User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 7

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


Invisible edits


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

I have asked. If there is no response, or a negative one, then you can ask an uninvolved admin to redact it per the Probation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You asked, but said "no evidence presented". On Mark's talk page WMC cited the edit [2] where Mark restored comments by a (since indef blocked) sock account with an edit summary of "rv do a CU first before removing talk page comments, just because the username is pointy does not prove this guy is a sock" which is probably broadly unhelpful. I am not sure what the technical meaning of "proxying for socks" is but restoring edits from an account which experienced users had identified as a clear sock is along the lines of meatpuppeting for a sock anyway and Mark seems to be wrongly asserting every sock is entitled to a CU when most get thrown out on WP:DUCK. --BozMo talk 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Bozmo, it is beside`s the point if it turned out to be scibaby. Removing talk page posts is against policy and it should not have been removed until the editor was actually blocked. LHVU thank you, could you now ask that editor to remove his new attack on me as proxying for IP`s. And please ask him to refrain from making unfounded accusations in the future. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Mark, I kind of don't agree. Reasonable grounds for suspecting Scibaby socks is enough for an established editor to revert or strike on sight and tag the talk page with "suspected sock of Scibaby". We don't wait for a CU before acting when reasonable grounds exist and it is better to apologise in rare wrong cases than to give encouragement to the nuisance caused by the socks by dialog in the meantime. IMHO restoring sock edits when struck for reasonable grounds should only be done if you have a good reason to think it is not a sock. --BozMo talk 22:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

  • Per WP:Proxying, you have to be acting on behalf of a banned editor - that is, they request you make an edit you otherwise may not have - to be a proxy. If Mn wants to re-instate an edit on their own initiative, then they can (and that edit can be challenged in the normal manner). Unless it can be evidenced that Mn was requested to make an edit by some banned editor, then it is not proxying and therefore a pa. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe proxying is the wrong word then/ --BozMo talk 22:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we may be using the same word in different senses. I'm using "proxying" in the sense than LHVU is "proxying" for MN - i.e., acting as his proxy, i.e., making edits for him. That is what MN was doing - making edits for the Scibaby sock. He wasn't making the edits for himself. And of course (oh you who speak of knowing policy (LHVU, not BozMo)): you'll notice that MN has the policy wrong: removing talkpage comments from socks of banned users is not against policy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, the comment remains removed [3] and I don't see anyone suggesting, now, that it should go back William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I think "proxying" is quite right here. In article space, sure, adopting a blocked user's edits under your own responsibility is a possibility. But on talk pages, contributions are signed and clearly associated with the user who made them. If another user wants to take on a cause brought by a blocked sock, they can do so under their own name. But you cannot usefully adopt another users personal signed edit. That simply enables block evasion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It was on a talk page. The user had not been blocked at the time. If WMC will not remove the comment i will file an RFE mark nutley (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no regard for the edit, or its validity, but only for that by noting Mn was proxying he was apparently being accused of violating policy. A more accurate description, such as "re-instating subsequently blocked sock's edit", would have been preferable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Are RFEs still meaningful? The last one filed against MN for violating his sourcing parole (Watson, again) was effectively closed by LHU as "don't bother me here, do it at arbcom" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Topic ban suggestion

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

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



You has it.

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

Um... King Crimson had Lol Coxhill, does that count? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Iz no floont n kitteh, buz kitteh like beer. -Atmoz (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Helpful as always....

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

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


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

Anyway, I am threatened with block.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No valid reason, so sorry no block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I shall decline this request for a self block. It appears that you are seeking to distance yourself from some edits or articles, rather than wanting to take a break from Wikipedia, and possibly pre-empting sanctions. If you are trying to stay out of trouble, I suggest the best way is to either stop engaging in the activities that are creating issues, or disengage yourself from WP (you have been advised how to on your talkpage) for a while. I am sorry I cannot see my way to issuing a block presently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


You said; "re your edit to George Harrison

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

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

Hmmm, is that so? – iridescent 22:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologise - now, please do not vandalise that page again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

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

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


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

Is there any reason...

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

This edit is very "telling". You're not a sock of another editor, are you? This brand-new editor seems to agree with you[6]. Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you think that because I have blocked an editor previously, I am more amenable to blocking them the next time? Whosoever you are a sock of, it is not someone familiar with my sysopping. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


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

It seems to have been marked as such, I cannot see the unpatroled template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
However, the article appears on the new pages backlog as not patrolled (here). Amsaim (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I found the template, and have now marked it as patrolled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance. Amsaim (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Meineke active again as IP

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

Blocked for a week, with a note that continued vandalism will being longer sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and cheers. DVdm (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The same person is back again as (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It looks to me like he is using open proxies. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
To Thparkth, thanks. I have modified the block to a soft one, so any editor will not be inconvenienced (hopefully the one who used the ip was, at the time). Please feel free to correct my understandings of ip addresses, it is an area where I have poor knowledge. ChrisO, I will take a look and see if there is any point in blocking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC) It seems that this has been addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


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

:o canaCUpostsuchdata onatalkpg??

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

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

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


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

I think your comment confused me. Are you supporting the original, the loosened modified version of DF, or some third as yet unwritten version? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've made a comment there which you may wish to consider. I note that it might seem like a very long screed, but a lot of light can be found by the end of that tunnel (in the second point anyway). :) I'd have passed this note around to a lot of people, but as I'm out of time at the moment, so I've only passed it to you and BozMO (the only uninvolved admins who have commented in the result section so far). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't

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

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

The Original Podstar

Podstar.png The Podstar
For all your efforts in cheering up Bishonen. --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Why, thank... LessHeard vanU 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


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

The Tightrope Award is bestowed on LessHeard vanU for his daring use of "brilliant" and "Tony Sidaway" in the same sentence.[8] Bishonen | talk 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC). And don't you edit conflict me, Rexx! Hello, Little Stupid! B. muchly! User talk:LessHeard vanU 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Input please

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

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


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

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

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

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

What !vote? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I found it, after the fact. Oh well, I suppose I was just following practice in that section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oversight access

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

Thanks - I look forward to receiving the "When and Where to Wave the Big Flags (and How Not To)" pamphlet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • - Congratulations to you LessHeard vanU. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't

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

You have made it pretty clear that consider me unwelcome on any page you have ever edited, but you have never said so specifically before. You now have in regard to your talkpage, so I shall refrain from providing you with a sounding board on what others outside your "tightly focussed" gatherings may consider as being part of the wider range of opinion upon editing the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome on my talk page any time, LHvU. And so is WMC. You probably will like it there. As for WMC's prohibition banning you from his echo chamber, it of course is inoperative if you need to place a warning, sanction, or block notice there. As you well know. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You are all welcome on my talkpage too. Polargeo (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Mine too :) Congrats on oversight LHVU. Minor4th 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


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

Time's up

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

Userpage concerns

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

Original discussion found here. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. My view is that there is not sufficient detail for Oversight to be concerned, and rev/deleting would suffice - however, I shall put the question to those more experienced when I am on my home pc to see what I should do in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
After taking advice I have deleted the page, meaning other admins can view and undelete; it is unlikely that any admin would or even could make use of the content outside of usual WP practices. I have explained the deletion to the editor, as being so people would not be prejudiced by the editors youth. Thanks for the tip-off, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to deal with this. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Thanks, both deleted. As admins are people with the communities trust I consider that we AGF that none would use or distribute the deleted details, so deletion suffices. I am happy to delete, or suppress if that is required, any personal details by minors or other potentially vulnerable individuals, but would ask that if I am not immediately available that you request deletion by any admin - the less time the information is available the better. Admins should be able to determine if oversight is required also. Again, thanks for your attention in these matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC) addendum If there is going to be a few reports here, I think changing the section header to a more general one will help in protecting the privacy of these instances; so I have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Many thanks LHvU for the fast response. I agree completely. The faster the time such information gets deleted the better. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way all the time. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 11:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted category history

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

This cat was created 7 September 2010 by AusTerrapin and nominated for speedy deletion by Are You The Cow Of Pain?, the same day as being previously deleted per discussion. It was deleted under G4, per this previous discussion. I trust this suffices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You sure it wasn't speedied twice? Because Nyttend speedied then restored, then Fastily speedied it again. Was it tagged once or twice? DuncanHill (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, yeah, tagged twice by RUtheCofP? - the second following the undelete by Nyttend. You might have to check if there is any discussion between Nyttend and RUtCoP?, because cat deletion does not depend on the content (which appears to be the reason for undeleting) but the purpose of the cat, and it may be that the undelete was considered incorrect and RUtCoP "represented" the original request rather than make a new one. I suppose a ???? (forgot the acronym - challenge of deletion) might be useful if RUtCoP has no good explanation for the second speedy. You may also gently enquire whether Fastily noted there was a previous speedy req, in case he is aware of any circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Already under discussion, topics include what CSD actually says, should admins talk to other admins when undoing their admin actions, do they need to look at deletion/recreation history when deciding to undo other admin actions, should editors re-tag for speedy after a speedy has been declined (especially if they've previously been told that speedy does not apply to this type of case), etc. Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Special Delivery

WCS Beebe Barton 600.jpg As requested one (slightly used) bathysphere. Shell babelfish 11:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possibly just me, but ...

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

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

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

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

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


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

Hi Derek,

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

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

Many thanks, Martin

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

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

I have blocked again, this time for 3 days, and left them a message. Hopefully they will now comply with WP's preferred manner of article writing. BTW, I have redacted the email address details of the copy correspondence and rev/del'eted your and my edits - I am assuming you have permission to copy the rest of the email - as this private information should not be publicly viewable. It is best not to disclose private information unless specifically agreed by the other party (which is why I removed part of your email addy also given). Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and your comments are duly noted. I should have been much more circumspect, despite wishing to point out that the blocked user had been in correspondence, and received advice on this matter. Apologies.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking request

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

As ever, there needs to be compliance with WP policy - WP:BRD applies here; if a bold addition is reverted then the matter needs to be discussed until a consensus is formed one way or another. As far as I can see (and I did look) WMC has not violated policy, so there is no question of blocks. I see that WMC has initiated discussion on the talkpage, so that is where you need to argue the case for inclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I see that. Why are people getting tired of Wikipedia? This is an obvious case where some politically motivated people do everything to keep a one world understanding in the article. why didn't he just expanded my section instead of blatantly removing it three times ([10][11][12] WP:3RR? )? Nsaa (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • LHvU: I posted a few comments on Nsaa's talk page; would you care to comment there? NW (Talk) 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Beyond My Ken

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

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


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

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

User:Mackay 86

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

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

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

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

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

Personally I would block them indefinitely, and they can be unblocked the second (and there's little shorter than that) they agree to contribute according to the WP ethos, after noting their response to Begoon. As before, they appear uninterested in working collegially and per consensus. Looking through their contrib list, it appears that most of what they do is change things in accordance with their perception of how things should be (there being almost no talkpage contributions). They are presently a time sink, and blocking them appears appropriate - although I would not be very surprised if they were to commence socking immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, I think you're right. On the basis that indefinite != forever, I've done just that. Thanks for your advice. TFOWR 20:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


