Jump to content

User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you an arbitration clerk?

If not, remove the personal attack you just placed against me. Jehochman Talk 02:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you an arbitration clerk?

If not, please consider becoming one, I'm sure you'd do great. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

He does have a knack for the job. Jehochman Talk 04:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

re: what is that?

It was a statement of my views at that time; I haven't yet decided whether or not to accept or decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

No idea why that happened. I suspect I need a new trackball, as I'm noticing other errant clicks.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries -- figured it must've been something like that (sorry about the edit summary, was being hasty -- Bad Ent!) NE Ent 22:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Proxying

Please do not proxy post for a banned editor or else you could be blocked to enforce their ban. If somebody removes a banned editor's comment, please do not revert that action either. Same result might occur. Jehochman Talk 13:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your recent actions. I appreciate your understanding. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

As there was an ongoing IB discussion, unless you implemented that IB, it was a little early to close it. If you've logged the IB, then sorry ... I should not have undone your close ES&L 01:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine -- I thought Bish settled the issue with the block. (I can't actually (non-admin closure) close a thread requiring a ban). NE Ent 01:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Beans beans beans...

Sent you an email. WormTT(talk) 14:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Beans, Beans, the Musical Fruit. Jehochman Talk 14:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ent is very, very happy

So WTT had to waste time "patrolling" the User:Mbz1 page I recreated per AN discussion. Applied for the permission, was denied. NE Ent 03:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

AE/R

Hi, Mr. Ent.

As the user who answered the change of orientation question when it was first asked at the Ref Desk with detailed references and links, and as the user who referred this new inquiry back to the original discussion, and being personally familiar with the topic addressed, I have to say that Bugs' comment here is not only benign, it is quite helpful, and reflects the consensus terminology of most LGTB people. Indeed, the change his edit implies would be perfectly appropriate for the thread's title. I am aware of the previous arbitration finding. But there's no evidence Bugs has sought out a page from which he was banned, given he'd already posted here. Nor is there any way this edit can be viewed as disruptive, problematic, or harming the project. If anything this seems to be evidence of good faith and a positive contribution. Perhaps you'll consider withdrawing the complaint?

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I will not, nor will I debate the edit with you. You can, of course, provide input at WP:AE for the reviewing administrators to consider. NE Ent 02:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no request for a debate. I simply thought it was polite to address you here first. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request

The amendment request that you were involved in has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 19:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

How'em I doing? (You're my only mentor. Isn't that pathetic!? [Hehe.]) I think I voted for you. (Did you run for something?! I can't remember [I think was Floquenbeam]!) Happy New York. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. When'r we gonna get paid fer this?!

Truly. Pathetic. My sympathies. Yes, we're lucky Floquenbeam was stupid dedicated stupid (you were right the first time. -Floq) enough to run. NE Ent 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
How'em I doing? Your topic again, unclean, remember? KISS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
An arb has spoken that "In the past, when dealing with infoboxes, Andy's approach has often been problematic.", but he did not mention that "the past" was 2012 for the addition of an unwanted infobox (Cosima Wagner). Why that should be a reason to not permit Andy adding to articles he creates from now on, in 2014, I fail to understand, it's part of the "ad absurdum" that you pointed out ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Original research

The articles below appeared to be original research. Please take a look if you need to nominate for deletion.

Thanks. --Richie Campbell (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Thank you for a thoughtful contribution to arb clarifiction, bolding "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone". Agree. That arbcom tells Andy how not to create "his" articles is a contradiction to it. (Once an article is there, of course it can be changed and debated by others.) On the Main page now, pictured, by said editor. How did the infobox get in? IP edit. (SPI case, witch hunt mentioned.) A while ago, pictured on the Main page, how did the infobox get in? I asked on the talk, a (then) arb added it. Several more cases, of waste of time, and good for what? It could be so simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Bradjoke

Thank you. That was very well done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Penguins53

The problem has not been properly resolved. Please continue discussion at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

View discussion: User talk:Dougweller -- ♣Jerm♣729 04:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Another Nail on the Head award for your collection

The Hitting the Nail on the Head Award
For this excellent analogy. Bishonen | talk 14:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

WP:WADR

I'm sorry to have reverted your compromise at WP:WADR. In a different scenario I would think that your edit was a good solution even if I did not agree with it—for example if a discussion had about one third of participants wanting WP:WADR removed and two thirds wanting it as-is, your edit would be a good way of saying that the issue was fairly pointless and now was the time for a compromise. However this case seems to involve one person who is rather too confident of the correctness of their interpretation of what is best for the community, and I think it should be thrashed out to see if anyone supports that view. Johnuniq (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No apology necessary or expected, I'm not one to tell an editor may a thousand flowers bloom just because they revered an edit. Per WP:BRD I opened a section on the talk page. NE Ent 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing my edit summary! One of my finest IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section

Hi NE Ent. Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#The Rfc section in January 2013, you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Transclusion. Best, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note

Let me think about your request that I delete from my talk page my complaint to the administrative notice board. You are thoughtful. You want to cool off the dispute. You may have noticed that I have rarely deleted anything from my talk page except to correct grammar or spelling. Let me think about deleting the text. I am usually reluctant to delete writing including Mrm's criticisms of me. I guess I am inclined avoid censorship. And I like to have records handy.

I will think about your request. It is a thoughtful request. Iss246 (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I haven't even looked, just offer as a compromise to archive, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

???

Resolved

A bunch of stuff seems to have disappeared from the WP:AN board.[1] Any idea what that's about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A small amount of info from a couple of days ago was oversighted. That means you can't see the diffs or intervening versions of the page between now and then, but no other info was removed beyond that targeted by the oversighting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thread "Lee arango me" -- where "redacted" is. NE Ent 22:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I get it. The content does seem to be there. This is just the pain of having to break the chain, so to speak, when something gets oversighted. (One of the many fun tasks admins have.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI on WP:AEGS

Since I'm 100 words past 500 on the request (more than half against an arbitration), I just want to tell you a) I agree skip all the pixelwork of converting a GS into a DS. And also FYI, that the fact there are community sanctions has come up maybe 6+ times at ANI, BLPN, RSN and a couple have included requests for them against specific editors, but admins have ignored all besides the highly unpopular MM. Won't bother to look up diffs because I'm still itching to do a "kitchen sink" ANI on two editors. (Also see the list of noticeboard visits I put on the request.) I was getting ready to do a Meatpuppet one on all three editors when MM got banned. (See my question here about it here.)

This Arbitration request happened because of this discussion on TParis' talk page. TParis said Wikihounding was in the eye of the beholder and asked why I didn't do a WP:ANI on WP:SPS in BLP, and I mentioned others were telling me publicly and privately not to do it and some uninvolved person had to do it. Then A Quest for Knowledge, who read it, got mad on the talk page and started the Arbitration request. Thus we are where we are. I'm still itching, and the evidence piles up day after day, but have to control self while ArbCom debates. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Move like this

I liked your "maturity" - a rare quality, - one link goes to "awesomely weird". - A new restriction is in the making, as absurd as the former, - like for infinite, there's no comparison, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

duck or attack? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
On the 28th: a blue duck attacks the German Main page, right now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me know...

...if you ever figure out if you "like this place" or not. The data might come in handy in my own determination. BMK (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Unhelpful removal

Please don't remove stuff that others have already commented on.[2] Did you notice I had invited people to add stuff? There was no need for your solicitude for the integrity of my comment. I admit it would have been ideal if Guy had signed and dated his addition of a fifth option, but that omission wasn't as destructive as your removal, after several people had already referred to option 5 in the thread. Also, Guy had put a note about it further down. Your removal has confused the issue, probably beyond retrieval, since you did it silently. (I was scrabbling forever in the hell that is ANI history for where option 5 disappeared. If you had at least used a moderately helpful edit summary..!) Please consider my invitation here to add a signed note in the place where the removed material was. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

It's wiki 101 you don't edit others' comments, you don't edit your own after folks have replied to, and you sign your stuff. No, I didn't see any indication you had invited folks to add to the list. The issue was confused when 5 was inserted, altering the meaning of all the alls above it. Kind of like redirecting WADR to Wiktionary. It's a valid point I should've been explicit, and will endeavor [1] do so in the future. NE Ent 22:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's wiki 101, and that sounds like condescending nonsense. Bishonen's comment was clear and in plain English, i.e.

If anybody feels they can summarize it better, do please feel free, because I'm not particularly confident about this four-barelled proposal

the only person confused, apparently was you. Moreover, after numerous comments were made regarding the suspect removal, one should think the problem would be obvious by now.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ wp::weasel

Re: user renames

Hi. Over here you said "If there's a backlog in user renaming, a better solution is identifying existing admins who don't suck and getting them to run."

