manual archive

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Sean Hannity". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Sean Hannity, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

I'll take a look

I'll take a look, although I also manage to screw up the tags. Thanks for the heads up. Neutrality^talk 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a clever template! thanks! Neutrality^talk 00:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: (you can reply in your talk page, and use {{ping}} as in

{{ping|Cwobeel}}

to notify me.) - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Bot requests. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Jeb Bush Political Positions

Cwobeel, would you please join in discussion instead of edit-warring? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I have made my last revert about this for the day. It's your call what you will do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential candidate comments on Charleston church shooting

Since you commented in the discussion at Talk:Charleston church shooting, I invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rubin Carter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rubin Carter. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention at 3RR

You were mentioned here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rick Perry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rick Perry. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Miss Cleo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miss Cleo. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Duggar

Please do not restore this information without discussing the reliability on the talk page. Please see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for relevant BLP policy. Nyth 63 15:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes

I'd appreciate some eyes at the Jared Fogle article along with some wisdom and help insofar as policy and dealing with a stubborn newbie editor who is truly testing my patience. Edit warring is going on, too. Take a look at the most recent discussion section on the talk page and the most recent edit warring and aggressive edits, if you would. It will likely shed light on what's going on. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Josh Duggar - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct

You are right. My assessment? A complete prick. Only here to win and goad, not create and improve an encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I will most definitively not take the bait. He enjoys the drama to no end and I will not give it that benefit. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Josh Duggar - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did look into the issue(s) you two have had in the past out of curiosity and to see if I could find a behavior pattern. Didn't have to look far to find that pattern. All I can say is "Wow" and am forced to wonder why the community has put up with such behavior for too long. Definitely the worst of the dark underside of Wikipedia. Clever and tricky along with conniving and dishonest, but not always the brightest bulb on the tree when allowing true motives shine through through what's being said. This is the kind of person I look at and wonder, "With the talents you obviously possess, why not use them for good instead of hurting others?" Plenty of books have been written about that type of personality, and a lot of them are on my bookshelves. Take care, stay away. No good can come of ever getting sucked back into that again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yep. My personal opinion is that this guys has lots of problems, so out of compassion I would not indulge. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The email claim was interesting and revealing in a weird, slightly scary way. Willing to go to all kinds of lengths, obviously. If you haven't seen it (and if you can stomach it), look at my talk page and the response(s) I left for him that give links to more of his handiwork as parting shots. Oh, and commenting at a 3RR I filed was an interesting touch, too. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the Jared Fogle changes in spite of consensus and policy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Look who showed up out of the blue for no valid reason. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I didn't think he would go there and mention you. I wasn't trying to involve you, just a "can you believe this?" kind of thing. I know you and I have had severe differences in the past, and I imagine we will in the future. That said, I'd like to extend a sincere olive branch so that, in the future, when we do have differences, that they will be only in the spirit of each of us wanting to improve the 'pedia. I've come to respect you over the last week or so and hope that we can find some middle ground that will keep us from feeling as if we are adversaries. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problems.- Cwobeel (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, I haven't pinged you at AN/I so you will get involved, just so you know I am mentioning you and why. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion, please

What do you make of this? Is it a joke? If so, I'm not getting the punchline. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just harmless fun in response to a strange comment by Lootbrewed. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. With everything else that's been going on, I'm open to anything being possible. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) You haven't asked for my opinion, I know, Winkelvi, but you can have it anyway: it's a joke. Or rather two jokes, by BlueSalix and Mandruss respectively. Sorry, but I thought it was fairly funny. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

After what I've been experiencing with one of the two over the last six days, I'm not feeling the humor. Maybe at a later date. And your opinion is not unwelcome, Bishonen -- thanks for adding your comments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now past 3RR