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

Huh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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

You seem to be the guy/girl with their finger on the pulse - I think it safe to leave to you and AussieLegend to pick up on any suspicious activity. If you think you smell a sock, leave me a note and I will look into it - and if the "sister" is not editing then short blocks on ip editors should not effect her regardless. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem - that's the second occasion in 2 days I've been extremely impressed with, and grateful for, your judgement, by the way - and not just because you agreed with me :=). Thanks.  Begoon•talk 21:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Best if we don't try for three in a row, though, eh? (Not unless there is an emergency, anyway.) I'd hate to disappoint us... What was the first? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Mackay 86 - but yes, I agree - happy coincidence. Buses don't generally really come in 3's - that's just what people think.  Begoon•talk 21:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI response

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

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

Deh Cho Bridge

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

Fair enough, looking through the majority of their edits the ip was engaged in low nuisance vandalism and I thought I just found one that had not been caught previously... Always the issue when dealing with these types of ip's. Thanks for the correction and heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that most of us have been caught out reverting the one good edit stuck in the middle of several vandalistic ones. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe's talk page

Hmmm .... IIRC, I didn't really revert anything on BlueRobe's talk page. Unless I'm mistaken, I think a quick inspection would show that. BigK HeX (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahh .. I see. On this edit, I just used the undo button to add back in only the talk page section, to house a new comment that I forgot to place before he deleted the section. I wouldn't really have considered it a revert [just the section header without any of the deleted comments], but I could be wrong about that. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


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

Yes. Which is why I wrote it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I worked with her. Kirill and I helped her get the Native American portal to FP status. Great user. One of the most popular ever. RlevseTalk 01:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the event you're not watching

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

Understood. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh much for that experiment. Tiderolls 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It is still only a couple of hours from the block, and I don't think anyone can really be judged on their immediate responses. Let them sleep on it, and consider what is being said. Perhaps after a few days or so they may start think about whether they should change the way they approach things, and then there is the potential for progress to be made. Thanks for your efforts in this, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is

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

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

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

Your block of

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

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

Chocolate biscuit jar

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

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

Ted Heath (bandleader)

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

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

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

The article apparently falls under the aegis of two wikiprojects; I don't know how active they are - for all I know, you are the only active member of both! - but perhaps those might be good places to request some gentle shepherding? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ta, will do.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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

re re image at Creampie (sexual act)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, OK. That's different. Well let's see.
Well, BRD violation. OK, granted. I did not know that. Hard to keep up on all the details of all the rules.
Well, then we with your diffs we are getting into some complicated threading here. There was an ANI post (the diff is here). OK that was 20 days ago. (Just to make sure I wasn't misremembering anything, I painstakingly recreated the history leading up to the ANI post, which is here). Anyway that ANI post was awhile ago and anything prior to that ANI post could have been handled there, I guess. If I recall there wasn't any decision made at the ANI.
Wait I minute. I didn't "remove" any images, I replaced the image with one substantively similar. There's a big difference.
re "male, for various good reasons I won't go into here"... I just didn't want to go into them solely for the reason that I didn't want to sidetrack the existing discussion with tangential points, because the discussion (IIRC) was then about Remove/Keep of the current image, and going into details of other options would have just confused the thread. I did expand on this later, when it was called for. And I would have expanded on it right then if someone had asked me. Anyway, you know, saying "this is not the proper manner of making an argument, if you have reasons then you owe it to others to clarify them" is a reasonable statement for one editor to make to another. But in my view "this is not the proper manner of making an argument, if you have reasons then you owe it to others to clarify them and I will block you if you don't make your arguments in a manner to my liking" is not a reasonable statement. And that is what we are talking about here, right? You are explaining reasons that you have threatened to block me, and this is one of them.
OK, what it the deal with this? You seriously are chastizing me for this? Now this is getting silly. I am allowed reasonable leeway in making points. Obviously my point is that it's unkind to our users to use images that will make them queasy. I don't have to point to a policy for every single statement. Actually, I think there is a policy somewhere about shock images, IIRC.
Oh, OK, animals. OK, didn't like the animals. OK, fine, no animals, OK? I've already conceded this. I'll address this in more detail in a minute.
Oh, that was you with the interspecies / frankly bizarre thing. Wait a second... that was you? Sorry, I didn't realize that. To be honest, I don't much keep track of who is who except inasmuch as necessary for the thread to make sense. Well, no wonder you're upset. Wait a minute... let me get this straight: you're in an editing dispute with me, and your way of dealing with that is to block me? Isn't there some kind of rule against that, or something?
Right, the closing. I screwed that up, didn't I? I already apologized for that, and will do so as many times as you require, I guess. "Consensus must change"? Is that a rule? Where does it say that? Silly rule, if it is a rule.
OK, I read your closing paragraph. Well, hmmmm. I mean, I read and contribute to various talk pages, and there's a certain amount of give-and-take, you know. Most statements don't point to a policy. There's a lot of things that go into making the Wikipedia. Policy is all well and good, but let's not get all crazy about it. After all WP:IAR is a policy too. You know, it'd be one thing if I was saying "Such-and-such is a policy, but to hell with that, let's ignore it". But I'm not. I'm just saying like "I think we should do such-and-such" but without attaching "per WP:RULE" to it. This is a blockable offense? But I do get it that you don't like me. Fair enough.
OK, just to finish up with some meta issues. Here's my take: you're mad because I tweaked you a little bit with the animal thing. OK, understandable. But here's the thing - I wouldn't say this on the article talk page, of course, but just talking privately between ourselves: c'mon. Do you really not get that the whole thing is completely ludicrous? Here we are arguing over a poorly drawn scrawl illustrating a sub-notable article of porno trivia like it's the Magna Carta. I mean, as someone correctly pointed out, it looks like it came from a 7th grader's notebook. And when he showed it to his friend, what would be his friend's reaction? Why, he'd laugh until his subsidized milk came out his nose. Maybe he's wiser than we great solons. But I apologize if your feelings were hurt. But in my opinion, when I run into situations like that, I find that rolling my eyes or muttering "what an asshole" to myself and moving on is better than, you know, threatening to block the person.
Also, I don't want to let you off the hook for being an involved editor and threatening to block me. You are not supposed to do that, so don't.
So, all in all, I have to mostly respectfully disagree with your review of my activities. But thank you for putting the time and effort into it. I'd recommend just letting it go, and moving on from here. Herostratus (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please clear all mentions of deleted usernames

Can you remove the revision, since its edit summary contains the deleted user's name. It is painfully ironic that you deleted that user's edits, but another person reverted it with the edit summary containing that user's name. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 21:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

please restore

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

I have returned and am willing to discuss any proposal you wish to make. Smatprt (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I will have to review the discussion at the ani sub-page and... I am about to crash (target area; my bed!) also. I will take this up again tomorrow evening, my time. I trust this is okay? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course - after all, you waited for me! Could you also review this RFC, [[13]], as it is entirely related to the bigger issues at play here, and details the various pages involved, as well as the process that we had all agreed to follow (but seems to have been scuttled by the rather bold edits of Oct 10th.) Thanks again and happy dreams. Smatprt (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely

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

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


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

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

User talk:Tbsdy lives

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

Yes, there was. As noted in my deletion rationale I advised ArbCom of the circumstances, but what I disclosed is not open to discussion. I would note, here (because I do not want a sysop to sysop discussion of technicalities at ANI), that Tbsdy did not RTV but retired the account with a request to blank his talkpage - which was granted and confirmed by NYB (here is the archived discussion, which is a little illuminating as is this one), who you might also like to run this past. It is possible that undeleting the talkpage is not a problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I had already notified NYB. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That is extremely unfair. - (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
What is? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your caveat....

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

I am not going to remove it, as it has been in place (in one form or another) for some little time - but I will explain it a bit, if you wish. To take your example, you should not mail me a copy of Word - you cannot disclaim your responsibility in the matter if I were stupid enough to redistribute it and caught the attention of the lawyers; it stops anyone washing their hands of their part of an improper action, noy a get out of gaol free card for me. As for not agreeing to the conditions, then you should not email me (and especially with sensitive material you might not wish to see make public). It is like those links people are sometimes tempted to click on websites, by taking that action you are agreeing to abide by the conditions pertaining. Unlike those websites I am not going to empty your bank account or have your pc host my unsuitable files, and very likely I am not going to pass on any part of your message - but I could if I felt that it contained material that was better in the public domain, or was seen by others, and no claim of privacy or confidentiality would stop me (except matters regarding Oversight and access to the privileged channels consequent to those responsibilities.)
I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the issue which lead me to place that caveat on my pages. That is fine, but I would like to have thought that it was assumed that it was done for the better conduct of my activities on this website. I regret that there seems to be some elements of animosity in comments between us, and about me by comments made by you elsewhere, but I still consider you to be one of the more reasonable editors I interacted over on the AGW article enforcement pages - I disagreed with some of your stances and choices, but did not stop assuming you were acting in what you felt was in the best interests of the project. If you do not assume the same of me, then I feel that I must have failed in some way to make that apparent - and that is a matter of some further regret for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with the climate change case. Sorry if I gave that impression. Indeed, apart from our disagreement about the relative and absolute appropriateness and value of contributions by Lar and WMC in the area, I don't think we've had major disagreements. And I purr like a cat when people compliment my English.
No, I'm not aware what particular incident caused you to put up this text, but I understand your intention. I even support it to certain degree, although I'm more of the "if you send me something, you grant me a reasonable license to share and discuss it with others to a reasonable extend, unless you explicitly request privacy" persuasion. But I don't think your text achieves what it sets out to achieve, while on the other hand appearing somewhat impolite. It almost certainly has no legal value - a "click-through" is very different from a "mail-to". As a computer scientist, I cannot stand warts. This is a wart. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course this is nothing to do with CC/arbcom/ER etc., but I do think that everyone got a little corroded by the toxicity those places were prone to... I am pretty satisfied that the wording achieves the desired effect, and it is certainly intended to dissuade people from sending me obnoxious emails and then protesting that their privacy has been abused if I were to disclose some contents; I haven't received any such emails (and have not made public any mail I have received - although I have passed on one or two on my own cognizance), so I feel it has worked. I am content with it, and for people to judge me in part upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Schutzstuffel Gaming Clan

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

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

Mississippi Records

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

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

I think you have missed out {{advert}}... ;~) I agree that the article is not encyclopedic, and might benefit from heavy stubbing, but you might consider using the {{multiple issues}} template, remove the individual ones, and provide the detail on the talkpage. There is always the possibility that any COI editorship may remove any template or comment you leave, so you may wish to watch the article for a while to see if that happens - if it does then let me know and I will apply the required clue stick. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - will do.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a co-mentor

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

If flattery is on the agenda, then I am always willing... Seriously, I have reviewed the discussion you linked to and note that it was me that suggested further mentoring with a view to changing the then reaction to criticism, etc. - so I suppose that I should be prepared to play my part in that; since I am not undertaking any onerous responsibilities presently then I am willing to co-mentor Malke 2010. I note that my input at the linked discussion was challenged by Malke then, but I assume that you have suggested me as a co-mentor and Malke is agreeable. On that basis please take this as my formal acceptance of the request. I will add the Mentorship page and her talkpage on my watchlist. I should be grateful if you could confirm that Malke is happy with all of this, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (Oh, and thanks for the consideration!)
Thank you. I have suggested you specifically, and Malke has agreed. :) I very much appreciate your willingness to help out; I think things will progress more smoothly this way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I shall formally introduce myself to Malke. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt

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

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

3 ?s

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

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

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

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

Yes, continue to edit the sandbox draft, although clarifying the changes made clearly in the edit summary and noting it is a work in progress both on the page and at the RfC will help reviewers of both the draft and the RfC. I think the ANI length relates to the success of the RfC, if the latter provides a good way in which the article can be written then the ANI page simply becomes moribund. RfC's are generally held open for 30 days unless a very strong consensus emerges beforehand, but anyway more than a couple of weeks. This allows truly independent reviewers to find it, look at the data, and make comments. If the RfC fails to address the issues, then the ANI restarts and takes for as long as is needed - although I doubt anything new will be produced and it is a case of someone reviewing the content and deciding whether and upon whom sanctions should be applied.
I am not sure if opening a ANI discussion on yourself is ever good, but opening one on other editors whose behaviour is a matter of concern is reasonable; you may wish to see if they participate in the RfC's to the effect that you have issues with first, because that makes the matter contemporary. If you take up issues that are historical there may be a lack of urgency on the part of the readership, since there is no present apparent disruption.
re reputations - it really is not as important as the content that remains in an article; we all would prefer to be respected, but the editing model of this place - and why collegiate and consensual practices are pushed so hard - means that there will always be someone who thinks poorly of your contributions; disruption to the project is far more likely to be responded to than the feelings of an editor (outside of general application of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.)
I trust the above proves helpful.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll hold off on calling for diffs from those who left those comments until they do so again.
I don't see the AfC going anywhere. Smatprt has reposted some comments from the SAQ talk page as well as some old comments from the previous AfC so that it appears that some activity is taking place that really isn't, but he's neglected to repost the later SAQ talkpage comments critical of his version, so I'm not really sure how that RfC is relevant to anything. He has a problem with overexposure, and most editors ignore his repeated calls for outside input because they've learned it is largely a waste of their time.
My view is that dispute resolution should resolve disputes, not maintain the status quo, which in my experience guarantees that the problem will come up again, as this one has for the past four years. Letting problems fester by kicking them down the road is not good for Wikipedia, as Wrad pointed out before leaving in disgust.
Just my 2p. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair comment. My experience of content disputes that originate in the real world is that when disruption is countered by blocks and bans that a new "champion" of the viewpoint arrives and starts over the same issues again - and often in good faith, because they see what appears to be a lack of input from a particular viewpoint. My preferred method is to get the different viewpoint holders to be able to work as close to harmoniously as is possible, so when this new editor turns up they find an established forum for discussing all aspects of the subject. This is what I am attempting here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that would be the most desirable result, but you might want to query ScienceApologist, Dougweller, and EdJohnston about the success of their efforts along those lines with the same cast of characters.
The William Shakespeare article suffered quite a bit from such interpolations, but since it achieved FA status the problem has been reduced to manageability, at least. My idea is that articles subject to vandalisation and advocacy editing should be closed for editing except to editors who have the "key", which could be a password or a special status. That would greatly reduce the need for constantly patrolling and probably make half the admins redundant!
I also think the idea of two competing drafts the way the two SAQ drafts were done could also be a good solution for articles that draw a lot of edit warring. For one thing, it gets the disruption off the main page for a time and I believe it produces better articles. If kamikaze editors try to hijack the mainspace article, they can be told that the article is undergoing renovation and be pointed to the appropriate sandbox space to make their contributions. It's a thought, anyway. One thing is for sure in my mind: Wikipedia is entering a more mature stage where the old ways are going to have to be modified if it seriously intends to try to achieve its goals. The "anybody can edit" model doesn't work all that well on mature articles and those that demand some type of expertise. Cheers LH. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Since it's a general point, and not related to the dispute, I'd like to comment on that last point Tom. No, no. Citizendium does that. For any recurrent problem, there's no one solution but several, at least outside the real world where fundamental interests predetermine a restriction of choice. Most articles, written by an academic with competence, take a week or two, no more. Many are written quickly here when conditions are optimal. But for articles that drag on in the slough of despond, despite huge efforts, and intrinsic importance, for years, you don't need to create an elite class, above 'hoi polloi' editors. All you really need do is impose an interim of tighter rules for editing. I.e., in the stuff we've done, you could resolve most disputes by simply restricting RS to quality academic imprints, which any editor, democratically, can access. With that simple criterion, all editors would be compelled to actually read up the best current published research on the topic of a conflicted page, and the more you read at that level, the harder it is for anyone, pro- or contra-, to keep faith with prejudices that they might otherwise take to be rationally grounded ideas. The politics of knowledge is troubled enough, without us creating tiers of privilege. Method is everything, and anyone, with a will can have a shake at it, and spear the topic, de verily (sorry). Cheers Nishidani (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't create "tiers of privilege". On troubled articles that are mature I'm saying that they shouldn't be accessible to any SPA editor with an agenda and a computer. I dunno, I'm just thinking out loud. But a group such as WP:Wikiproject Shakespeare could play an active role patrolling their areas of interest and be self-regulating. Instead of constantly seeking dispute resolution because of individual editors clashing, the project could take care of most of the article patrolling and seek dispute resolution only when its own members couldn't come to a consensus.
My second point about writing articles away from the mainpages I think is spot on. The current SAQ page, despite its flaws (which are being mended), is a very high-quality product that would have been impossible to write with 30 different editors. And it took considerably longer than a week or two to research and write. My theory is that once you get a pretty good article that's obviously written to a NPOV, the community at large can tweak it and the checks and balances of the process will ensure that the neutrality remains. With the process as it is, it's impossible to achieve a quality article with a NPOV, much less maintain one. It was difficult to do so with a controversial topic in the past, and the situation has only gotten worse since we took the WS article to FA lo these many (almost three) years ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? --andreasegde (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

RFC disappeared

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

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

Just a note

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

Ignore it, it is not from an uninvolved party nor anyone who is attempting to resolve the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to say that I have never, ever, had any interaction with User:Sven Manguard, and as far as I am aware, he has never edited any of the SAQ articles. So I think that makes him an uninvolved party. I certainly don't condone much of what he wrote (more specifically the way he wrote it, which was not helpful to anyone), but I just wanted to be clear that I did not solicit his participation, and that he has not been involved in any of these disputes. Smatprt (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The editor in question had edited the sub-page previously and, in my opinion FWIW, not in a manner which appeared constructive; and that is all I meant by my comments. I am, it must be realised by now, being careful not to apportion blame for past and present issues but try and resolve this through the parties to the dispute being able to work together. As such I am disinterested in claim and counterclaim, but only in getting good work out of the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