I personally think this comment is a bit shortsighted. There's no good reason only local bureaucrats can rename users. We could give local admins the ability to rename users and that would dramatically kill the backlog. Or better yet, implement self-renaming (i.e., a user can simply go to Special:Preferences and click "change" as they would on Facebook or Twitter or wherever).

But what's actually most likely to happen next is that local bureaucrats are going to lose their renaming power to stewards when all Wikimedia wiki user accounts are unified. We should really just eliminate the role of bureaucrats on this wiki and probably most wikis. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You may be, and likely are, entirely correct. It's not an area I've spent much time on. What I do know is there's a current perception of a need for more bureaucrats. NE Ent 00:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Association Football

Thanks for your note, but I think you're looking at the wrong page history. My contributions here have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.

This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote here. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,

Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. --Pete (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You've made one edit to the article (not article talk page), where as HiLo has been an active editor. If there's a need to rename the article, other editors can form that consensus. NE Ent 22:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest, for the convenience of all involved, that further discussion take place at User talk:Drmies? I've copied my note above there. Thanks. May I also suggest that where an IBAN is in place, bringing the second party into a conversation begun by the first puts both into a difficult position. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologizing...

Hello,

I would like to apologize to you personally for such rude behavior in the ANI. It's been a while since the subject was last discussed, but if you remember it, I am truly sorry -- Cheers -- ♣Jerm♣729 02:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary apology happily accepted! I actually don't remember the details, not because you're not important, but because holding on to "slights" definitely isn't. NE Ent 03:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Greetings, although my ban will likely be initiated soon (or sent up to Arbcom) I just wanted to take a moment in my last edits here to thank you for your oppose of my ban. Good luck and happy editing. Kumioko 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my edit to ANI. Not sure what the hell happened. Best I can figure is I was looking at an older version of the page, as the section I edited was no where to be found after I submitted the edit. o.O — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not your fault -- stuff like that seems to happen every couples week or so -- gets worse when the page gets long. 16:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No clue

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T63319

Whats up with that. :/ I'm trying to put Voceditenore's edits on today's page, but I keep seeing the one from three days ago! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was truly weird -- and my edit was supposed to be a revert of the one you reverted, but it reverted yours instead. I got one of those "server error" pages 10 / 15 minutes ago so maybe its just a bad day. (We really ought to get those "WMF" people to fix the software, don't ya think?) NE Ent 16:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
LOL! I'm TRYING! :D I'm in the staff channel, and Coren is investigating. Preliminarily, he thinks it may be related to "new section" editing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes

I have some idea but would appreciate hearing your perspective, if you wouldn't mind sharing your Cliffs Notes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

{{ygm}} NE Ent 01:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you do this? [3]

Why all the hush hush?

This is exactly the kind of BS that makes me want to leave WP. --B2C 05:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you not see that dredging up unpleasantness regarding a respected editor is the kind of BS that makes many people want to leave WP? Nothing illegal happened, and nothing that needs attention now. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I can't see it because I don't know what all the "unpleasantness" is. Nothing illegal? Well, that's great, but I wasn't even thinking anything close to illegal happened, so I'm not sure why you wrote that. I just think there should be a short summary of relevant facts so people who are interested can find out what happened without taking hours to figure it out. What's wrong with that? If it's "unpleasant" to someone, they can, you know, not read it. --B2C 07:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
B2C You can look the elections up, the link is on your talk. If the discussions there (open to everybody) actually were the reasons for her to leave, we will never now. I miss her. I said so on her talk, with a link. (I am not the one to summarize facts and get it wrong in a way that hurts, something that makes other people leave. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so, apparently Elen leaked some information from an internal arbcom email (no one disputes this as far as I can tell), and this incident caused some people to oppose her re-election; probably enough so that she was not re-elected. This is the unpleasantness, that some believe is related to her leaving, that shan't be mentioned? That's it?

Makes absolutely no sense. Even if true, why would she continue contributing, as she did, then suddenly stop, without saying anything to anyone? That seems out of character for her. --B2C 09:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does, and there was nothing in her last series of posts that indicated to me she intended to stop contributing; it may actually have nothing to deal with Wikipedia, and speculating about it is not respectful to her privacy. NE Ent 11:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Disagree, but this is your page so I will respect your opinion about that. --B2C 19:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your request

One January 19, you wrote on my talk page to ask me to delete from that page an arbitration request. You made your request in the shadow of my dispute with Mrm7171, who was just coming off a suspension. Generally, I don't delete material from my talk page even if the material is embarrassing to me because I generally oppose censorship and like to have an accurate record of exchanges in which I have been involved. In view of your request, and in view of Mrm7171's return to Wikipedia after he was blocked, I wanted to let you do that I deleted (a) the arbitration request and (b) a large section of my talk page that included an angry exchange between Mrm7171 and me. Perhaps this action will turn down the heat. Iss246 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. NE Ent 22:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding

Just to give you the heads up, there are two more about me by the same user under these links created within minutes of each other:

~~ Sintaku Talk 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up, and thanks for not taking the ANI stuff personally. NE Ent 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Integrity

The Barnstar of Integrity
Re. [4]. I don't necessarily agree with you, but that's cool; if we could all disagree politely, this would be a happier wiki. Thanks for dealing with the issue in a calm, logical, rational way - which is sadly quite rare. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
(USA) Sunday night are often times of paucity of calm logical ANI volunteers (well, any volunteers). I think I'm agreeing with your position some I'm not sure why you disagree with me. NE Ent 01:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko

If I may correct you. the very long community discussion was closed with no consensus for a community ban of Kumioko, but he has nonetheless been indef blocked by an admin, and I would expect that block to be enforced, just as every other indef block is. BMK (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

See this is the kind of thing I have a problem with on this site. You revert my criticism but your willing to allow his criticism/personal attacks stay. And people wonder why I am so disheartened in the project these days. Just FYI though you are just enabling his conduct and inviting more attacks and harassment from him in the future. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I don't believe we've interacted, but I wanted to say, I just now found myself impressed by your judgement and demeanor. Looks like you've been around a while, too. Why aren't you an admin? You seem like the right type to have a couple extra buttons. Friday (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As far the not an admin; it's complicated but short version is I've never felt it something I needed to contribute in my idiosyncratic style. NE Ent 23:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've been away from wikipedia for a couple years, so I don't really know what community standards are like anymore for granting new admin rights. But the way I always looked at it, if an experienced editor would occasionally find the extra rights useful, and they're not a crazy person or a troublemaker, they should have the rights. Just one editor's opinion. Cheers. Friday (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank youI you seem lika decent guy but I really don't know who to trust anymore. Thank you once again.Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Arbcom case

Hi, NE Ent, I suggest (if you or someone else hasn't), you note in your Arbcom statement that it will be impossible for Toddst1 to log in until January 1, 2015 according to his monobook.js script. While there are workarounds, for someone to implement a script preventing himself to login shows that they mean business. Thanks and good luck! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's trivial to workaround (e.g. disable javascript in browser, email admin and ask them to edit.) NE Ent 02:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the fact they would do such a thing shows that they intend to upold their declared Wikibreak (which Arbcom was wondering about). Best of regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)

venustar84 hat

I signed the closure with an explanation within, and the user has promised not to post more than one question a day, but has spammed the desks multiple times today. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Copernicus

Please provide a link to a prior discussion which established consensus regarding the change of a long-term stable listing of the non English names of Copernicus. See also WP:Consensus. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message

Thank you for your very kindly worded post on my ip's talk page. Fwiw, I used to edit as a registered user, but decided to renounce the privileges you mention following other discouraging episodes (including one in which a user employed a tool to profile my page edit numbers to use as ammunition for unfounded personal attacks on my work in the course of a content dispute). In general I've found that editing as an ip has been a good and interesting experience and that it actually helps keep me out of conflict. Of course, there are also downsides in social terms. However, I have to say that I've generally been impressed by the level of respect I've received while contributing as an ip.

Due to character and personal circumstances I've become rather conflict adverse, and whether contributing as a registered user or as an ip I find episodes such as this really get under my skin (ok, granted it would be preferable if I could grow a thicker one, but if only it was that easy...). On the other hand, little acts of kindness such as yours really help repair the hurt. Thank you indeed.

I suppose the bottom line is that editing as an ip I know that I can start afresh when I choose, and although my interactions have been permanently recorded, in practice I'm not so easily trackable. I also feel that there's an argument that the ip editorial standpoint can perhaps be useful to Wikipedia, given the inevitable human tendency to be biased by one's own immediate (e.g. corporate) environment.

Best wishes, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Aaron Schwartz famously did [document] that most of the good stuff was written by low edit and/or ip editors. As an experienced conflict adverse editor, I assume at this point you want to get off ANI as soon as possible? NE Ent 14:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links - I'll read that. Yes, I think I can go off on my wikibreak now :) 86.173.146.3 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your close

Sorry if I messed up your close. I was pinged, so wanted to respond, but have now moved the response to the editor's user talk.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. NE Ent 11:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Naw, jump in...