See here. I count 7 in 24 hours. Let it go? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, why is it that you feel the need to constantly bring Cwobeel into your drama? Yet again, you are going behind someone's back to whine about them. Your wars with so many other editors is endless and it is likely to result in some type of action by administrators that will make you very unhappy. You need to stop constantly looking for trouble. Have you already forgotten the final warning you received today? Lootbrewed (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the right and wrong, innocence or guilt. In my time around you for the recent weeks, you have been perpetually short-tempered. That's detrimental to both you and the project, and the wise editor takes as much wikibreak as they need to avoid reaching that state of mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you addressing, Mandruss? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You know another thing wise editors do, Mandruss? They realize some people have had enough chastisement, advice, raking over the coals, being yelled at, being told they are a worthless pain in the ass and should leave Wikipedia forever in one day for yet one more editor to pile on even more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this talk page. Five threads. All senseless drama. And who started all of them? Lootbrewed (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more reason for a wikibreak. You seem to have missed my point, which has nothing to do with who is in the right. If I'm being repeatedly victimized to the point of serious and protracted anger, I take a wikibreak. For the alternative, see Don Quixote. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your point right away. More importantly, you're you, I'm me. What you would do (and what you said above), I wouldn't. Different people, different way of dealing with things. C'est la vie. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think it's pretty clear a wikibreak is in your near future, voluntary or otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go piling on again. I find it fascinating how so many anonymous people who only know other anonymous people from reading what they type into a computer keyboard and onto a computer screen think they know so much about that other person's life online and what's in store for them. Or that they even have a right to speculate. It's amusing, really. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

I am just starting to look over your many edits during the past 24 hours at Carly Fiorina, and may then ask for an edit-warring block. So, you may want to consider reverting your most recent edit. But, if you think it's totally legitimate, and that there is no edit-warring issue, then you can (of course) leave the edit in place.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you didn't self-revert I have filed a 3RR report. I do these very rarely, so hopefully I crossed the i's and dotted the t's. Link is here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cwobeel for the self-revert, and I have withdrawn the 3rr report. Enjoy the break.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HP

This edit of yours doesn't indicate whether the 145,000 was before all of the 30,000 layoffs or before some of them, or after all of them. So I don't see what purpose is served by the edit. If it makes you happy, I'll accept your edit, but not for any other reason.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Layoffs, if you read the other parts of the article, were implemented after the merger (in fact one of the reasons for the merger was to reduce costs by reducing headcount). So all in all, if you take into account that 8,000 jobs were added via other acquisitions... it ended up being a wash. That's is why that material is really not relevant; the ony relevant thing is that she created massive disruption in 30,000 families. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-five hours is not "a few days", is it?[1] Please revert your edit at Fiorina or I will report this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the edit wrong? Do you disagree with the content? I though that it was a very useful edit as it provides the entire picture. I will revert, but please consider re-adding it because it improves the section. In any case, I inted to resume editing tomorrow or day after. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

I'm assuming that this wasn't aimed at me? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not you. The poster above your comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, okie. Thank you. :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rural Legend~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

Maggie Hassan

The reason for the Maggie Hassan edit was as stated. The matters removed and subsequently replaced were in the wrong place. The Tenure section applied to her time in the Senate. Perhaps you could put it under her time in the Governor's office?

Also, why did you remove the act of the veto? It was relevant. Was that in error on your part?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rural Legend~enwiki (talk • contribs)

@Rural Legend~enwik: feel free to move things around if needed, but do not blank material that is properly sourced. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that, but what about the governor's action of the veto? Why was that blanked out by you?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rural Legend~enwiki (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I deleted that by mistake. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guns & shootings

Re: Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose, etc. Some folks believe that "guns don't kill people - people kill people". Others believe that there's more to it than that. WP:NPOV warns us not to bias articles by structuring them or choosing facts which support one viewpoint over another. I see this as an NPOV matter, and that the policy not only allows but requires us to include this type of information. In response, others have mostly just said that either it's outside the scope of the article, or that they simply don't like it (in one way or another). You made the former argument, but I fail to see how identifying the firearm used in a shooting is irrelevant in an article about a shooting. This is an issue on which there can be a good-faith disagreement. It's unfortunate when otherwise good editors declare that certain POVs are off-limits and must not be included in an article, and that anyone proposing them is being disruptive. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the issue, there is no need to get into such a dispute for the fucking brand name of a gun. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I agree. I'm not sure why there's such opposition to a short, factual addition. But looking over the history of the talk page, it appears that it's par for the course. I just recently found that, after "consensus", the editors agreed to remove "unarmed" from the article, despite that description appearing in numerous sources and despite it being one of the main reasons the case is notorious. So the idea that a small group of WP editors can suspend policy and just decide article content based solely on personal preference, as decided by collaboration and consensus, does not seem to result in a comprehensive, neutral article. Even worse when anyone who disagrees with the local consensus is labelled as disruptive and threatened with bans. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is obvious by now, that you don't give a hoot about this project. With your actions you have managed to get an excellent editor out of our roster. Shame on you.