checking in on a few things

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

I would say both are fine; the first was reverting vandalism - whoever wrote that was obviously intending to be disruptive - and the second is supplying the ref's as requested by a third party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong call, I'm afraid. The Oxfordian Charlton Ogburn is not a reliable source. He's a notoriously bad source, absolutely no credentials in Elizabethan historiography, and never used as a source for anything in peer-reviewed academic works on that period, which exist in profligate abundance. That has been noted for several months now, and I'm sure Smatprt is thoroughly familiar with the fact that strong technical objections per WP:RS have been repeatedly made about using him. I didn't revert the provocation because my understanding of your call that we voluntarily desist from Shakespeare related pages is that I at least should not fix it. Just for the record. I have no intention of replying if a thread develops. We all make mistakes, and no one, esp. a busy admin can be expected to twig to every nuance in the inhuman volume of edits they must supervise. RegardsNishidani (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Two questions, i) can Smatprt comment on the use of a disputed source, and ii) is Smatprt able to supply a ref that is not challenged and substitute it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Smartpt's use of such non-RS sources is one of the basic problems we've had with his edits. Although it's been explained to him again and again, he persists in using them because they support his POV. I saw this edit (of course, we're all stalking each other) earlier, but I don't like the tattling that dispute resolution seems to encourage in some, nor do I feel it is in my purview to challenge his edits or comment on them.
My understanding of the edict is that we refrain from any editing of the articles in question except for vandalism. Any other edits are to be pasted on the talk page and discussed. Certainly providing a fringe source that is not WP:RS and has drawn objections is a biased edit, IMO. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a shame if Smatprt is gaming the voluntary topic ban, because this is really the only way that editors are not going to be officially sanctioned. I would hope that S will either revert of sub that reference. I think the bottom line of what is allowed is that only non-confrontational edits should be made, even if the editor does not consider them confrontational personally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Glad to respond. First - in my edit summary, I asked if I was allowed to make the edit and received no response. (Looking at the article, I see that Tom and Nishidani have now removed Ogburn from the article entirely. This is astounding to me as in their own article, they even list his book as one of the authorship question milestones saying "1984 Charlton Ogburn, Jr. publishes The Mysterious William Shakespeare: the Myth and the Reality, securing Oxford as the most popular theory".) Second, the Ogburn publication meets the RS requirements (reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and has never been denied as an RS by any noticeboard that I am aware of. Yes, Tom and Nishidani have siad its not RS, but they have said that about most publications they disagree with. It's like crying wolf - eventually it becomes meaningless because they are pretty much against anything that is in opposition with their own POV.
Anyhow, I want to get this straight - are you saying that anything deemed controversial by the opposing party is off limits, because if so, both Nelson and Shapiro's works have been raised in the many arguments and counter-arguements, yet they continue to be used by both Tom and Nishidani. Here is one that Tom just made [[17] for example. Is that gaming the system as well? Particularly in lieu of this conversation [[18]]? In any case, I can certainly revert the edits in question if you direct me to do so. But in all fairness, will Nelson and Shapiro as refs be reverted as well?
And if i'm unclear - let me state that I object to using Shapiro and Nelson to characterize the SAQ because they are not neutral commentators. (Nelson was even described by Tom as a "muckraker", yet he and Nishidani continue to rely on his biased account of Oxford's life). As such, Shapiro and Nelson are controversial in the way they are being used repeatedly by Tom and Nishidani. And now that I go back to several of the articles in question, I see that they have repeatedly removed reliable sources like Ogburn and Anderson (who meet the RS requirements - reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and substituted them with Nelson and Shapiro. It was my understanding that in cases like this, both references should be used. This has not been the case.
Finally, I also object to Tom pushing for DYK publication of his "list of authorship candidates" at the same time that we are under this topic ban - a list he knows to be controversial based on prior comments, as well as these comments [[19]] I left several days ago. Smatprt (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that any edit that would be considered controversial - and by controversial I mean opposed by other editors, even if the writer considers it non-controversial regardless of others opinions - should be avoided. That is what topic ban means, and to make clear what an official topic ban would consider the minimum, not to make any edit that might potentially be objected to. If this is to work, there should be no content editing upon these articles - anti vandalism and spelling typo corrections are all that might be done without reference, and no more adding references per requests where the reliability is questioned. It is by having editors realising how restrictive this can be that hopefully progress toward a collegiate editing environment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I promised I wouldn't come back on this, and it has nothing to do with the above, which I find incomprehensible gossip, ignoring the real issue which deals with wiki protocols on sources, and fringe subjects.
I will however, if (permission requested) LessHeard vanU has both the curiosity and patience to invite me to do so, explain why that edit was, as I said above, 'provocative', and not only patently challenged the terms of the ban, but, if examined, showed why extreme scruple in sourcing (which is what Tom and I have insisted on) is critically important here. What Smatprt did, perhaps inadvertently, I don't know, perfectly illustrates why wikipedia must exercise extreme care in sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Smatprt must have forgotten that he inserted two Ogburn refs, because he replaced only one.
Tom - I said "one of the", so obviously I didn't "forget". Smatprt (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
And I take umbrage at the edit summary, "replaced ref since Tom has deemed Ogburn non-RS". This is the type of passive-aggressive reframing and blurring he uses to confuse the issue and which (I admit) works on some editors to make it seem as if it is our behaviour, not Wiki policy, that is constraining his ability to edit. I have not "deemed Ogburn non-RS"; the guidelines for editing fringe articles has deemed it such. Of course, Smatprt does not consider the SAQ a fringe topic, merely a minority viewpoint. His idea of neutrality is to give equal time and space to Oxford and Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(resp to Smatprt)If you are not certain the new ref is RS then you should not have made it - and if you know it is RS then your language is unhelpful. I don't care if you don't like each other or the views held, I just don't want it's presence corroding the editing environment - its absence will make it better for you and, more importantly, new editors.
I am certain it is RS - but I can never be certain of what objections might be raised (especially based on Nishidani's "extreme" policy). I read the RS requirements and see that my sources comply.Smatprt (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually glad Nishidani weighed in. He says that he and Tom require an "extreme scruple in sourcing" - but is that Wikipedia policy? Both publishing houses that produce the Anderson and Ogburn books comply with RS requirements:"reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - but that is not good enough for the "extreme" sourcing requirement required by Tom and Nishidani.Smatprt (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(resp to Nishidani) If I had the patience I would be a content producer, not an admin (I am certainly unable to be both!) If you object to a source or unadulterated viewpoint I AGF that you have reason to, as I AGF the concerns of editors regarding you or someone else's editing - it is up to the disputants to work out how these issues can be addressed and accommodated; because if that does not happen then it will be up to the next set of contributors to attempt it, because the current disputants will be topic banned. I can't sort out the content disputes, because I do not have the knowledge to do so - but I can try and get you muppets to stop pushing each other and get some article writing done.
(resp to Tom Reedy) I have to say that there is little passive-aggressive commentary from you, since there is no passive voice at all. I know that you bridle at the manner in which Smatprt edits the articles, how they conducts themselves, and the viewpoint, but it does not seem to have occurred to you that if you wish to continue to edit the articles then allowances are going to have to be made on all sides, because my reading of other uninvolved editors/admins comments is that you are all up for topic banning - of varying lengths - if there is not a resolution. If you have points to make, and per the AGF mentioned already I acknowledge you do, then they are going to have to be resolved between you. Think of it this way, if none of you are really happy with the outcome then at least there is something you can agree upon. Then you can work on it, so that you are all least unhappy with the end result. None of you are newbie enough to be mentored, and I do not think there is an admin that is going to try to resolve the content dispute. You are left with each other, and my attempt to form a working relationship between you that results in each of you staying able to edit these articles. Just can we all try a little harder to sort this out? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I notice once again that this topic has sprawled all over the page, as is customary for any dispute in this series. Every page is turned into an interminable series of excuses and diversions, even a simple DYK submission. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Muppet? Look, I can't stand these disputes. I like writing pages, and that's my record. I did 850 edits on the SAQ page alone, on an admin's request, and 180 odd in 4 days, on de Vere to get it sourced properly, and I'm a whingeing muppet, and must be topic banned for being disputatious instead of constructive?
Okay, this is what you don't see (it's not part of an admin's brief) and what I, and I suppose Tom, have had to put up wth for several months.
Warning: WP:TLDR threat. But it appears necessary to untangle this mess, and show why the ban was violated.
The source required was for the words ‘Oxford was one of the leading patrons of the Elizabethen age’. I thought none of us could edit that page except for vandalism. I certainly did not think that it could be edited by gaming the rules to reintroduce disputed material via apparent sourcing. I fully expected the text to lie there untouched, until this issue could be sorted out, which for me is behavioural and related to methodology in writing reliable articles.
What the second edit did was apparently satisfy a demand I put (not a third party) that a remark I could find no adequate RS for, and which had been around for years, be supplied with a reliable source, which everyone who edits with me knows means ‘a reputable academic work by an authority on the specific issue.
I had asked for this because, when he began to restore the old version after my comprehensive revision per academic sources, he reintroduced this phrasing here. I then requested he source it reliably here, on the 19th.of the current month. Then the voluntary ban came into effect.
Today, despite the ban, Smatprt provided two sources.
One is Ogburn, and he knows I, Tom or anyone else who takes academic sourcing as the default guarantee for historical articles, have always challenged the use of Ogburn. I thought that provocative, a throwing down the gauntlet, both to yourself and to myself and perhaps Tom,
But the real irony consists in the second source he provided, namely note 4.
This refers us to an article by Dave Gilyeat, ‘Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford: The real Shakespeare?’ source the BBC, 27 November 2009, dealing with reactions to Kurt Kreiler's Mann der Shakespeare erfand: Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.
The BBC is RS but not, assuredly, if it is cited on historical details that come from a journalist, Dave Gilyeat, who has no background in the subject. Gilyeat did indeed, at the head of his article, write that Oxford ‘was one of the leading patrons of the Elizabethan age,’ and therefore, on the surface, Smatprt had found exactly what I asked for, indeed a source that mirrored the lead’s disputed wording verbatim.
An admin looking at this would say, Nishidani can't object. He asked for an RS and the BBC is RS.
Well, not here. That source was odd. Reading the article earlier today, much of its content sounded like many back issues of the wiki article, and I felt the author probably wrote much of the background using an earlier version of wiki as a source. The article was published on the BBC website on the 27 November 2009. If you examine the wiki page on de Vere for that day, to see what Gilyeat might have consulted while writing his piece for the BBC, you will find this, reflecting the last edit before that day, i.e. 25 November 2009, where indeed precisely these words ‘‘was one of the leading patrons of the Elizabethan age,’ occur in the lead
It’s either an extraordinary coincidence, or simply, as is often the case, one more proof that a good deal of the world’s RS journalism piggybacks on the free labour of us wikipedians.
So. Who introduced that material into Wikipedia, which so caught Gilyeat’s eye?Smatprt did, introducing it into lead here on 22:57, 12 July 2009. with the edit summary ‘added information on Oxford's patronage to lede.’
So there you have it, and it is only a snippet of the deeper background of the differences that have wracked these Shakespearean pages for so long. An editor writes unsubstantiated stuff, and defends it for years. Journalists on mainstream papers quote it, and when an academic drops in and asks for a reliable source, expecting a book, he is dished up with a ref that turns out to be a refraction of the challenged editor's own original research, inserted years ago, through an unwitting journalist's piece which harvested it, and now is cited by the challenged editor to 'prove' an external reliable source confirms his own WP:OR. Smatprt’s ‘source’ is himself, via Gilyeat, who is quoting him!
That's the nub of it, and that's why I insist on academic sources. And that's why I found this gaming use of himself as a reliable source 'provocative'.Nishidani (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but...

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

Deep breath. (a) I was banned from a page by an editor (b) I asked for my rights to be restored (c) arguments ensued, several admins said the other editor deserved a sanction (d) result. I'm topic banned. (e) lesson, don't take 5 months out of your life, as an ex-academic, and do 1,000 edits on two troubled pages to fix them with WP:RS because you'll only be hit with 'muppet' and sentenced to repeat the exercise. Thank goodness, whatever happens, I'm scheduled to fly out within a few weeks where computers aren't used.Nishidani (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"How hard is it?" When you're dealing with a disruptive SPA POV-pusher, it's apparently 10 months hard at least. What I want to know is why is it so hard for Wikipedia to enforce its own core principles and standards?
I think Nishidani's point is that bad sourcing and editing have repercussions far afield from the insular world of Wikipedia politics and edit wars. As a former journalist, I can tell you that many news stories are written in hours--not days--and that Wikipedia text is copied and pasted onto the page and then rearranged like so much word salad to give it a gloss of originality, and the very fact that it appears in print lends it an authority it doesn't have on the Internet.
Fringe promoters know that any publicity is good, and indeed research has proven that people continue to believe ideas that are repeated often even if they have been proven wrong and told so. The main goal for fringe theorists is to keep their ideas out there as long as possible, and Wikipedia has done an admirable job of helping them keep their ideas in front of readers and lending it authority by association.
The dispute process is gamed by advocates who misuse the system to delay any resolution and turn NPOV and RS standards on their heads. Smatprt actually says that any mention of Shakespeare's play writing in the lead of Shakespeare's life is unbalanced because it is challenged by anti-Stratfordians. We've been to RS and fringe noticeboards, and nothing changes, because every case mysteriously gets delayed on one pretence or another and ends up being diverted and going down blind alleys until fatigue sets in, and the admins who sentence the disputants to "learn how to edit co-operatively" know next to nothing about the topic and so are taken in by Smatprt's tactics of "fairness", which portrays adherence to Wikipedia standards as lack of good faith and being disruptive.
And BTW, why is a supposed "historical fact" being supported by a TV network article anyway?
If you've never heard it, listen to Dwight Yoakam's "Sorry You Asked". It sums up how every admin who ever stepped into this mess with the best of intentions feels. There's a reason they never comment on current SAQ disputes.
I don't think I need to say another word for the rest of this dispute unless someone asks me a question. Sorry for bending your ear this long. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Josephs

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

I can't find any discussion on ANI or AN, but a review of the article leads me to think that you could place a speedy template on it - notability would be my thinking - and see what happens. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That's odd. I got a blue link for the AN/I diff, but the discussion is actually at WP:Help desk#Proofreading Request Adam Josephs. I think the problem is more the negative nature of the article than the notability, though notability is also an issue. Thanks for the advice. I can deal with it, if nothing has happened in the meantime, once I am home at my own computer again. Bielle (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
There is something about BLP's and being notable for only one event (where the event may be notable, but not the individuals). I am sure you can track it down. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


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

...and what is that to do with getting that recipe for cannelloni? Mail me! That is an admin command, dammit! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sent. It may be awhile before I have a chance to reply to your reply, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Then I shall just have to set the pan to simmer... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your email. I have to tell that I haven't the vaguest idea how to prepare cannelloni. I'm such a bad cook I've been known to burn water. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some guidance?