...the water's great. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be hasty. Ents do not like hasty. NE Ent 11:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration

The following motion proposed regarding the Toddst1 request for arbitration has been passed:

The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Since you mention it

I noticed you mentioned this recently. I forget the exact context but I apologise unreservedly for the tone of the comment. We are all volunteers and contribute as and when we can. I see your comments and closures at AN/I as more good than bad and I do think you are a net benefit here. I don't always agree with you, and on that occasion I think I was making a valid point, that bureaucrats shouldn't unnecessarily mess with the skilled workers. I miss User:Eric Corbett and I think the project does too. But I didn't need to be so nasty about it, and for that I apologise. --John (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(watching) We are working, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Doesn't understand policy"

There's a nuance that seems to have been lost on you: certainly, there are valid reasons to have alternate accounts. There are fewer reasons to have undisclosed alternate accounts, but undisclosed alternate accounts are restricted from editing project space: that's specifically a component of WP:ILLEGIT.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Restricted yes, prohibited no. (Depends on where in project space.) NE Ent 22:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
"Policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections" doesn't leave a lot of actual project space. About the only area of project space that editors with undisclosed alternates can edit are the various Wikiproject pages, help pages, and essays.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic

Why do you want to edit anyway? Anyway, I'm more than happy to AGF against losing odds (e.g. at least 10%), but the chances of you get unblocked without finding someone you trust enough to reveal your prior account are, as the mathematicians say, asymptotically approaching zero. Anyway, please don't post here again cause I'd probably then have to deal with a semi protected page. Anyway, you're welcome to email entofwikipedia at gmail dot com, but in the interest of full disclosure, I'm probably unable to do much to help you and I'm about out of wiki time for the foreseeable future ... Best wishes, remember it's just a website and there's more to life than 'pedia. NE Ent 03:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Abuse response

Some time ago you marked the WP:ABUSE project as historical. Where was the discussion that decided to close this project? SpinningSpark 04:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I marked it historic because it had become historic, not because it was decided to make it historic. There was a brief note at [5]. NE Ent 11:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI deny

I saw Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin and I wanted to see what precipitated it. Luckily, Kaldari provided a link, although that was to the initial post, and didn't have subsequent comments in the section. I thought I could easily scroll up and see it, as it happened on 4 March. I was puzzled that I could not find it, as it shouldn't already be archived. I eventually found that you removed it. While I think I understand why you did, and I generally understand the thinking behind removing contributions of sockpuppets to article and article talk pages, I think ANI is different. Some time in the future, there will be another issue regarding Eric. It is not inconceivable that someone will want to reference this incident. If they remember it was Kaldari, they can find it, but if they just recall it involved Eric, they might have trouble finding it. I did a search in the ANI archives for Eric Corbett, and it did not show up (unless I missed it). If it had been closed, and eventfully archived, I believe it would show up.

I am considering proposing that we should not delete entries from ANI, even from sockpuppets but close them so they can be archived and found, if needed. Before I do so, I wanted to have a conversation with you, as you are much more active in ANI than I am, and may have some insights I've overlooked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied on ANI. NE Ent 14:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard

You wrote "Ya'll are supposed to represent, not replace the committee" but I'm guessing you may have meant "community". —rybec 02:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Even more importantly, I'm guessing you may have meant "y'all". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leopard seal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] photographer, captured pictures of a leopard seal bringing live, injured, and then dead penguins]</span> to him, possibly in an attempt to teach the photographer how to hunt.<ref>http://www.
  • * Saundry, Peter. (2010) http://www.eoearth.org/wiki/Leopard_seal Leopard Seal]. Encyclopedia of Earth. Topic ed. C.Michael Hogan, ed. in chief Cutler Cleveland, NCSE, Washington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

please cut the nonsense

The hatting was sisgned internally, and the editor reported to ANI. There's no requirement there be a signature for removing such crap in the hat itself. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The instructions at Template:Hidden archive top/doc clearly states " Be sure to sign the closure statement. " NE Ent 03:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Et tu?

Wasn't this unfortunate enough the first time around? Or maybe I should say the second. [6] —Neotarf (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten about the prior edits and didn't pick them out of the log; it seems I didn't review carefully enough. I was mostly responding to SMcCandlish's current ANI request. I've restored the log as it was for you and shall endeavor not to forget again. NE Ent 12:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, the request is mine though, I will refactor it a bit to make that more clear. —Neotarf (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

Please see the further RfC here.--John (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification

The clarification request involving you has been archived. The original comments made by the arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this; there's almost no way this would have ever reached even this much resolution (it solves about 1/3 of the issues raised, but one of the more vexing ones) if it had not been brought by an uninvolved third party like yourself. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 23:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome; thanks for the 30,000 edits to the important part of this place. NE Ent 20:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

WP: Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review #Statement by NE Ent

Hello.

I read your statement, and have some comments. First, not only “administrators” can be authoritarian and holistic; all editors can be classified along the same line. Second, your classification is relevant only for competent persons. Do you want to read more from me? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Real life has decided I'm not currently going to be contributing to Wikipedia, so it doesn't matter one way or the other. You'll welcome to post but I'm unlikely to reply for somewhere between a couple weeks or several months. NE Ent 22:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
In short, there are no less than two degraded types: a button pusher (thinks s/he is right not because of some textual codes, but because of the set of tools s/he uses) and a group member (listens only to his/her group, no matter is it a nation, a religion, or a gang of cronies in a wiki). Good luck. I’d happy to meet you in one future life. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Bother you again (sorry)

NE, any editor can open an ANI against any editor for any reason. (Bogus or not.) And I learned too, any editor can open an RFAR against any editor or any reason. (Bogus or not.) That itself is a problem in my view, but, the problem does not stop there. Those venues end up to be whipping boards, where *anyone* can post any crap and throw any mud whatever, without control or supervision, or any degree of order or fairness, with the sole exception that if someone makes a name-call or doesn't insert the word "behavior" after calling someone a "narcissist", for example, to exepemt their butts from immediate sanction, they might get a block. But never mind that! -- there are perhaps at least 1000 other ways to play uncivil and abuse an editor. And all the more fun if multiple editors attack a single editor simultaneously or in succession.

That's the structure around here, unless I've made a mistake about it. (Please correct my understanding if it is wrong.) And if I am not wrong, then I dare say, the structure here for inherent abuse must be one of the most blatant and obvious abusive cesspools in the history of the Internet. (If true, why aren't editors serverly ashamed to continue under such a abuse-saturated structure? [There certainly are some smart people here on WP, so how can the structure be so wildly obviously ... bad??])

My immediate need, is to get admin User:The Bushranger off my back at an ANI (he seems to be quitting his baits and attacking BS at my Talk). But how the H do I implement that???

Can you help or advise. (And explain to me, please!, who decides, and on what basis, whether the purpose of an ANI has been fulfilled, and if fulfilled, when it's closed? Because in my limited experience at the WP, I have seen no pattern and read no guideline re duration. The cesspools remain open, and since the swimming is free, those that like the mud are happy and content to throw mud and bathe in it during the entire operating hours, which has no logical end.)

Thanks for answers. (I'm quite disgusted [I'm sure it's obvious].) If this structure description concurs with your belief that yes, that's the way it is, and there are no rules really, and the abuses can go unchecked with the couple easy-to-identify exceptions named above, ... then I surely and really want to take a multi-year wikibreak and come back sometime to see if the place has gained any sanity. (It's quite hard for me to believe, that the "community" here consisting of people, "some even partially educated" [I stole that one from Geoge Carlin!], can sit by and be satisfied with being in and allowing to continue such an abuse-ridden dysfunctional structure. *But*, I am beginning now to believe the unbelievable is actually the case. I'm here just specifiying what I think I'm seeing, for your correction of my view, if it needs correction. The whole idea of "admin for life" is rife with abuse at the word go, but, that is a slightly different topic, but maybe it is somehow central too, I dunno!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, I see just now that you're trying to help the situation at that ANI. (Bless your god-damned heart! Do you drink Scotch? I don't. But if you do, I'll buy you a case for Xmas and send to you next December in appreciation.) Thank you sinceere, NE, thank you sincere! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Now User:Basalisk is trying to jerk me around. Ongoing abusive irrationality. (What is the point of this beyond freedom to throw mud and be abusive? Anyone and their mother can come in who never liked me and say any fucking thing they want, regardless how devoid of fact, regardless how tacky. [Is there any better defition of abusiveness, than that structure?]) Is this the hobby you devote yourself to? (If my perceptions of abusive structure are valid, why would anyone devote their time to such an inherently and actively abusive environement? I really wannna understand this. Because it is so dysfunctional, I pinch myself to see if I'm really just reading a comic book. Out-and-out tackiness with no shame. Can you tell me I'm seeing it wrong? Are people really so low? That got vetted to be admins?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
To fully address all your questions will take more wikitime than I have right now, but the short answer is your immediate goal (assuming you want to edit here rather than exit in some pointless "blaze of glory") should be to get out of the ANI thread alive. And the best way to do that is simply to stop posting.NE Ent 00:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I made my last response post to that ANI some time ago. Long ago I decided to never open an ANI thread under any circumstance. Now I've added to that to never post to any existing ANI thread for any purpose, ever (except to !vote if needed). (The same reason applies.) Thanks again. p.s. My aim going forward is to improve articles, and create articles, re chess variants, chess problems-related, and board games. I also sometimes like to gnome any non-chess article I've profited from reading. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC) p.s. What about the Scotch!?