I filed a 3RR report. You've been on both ends of reports too. I didn't make any editor leave the project. I have nothing against this editor, despite the fact that he's called me names and threatened to have me blocked. So long as he follows policies, I'd be most happy if he returns. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need your input for a dispute resolution on the Bill Cosby article

Hello, I noticed that you had some comments on the Bill Cosby talk page and was hoping you could help us resolve an issue. Please see the section titled "Discussion: Should the lead sentence mention the sexual assault accusations?". Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is forum shopping and IDHT behavior. Hamster totally reordered talk page sections, placing them in opposite order and thus changing the meaning and progression. They also changed headings made by others, and also created an improperly formed RfC to hijack the discussion. All is now restored. We had a consensus until this disruption occurred. This is massive IDHT behavior, and this thread should be closed. Such behavior should not be rewarded. Hamster should be blocked for this. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Carson

Okay, I get why plausibility might trump the absence of records. But, an armed robbery of a restaurant with patrons present probably should have generated a report. This seems to be one more unsubstantiated Carson claim in a a long string of such claims. Given that, I think it bears inclusion. Carson has made this claim, so I think it should be somehow included. What do you think? I'm not going to make any further edits on this issue until I hear from you .Lahaun (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lahaun, Give it a try, restore it, and see if it sticks. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Alan Ross

I want to apologize for judging you rather than being as civil as possible and demonstrating good faith. I have since spent time studying Wikipedia guidelines and rules regarding civility, personal attacks, bullying, etc. In my defense regarding my dismissive attitude I can only say that my bio has a history of sock puppets, disruptive editing, tendentious editors and people editing it with a conflict of interest. Having said that there is nothing in your history or background that warranted my suspicion. I am now taking the advice of several Wikipedia editors to cool down, step back, read the rules and take a fresh look. Again, I apologize.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boldface?

I did not remove "rescinded" - I removed the bolding as being contrary to the MoS strictures about where we use bolding. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Boldface Collect (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert Article

Hi Cowobeel! I found your username from here - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I hope you don't mind! Otherwise disregard my message. I was wondering if you can check out this here Wikipedia:Help_desk#Alex_Gilbert_Article for Biographical Feedback. I have improved this article Draft:Alex Gilbert. When do you think I should resubmit to the Deletion Review? Thanks! I have added and detailed all the references on the Draft Article below! I just need your opinion and help as I want to get this to the mainspace without it being deleted. Before when YES it wasn't notable for Wikipedia it was deleted. Though the article now has gone through massive improvements!

Long list of references

References that cover his 'I'm Adopted' Organisation

[2] Анатомия дня TV Show NTV Russia Retrieved 29 October 2015. Source covers his Non-Profit Organisation 'I'm Adopted' and talks about him helping others.
[3] Retrieved 22 August 2015. Whangarei boy who traced Russian roots helps fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines (TVNZ) - This source also talks about 'I'm Adopted'
[4] Retrieved August 7, 2015. Russian adoptee shares stories The Northern Advocate - This source is only about his 'I'm Adopted' page and mentions A former Russian adoptee raised in Whangarei is helping other adopted people share their stories. This is not a BLP1E am I correct?
[5] Retrieved 4 November 2015. Adoption project enthrals Russians The Northern Advocate - This article talks about what impact his page has had with the Russian Media. I have also added these news outlet links to the article. This is due to his 'I'm Adopted' page.
[6] Retrieved 29 October 2015. In social networks, a new unusual community. Children of Russia, adopted by foreigners looking for their biological parents Translated from Russian. NTV Russia - This source is from a huge Russian Media outlet about his I'm Adopted Organisation. Read the article or watch the video.