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

Okay. Look at the discussion at the ANI page, the majority is in respect to issues relating to your editing of articles and your viewpoint in what is appropriate - and how - to be included in article space. Address them, and not the issues with other editors contributions; there is also third party commentary in regard to that, which is their responsibility to respond to. Look to article space where you and the other parties are in agreement, see where you differ and investigate whether you can agree to remove examples of each others more inflammatory content, and perhaps agree a trade off where some is kept. Lastly, recognise that you are the leading established editor with a preference for the Oxfordian viewpoint regarding WS's purported authorship, and whether your absence will mean that there will be a lack of informed comment regarding that issue in the future. I do not doubt that were you to be removed that others would take up that mantle, but are they so familiar with the WP way to be as effective as you might?
You are editing toward a fringe viewpoint, not a minority one - recognise that and the fact that the very vast majority of non specialist readers, and most of the informed readership, do not have an issue with who wrote the plays. You may not agree with the consensus, but you must recognise its existence. Once you acknowlege that, then you can work to make the articles that deal with that aspect to be the best encyclopedic references possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I need to absorb all this because you are pretty much dead on with all your points. Up until 10 months ago, I could relate to so much of what you list above. On the SAQ page, for example, in addition to myself, there was a mainstream editor or two like OldMoonraker, and some general authorship editors like Afasmit, who kept each other in check, you might say. There were no big blow-ups (except when we all endured a series of Sockpuppet attacks from the last anti-Stratfordian to get banned). For the last 10 months, though, it's been blow-up after blow-up, probably as much my fault as anyone else, but regardless of blame, it sure had my active participation, which I do regret. So, yeah, I would love to figure out how to get back to a more positive experience, and in the process, a better encyclopedia. I do remember a recent instance where I tried real hard, and still had no success at any kind of compromise. Some uninvolved editors got involved and still, nothing. This is the incident [[21]]. I guess my big question is, how could I have handled this article differently? How would you have approached it?Smatprt (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I will get back to you later on the specifics re the link - my beer goggles are on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I responded to Nishidani first because I had the big yellow band appear when I logged on, but a lot of what I said applies to your query; you have to acknowledge that the academic consensus is that the plays, etc., were written by William Shakespeare, and that there is a lot of material that can be used to support that viewpoint. Since that consensus also acknowledges the existence of counterclaims, even if it is considered with disdain, permits the noting of it within the WS article, and also permits the creation of articles around those claims. Those articles are allowed to be sourced by any RS that reference the subject matter, and need not be put to extraordinary levels of academic excellence; WP levels are sufficient. Even with the thorny question of the claims of "suppression" of anti-Stratford sentiment or research can be sourced to those RS that reference it, because they are good sources for the argument. All you needed to do, and what you should do now, in recognise that you are editing a minority or fringe group of articles, apply WP policy and practice to those, and not attempt to deprecate the majority consensus in those articles where that applies. Per WP:NOTSOAP, Wikipedia is not the place to try and right great wrongs by emphasising a viewpoint that does not have that degree of acceptance in the wider world. I trust both these responses provides you with a basis on how you might review your past actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a brief note

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

Very much the analogy, and you are surely aware that I was involved in that situation. The basic premise is much the same; the mainstream and "academic/professional" consensus view is that William of Stratford wrote or was at least the primary author of the works of Shakespeare, but even within those ranks there is acknowledgement that there are those who disagree (with one or two favoured candidates as the alternative). The article on William Shakespeare would be quite correct to neutrally note that this is the case, and there should be articles devoted to those claims - one prime one with references to the cases put forward, and possibly sub-ones regarding the suggested alternatives. There is no need to note the claims, however, in articles regarding any of Shakespeare's plays, sonnets, other writings, and especially when the project template to be found on every relevant article already includes that link. So far, so good. However, and very much like the recent Climate Change matter, there is no need to deprecate or diminish the references that are used to source the claims for the non-Stratford theories because they do not have the academic clout of the sources that are used to buttress the claims for William Shakespeare. A book written by a non academic, and reviewed by a third party, is fine to reference and detail the claims by that individual, regardless of their lack of weight with the academic majority - because the article is not about that larger consensus, but the specific pov. This last is a hurdle that a number of the Climate Change majority consensus supporting editors could not and even now cannot negotiate - references regarded as unsound by the mainstream viewpoint are still valid as sources for the non-mainstream POV. As I hoped would be the case with Climate Change articles, and hope now for this matter, that this is recognised by those who subscribe to the majority consensus pov.
That latter was what I was attempting with my first suggestion when I became involved - that editors write the opposing pov articles in the same way they would write for articles in accordance with their pov; you simply find the best references for that area and use them neutrally to source the article. After that, you trust the readership to recognise that sources that are printed by universities and academia carry more weight than a previously unknown publishing house when balancing claim and counterclaim. You are never going to convince the diehards, so just make the case to the average plus readership.
I hope that this clarifies my actions in these matters - whereas I am personally in agreement with the mainstream and professional consensus, I want the articles that articulate the alternative view to be presented and sourced in accordance with WP policy and practice and use those references that support them neutrally and without comment. Same position as I took with Climate Change. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't there a distinct minority of tenured professional climatologists who challenge the conclusions of the (for the moment) majority? Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no mistake, the one or two professional climatologists who are at odds with the consensus are generally so in only the details - they agree upon AGW but disagree either upon the extent or consequences or the veracity of the models. Such disagreements are common in science, but in this area they are seized upon by those of a skeptic and denialist viewpoint. As in this case, the vast majority of those making the case for non AGW and even non CC scenario's are not involved in the discipline, even though some hold qualifications which indicate that they are familiar with the scientific method. What is different between AGW/CC and the question of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays is that there is an incredible investment in the industries potentially most effected by any change in worlds methods of extracting and utilising power - those interests and their powerful lobbying ability and skillful use of media (and the recognition that most people want everyone else to make the necessary sacrifices, and that almost always means the generation or two to come) ensure that every minor variation in data or differing opinion between those scientific bodies who are convinced of AGW/CC is examined and presented as evidence of the lack of a scientific basis for the situation. With Shakespeare, the question of the authorship does not effect the quality of the plays or their popularity and the public are generally not aware that there is even a question - fringe theory abounds because of the lack of interest in the truth, except for the fact that such claims make better newspaper stories than "William Shakespeare - still dead" provides a ready market for anyone with a taste for a bit of publicity. I think these comments pretty much nail where I stand on both issues... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Few administrators take the trouble to clarify a point in such detail. I've undertaken to avoid long threads like the plague, so I won't persist, except to to offer a few points for tacit reflection:(a) that with all analogies, there are two heuristic values. They illuminate similarities, but (b) prove their worth, when pressed, also by the way they set in relief the incongruities of covert difference: (2a) there is a marked difference between a contemporary, open controversy, whose results are to be determined by scientific principles both sceptics and the majority subscribe to, and (2b) an historical issue where the methodology of the mainstream is not shared by the fringe, and the argument is closed, for want of evidence, since the smoking gun has not turned up after 160 years of intensive research, and the whole theory therefore rests of pure speculation. (3) The mainstream has described the whole fringe problem comprehensively, at and times with wry sympathy, (-eminent fringers have been converted to the mainstream because, using normative practices of analysis, their beliefs collapsed-) while the fringe has yet to show any awareness that its own belief-system is incompatible with the only method that that could secure it recognition in scholarly quarters. I say belief system because historically that is what it arose as, as Shapiro's analysis underlined, as a succedaneum for religion. It's very hard to argue with, as opposed to describe accurately and neutrally, what Jehovah's witnesses or Scientologists believe. Time's running short, and I won't be around for much arbitration, mediation, proliferating threads and whatever. One caution: if your principle regarding the use of fringe sources to describe fringe ideas is approved, then, given the history, I think it wise for chaps like myself to desist. Inb the wrong hands, that principle strikes me as a recipé for disaster. That's it, no need to reply (better not!) Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
So Less, have you read through the two competing versions in the SAQ RfC? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
No, per Oscar Wilde. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

I have opened an RfC/U on Xanderliptak. Since you have attempted to deal with the concerns that I raise, I have mentioned you in the RfC. The RfC is not yet certified and may not be; currently I am the sole signatory, and any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". But I thought you should be made aware. Any feedback will, of course, be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor note

Thanks. The IP made one edit with the old text that does represent a legitimate point. We now have:-

'He travelled widely throughout Europe, and participated in military campaigns in the Northern Rebellion (1570),'

He did change that to 1569, and he's right that the Rising of the North occurred in 1569 not 1570.

His edit was, however, wrong, in that it makes out de Vere's participation in the campaign took place in late 1569, and not, as is the historical case, in the mop-up operation in the north, at the tail-end of the campaign, in April and May 1570.

Stuff to be fixed, eventually, probably by finessing the prose to avoid the ambiguity that gave rise to the misprision. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


Good morning. I wanted to ask about the block you imposed on the relative newbie that had reverted you. I think you mentioned the Bold-revert-discuss cycle, but I think you got it a bit wrong. I believe the newbie (self identified as Nina Green) was actually in the "revert" part of that cycle, having reverted Nishidani's bold edits that completely wiped out her work, including all the references she left. Here is the version of the article that included the work she did on the article (Oct 8): [[22]], and here is the version after Nishidani's rather bold edits (Oct 19): [[23]]. So hers was not the "bold" edit, but rather the "revert" in the bold-revert-discuss cycle. I might add that no one complained about her edits at the time (back in the summer), nor for a considerable time afterwords. Also, isn't it customary to leave a warning template or at least a message on her user page itemizing what she was doing wrong, prior to any more drastic action? It seems this newbie got bit rather hard, all things considered. Smatprt (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This account is not a newbie, as you well know. IP's in many cases may be very experienced editors, whose ISP provided address simply refreshes regularly, and who choose not to edit under an account name (even, sometimes, when they have one, regretfully). You noted the ip signs with a name, one which can be traced through the internet to interests relating to certain specific viewpoints regarding the author of the plays generally ascribed to William Shakespeare. Even experienced editors, ip's or otherwise, can be mistaken about policy; Nishidani had indeed removed these edits, and ones previously made by other ip's to the same effect, since they constitute Wikipedia:Original research, and returned it to policy compliant content. Therefore there needs to be consensus for material not in keeping with policy to be retained. Another misunderstanding of WP practice is to term good faith editing as vandalism, especially when those edits are addressing disruptive contributions - although not every editor whose policy compliant (and politely summarised) edits also possess the ability to protect the project. I do try and be fair, and allow all parties to discuss their viewpoints and interpretation of policy - but I do find it very difficult to maintain my neutrality when I believe my good faith is being gamed. I support anyone and everyone who acts in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, but I am fairly intolerant of those who seek to disregard the projects aims and requirements in the service of a particular viewpoint or belief. I realise mistakes can happen, and that I can make them also, and am always willing to welcome back a well meaning editor who has previously committed an error in their manner in editing the encyclopedia. You will note that I made some general comments, without reference to much of the known background of the ip editor, on the article talkpage. That should suffice for the time being. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Side note - during our voluntary block, are we allowed to participate on the talk pages of the various SAQ articles? Smatprt (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Providing that it is not involvement in a dispute or disputed edit, I don't see why not - although it may be reviewed upon request by another party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a brief comment regarding my use of "newbie" - IMHO, I think that anyone who has only made a couple dozen edits, and is obviously not up on many rules or regulations here, can be classified a newbie. They normally are given links to policy pages in some sort of "Welcome to Wikipedia" template or the like. They are usually also given a warning of some kind prior to being blocked. In this case, for example, I didn't see Welcome notice, or warning templates left for them, which I think is a shame. Smatprt (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