Try to answer the questions in some sort of order: Yes, ANI is often a cesspool. The smart editors deal with that by staying clear of it. I've serendipitously settled in there because I have a rare, iconoclastic wiki talent, which is to be able to ignore folks talking crap about me. You kind of fell for a common wiki tactic -- if you want to go after someone, toss a "sub-sanctionable" insult there way and hope they counter with something you can point at and say "See, I told you they were incivil." (Incidentally, your replies were way over the top in both length and intensity.)

I guess it also helps that this isn't my first rodeo -- long before Wikipedia I played in no-rules alt (unmoderated) usenet groups, which make WP at its worse look like a Sunday school picnic.

There are no hard rules nor any particular consistency in ANI outcomes; while at the ends, both obviously righteous and lame complaints are handled reasonably, there is a big muddle of gray in the middle; for these, it's often luck of the draw as to who responds first. (i.e. one admin might just warn somebody, another one might block). We give a wide range of latitude to admins because its just not worth the effort to wikilawyer / micromanage every admin action.

I think two things most people agree on is that both our civility and creating / removing admin policies could use some work -- but every discussion as to how to do that ends with frustrated editors throwing the towel in because no consensus ever seems to form. It may not seem this way, but the worst of the worst admins do get filtered out, and it's the better admins that make that happen.

I firmly believe that real-life is the best antidote to Wikipedia, and encourage everyone to a take a break when they're getting fed up with the nonsense. If you look at my monthly chart [7], you'll see months (like last July) where I just log off and enjoy life for awhile.

My drink of choice is craft beer.

My of my wiki-wisdom I wrote down in First Law. NE Ent 19:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your essay says to "fight fair". The common wiki tactic you explained is fundamentally underhanded. (Crash.) // How does a smart editor stay clear of ANI if someone opens a thread against them? (Anyone can open a thread against anyone at any time for any reason.) As mentioned my adjusted is never to post to any ANI thread unless it is to register a !vote. // I'm having a hard time with the crass PA issued at me. (Not only an admin said it was not a PA because it was "calling spade a spade", but the offending editor did a second time with seeming complete freedom, even expounding how it is he sees self as qualified to make such judgements of people and issue them on the WP. Then contending that since I objected to the PA, it means I am what he said. [Great logic there. If you object to being on receiving end of any PA, the very act of doing so qualifies said PA. Right. Got it.] Then another editor came in to correct your thinking by saying since other editors approved of the PA [my enemies and detractors wanting my head on a pike], it means the PA was "in context" and therefore acceptable at Wikipedia. [Great logic again. If a person's detractors all agree the subject of their discontent is an "asshole" -- or any other PA, then that's not a PA, that's "consensus".]) // A completely abusive venue. Detractors say anything they please because it isn't a venue for examining and requring backup for what is said. (In fact I don't think the WP has any such venue. A moderator + a "room" + time.) So it becomes a cesspool, because too many people elect through their own personal standards to exploit it saying irresponsible and dishonest things against someone they dislike. The PA I received there is just a highlighted example, since it flatly violates policy too. All said, how am I supposed to have any respect whatever for that venue? I don't. // Re over-the-top, I know that. I think a big part of my replies is to strike at the heart of the shoddy and cesspool nature of the misuse of the ANI board itself. (I think it is so bad, it should be exposed for what it is -- a whipping board of abusiveness. It's very obvious the board is totally counter the five pillars and collegiate atmosphere where editors are treated with respect. It is the opposite of that: the theme at ANI seems to be say anything unaccountable you want at an editor you don't like -- there is no need to back up, so just say any nasty stuff you make up, twist, distort, fabricate -- doesn't matter. It's all about smearing and defaming. The ANI board is a disgrace, NE, and how it's used isn't even remotely compatible with "treating fellow editors with respect". That's obvious to me, and I wonder why it is not obvious to others to the point where they will speak out against it and do something. My lengthy replies there are essentially intentionally made to try and make that clear. IMO, the current use (accepted culture) of the ANI board is so perverted, so sick, so bad, so unethical, so abusive, so counter professed WP philosophies and values ... it needs immediate disbandment. ("We can't disband it because then we'd be left without a venue to treat grievences." IMO the disgrace of that board to WP is so bad, the trouble stemming from immediate disbandment is a small price to pay. Temporary chaos is better than abusive and vile. I'd like to know what WP's top content contributors and writers have to say about continued existence of that board in its current state. They know how things should rather be ... I have no idea why their wisdoms aren't utilized.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
So I don't come off 100% negative here, let me suggest a possible alternative to ANI ... First, the best possible alternative is in the minds of top content contributors/writers, and that's unknown because that resource is not tapped. Second, my idea for alternative is the idea from an amateur -- I don't have much experience here. But here's at least an amateur idea nevertheless ... Instead of the current ANI, in my case, a user, User:Mann jess, had a grievance with my actions, and an ancillary complaint re uncivil behavior, I guess. OK ... put that user, and me, and a volunteer administrator in a "room" together to hash it out. The admin performs both moderation of the discussion, and evaluator, making a decision in the end whether the case s/b dismissed, or warrants escalating to phase 2. (That's all I've got for you. I don't know what phase 2 is, I could think about it, but the proposal's advantages over the current venue are clear: there is less consumption of number of people's time since there are less people involved; there's no possibility of "mob"-anything which the current venue is infamous for; it's less public and shaming and more down-to-work-let's-figure-out-how-to-resolve-this business instead of the bullshit; there's an immediate drop in slander and abuse, because you've got an admin monitoring, whose clear role is to immediately moderate any of that out of the discussion should it surface.) Sincerely submitted, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
(watching) Responding to only one item: if someone open's an ANI thread against you, you have the choice to ignore it, or at least not go to comment. It's hard, but has been done, successfully so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Gerda. (I guess was wondering if NE meant smart editors are entirely non-responsive, non-responsive after a single post-response, or? I've already made adjustment for future. I may make initial statement-post of reason or clarification if seems appropriate or needed, but that's it. To respond more is completely irrational given the cesspool cultural norm of that venue. [New editors should not be made to learn this the hard way. They should be advised upfront the culture of ANI beginning at the Teahouse!]) (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It's simply WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Feel free to use the other wonderful redirect, Ethics of Dissensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thanks for commenting. Your edit summary gave me a fright. I am glad you had it the wrong way around and you think the blocks were ok. I take your point and will not bring any more blocks there automatically for review but will encourage others to take up a case there if they feel any future blocks are unfair. Thanks again. --John (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh crap. Yea, screwed that up, sorry. NE Ent 21:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. Please see this and please keep an eye on my future actions there to ensure transparency and accountability on my part. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For bringing a moment of much-needed levity to Talk:Scarlett Johansson, I hereby chuck this barnstar at you, ninja-style! Snow (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for calling me a "good faith editor" on AN/I. I received some bashing this week when I urged on AR/E that another editor be allowed to speak his peace, uninterrupted, so your kind word was very welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Autoblock

Ooops. Thank you! -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it's wikitrivia normal people shouldn't have to worry about -- enjoy your edit-a-thon. NE Ent 19:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Question...

