe Shea)]], the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] agent in charge of Abagnale's case, which

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done * mumbles some unintelligible PA about bots on the way out* — Ched :  ?  01:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, at least the bot had the sense to not welcome you to Wikipedia. ;) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL - fair enough. — Ched :  ?  02:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I Got Mail

Thanks man--you rock. Awesome. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thought it might be something you could appreciate. Apparently signed too.  :-) — Ched :  ?  17:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If only you had found some real smokes to put in there... :) Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

huh - never pictured you as a smoker. Congrats if you're quitting, .. I know I should. I just feel bad that I didn't get any content added to an article, and that it took me so long to get it sent. Maybe next time I'll include a pack of Marlboro reds. :P — Ched :  ?  18:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do! Drmies (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Carmony

I'm sorry to bring a conversation about policy to your door, but as I read it, Bryce is indefinitely blocked, not community banned. There is (as far as I can tell) a semantic difference in that bans have to be formally logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, although in practical terms they are more or less the same. I don't want to wikilawyer; rather given previous conversations I can picture him arguing that the ban was invalid as nobody proposed it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I did look at the restrictions page, but noticed that there hadn't been an entry there since 2013. I'll look back over things. (no need to apologize, always better to have more eyes on a situation). — Ched :  ?  10:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, upon further review, while the topic of "site ban" did come up multiple times, I think you are the more accurate, and I am wrong. I've modified my post to their page, as well as my closing statement. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  10:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did wonder if a topic ban from musician / band articles (broadly constructed) would be a more viable option, but we are where we are and the block has the full weight of consensus behind it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps auxiliary verbs will be covered next semester, and there won't be a need. :-) — Ched :  ?  11:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Or maybe we’ll move on from breakfast cereals to something more digestible. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: mirror

I try not to. That's a mighty scary experience :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

At least you don't see what I see when I look in mine. :) — Ched :  ?  13:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	for reminding me to remain civil, and for calling me on it when I wasn't. -Philippe (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Umm .. Thank you. To be honest, I'm a bit embarrassed here considering my own past - but I do appreciate the thought. The subject matter was/is extremely divisive and highly charged. I only noticed because it seemed so out of character for you personally. Heaven knows that there were/are many others saying things far worse. Thank you for the thought Philippe, it is honestly greatly appreciated. — Ched :  ?  22:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

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

OK - NOW I think I understand where this is headed, and why it was (originally) titled this way. Zuck would be impressed. Maybe we should retitle the site "JEE" - "Jimbo's Encyclopedia Entertainment". I mean, that's what "professional wrestling did when they admitted they weren't really interested in REAL wrestling. — Ched :  ?  03:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah, the wrestlers got their butt kicked in court by the World Wildlife Fund over use of the WWF initialism. WWE#Legal_disputes. NE Ent 03:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey there Ent. Yea, I remember that. It seems more and more what was once a respected enterprise, has now become all about entertainment more that actual competition. NFL, NASCAR, etc. I guess it's just what the world has morphed into these days. BTW - I really appreciated your post there asking about "scope" - spot on, and well done. — Ched :  ?  03:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there's an interesting metaphor in the fact that they can't even figure out what they want to call the impending mob action. Maybe it should simply be "The Committee for Civility versus the Main Enemy of the State" and they could synchronize the ban to take effect on Jimbo's birthday as an offering to the supreme leader... Intothatdarkness 19:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Turbulent Priests ‑ iridescent 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Or just "The Spanish Inquisition" a'la Monty Python...since that's about how ridiculous they look. Intothatdarkness 19:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I think you'll find that should be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Turbulent Priest, singular. It all reminds me of the first play I ever appeared in, Shaw's The Shewing-Up of Blanco Posnet. I played the Foreman of the jury, and I only had one line: "Hang 'im". --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It was simple. The drafter came up with a case title, some editors said it was biased, and so the title was changed within the day. It was about being responsive to editors' comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting journey. I suppose, as Juliet once said, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose, ... ", would be apt. Quite fascinating as well, is the abandonment of the workshop. Perhaps a quick and merciful end is at hand? Although I'd like to think there would be a few dissenting voices willing to speak their minds. — Ched :  ?  16:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The cynic in me says the workshop is unnecessary because the actual decision has already been taken on Arbwiki so this case is just going through the motions, and none of the arbs want the hassle of a workshop. (Keeping track of a fast-changing workshop page is one of the most soul-destroying parts of being an arb, as you end up having to read the same passages 30 or 40 times as people make minor changes to it or comments about it.) I've commented in the past about how in the Golden Age of Wikipedia we used to get arbcom cases in which it was possible to predict the outcome before a word had been typed, just by looking at the named parties and examining their previous history with each of the arbs; this case looks set to be a return to the Spirit of '07. (Assuming the Active list doesn't change and GW stays recused, "Eric banned" defeated 3-8, "Kirill desysopped" defeated 0-11, "Yngvadottir's bit restored" passes 5-4 with a few abstentions, "Eric and Yngvadottir admonished" passed unanimously, "Kirill admonished" defeated unanimously or 1-10, "Black Kite desysopped" locked at 4-4 and too close to call which way it will tilt.) ‑ iridescent 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you are quite accurate. I wouldn't have predicted the Yngvadottir bit restoration; like judges, Arbs don't like to be disrespected, but I do hope it's accurate. I agree that Black Kite may be reaching the end of his EC:rope, but I'm not sure there's anything actionable in this case. I would hope that there's enough support to allow Eric to continue his work here. Given the squatter's rights possession, and recent declaration - I'd also think it's still a matter of borrowed time.