Other References

[7] Retrieved February 26, 2015. From Russia with love The Northern Advocate - This article is about his Book 'My Russian Side' that he published in 2014. It reads Now 22, Alex, has written a book about his journey.
[8] Retrieved 23 February 2015. TVNZ - This is his actual Full Length NZ TV Documentary Story which aired in NZ and yes at the time was an issue where BLP1E was talked about in the previous deletions. New Sources have since been found and updated. ALOT MORE
[9] Retrieved July 2, 2014. The New Zealand Herald - This article covers a meet up Alex Gilbert had with another New Zealander he found through his TV Documentary.
[10] Retrieved 16 November 2015. Change One Life Russia - This article is an excellent interview with Alex Gilbert about his own story and journey.
[11] Retrieved 5 June 2015. - TV3 NZ - This TV Show features Alex who talks to other adoptees who are going through the same journey as he went through.

References in Russian Language If you can't understand them then don't comment. People have been ignoring these. These are put up as a support to the article. It shows you how much coverage it had.

[12] Retrieved 21 October 2015. yarcom.ru - This article talks about his experience and journey.
[13] Retrieved 21 October 2015 New Zealander Alex Gilbert found his mother in the Rybinsk, threw him in the hospital . echo76 - New Russian article talking also about his life and journey to Russia.
[14] Retrieved 21 October 2015. New Zealander found in Rybinsk own mother - 76.ru - This article notes if translated Now the young man helps the other people who find themselves in a similar situation, to find their loved ones.
[15] Retrieved 21 October 2015. progorod76.ru- The guy from New Zealand found in the Yaroslavl region his own mother
[16] Retrieved 21 October 2015. http://rweek.ru/ - This article talks about his journey and experience also
[17] Retrieved 21 October 2015. yarnews.net - New Zealander Alex Gilbert found his mother in the Rybinsk
[18] Retrieved 21 October 2015. vesti.ru - This source is from Vesti News. One of the largest TV News outlets in Russia - Russia-24
[19] Retrieved 22 October 2015. http://bsvesti.ru/ - This is another alternative news source
[20] Retrieved 1 November 2015 yar.kp.ru - Another news source in Russia
[21] Retrieved 22 October 2015. http://rybinskcity.ru/ - A news source from Rybinsk City, Russia
[22] Retrieved 16 November 2015. - sguschenka.com - A reliable source talking to Alex directly about his experience and journey.
[23] Retrieved 21 October 2015. http://1news.uz/ - Another Russian News Source

Thank You! -- --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DmitryPopovRU: I think you should move it to mainspace and see if it sticks. If someone brings to AFD, it can be evaluated through that process. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwobeel . I can't move it to the mainspace as an admin has to. Also.. last time when it did get reviewed and passed reviewing.. it got deleted again as it had to go through a deletion review. If someone brings it to an AFD in the mainspace.. I would prefer that than having to go through the annoying undeletion review when it is just no consensus. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fawaz Gerges. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Special report: ArbCom election—candidates’ opinions analysed

In the media: Icelandic milestone; apolitical editing

Discussion report: BASC disbanded; other developments in the discussion world

Arbitration report: Ban Appeals Subcommittee goes up in smoke; 21 candidates running

Featured content: Fantasia on a Theme by Jimbo Wales

Traffic report: Darkness and light

Talkback

Hello, Cwobeel. You have new messages at Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Message added 19:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jamalul Kiram III

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jamalul Kiram III. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ann Coulter may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. 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:

addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time}}</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Paolo Macchiarini page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANi Notice