  • Don't you think it was a little too soon to close this? I'm not a person who battles, but the IBAN request was made in good faith, and the discussion was open for only two days. And does that mean that the user I requested the IBAN against is still allowed to interact with me? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You failed to prove anything in your filing that required an WP:IB. The Ent was right: it wasn't getting any traction. When requested to provide more recent examples, you didn't or couldn't - and since actions are to prevent current problems, there was nothing current to prevent. Personally, I believe the comparisons of articles edited is problematic - but in BOTH directions. Yeah, I think HW is a little overboard in their actions/statements related to you, but not recently. Ent closed it because to be honest, Spartaz was starting to get rather offensive, and you were taking the bait - which really was just going to prove that you were the problem all along, not HW - so the closure was probably a blessing to save you from yourself. In order to request an IB for WP:HARASSMENT, you need to prove harassment - you didn't prove anything, and just cast vague, old aspersions that smelled like sour grapes. You may indeed be harassed, but you didn't prove it DP 09:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't understand; I did post two more recent incidents. And another user politely suggested what s/he thought the situation might really be about, to which I politely cleared it up. I really don't understand how I could be considered the problem. What I don't get is, if someone makes accusations about me that not only aren't true but were clearly explained by me at the beginning of the discussion, I'm supposed to say nothing? The situation was especially confusing because the problems I was having after the discussion started was because of offensive comments (your words) made by someone who the IBAN wasn't even being filed against; in addition, as far as being baited, the only reason I responded is because a whole new subsection was created to try to battle a viewpoint that I already dispelled.
Also, what other proof did I need for harassment? As I stated, the old diffs were there to show how long things had been going on; none of that proved anything? Really? The only other person who opposed the IBAN was a user who admitted that he didn't read the whole thing. Two days seems way too short a time to have closed the discussion; I could see if within those two days, most of the users who commented were saying "there's nothing here", "no grounds for an IBAN", etc, etc (in fact, ES&L couldn't have understood the situation more correctly). Finally, the last part of my original question wasn't answered...is the user I requested the IBAN against still allowed to interact with me? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding ... I closed the discussion primarily because you (Erpert) and Spartaz were getting into a back and forth that was making both of you look bad. You're free to revert the close if they think it wise, but I advise against it; if you do, ya'll want to focus entirely on the top at hand, and avoid side discussions with / about other editors you've been in conflict with. NE Ent 16:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think if anyone reverted the close, it should be either you or a neutral party. Anyway, as I mentioned before, I was trying to focus on the topic at hand as well as trying to steer the discussion it back to that topic. If either one of those two users bother (not simply disagree with) me again, I'll just have to make a new report. Thank you for listening. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, there's harassment going on here, but Erpert is a perpetrator, not a victim. He's taken editors who disagree with him in porn-related deletion discussions to AN/ANI at least four times, always to have his complaints unceremoniously rejected. He's been goading, baiting, and snarking Spartaz for months, and cherry-picking the responses to portray his target in a false light. Just before he filed his absurd ANI report about me, I had two unpleasant interactions with him, one where he groundlessly posted insinuations of dishonesty about me in an RFD discussion [8], shortly after tendentiously and uncivilly arguing in a related AFD discussion that one of his porn star subjects was "notable outside of pornography" because she had worked for "Type 9 Models", an outfit which billed itself as an "adult talent" business, featured nude photos of its models [9] (very NSFW), and maintains individual pages for its models cataloguing the sex acts the model is "available" to perform on camera.[10] No honest, competent editor acting in good faith would make such an argument. When Erpert's behavior falls so far below expected standards, his hostile treatment of other editors who point out his deficiencies should no longer be received with any sympathy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkpage

Glad you're so busy dealing with really important things. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Apropos of really important things

OK, let's see if they notice this. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

You are so generous, giving choices! You have to swallow two tough things in mine, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you know that, (for what reasons, I have no idea), the "template editor" right allows me to vandalize edit editnotices?? NE Ent 23:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I knew it, of course, because I noticed you disrupting correcting the fullprotected ANI edit notice (messing up the formatting in the process, but whatever). You screwed up with mine, trying to make IP editors log out, but don't worry, I've fixed it. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
The great thing about editing Wikipedia is not matter what you screw up, sooner or later one of those MOS people will be along to fix it. You do know that IP editor's can't log out, right? NE Ent 01:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You should add that nugget to WP:IP addresses are not people. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikipediocracy&diff=604872905&oldid=604870911

Edited truly like an Ent. Well done. Begoon talk 13:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
I am awarding you this barnstar for your work at closing the request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals. It was a very long discussion and your hard work must be thanked. 86.131.145.4 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.

AN/I should not be closed for that reason

Request that you reopen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request topic ban for chronic POV pushing editor on Electronic cigarette

Issue is not just about use of unreliable sources. Please read the thread and investigate the issue. POV pushing, over several months is the main issue.

Also suggest that someone runs checkuser on some of those commentators. Lesion 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your closing comment appears to be directed generally at all participants in the conversation, which suggests I have been edit warring. I have not. I do not think you looked into this at all. Lesion 22:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments from DangerousPanda, Lesion, CFCF, RexxS which don't appear to actually addressed to NE Ent NE Ent 13:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems like a fine close. Content Disputes belong at DRN. Checkusers belong on SPI. POV pushing belongs with WP:RFC/U.  the panda  ₯’ 22:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
So I have to make separate threads on several pages? That seems unproductive. Lesion 22:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Fuck this, forget it I have better things to do. Keep your POV article, enjoy
Oooh, "I'm going to go sulk in the corner because I don't understand the right places to do things and now I'm mad?"  the panda  ₯’ 22:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, as amused as you may be, the encyclopedia suffers. Most people here don't care about that. They are here to argue, bully and shout their opinions. Lesion 22:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I care very much about the encyclopedia. But you don't go to Sears to get a colonoscopy. They could probably do it, but it would be painful. And end up in their fall catalogue.  the panda  ₯’ 23:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Lesion, I know its hard, but you know you have all of WP:MED behind you. The troll only wants feeding and frankly this entire case is completely ridiculous. Ignore him. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Wilkins is talking out of his arse here, just to get a rise out of you. Anyone who genuinely believes that a user's conduct is so disruptive that a topic ban is the only solution is perfectly entitled to raise the issue at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You may indeed be asked to justify why it's so urgent that a WP:Requests for comment/User conduct has not been tried already, but we all know that RfC/U is easy to ignore, takes time, and often to devolves into a slinging match. Any decent admin would be trying to help you resolve the issues, not heaping sarcasm on you. You know that everyone at WPMED values your contributions and it's not worth losing those over some malfunctioning processes. Take a day or two off if you fancy a break, and leave the e-cigs for someone else to clean up. Dealing with SPAs is a thankless job and burns you out if you allow yourself to become too invested in it. Nil carborundum, --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You (both) were edit warring. From WP:3rr: An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. ... any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), ... (emphasis mine). I understand not wanting to repeat what you've posted on ANI on a different board -- I suggest simply linking to the existing discussion if you choose to raise the question discussion elsewhere. NE Ent 14:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 4, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 15:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee The Clarification can be found at [[Wikipedia:

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger

User:The Bushranger has a nasty habit of accusing without basis, and character defamation based on spurious claims. I would like to hash out the irresponsible things he's written, with a moderator, like so much shredded chicken. But there is no forum for that here on the WP. (So, editors such as he can casually cast such irresponsible aspersions/accusations with abandon. There is no call to backup. It's the lowest form of human organization I can even think of -- but the reality on the Wikipedia.) p.s. I'm unsure and would really like to know in detail what comments he made that you described as "spot on". (Do you care to examine that with me? For I have no faith in the veracity of same.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(For the record, since my username was linked above, I found out about this via the ping function). "Accusing without basis...spurious claims" is in fact a spurious claim as evidenced here. Further discussion is now here at ANI. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

Just a quick question about your edit summary: "Nice try, but that's not going to work." Were you referring to me or Gembres? Rusted AutoParts 03:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Other guy. I had done a diff before you reverted their removal of the post -- I would have expect to get a edit conflict from the software but instead it did -- whatever it did. Which is why I self-reverted. NE Ent 08:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

closings
Thank you for your approach to be known by the quality of your contributions and for being somebody who closes threads that lead only deeper into WP:Great Dismal Swamp aka Endmoot, - you are an [[A year ago, you were the ...th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, |awesome Wikipedian]]!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 126th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - thank you also for ad absurdum (look for it on my user page, and no end) - and, more generally, for your exclusive cabal (here is ours), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Between this and last week's HiLo48 & Fram DYK bashing, I'm ready to bring this to Arbcom. Are you sure you have the energy to deal with the drama of reverting me before a consensus has been established since discussion has already begun? I usually respect your cowboy dispute resolution style, not that I always agree, but you're going against Arbcom and WMF mandates on this.--v/r - TP 02:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Just finished posting on ANI, and would suggest continuing the discussion there. (But anyone is always welcome here.) I'm not aware of the mandates to which you're referring. NE Ent 02:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Both links are on ANI. I've left my final comment for now since I'm heading out the door.--v/r - TP 02:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious

As the one who started the ban discussion on me and someone who has been in the camp that arbcom did nothing wrong you cannot possibly think its appropriate for you, especially as a non admin, to close that discussion. You have gotten to be shitting me!. Kumiokosock (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