They referred to having advice from an editor that quoting their own papers was valid, and they attempted to rationalise their use of the term vandal by referring to policy and guideline. These edits by the ip are evidently not the only ones by the person using that account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe she was referring to this message, which she interpreted as approval. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Don't want to get you dragged into the mire, but there's another problem over at Alden Brooks, which I and Tom stubbed up. An anti-Stratfordian again, to judge by the choice of handle and the style of excisions (the passage on 'fool, knave, usuer' is in Wadsworth p.140, as is 'literary agent', as the preceding ref, though his edit summary suggests it is not) and additions of theWP:OR infraction variety. I don't remember if I can even note these things to admin, and risk infrnging the ban? Just in case an editor in good repute doesn't step in over the next few days, to fix the damage. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Get the RfC over, see how the land lays, and then see what can be done. There is no deadline. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Any idea on when that (the end of the RfC) will be? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
RfC's run for a maximum of 30 days, but only WP:SNOW ones are usually closed much earlier. However, in this matter there is going to be a review at the end of this month because of the ANI discussion regarding topic banning participants - I will see if there is a case for suspending any such bans pending the conclusion of the RfC, and submit my view to the ANI sub-page. At that time I will review both draft copies, and what responses they have engendered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger talk 05:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:

Not sure what the protocol is on restoring block templates, appears they are requesting an unblock, if you could call it a request. Mo ainm~Talk 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the reviewing admin will take that into account when deliberating over the obviously heartfelt and comprehensive appeal... Should we worry? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, certainly not. Mo ainm~Talk 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken block?

Elen of the Roads stated: "You have stated that what you meant was an agenda in terms of what interpretation of history they support, which statement would not be objectionable under Wikipedia rules. Are you prepared to refactor any statement which Paul or Andy believe is saying that they promote terrorism, so it is either struck or else it is clear that it refers to historical interpretation not to modern activism. If you will do that, then no furhter administrator intervention is required."[24]

Justus Maximus complies and Kansan shows evidence that Justus Maximus had done precisely what Elen asks[25]

Justus Maximus goes further and states ''I couldn't find it anywhere on the talk page though. I will take another look later and promise to remove/refactor it by tomorrow."[26]

Unless you inadventantly misread the thread due to the late hour or something like that, I don't quite understand why you indef blocked Justus Maximus with the comment "I have indef blocked JM until as such time as the comply fully with Elen of the Roads request." after he did actually comply with Elen's request. --Martin (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi LessHeard vanU. An editor has asked me to look into a block you made, which I have done, and I'd be interested in your thoughts: User talk:TFOWR#Rangoon11's filing of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codf1977 and his other actions yesterday.

I'm kind of on the fence about the block - I can see why VHarris44's edits might constitute harassment, but I can also see how they could have been made in good faith. Part of the reason I'm running this past you is that at least one of the admins who reviewed the (several!) unblock requests mentioned socking, and I gather that this now has been discounted.

Codf1977 (talk), the editor who raised this with me, has some history with Rangoon11 (talk), another editor involved with this. They do, however, make a fairly convincing case that Rangoon11 may be gaming the system: Rangoon11 posted at ANI apparently pleading ignorance shortly before posting at SPI having, apparently, learned a great deal in the interim. TFOWR 11:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions. I blocked on the basis of the following of Rangoon11's edits - which although suspicious was not in my estimation sanctionable - and then the edits regarding Rangoon11's possible COI in regard to the University, which taken in conjunction with the following I thought was. In coming to my judgement I took in good faith R11's comment that their involvement with the article subject had been removed from view - although I do not know the timescale, nor whether VH44 had previously edited as an ip or was a reader. My suspicions, although not forming part of my decision, was further raised by some obvious knowledge of WP editing and how consensus can be claimed, and the protestations of innocence regarding WP practice. The same fog of doubt is raised by the recently retired Codf1977 bringing up the matter with you; obviously still reading, and obviously still seeking to deprecate the edits of Rangoon11, but perhaps too anxious to have what appears a SPA allowed to return.
As for Rangoon11's posting to ANI just before the SPI results were in - it would be difficult to have known when the SPI would have been responded to; this doesn't negate any blame upon his actions if there is a question of inappropriate conduct on his behalf, but neither should any such actions negate inappropriate conduct of those he may be in dispute with.
Ultimately, though, I have no issue with another admin reversing my sysop actions if they feel that is the best course - by stretching WP:AGF to almost breaking point I do concede the possibility that I am not completely perfect... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
And thanks for your answers ;-) Rangoon11 has raised this at ANI, so I'm going to step back and see what happens. Thanks again, though I'll note that I have my doubts about your last comment - from this newbie's perspective you're flawless ;-) TFOWR 12:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The only flaw I readily admit to is metal fatigue, and the effect upon my irony. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Request 2

Hi, there. If you have the time could you have a look at the contributions of user Beesee11. He/she is a new user and hasn't started off in a very nice manner as this diff shows. I would give them a warning template but have never used them and it would take too long to figure out right now. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jack forbes (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It was an ongoing edit war, so I decided to act first and reply here later. To find out what template to use, go to the "help" link in the left margin, find templates, find userpage templates and look through them to find the one you need - but you do not need to use a template; if you warn someone about something, just conclude with the words "Please regard this as an official warning" and note the giving of a warning in the edit summary. Admins will be able to determine the type of warning by reviewing the context. I trust this helps, and thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Good advice. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

trick or treat

Glad you approve. Have a cupcake! :)

Thank you - an auspicious day for cake! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, LHVU. I tell you, I don't know why I still come here when I try and take a break from the place. So, now we have this guy screaming admin abuse. I've asked for another CU in the hope of obtaining a rangeblock. He's just trolling at this point. Gosh, I just love this job at times. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know since you were the last one to block a sock of his. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the above account is indef blocked, and the sock I zapped is noted by you in the SPI report. If they continue to abuse multiple accounts to continue their "quest", then the likelihood of a rangeblock increases. Let them rant... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Biocommunication

In the last 25 years I developed the theory of communivative nature (Life: The Communicative Structure, 2000) or as it is called theory of biocommunication. Meanwhile it is applied to biological investigations of bacteria, archaea, viruses, plants, fungi, animals such as bees and corals and helpfull in investigations on genes, epigenetic imprinting, non-coding RNAs, gene regulation, genome formatting, telomeres, telomerases etc. The only available book on Biocommunication and Natural Genome Editing has been published peer-reviewed in Springer Science Media in 2010 and deals with all these fields of research. I integrated this publication to Wikipedia sites to give information to students and interested persons. Now this book and several other items I added in an objective and neutral way has been removed from biocommunication- Wikipedia page. This seems curious. Removers stated, that the insertion of this book to various sites is a kind of refspam and doesn’t have any relevance to the topics of these pages. This is not correct. If they would have read this books they will see that all is correct. I doubt that removing persons will change their belief states even if rational arguments are available. So this great idea of wikipedia the „free“ encylopedia turnes more and more into „brave new world“ and mind police by master of blocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynaztiw (talkcontribs) 12:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, which records subjects which have gained review and independant criticism from other reliable parties. Your theories have not gained the sufficient acknowledgement within the area's to which they apply for them to be given notice in such articles. Since they do not reach that criteria, which applies to all subjects, they cannot be used. It is nothing to do with withholding truth, but being able to refer to an august authority as a means of confirming the notability of the subject. That is only reason that the project has for disallowing you to reference your own work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You posted that your criteria to block the postings of my articles have not gained sufficient acknowledgement within the area to which they apply. How to you know this and how do you evaluate this? All of these articles are peer reviewed in scientific journals and book publishers, reworked and finally accepted. So they reach this critera very well. But as it seems you have some problems with innovative thoughts that are introduced to the "free" encyclopedia, as it seems that you have problems with "Freedom". Your blocking weapon seems to be the only relevant action you are competent. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynaztiw (talkcontribs) 15:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is your responsibility to provide the reliable, third party sources that reference your work and specifically in relation to the topic in which you wish to include it. Previously when you have included references to your theories you have been asked to provide Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and when you did not that content was removed - and then you simply replaced the reverted edits. You have been and will be again blocked for disruption, in that you will not comply with the projects requirements for inclusion of content which references your theories; you are not blocked because of the theories, but your disruptive inclusion of them without the required evidence of their relevance to the article subject. Lastly, this is an encyclopedia which records established knowledge upon a subject - and is not a vehicle for "innovative thought" or "new theory". Your assumptions to the purpose of this project are in error. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I've spent many years developing a theory that the world is square. I plan to publish that theory here, and then fight to the death against all the squares who oppose it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Where's Smatprt's unconditional topic ban?

Well, Little Less?[27] Where's the topic ban? There is consensus for it. It's needed. This is November now. How long can you stand this? And why? Bishonen | talk 21:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

I was dining upon crow in another place, and was undoing wrongness occasioned by myself - priorities! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
RfC here, the purpose of which is to decide which version best fulfills this directive in terms of Wikipedia policies and standards.