A discussion about your conduct has been started here [24] Legacypac (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for using discretionary sanctions notices to win a content dispute. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Max Semenik (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The posting of DS templates was not done maliciously, on the contrary. I checked these editors' contributions before alerting them about the BLP discretionary sanctions. I am puzzled about the need for penalizing an editor in this context. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem: I understand that my actions in posting the {{tl:Ds/alert}} to a few editors may bee seen as a disruptive manner to try to gain the upper hand on a content dispute, but that was not my intention whatsoever. The article at hand was current event, and was being edited rapidly by many editors some of which were adding material that was very poorly sourced. Please look at the page history and see that I made hundreds of edits since the incident and removed many BLP violations. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop invoking BLP here: are you really claiming that perpetrators being muslims is negative information on its own? With all due respect, in the US context whether religion should be mentioned here is a party distinction and we at Wikipedia should really really just stick to facts. Whether the facts are notable enough for inclusion into articles is an editorial decision and should be achieved through discussion, as opposed to edit warring and warning-slapping. Looking at your block log, I realise that I probably should have blocked you for a month as opposed to one day. Other admins: I don't mind an unblock but please don't do that unilaterally without a broad discussion. Max Semenik (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem: I guess that you have made up your mind already anyway, but I will try again: I still would argue that posting these notices was not malicious. As for your comment above about Muslims/negative information, that would be a content issue and that was exactly what was being discussed in talk. I started the discussion in talk myself, and consensus was being sought. My removal of material was based on WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. My comment about about BLP violations was about many other edits not that one about religion, just check the page history in which I made hundreds of edits since the story broke. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, per ANI discussion it was felt like a pressure and against the spirit of collaborative eidting. Max Semenik (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cwobeel--while I am probably with you on the substance of the issue, that was a bit much. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxSem, Drmies: Thank you for your consideration. I will take this as another hard lesson learned, and enjoy the break. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Op-ed: Wikidata: the new Rosetta Stone

News and notes: Fundraising update; FDC recommendations

In the media: Erasmus Prize awarded to Wikipedia; trouble on the Russian Wikipedia

Recent research: Do Wikipedia citations mirror scholarly impact?; co-star networks in silent films

Featured content: Caves and stuff

Traffic report: J'en ai ras le bol

Arbitration report: Third Palestine-Israel case closes; Voting begins

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Blog: Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland urge Reiss Engelhorn Museum to reconsider suit over public domain works of art

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sabrina Erdely, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous edit

Your outrageous edit has been reverted. All time low. Want to say so much more but won't. Quis separabit? 17:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are useful navigation tools. I thought that it was useful, but I can see your point. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution.[25][26] The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David L. Jones

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David L. Jones. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

News and notes: ArbCom election results announced

Op-ed: Wikidata: Knowledge from different points of view

In the media: Political editing in the context of the US presidential primaries

Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 winners

Traffic report: So do you laugh, or does it cry?

Featured content: Sports, ships, arts... and some other things

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?

Your Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.

Your Numeric Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.

Your Numeric Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#3. Arbs...

^A: should not be an admin

^B: should preferably not be an admin

^C: can be but need not be an admin

^D: should preferably be an admin

^E: must be or have been an admin

^F: must currently be an admin

Your Single-Letter Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.

Your Numeric Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why?

Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
Your Comments:

The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.

Your Wikipedia Username:
General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why?

Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
Your Comments:

Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who?

Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
Your Comments:

Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?

Your Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:

^A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions

^B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions

^C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language

^D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English

^E: working on policies/guidelines

^F: working on essays/helpdocs

^G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content

^H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content

^I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat

^J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL

^K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST

^L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help ^connect or informally

^M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally

^N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc

^O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments

Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.

Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.

Options: ^A: AE, ^B: arbCases, ^C: LTA, ^D: OTRS, ^E: AN,

continued: ^F: OS/REVDEL, ^G: CU/SPI, ^H: AN/I, ^I: pageprot, ^J: NAC,

continued: ^K: RfC, ^L: RM, ^M: DRN, ^N: EA, ^O: 3o,

continued: ^P: NPOVN, ^Q: BLPN, ^R: RSN, ^S: NORN, ^T: FTN,

continued: ^U: teahouse, ^V: helpdesk, ^W: AfC, ^X: NPP, ^Y: AfD,

continued: ^1: UAA, ^2: COIN, ^3: antiSpam, ^4: AIV, ^5: 3RR,

continued: ^6: CCI, ^7: NFCC, ^8: abusefilter, ^9: BAG, ^0: VPT,

continued: ^Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer

Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.

Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.

Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)

Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.

Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
Your Comments:

Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?

Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):

The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.