To be honest, I've always had reservations about the "workshop", as it seemed to serve more as a vehicle for venting than a productive step in resolution. I've never been convinced that all the arbs actually do read all the evidence, let alone the workshops posts. There always seem to be a few quick votes based on preconceived impressions, often followed by the "what he said - she said" variety. I won't knock any of the individuals, but this particular committee may well exceed the '07' achievements(?). While the "out of the box" thinking can be great - with all the constant format changes and such, it's certainly confused many a editor. — Ched :  ?  17:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not something I expected ever to say, but this committee is seriously missing NYB and Risker. I may not have agreed with them often, but they had the ability to keep discussions on-track and to rein other arbs in when they started seeing themselves as masters rather than servants. (There are others on the committee who get this, but none who are as good as those two at articulating it.) I stand by my comments here; I get a distinct feeling there are too many people on this iteration of Arbcom who see Arbcom as some kind of Supreme Court of Wikipedia, with themselves as petty gods and the clerks as their high priests, and are trying to use it as a tool to shape Wikipedia into what they think it ought to be, rather than "a panel of editors with the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors". Thinking about the people who are likely to stand, I have a horrible feeling next year's incarnation will make the current batch look like Solomon—particularly if this proposal goes ahead, there will be a lot of people voting who don't already know the people involved and don't care enough to read all the statements, which will probably mean victory for whichever candidates shout the loudest. ‑ iridescent 17:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, although it is seldom that I found myself in disagreement with NYB. I would also include Carcharoth; although, he was never as proactive in the art of persuasion. Frankly, I think perhaps the committee has grown too large/diverse in numbers as well. While diversity works well in content creation, I prefer a more singular and focused voice in authoritative positions. I am a bit torn on the "proposal", as I believe in equality for all, and yet that's really not what the proposal is about. Still, I must admit to leaning toward your views as I've seen that poorly educated/informed voters often make very poor choices. (also, your post on NYB's page was indeed well said and researched) — Ched :  ?  19:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to think that the current campaign to somehow increase the number of voters without first taking serious steps to include/attract better-qualified candidates will only accelerate the politicization of ArbCom. Intothatdarkness 15:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we could offer free cell-phones, or perhaps see if anyone from wp:rip wants to vote. /sarcasm. — Ched :  ?  15:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Archived thoughts
• If ever there was a case for a miscase - this would be it.