Version 1 Version 2 Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I am reading, and will return to them tomorrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have read the drafts, RfC's and continuing talkpage discussions, and have presented my conclusions at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#Re the imposed voluntary topic ban is lifted, which is I trust self explanatory. My efforts have failed, as they in hindsight were always likely to, and whatever actions the community deems appropriate to resolve the issues of disruption and personal disputes should be executed as they see fit. I note that the RfC remains open, and the drafts are being still worked upon, but I do not see anything happening that precludes other actions being taken to resolve these matters. I regret that the WP editing model has seemingly been irretrievably broken over this issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • In hindsight...? Mark, you threw a spanner in the existing consensus, and now you trust another consensus to form? Is that it? I doubt that people have the energy, having discussed the matter once. I suggest a respected and uninvolved user (doesn't have to be an admin), either you or somebody else, formally inform Smatprat that he's banned from all Shakespeare-related articles, broadly construed. It can't be me, I'm involved. Tony stated that he would, but has apparently changed his mind. (You guys make me tired.) If nobody does implement the ban, I suppose I'll start a new thread on ANI tomorrow, asking for another round of input. But it would be better and look better if you did it. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
LessHeard vanU, since you intervened in the AN/I, would you please post your conclusions there? I also asked a question on the SAQ talkpage, but that is of no matter now. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm bewildered. (I personally don't care one way or another if Smatprt is banned). I do care to see some guarantee in here that if one really works hard, that will be taken into account, as fulfilling the objectives of wikipedia, whose raison d'être is to produce articles, not endless litigation.
If I have misbehaved over these six months, sure, as I said from the outset, include me in a ban. 9 admins by my count made a call on this. 8 voted for a topic ban on one of three. A further review occurred, with an effective 'punishment' of a pro-tem topic ban for a month, and, as a result, the consensus of 8 administrators was overturned in practice by the failure of 1 late admin, who admitted he could not personally make a call one way or another and suggested turning back the clock 8 months, to restart a discussion which had already be exhaustively conducted. This is a question of whether or not, under an administrative remit, the parties involved carried out their obligations to the encyclopedia or not. I was under the impression some of us did, one didn't. The conclusions (are), editors must achieve 'consensus', so all three must go back to zero and restart their interactions (tier one). (b) Administrative consensus can be overthrown by a minority of one, and has no value (tier two).
I've never seen this happen in four years of dedicated editing. My only explanation is that complexity and exhaustion play some role. In that case, the general judgement of several administrators should hold weight against the idiosyncratic, if perfectly calibrated, judgement of a single admin who came in late, and overturned that consensus, only to supplant it with a non-decision. Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not "another" consensus, but the one that formed during the recent ANI discussion. If Tony is not willing, then yes I can review that discussion and make the decision of what the consensus is. That is no problem, and I am quite surprised to see it regarded as one. In answer to Nishidani, I attempted to create a format in which those issues bedevilling the area could be resolved without sanctions and bans - so whatever transpired could not be blamed on taking on pre existing attitudes or viewpoints by me; the fact the same issues dogged this attempt means I can act as an uninvolved admin. I shall review the discussion this evening, UK time, and make the call. If Bishonen wishes to commence another ANI discussion, I will comment there (please let me know) but otherwise act as I note above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oh, how I love ANI discussion, of course I want another! No. Seriously: before I saw your post above, in the nick of time, I had written out a somewhat sharp statement—starting a new thread—for the main ANI page, where I expressed my regrets, per the latest comments of especially Nishidani, that valuable experts such as Tom and Nishidani, who have so long refused to be run off the articles by attrition and obstructionism (unlike many other Shakespeare scholars), now seem so near the end of their tether; and expressed my intention to encourage them to take the next step. It's what we have an ArbCom for: as a last resort where the community has tried, and failed. Since you are prepared to decide on the pre-existing consensus, there is now no need for me to post it on ANI; perhaps I'll show it to you some time, and we will laugh over it together... Meanwhile, and while nobody feels like smiling, you might want to review your own input for suggestions on why your ideas about consensus have been regarded as a problem. And why not review this short essay, too. Bishonen | talk 15:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

And this one. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If I've misunderstood the decision, my apologies. I've literally been in psychiatric wards, (not to be cured but to look after a relative), over the last week, and have had to read and edit quickly in the time available.
A note therefore on eventual sanctions. To be effective if I am judged to have offended some policy, the sanction should start from February next year since I'll be away from computers until then. It seems Nina Green, a dedicated amateur historian and Oxfordian scholar, has undertaken and agreed to edit the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page, together with me when and if I return, but if the sanction is applied at that date, she should feel free to be released from that agreement, and edit from February irrespective.
Again, I'm concerned Reedy and I might be confused, if penalties are to be handed out. From the outset this had the appearance, not the reality, of two against one, whereas it was rather, as far as I can understand, a clash in interpretation of policy, despite the POV differences. Reedy is a professional and published Shakespearean scholar, recognized as such, and is invaluable for the project. He has a far more precise understanding, from his professional life, of what NPOV means. In the past, most people who I work with, usually to revise a troubled page from top to bottom, or create an article, have gotten into hot water (Ashley Kennedy, Nableezy) and I think part of that due to their association with me. These pages can well do without my likes, but if you have professional Shakespearean scholars there with a very good track record, their case should be evaluated purely on their work, and not on anything else. And I have confidence that will be done. His purpose has been, from the outset, only to tackle any page in order to bring it up to GA and eventually FA standards. Few editors bring that kind of commitment to wiki, i.e., not dithering irresolutely over minutiae to score points, but actually resolving chronic problems by rational as opposed to tendentious consensus and a rigorous use of the secondary sources he, and a few others, command. I'm happy with any decision that opens the way to allowing efficient, goal-orientated editing towards quality articles in an area of literature of world importance, whatever the personal consequences. Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I just now saw this. To correct Nishidani, I am not a professional Shakespeare scholar, but an amateur who tries to conform to scholarly standards. I do enjoy the good opinion of several in the academic Shakespeare community, and I have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Review of English Studies as well as other places, including Dave Kathman and Terry Ross's Web site, but Nishidani's characterisation of my qualifications is overstated. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Mexican cowboy! In Russian,'H' becomes 'G' hence Hamlet is Gamlet. So to round off with a classical quotation, even Gomer nods. :( Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I am aware of both essays, thank you very much. I would comment that when I try to be open minded about something, it does mean that I don't wish take any side. Anyway, I have a discussion to review... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I just saw your decision. Could I suggest that whatever the topic ban's wording may be, thought be given to allowing Smatprt to exercise a right to revert vandalism on mainstream Shakespeare related pages, though not (just to protect him as well) on any page related to the fringe theories indirectly bearing on Shakespere? Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You will need to find consensus for it, although consensus between you and Tom might suffice, because this is not my decision but my reading of the consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I know stuff all about the way the fine print works. Just a thought. I think the judgement right for the encyclopedia, but I can't say this sort of thing makes me happy.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions on Topic Ban

I have a few questions on my topic ban:

  • Will I be allowed to finish my participate in this mediation [28]?
  • Will you or another administrator be monitoring the activities of Tom and Nishidani? I ask because I see Tom closed the RFC and archived all the rfc comments, and then made these edits: [29], [30], [31], and Nishidani [32]], among others.
  • What is the process to appeal this ban?
  • Am I allowed, and what is the process, to bring this matter up at ArbCom?

Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions, my responses are as follows;
  • I see no evidence the mediation has progressed and is thus moot - the ANI discussion mentioned the mediation, and the fact it was moribund. You may wish to note your ban to the mediators, and ask if they wish to make any representations upon the mediation.
  • I shall not, particularly, be reviewing the edits of the other two parties. Other admins may, if they are so inclined - though it would likely to not be beneficial to your case if you were to advocate such actions. However, I shall certainly be reviewing the matter of an involved editor closing the RfC.
  • I am pretty sure that I gave the options of appealing the ban in my notice, but will reiterate them; you can request a review by an uninvolved admin, and you can directly appeal the ban at ANI - with reasons based in policy (misreading of consensus, not uninvolved, etc.), or to the bans appeal function at ArbCom (see Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeal to the Arbitration Committee, with the relevant email addy) - this last not until you have tried one of the above, best ANI, and feel the issue has not been dealt with sufficiently.
  • You can also make an ArbCom Request, outside of the appeal, if you think there are serious issues that have not been dealt with, or that there was abuse in the manner in which your ban was decided. This would be done in the normal manner - since you are only topic banned, and can otherwise act as any other editor.
If you are going to take any of these steps, you need to ask yourself how an uninvolved reader is going to react - one that has no concern within editing the particular articles. If you think you have a case based in policy, then you might prevail - if it is based upon the advancement or deprecation of a viewpoint, and the effect that a topic ban may have, then you might do further damage to your case. In any event, think carefully on how you proceed and base your actions strictly within WP practice and policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Re closing the RfC; I note that User:PhilKnight responded to Tom Reedy's suggestion that the RfC be closed, in the affirmative. PhilKnight is a well experienced and knowledgable editor and contributor, well versed in administrative duties. You may wish to bring up a lack of further commentary before Tom Reedy acted if you are going to appeal, but you will not get any traction in suggesting PhilKnight may have been in error. You may also consider giving readers a fuller picture when presenting issues, such as noting that actions were taken after getting some commentary - which was not the perception I had from your comments above. Be careful with how you represent things. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Award time

The spettekaka of effort (very dry, served with a hacksaw), decorated with the sugar icing squiggles of optimism, is awarded to LHVU by Bishonen.
  • Thinks Perhaps a 30pti will be too coarse, so I shall try a 32pti blade... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Schwyz sock?

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Schwyz as I've added another suspected sock (asking the admin that's commented on the sock page as well). Dpmuk (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The other candidate has also been blocked, by another admin, so I think waiting to see if a CU will sweep the underlying ip (range) is all that can be done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
As I say I let you both know as I wanted to nip this one in the bud as soon as I could. Cheers for taking a look. Dpmuk (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Original complainer

OK, I get your points, but if you had addressed the aggrieved party by name, your posting would have been easier to follow, especially since it immediately followed my posting. The nuances and meanings of indents are perhaps not as well known as seemingly supposed. No biggie. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, no problem. Regards--موريسكو (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems that he didn't understand that, before removing [33][34] a kind of consensual information, that remained stable for years (the template was on the articles for more than two years [35][36], along with the "History of Al Andalus" template, but he decided otherwise!), he should talk about it... and this is not what we can call a talk
Please do something :s
Omar-Toons (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked them for 24 hours, with an extended rationale of them needing to learn how to do things on en-WP. I would very gently note that it takes two to edit war, and good faith edits - even if against consensus - is not vandalism and should not be regarded as such. Discussing future edits will make things much easier for all concerned, and I hope that contributors will interact from now on under the basis of collegiate editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


You need to be a little more direct in your comments to block'ed users. Don't leave them wondering, "What is he really trying to tell me?" :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, I could not find that {{Rude f*cker block}} template when I went looking for it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeh, sometimes you have to improvise. That's why they pay you the big bucks. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Best...block...rationale...ever...--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello LessHeard,

This seems beyond the pale to me. I've made a similar post to MRG's page commenting. I was thinking this might be something that should go to AN/I, but perhaps the deletion log could be utilized? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I see MRG has removed it. I should let her handle it, which will probably to do nothing more. FWIW, my son is on the Spectrum with severe communication issues and I would not even begin to think it appropriate that I would make an amateur diagnosis upon somebody else based on website postings... I suggest that you get a good night's sleep and come back here when you are fresh. Keep up the good stuff you have been doing recently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
So sorry to hear about your child. Yes, I also would never make such a comment. And thanks so much for the support on the noticeboard and elsewhere. I appreciate your comments very much. It must be quite late in the U.K. Have a good sleep.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required

Information icon.svg A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that that should be "requested", I am quite at liberty to ignore the mediation page. Regardless, I will comment there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you posted as disagreeing with the request for mediation, which is your right of course. I notified everyone who made even a single post on the issue, as is required (I think), and sorry if this has been a bother to you. If your objection is just that you don't consider yourself a party to the discussion and/or don't want to be bothered with the issue, would you consider removing yourself as a party (or I'll do it for you if you request) rather than remaining as a party but actively disagreeing. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I want my response of not agreeing, and the rationale provided on the talk page, to remain; I wish it to be clear that I consider your actions as forum shopping. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ezekiel63745

Hi, a clueless user for sure, with no direction. But I don't see the talk page edit warring, what did I miss? --Stephen 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs home page here. Of itself, although annoying enough for BB to make an AIV report, not sufficient for a sanction, but with a review of both the editors contributions and the tone of commentary and responses on their talkpage an example of inappropriate conduct with regard to the project and other contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Consensus