1984

You wouldn't be able to believe the level of hatred I have for the WP environment (Eric says there is no "culture" but many "cultures" here; OK, so I'm using word "environment" now) -- the abusiveness, hypocriticality, and dumbed-downess in form of policy memes that pass for thinking here. (It's so extreme it's at level of satire. Wikipediocracy may be nasty, but at least there is some intelligence there.) Basically I have several questions, about fundamental fairness and logic (as in, absurd & abusive admin behaviors), and don't know where the fuck to turn to here. (No one gives a shit here. So okay, why should I show any respect then [to any of those fucking admins]!? Does not compute.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I have a real philosophical problem w/ your "No justice" thing, and how it is misused (e.g. so triumphantly by admin Dennis Brown). It is simple to refute: In that context, "justice" = "fairness". (No fairness on the WP!? Can't expect it!? I doubt Jimbo would agree. All or almost all the policy formulations were developed in-line with a target of some level of decency and fundamental fairness. [Just as is RL legal formulations.] It is what users expect and need, otherwise the environment is too hostile and unpredicatable for any editors one could think of, to edit.) WP is no court of law, that's obvious. But neither is "justice" a function of RL legal venue. It is just a terribly imperfectly executed platitude. (So what is the point?) Fundamental fairness is and should remain a "user right". But it is grossly absent at this place. (And, "No justice" thrown around does nothing positive and all negative, effectively institutionalizing "We do what we want because we are admins and one-step-from-anarchy. That's the way it is and that's the way we like it, so fuck off.") What Dennis Brown fails to think on is that "[...] only solutions" is a slippy slope whereby any sanction no matter how grossly or blatently unfair is justified under said umbrella. (Here's another meme that is thoughtless at WP: can't mention "Nazi", that's "automatically verboten". Why? For example, could anyone be able to say with any intellectual honesty how "No justice; only solutions" wouldn't equally work if WWII Germany used that meme to justify the Holocaust? But by virture of use of term "Nazi", of course of course the very thought of that Q is invalidated, and probably deserves sanction as well, according to standard WP "thinking". [Gawd.])

The craziness at ANI/AN with anyone dishing out their prejudices and abuses in the name of wiki-process, is self-evident bad and repelling; I don't need to criticize it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yelp, Inc.

Hi NE Ent. Regarding your closure of an RfC here you suggested that you may be casting a "super-vote" and invited challenging your super-vote at AN. Taking it to the drama boards seems unnecessary, but since the votes in the RFC were exactly tied and you identified it as a "no consensus" discussion, wouldn't it be more on-target to close it as "no consensus" rather than the super-vote? Also, you said in the close that you didn't see a better way to name the section, but several editors provided some specific ideas on how to rename it to something more neutral.

Sorry I'm bringing this up three months later. I'm trying to shrink the number of articles where I have a COI, but have not brought the page up to Good Article status. Since there is no consensus on anything on this page and I cannot edit boldly, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to bring it up to GA. But I might poke around and see if there is an opportunity for improving the page now. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of on a wiki break right now, so I've requested another editor review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Second_look_request. (AN isn't necessarily a drama board -- depends on the the particular thread.) NE Ent 01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No offense intended

I was inspired by [11] and created that. Legoktm (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

PXE new editing.

Hi NE Ent, the toughest part is already done; It might need a bit more polishing but I think the issues of lack of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view have been addressed. The article now follows the PXE specification in simple terms and it puts the standard in a time context establishing the relationship with its ancestors, sibling, and descendants. I think it's a good starting point for people interested in adding complementary information if needed. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm currently taking a break from Wikipedia but will take a look when I get back to editing. NE Ent 00:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Take your time; I know what you mean; I have also been away for a while. Whenever you are back please take a look at the page and let me know. Thanks Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats!

I had no idea... User:SarahTheEntwife. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hah! SarahTheEntwife (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You found the Entwives! NE Ent 02:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • You know, now that you put it this way, and since of course I want to answer with jubilance (really, it's a wonderful sentence that you just produced, full of hope), one wonders--were they ever lost? I mean, I doubt that Sarah here was lost to herself. In other words, it's a very male- (Ent-)centered thing to consider, their lostness; I doubt very much, though, that Tolkien had such second- or third-wave feminist things in mind. What if the Entwives got tired of drinking water and tree sap and t a l k i n g s l o w l y with wise old you and yours, and took off down South eons ago, where they hung out on the beach or in the coffee shop, satisfied themselves without men, so to speak, and had the Haradrim do the chores for them? Drmies (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your close at ANI

Hi, NE Ent.

Welcome back to editing. I see you have closed one of the voting sections at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review. Since you were involved in the original dispute, I wish you would reconsider this. Since there were multiple questions about the legitimacy of the closure of the case you brought against Kumoioko previously, the current consensus is to have a panel of several admins do the close and to let the discussion run for a longer period of time, . Please note specifically that WP:CBAN requires the close to be done by an uninvolved administrator. As far as I know, you are neither.

I am anxious that this matter be resolved in a way that appears to be fair to all parties, the situation has gone on long enough.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The proposal "Perma-ban with no possibility of ever returning" was absurd and non-controversially against policy and has nothing to do with CBAN. Consensus can change and we cannot make a consensus to prevent consensus in the future. It could not have reasonably closed any other way. Chillum 22:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment of the close, but not the way it was done. In view of the situation, it would be better if there was no appearance of stacking the deck.—Neotarf (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Ent, I have removed your close. Under the circumstances, I think if you want to do this you should get consensus first. But I would hope at this point you would recuse yourself, or distance yourself from the situation. The situation that led you to file the case back then is no longer a concern. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now introduced your snow close proposal for ivote, I hope that satisfies everyone's concerns. —Neotarf (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You must know...

There's no space for common sense at Arbcom. You must respect the bureaucracy! WormTT(talk) 08:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Accept yes, respect … NE Ent 22:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No, no—the bureaucrats are down the hall, to the left.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On assuming good faith

I really don't think you're helping BlueSalix by offering your theory that "The AGF explanation is someone spoofed some emails as coming from Cwobeel" on his page, but I don't want to further embarrass the guy by refuting it in place, so I'll comment on it here, on this (at this moment) hopefully less high profile page. Please feel free to remove it when read.

How exactly would spoofed e-mails, that BlueSalix thought were from Cwobeel, have prevented him from forwarding the e-mails, as he was so urgently requested to do, full headers and all, like, oh, I don't know, on 14 June? You will be aware of the timeline, since I'm sure you will have read the ANI thread carefully before opining, and won't need diffs (it's all in that thread). This is how it goes: on 13 June, BlueSalix accused Cwobeel of having sent three abusive e-mails containing "a string of vitriol". On 14 June there were vehement and upset denials from Cwobeel and requests from various people to forward the e-mails to Dennis Brown, to myself, or to ArbCom, and on that date there were also various evasions from BlueSalix (to Cwobeels pleas, BlueSalix said for example that he won't "empower power games" or "go off chasing down a wild conspiracy theory", was refusing to have the e-mails investigated in the interest of deescalation, etc). On 15 June, BS posted further, fairly copiously, before falling silent. In other words, there was a lot of evasion and foot-shuffling from BS before he went on break. Are you saying AGF is a suicide pact after all?

And did you see the mysterious "redacted" header BlueSalix provided on ANI where the sender was given as Mosfetfaser, not Cwobeel? Perhaps BlueSalix originally misread "Mosfetfaser" as "Cwobeel"? Might that be the AGF explanation? (When I asked about it, I only got more handwaving.)

Your interventions now fit with your original suggestion in June that Cwobeel had no business asking for the matter to be investigated and it was up to BlueSalix to ask for an investigation if he wanted to. (I thought at the time, and I still think, that's the kind of thing that can easily make users (=Cwobeel) leave in bitterness.) So in a way I'm not surprised at your demeanour now, it's consistent between June and August. But in another way I'm pretty surprised altogether. Also I think you are if anything delaying closure for the unfortunate BlueSalix further. If it wasn't for that consideration (closure for BS, and to stop people talking about him, so he can put it behind him) I'd quite like for you to start a user RFC abut my capricious and arbitrary use of admin tools. Admin abuse is a serious matter. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC).

At the risk of breaking User:NE Ent/rules#5 (Thou shall not suck up to admins, it's unseemly) and User:NE Ent/rules#7 (The first rule of Ent rules-- you don't talk about Ent rules) -- because User:NE Ent/rules#2 is Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- I've long considered you one of the better admins because
  • You're a visionary, pioneer who helped grow WP before most folks had heard of it, having been around long enough (2004) to be personally insulted by The Founder.
  • You generally seem to "get" the big picture, rather than getting bogged down in technical minutiae.
  • When too many editors/admins sit around yak-yak-yaking, you're willing to just make a decision and take action [12]
  • As Lady Catherine would surely attest -- if I wasn't obviously below her social class -- you can maintain a sense of humor.

Obviously, that doesn't preclude me from speaking up when I think you're wrong about a particular situation.

I'm not particularly interested in helping BlueSalix per se. (In fact, at this point I think it's likely he's just gone, and I'm not terribly hopeful we can get him back.) What I can about is the encyclopedia -- and with only 122,331 active editors and 6,917,362 articles, we need all the help we can get, and for me, that means accepting all the imperfect humans who get angry, react too quickly, misinterpret other editors poorly phrased statements what have you. Because if we get rid of all the imperfect humans, who's left to edit? For at least a couple years I've been using the factoid there are a quarter million [13] articles tagged as totally unreferenced -- and the depressing part is in the time I've been using that link, the number (with rounding) hasn't changed.