Your Wikipedia Username:
General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost copy-editor, leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost column-editor, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your intervention on Gaffney and Center for Security Policy. I suspect the same batch of institutionally-supported socks are about to reappear given his reference in yesterday's Donald Trump speech. LavaBaron (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on these two articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. We're going to have our hands full. Zeke1999 just had his sock block lifted by JamesBWatson on the condition he not edit Gaffney. My biggest concern is that the recent Gaffney edits by this newly-registered SPA essentially mirror the problematic issue that we previously had with Zeke1999 - namely his insistence on adding "by the left" or "by the radical left" at the end of any potentially unflattering description of Gaffney (i.e. "Gaffney has been accused of conspiracy theorizing" ... "by the radical left"). As in here [27] with the newest SPA and [28] here with Zeke1999. Cirt and I learned, in the previous and voluminous sock cases involving these articles, however, that it's virtually impossible to protect these articles from a very savvy spiderweb of socks. Bishonen previously protected it but even that won't do much when it is committed enough to registering accounts instead of just using IPs. I suspect we just need to keep our eyes open. I'm traveling at the moment but will attempt to "go full time" on these articles when I return. Your help in the interim is appreciated. LavaBaron (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you review LavaBaron's edits to Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy over the last several months you will find he gradually erased half the FG article to leave a ludicrous shell in its place. Among other creepy comments he posted in the article, he added that Gaffney "had at least one child," unsourced of course. He then tried to fabricate a consensus around what he had left in the article while falsely accusing other users who disagreed with him of sockpuppetry. There's been a string of anti-Semitic vandals attacking this page. Blocking this vandal might get the point across. Baramop (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/sigh/ Welcome back, Zeke. LavaBaron (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please violate WP:3RV. Please. Baramop (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite enough. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation of your latest incarnation so let's keep the taunts there so Cwobeel doesn't have his Talk page cluttered. LavaBaron (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Baramop:: No need to introduce animosity into the discussion. Slow and steady, we can get the article to a good shape. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since LavaBaron has pinged me in connection with my unblock of Zeke1999, I will just say that I am by no means committed to that unblock. I unblocked because there was a clear consensus among others who commented (both on Zeke1999's talk page and on the talk page of the blocking administrator) that Zeke1999 should be given another chance, but that does not mean that I am perfectly happy with Zeke1999's editing, nor that I don't think the block should be reimposed if there are further problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There was a suggestion by Floquenbeam at here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Center_for_Security_Policy.2FFrank_Gaffney to reimpose the block on Zeke1999 and add this new account, Baramop, to it. It'm ambivalent to that proposal; it's pretty much established at this point that the sockmaster is committed to rotating through an unlimited number of identities to whitewash these two articles and, given the probable IRL entity CW indicates is involved it will most likely be beyond the resources of any number of editors here to resist this in the long run. Short of permanent protection, which seems unlikely, we're probably at the point where we just have to surrender these two articles to the Center for Security Policy's PR team. LavaBaron (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ANI discussion about this matter is proceeding well, except for the anti-Semitism charge by Baramop which I have separated myself from. LAVABARON's claims about socks and the CSP PR team is his own conspiracy nonsense. He clearly knows Gaffney and is a personal or professional rival.

I want to emphasize that I was perfectly content to watch this mess from afar until LAVABARON lodged a new false sock charge against me today. I am hopeful an editor will stop LAVABARON from filing these false charges to shut down editors who disagree with him.

LAVABARON, not everyone who disagrees with you on Wikipedia is conspiring with other editors. I also suggest you stop arguing this on pages away from the ANI complaint against you. Zeke1999 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on Rick Alan Ross

Thank you for all of your work at Rick Alan Ross. It is a horribly frustrating environment but the article is unquestionably better for your work on it. Jbh ^Talk 12:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The environment is not the issue, RAR is. An arrogant real pain in the behind, who played into the hands of one of the most abusive governments as it pertains to human rights, and that wants to hide that fact at all costs in his bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: I am archiving this, moving on to other, more rewarding endeavors. Good luck there and happy editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Glover (composer)

By reverting back to the original liabalous section you are putting us in danger of being sued by this person. He has sued twice in Britain and won over this allegation. The "Daily Mirror" is not a trustworthy newspaper as it was proven that they were part of the telephone hacking scandal not so long ago. The person in question has always denied ever giving that interview and with the left-wing putting names on the supposed list to cause trouble I think it would be VERY wise not to keep putting this back in when it has no baring on the actual person. He is not a member of the BNP and never has been. Even the BNP have said that this is the case.

Please comment on Talk:David Irving

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Irving. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes#rfc_C79C105|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany...

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]