There's an on going dispute about whether Multi-Level Marketing should be listed under the InfoBox heading Industry at the USANA article. I feel it should be restored but a new contributor who has recently deleted the refence disagrees. We've had a good discussion about the topic but can't reach a consensus and I was wondering if you could read our comments and weigh in with your own opinion. Jean314 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look this evening, UK time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be discussing the article appropriately, although you disagree on points. My suggestions is i) that consensus needs to change before content is removed - simply contending the old consensus does not hold is insufficient, there has to be a new one in place, and ii) how do other sources refer to Usana? It is not necessary to only follow the official designations, but also how they are commonly reported within references. If the other editor can provide sources/references that refer to Usana differently, then that term needs to be incorporated or even replace Multi-Level Marketing if the sources are better. Whatever, it is refreshing to return to an article where discussion proceeds at such a civil manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your input. I will try to keep it in mind for future edits. While it would be nice to say the civil manner of the discussion is entirely my doing I'm going to have to share the credit with Leef5 ;) Jean314 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi, you suggested to me to ask you if I have any question. I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almoravid dynasty [37] and Almohad Caliphate [38], see what Omar-Toons has done [39], [40] without any respect for the time I spent to organise the articles. I waited for his answer to my posts on the Talk Pages [41], [42], but he did not discuss. So what shall I do ? Regards--Morisco (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I suggest that you post on Omar-Toons talkpage asking if he could respond to your talkpage posts (provide diffs), and see if he is willing. If he is not willing, or ignores you, then come back to me and I will ask him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you.--Morisco (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that he didn't understand that he must not engage in an edit warring on all articles, and not only the Almoravides and Almohads ones.
This isn't a constructive contribution: adding an information without reference, undoing (2nd time) its deletion and pretending that he will have a reference, and finally (the 3rd time), "talking about" an (incomplete) reference on the summary without any explanation, without paying attention to the fact that other references can confirm the contrary [43][44]. I'll not undo his edit again, but that's tiring...
Otherwise, he seems to not have understand that what happens on Fr.WP should remain on Fr.WP, and shouldn't interfer with En.WP. In my opinion, "giving" Fr.WP as a kind of explanation to his actions [45][46] is a proof that he absolutely wants to make an interference between both. I don't think that this is a good idea, coming from a person who had been suspended 3 times (a total of 104 days) there! I have the impression that all what he's doing is to "import" the current "conflict" from Fr.WP to En.WP.
Thx to find a solution.
Omar-Toons (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you help to stop the edit war please [47]. Regards--Morisco (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
My g... that's tiring! The information given by the source isn't the same than the one you're adding to the article! This is source handling, you may be blocked because of that.
Omar-Toons (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why you put such warning...

First of all, what I did on Bob Ross page is reverting an edit by an anonymous IP that removed an entire section. So maybe I got a little too into cleaning vandalism and didn't see that section as unnecessary, but the "warning" you put on my talk page is talking about removing information, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I did. Second of all, even if I reverted that inappropriately you don't have to put a level-3 or 4 warning. Look at my contribution page and tell me: am I a vandal? Please be kind to people around here, that's what makes Wikipedia a place where anyone constructive can contribute to it. --Yong (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Limits of the Shakespeare Topic Ban

Hi Less,

A question on the limits of the topic ban for Shakespeare articles on Smatprt: would it be permissible for him to post specific suggestions for topics/points/edits/etc. on a user talk page?

Specifically, I'm of the opinion that we're so desperately short of warm bodies in the Shakespeare WikiProject that losing any of them for any reason is sad, and in particular that when we don't get ourselves bogged down in the particular fringe topic that's in dispute he has made many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia; so I was considering whether it might be productive (or at least worth a shot) to volunteer my user talk page for him to post suggestions and comments that I could (somewhat subjectively and selectively, obviously; I'm not quite up to being an advocate for a position I don't myself consider meritorious) forward on to the relevant article talk pages. Quite apart from the selfish motivation that we might get good contributions to our articles that way, my reasoning is that the topic ban can have one of two effects: either it functions as a time-out in which he edits elsewhere and can come back to these articles with a fresh perspective, or it (because this topic is why he's interested in WIkipedia in the first place) will function effectively as a blanket ban and will make him lose interest entirely (I know I would be inclined to take my toys and go home if I couldn't edit on Shakespeare for a year). Allowing for a channel (limited though it be) to at least get some input may be what's needed to turn the outcome from the latter into the former.

What do you think? Would that be appropriate, at least as an experiment; or would it require discussion at ANI first?

Incidentally, since I'm already using up bits on your talk page, I'd like to thank you for taking charge of the situation from the ANI discussion. I'm afraid the Shakespeare project needs babysitting—mostly due to the Authorship issue, but almost as much to keep everyone civil as to address polite POV pushing—and sad state of affairs that that is, your contribution there in this case was much needed and appreciated (well, by me anyway; I'm sure I'd be less enthusiastic had I been on the receiving end of the metaphorical spanking). Should you feel inclined to take up babysitting full time I'd be most happy for the adult supervision. (Oh, and lest any talk page stalker should take umbrage, the formulation in this para is intended to be humorous rather than derogatory; we don't always “play nice” together, hence the analogy). --Xover (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (PS. feel free to respond here, I'm watchlisting the page)

I think you should broach this issue with Nishidani and Tom Reedy, since they are the individuals who may feel that the topic ban be strictly applied - although Nishidani has previously suggested that Smatprt be permitted to revert vandalism and other such gnomic work. My view is that consensus over-rides almost everything, and that if it is agreed that a topic banned editor is permitted to make suggestions on another editors page so it may be considered by other contributors and thus help build the encyclopedia then it is all good; and then if those posts start becoming strident or otherwise appear to be in breach of the collegiate editing environment, then strict application of the topic ban may be applied. Since all sanctions are designed to prevent disruption going forward, they may be considered flexible where it is thought that relaxation may prove beneficial.
I am not sure that "babysitting" an article is the best method of ensuring a good editorial situation - it really should be up to the participants to formulate the necessary conditions, by discussion and agreement, etc. I will, of course, be available to review, discuss and facilitate proper editing models, but I rather think it is within the capabilities of editors to sort these matters out.
nb. Linking to these comments may help in your approach to Nishidani and Tom Reedy. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And, yes, I was certainly planning on checking in with Tom and Nishidani before attempting this. Incidentally, I wasn't referring to any specific article with the “babysitting” comments; but Authorship (and a few other topics) pops up from time to time on many of the ~1000 articles within the scope of the project, and we (me included, I'm sure) routinely fail to maintain civility—sometimes downright revelling in our own accumulated frustration—in those cases. Having someone with perceived authority and generally accepted as impartial to remind us to keep it cool might, hopefully, better the chances that the differences can be addressed productively (rather than accumulate and eventually end up at ANI). Anyways, the comment was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek; not least because I can't imagine you have the time for such a sisyphean project, even had you the inclination. Thanks again for your involvement in the recent ANI, and your advice here. --Xover (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


Indef block him; he's a returning vandal. I've had to have my talk page semi-protected to deal with him and the "barn starts' were stolen from my page; apparently, since he can't harass me anymore, he's finding another way around it. HalfShadow 23:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not allow him the hope that he can have another go, and then squash him the next time he edits? Of course, there is always the possibility that he will read this page - perhaps intending to vandalise it - and realising my cunning and sadistic plan determine to confound me by being a model wikipedian and improve content and get a few sorry articles to GA status... I mean, that would really annoy me! These perfidious vandals, how they vex me!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
A sock is a sock. A dead sock is even better. HalfShadow 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Now gone to the Great Laundry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks. sonia 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Commiseration on ANI

Bishzilla blink.gif

'Zilla commiserate commensurately with the little Less.[48] For bizarro sysop intercourse, try 'Zilla page. Motto: Bishzilla not vanilla! bishzilla ROARR!! 23:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

I shall brave the risk of choking on another editors nuts while lapping up some sticky sauce, m'Zilla! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked! ...Oh noes, where tools? Darwinbish!!!! Give 'em back! bishzilla ROARR!! 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Personally, I prefer a lack of tools... and therefore a deficit of being blocked! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mailmurshed

Hi, thanks for stepping in. I was at a loss as to what to do after having tried unsuccessfully with friendly warnings and template warnings to get him to stop creating worthless articles. AIV reports are strictly only for clear cases of vandalism, and other notice boards seem to take a long time to process. If you have a tip as to where I should go next time (I come across several similar cases a day), I'm all ears. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

AIV is fine - repeated creation of substandard articles, especially with no claim of notability, and the disregarding of advice and warnings falls under WP:DISRUPT. Just make sure they have the full set of warnings, and note it is WP:DISRUPT that you are filing the report under. Some admins will deny such a report, some will ignore it, and some will act - and the latter is more likely when the editor has been properly warned. Failing an AIV report, you could always bend the ear of a friendly admin.... LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Hi Less. I just reverted this from RH&E's talk page. The IP has a checkered history and my AGF is a bit stretched. Since you seem to be the person closest to Rod, I ask your opinion. Best, Favonian (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing, since the ip has shown trolling tendencies previously. It remains in the history, if Rod does show any interest. Thanks for the consideration shown. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Just so you're aware I'm editing from O2 dynamic. The aforementioned "trolling tendencies" are not mine. All the best, (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the UK ISP's allocate ip addresses to a customer for only a certain period, and this is known to experienced admins. It may be noted that were Rod to take up your offer, you may have had your address and therefore "your" user talkpage changed. That said, this ip address has been stable for a couple of days - unlike Tiscali and BT who seem to provide the first addy available when you sign on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Should the ip switch (from my experience it usually does every week or so) and Rod change his mind, I'm sure we'll cross that bridge then. For one think I'll make sure I keep monitoring my current talk :) (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Look, you're not really helping matters at the moment tbh. Don't think I'm taking sides, but if Rod continues to believe he's in the right, he's just going to succeed in winding everyone up even more. And your encouragement is only going to fasttrack his de-sysopping. I'd seriously suggest you consider backing off from his talk page. (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You can fuck off - you know shit about "Rod", and less about him and me. And John Betjeman was right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude seriously. I'm only trying to help! (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well "Rod" and me go back a few years - and we are in contact off-Wiki. Without violating his privacy, I can tell you that his health issues are not lifestyle derived but congenital and no 10 step program or lifestyle change is going to alter it. I am also aware how his health issues and his subsequent home life effect his moods, and what his coping stategies are. Presently he is editing tonight and not commenting on recent matters, and I am content to allow him the time and space to sort out what he wants kept and what he wants gone on his talkpage and who to ask to help him. Frankly, offers of help now may just put him back in the place he was last night. Now, if you want to help him I suggest that you trust me to know what I am doing - I have been here before - and ask that you don't comment on recent events on his page; and your opinion on my actions, which I suppose you have every right to hold, are quite misplaced. Goodnight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok I take what you are saying about his talk page, I won't speak to him again (though my offer of help would still stand if he changed his mind). Like I said before, I refuse to take sides in this kind of thing but whether he is genuinely in the right or not is irrelevant as far as all the other admins who are baying for his blood are concerned. I respect Rod and his continued efforts here, as I do share some solidarity, and all I want to do is avert the crisis that would be the loss of his adminship. I personally thought what you were saying to him was going to do the opposite of helping to prevent that, but if like you say you do know what you are doing I am willing to trust and accept your judgment over mine. Goodnight also. (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)