To some of the specifics you address. First of all, you lost me at "urgently." This is just a website, a hobby for many of us. ISIS in the mideast is urgent, Boko Harum in Nigeria is urgent, the milliseconds after some moron adult hands a 9-year girl an Uzi -- those things are urgent. Having expended a chunk of my life with 2,400 ANI, 1,000 WQA, and 700 AN edits [14], I've become so convinced that a whole amount of drama could have been avoided if folks just slowed down I made it a key part of my user name (Ent -- who famously hated hasty). If an editor like BlueSalix or anyone else goes off wiki in the midst of drama -- as long as it's real and they're not socking -- I think they should be rewarded. I'll tell you straight up that if I don't periodically real-life for a decent chunk of time (e.g. a 7 edit July) -- I'd have turned into one of those ranters who inevitably gets indef'ed.

Your timeline above is correct but, I'm going to argue, incomplete. Specifically, on 13 June another admin closed the discussion. While ANI discussions are much like the knife fight in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ("There's no rules in a knife fight."), there's at least a meme when a thread is closed and not reverted, the matter is considered resolved. I'm not saying you were wrong to follow up, but that more patience would have been of greater benefit for the encyclopedia. The fiction that blocks are non-punitive, harmless actions is simply that, a fiction. Blocks are permanent black marks on an editor, continually dragged up whenever an editor gets in a future scuffle.

My only goal here has been to resolve a situation -- an incredibly stupid situation regarding the imperfect changing of an imperfect phrasing -- with two active editors (C and BSalix) ending with two active editors. It's possible you're correct that a failure to keep BSalix accountable could lead to the loss of C, but that's not obvious to me. Certainly I can't agree there was any urgency -- Blue was not taunting C or pursuing the debate or anything like that.

Finally, I don't know whether you mean "admin abuse" in the sense of admin's abusing editors, or admin's being abused by editors, but it doesn't matter -- I don't consider it a serious matter, particularly as both versions are (unfortunately) mundanely common on en-wp. (Having been previously employed in a couple authority roles, I learned long ago that "abuse" directed towards me was almost never really about me, it was about the role I was occupying.) Over-the-top abuse, or misuse of admin tools, of course, needs to be addressed, but that hasn't occurred here. While I think your admin action wasn't the best, for reasons I've tried to explain as best I can, it certain falls well within the envelope of discretion rightfully allowed admins, so there will be no AN / ANI / RFCU / arbcom actions initiated by me. The only thing I might have done is try to persuade another admin to unblock BSalix, but at this point I don't think it's worth burning either my limited wiki-time or political capital pursuing the matter any further. (If BlueSalix resumes editing, I might change my mind, of course). NE Ent 17:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your part in extending the double-standard, the hypocrisy, which I pointed out on ANI. P.S. Don't post on my talk page again, for any reason, even to apologize. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (not sarcastic)

Thank you for posting the correct motion statement to the AN board. You pointed out that Sedon hadn't and I 'd considered posting the verbatim statement they'd made, but decided against it. So thank for doing it, their verbatim decision looked a lot different from what was originally posted. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Malekhalayla

Hello NE Ent. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Malekhalayla, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Just userboxes, don't bite the newbies. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Long overdue

Howdy. Just wanna thank ya for your May 2013 comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, concerning the then barring of my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to see you back contributing to the encyclopedia. NE Ent 00:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 23:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Lions in the Desert.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lions in the Desert.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

It is not really useful to insist that an RfC/U needs to be done before further actions (ArbCom and the like) can be taken wrt User:Eric Corbett. He has in the past made it very clear that he will not participate in any RfC/U about him (no matter who started it), and that makes the RfC/U, being non-binding anyway, moot from the very start. I'm not saying that anything else needs to be done at the moment, but sending people to a form of dispute resolution that will have no chance of succeeding anyway is basically a waste of time for everyone involved. Fram (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but who cleans up?

Your ANI comment (diff) is good stuff, but have you followed the drip-drip-drip assault at Gamergate and related articles where a never-ending stream of editors want to "balance" the topic? Normally I would agree that content issues just need to be hammered out, but Gamergate ceased being normal weeks ago. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gamergate_controversy_article, where I've suggested simply fully protecting the page. NE Ent

Minor note

Thanks. I mean it. --Lecen (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Plea

Re this plea, a case request must remain open at least 48 hours, with some exceptions that do not apply to the Wheel warring case. It hasn't yet been 48 hours, but clerks are watching.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not what the policy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Deciding_of_requests says -- it's 48 to accept a case, but the decline criteria includes "an appropriate time after enough arbitrators have voted to decline that the subsequent acceptance of the request is mathematically impossible." As I don't see it reasonable any of the "declines" will change, it seems to me an appropriate amount of time has passed. NE Ent 23:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstood the Guide. First, I go by Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures, not your link. Of course if the two are in conflict the conflict needs to be resolved. However I do not see the conflict. There are some hurdles that need to be reached, the 48-hour hurdle is not an absolute hurdle but there is one exception that did not apply in this case.
The section you quoted is covering stale requests those it has been listed for many days without a complete resolution. The suggestion is after 10 days it can be removed but it also gives some additional leeway so for example if it's only been eight days and it appears to be mathematically impossible to accept we can go ahead and remove without waiting the additional two days.
I understand how you reach the conclusion you did. The actual clerk procedures manual is more clear-cut. It is possible the wording in the other source you quoted should be tightened up but I don't think it is necessary.
Of course, it is moot now: I began the removal process 4 minutes after 48 hours.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


You were mentioned

You were mentioned here regarding the hasty ban on Ihardlythinkso. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

the DP discussion

Am I allowed to edit the "Desired outcome" as one of those named? There's really only one outcome I desire, that's #1, DP will resign his administrator privilege. There's no "or". Glad you figured out how to call the question. I tried to figure out how any ordinary mortal could institute a recall for an admin, spent a fair amount of time searching the WP: namespace for an answer, then gave up. Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for misspelling your username.
I've struck the second clause per your request. NE Ent 18:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Should you also add a signature as the first certifier above mine? Msnicki (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on the feedback I've seen, especially on the requirement that it must be "the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users", it seems to me that that single dispute has to be the Barney incident. We both observed it and we both tried to resolve the dispute and we can show the required diffs. That's my only interaction with DP I can recall anyway. I think we should see if can agree on a description of that incident and make that the "Description" in the "Statement of the dispute". We can then each provide our own evidence of trying to resolve the dispute. The history you've documented can be used to show there's a pattern behind this, but our complaint, to satisfy the requirements, is about the Barney incident. Do you agree? Msnicki (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
No, for the reasons I've explained on J's talk page [15]. NE Ent 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have to say, that's a pretty good argument. Msnicki (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You did a good thing to raise these concerns so that they can finally be resolved. Multiple editors are following up. To avoid personalizing the dispute, you can just step back and watch. You did your part, now relax and watch as your colleagues finish the job. I predict that one of three things will happen within 48 hours: (1) DP will accept the criticism and undertake to be much more polite going forward, (2) pressure will continue to increase and he will be forced to resign straight away, or (3) things will muddle along and a new RFCU will be filed. Given the discussions that are going on, I think that RFCU will be a lot more critical than the first one. If you don't mind, I will continue to defer your request to undelete the first RFCU page. Jehochman Talk 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • For disclosure, I like DP, and have been openly critical of him previously (the Jimbo incident), so I think my view is moderately balanced here. I don't see him as a saint or a pariah. First, I wasn't expecting the closure, but honestly, I think Jehochman's handling has been center of policy in his actions, and exceptional in his patience while mediating. MrX's discussion is very much on target and strikes the perfect tone. That discussion will absolutely set the pace for what happens next. If DP blows it off, then that would unquestionably serve as the most powerful "attempt to resolve in good faith" you could ask for. If DP gets the message (to your satisfaction) then all the better. If we are focused purely on results, I really do believe this is the best path. As Jehochman says, we are only looking at a couple of days. Dennis 2¢ 00:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
No. It's disrespectful and disruptive of the collegial and collaborative nature of the editors who took time to comment. See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Blanking_of_RFC.2FU.3F. NE Ent 08:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The loss of their comments is indeed regrettable, which is why I offered to deliver them to anybody who asked. If it would make you feel better I could go leave a message for each editor. Jehochman Talk 11:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I was one of those editors that had his comments deleted, and frankly, it was more than a little supported. The deletion doesn't bar you from refiling, but as it stood, it was really a very improper RFC/U, a point I made, and most people agreed with. Dennis 2¢ 14:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Eats Shoots and Leaves

Msnicki certified issues different from yours: you talked about things such as his username, his use of "fuck off", and his block of Beeblebrox, while Msnicki talked about a separate incident, a single block. Once again, since editors must certify that both addressed the same issue with the person, and since you and Msnicki did not do this, the RFC/U will not be undeleted. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

To NE Ent: I saw Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rfcu deletion review while I was adding requests to WP:ANRFC. Would Wikipedia:Deletion review be the better place to dispute this deletion rather than WP:AN? Cunard (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I think WP:AN is right because deletion review is typically about article content deletions, and AN is more about behavioral issues and procedures, which is what an RFC/U is about. Either would be fine in my eyes, but his choosing AN seems logical. Dennis - 2¢ 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, NE Ent. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!.The discussion is about the topic neutrality of lede. Thank you. --Kenfree (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) 

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

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

DP

Start here. I've done everything I can here and once again achieved nothing. A high school teacher once told me I suffered from overunderdoggerism. Nothing's changed, I guess, except that I've gotten better at accepting that there are some things and people I cannot change and that I am happier thinking about those I can. Good luck. Msnicki (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't had much wiki time recently, but briefly, for now, please be assured you have make a difference, and I greatly appreciate the time you've put into this. NE Ent 01:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fangorn

Looks like Fangorn

I shall have limited access to wiki for the next week or so, due to real life stuff. Good stuff. Nothing to do with anything on wiki. NE Ent 00:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm mad at you for suggesting this....

You may have already thought about it, or not: an Arb run. Getting 50%+1 is a no brainer for you, and I honestly think that making the cut is more likely than not. I also see some value in having a non-admin as Arb, particularly when it comes to restoring trust and demonstrating equity within the community. When it comes to admin-like experience in a non-admin, you would up there at the top of the list. Anyway, not trying to talk you into it, just noting there is some value in the idea. Even if they forced you to RFA before actually getting the advanced tools, I think you would be safe. I tend to think the process itself would justify giving the tools while you were Arb, even if they took them back afterwards. Was curious to know if you had given it thought. Dennis - 2¢ 00:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very flattering. While I do have some thoughts on the matter, as should be expected from an Ent (see Entmoot), I'll need to think a bit before expounding further. NE Ent 14:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Stalkers...

153 watchers? There must be some seriously bored folks around here if you find this page worth watching ... anyway, about to go real life and would appreciate someone keeping an eye on this ip. They're probably done playing but just in case... NE Ent 21:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You may proudly take your place here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, the centijimbo counter barfed once we moved the servers and no one has found it necessary to fix it. Dennis - 2¢ 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You
Thank you for participating in my topic ban. This really is a genuine thank you, no sarcasm is intended. I was in the wrong and I accept that. Rotten regard 23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request you filed has been opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 3, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of my evidence? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. I imagine you might need time to come up with a 1000 word statement, and I'll be interested to see it when you post. As a non-party I'm stuck with a 500 word limit. Best regards, Jehochman Talk 17:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As Kenny Rogers sang in The Gambler, I "never count my cards while I'm sitting at the table.". NE Ent 22:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Not exactly. He sang, "You never count your money when you're sitting at the table. There'll be time enough for counting when the dealing's done." Counting cards would get you in trouble in the Old West. Doc talk 22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
D'oh. Yes, of course. NE Ent 22:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
As Kenny Rogers sang in The Gambler, I "never count my money while I'm sitting at the table.". NE Ent 22:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I always count my chips at the table; gives me something to do after folding a weak hand. This case isn't about gambling or bluffing, though. Since you filed the request, and since you already compiled an RFC, you probably have your evidence lined up already, and I'm hoping you'll post it sooner, rather than later. If you need any content from the deleted page, just ask, and I'll get it for you. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Potshot?

Which are you referring to? Andrevan@ 04:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Do you interpret my invoking IAR and accusing Dennis of being a stickler for technicality as a personal attack? He wrote: "The procedure that was used wasn't founded in policy, and is a huge IAR." .. "IAR can't apply in something this big." Andrevan@ 04:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Heh, thanks, no worries. That part I do appreciate. Andrevan@ 04:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Andrevan, that was based on an Arb case, where they said they can't debit, and a Crat can't just revert a bit, it was a mess. Polarscribe. Mbisanz was involved. I filed the case. So it wasn't based on conjecture or my own limited opinion, but previous opinions granted by Crats and Arbs in the closest thing to this. They declined the case due to a lack of anyone being able to debit him without cause. It wasn't about being a stickler, it was about following precedent when there was another alternative available. Dennis - 2¢ 04:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown:, I just looked quickly for the Polarscribe or MBisanz case but I didn't find anything, so if you want to discuss it, I guess a link would be good. I'm responding here to keep the conversation together but perhaps we should move to another talk page. Anyway, I don't know the specifics, but I can't see how a procedural revert, then re-sysop with community support and several concurring bureaucrats could be an issue. The whole point of IAR is for cases like that. Andrevan@ 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned close

BOOMERANG - John Carter: remove unsigned close -- it you ain't proud it enough to sign it...

FYI... Regarding your recent reopening of the thread "BOOMERANG - John Carter" thread at 04:27,[16] you should be made aware that I previously signed and closed the report at 01:40.[17] However, the thread OP, Demiurge1000, removed my closing comments and sig at 01:52.[18] Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For proving me wrong that you weren't one of the ochlocrats (as it seemed to me from your first comment) I was hoping to avoid and for your change of !vote with consideration of its importance to me or those editing with me. A public thankyou was in order. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was the one that was wrong, happily so in this instance. I didn't expect there would be a consensus to do anything and I'm glad MastCell et. al. stepped up. NE Ent 22:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Advice and suggestion

Hey NE Ent! You're right, it is the WikiCup offseason now. The one thing I'm doing now is trying to expand the article What Child Is This? in my sandbox. Once I get that to DYK in time for Christmas, I'm going to actually be off for the next three weeks due to exams and essays. That means no major edits, or any expansions or discussions during that time. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Seems we step on eachother on ANI and my edit deleted yours unintentionally. I only noticed it when I saw at my watchlist saying my edit was (-540) when it should be positive as I added a comment. Apologies, and best regards. FkpCascais (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, that happens on ANI from time to time. NE Ent 23:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

revdel (outing) needed

No action will be forthcoming from me — an oversighter got there first and agreed with you, so I can't do anything. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi, NE. Well, you've certainly been a reasonable person with which to discuss things and collaborate, so I take your suggestions very seriously. I hope it's not improper to ask about this one, since I'm sure you have a well-thought-reason for wanting the elimination of the tag-team evidence. Where I'm confused is the dilution rationale. I do believe it's inappropriate for one admin to go on another one's talk page and answer for that other admin. Because then when both admins go together to an editor's page in lockstep, they make it appear as if more points of views are being represented rather than their single point of view. It's a form of ganging up. Be that as it may, it's a very short paragraph, and my evidence is very succinct in comparison to most others'. If I'm not putting you out or asking too much of your time, would it be alright to ask how it would be dilution as opposed to "an additional thing on top of the main things"?

Again, I value your word or I would not take my own time and effort and ask for elucidation. I just want to make sure that whatever I do, I have a reason for it that's clear in my own mind. Thank you for everything, --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So I hear you saying that by injecting into a conversation with an admin, an intervening admin in a sense relieves the first one of their obligations under WP:ADMINACCT? That's an interesting viewpoint I hadn't considered before. In any event, I mean "diluting" not in terms of word count, but in focus; Dennis Brown is not a party in the case, and to the extent evidence can be construed as more of a general anti-admin thing the less effective it will be. NE Ent 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Misc

Hi Ent, I made ref to two admins in my Evidence re DP case, I never know whether such refs s/b linked/ping'd or not. (I do not want to entice their responses and "get into" anything w/ them [tho if they want a fight anywhere, anytime, OK].) Also I'm open to input re shaving my Evidence (but I felt, it could have been 10 times longer easily; reading of others' experiences w/ this user ref'd even in his first April 2009 RfA, quite frankly, makes me feel sickly [both over the blatant unchecked belligerencies that are a history of this editor, and the fact WP allows such admins to continue with it w/o an Act of Congress to put an end). Anyway, much thx for starting that RfAR. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

While the first two paragraphs, the third is counterproductive, as you're making allegations without the diffs to back them up. Please see also my comments to Tenebrae, above, regarding keeping the focus only on the party in the case. NE Ent 02:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In order to do a respectable job supporting the third para, it would have consumed a massive number of diffs to make the background and contexts clear. And I didn't deem that appropriate or even interesting to the arbs. But I felt something s/b said. (DP's misbahavior as admin consists in no small part to onion-layers of dishonesty and distortion. Perhaps he does it because he knows he can get away with it because he also knows that it takes non-trivial amount of diffs and text to expose it. The Arbs want conciseness. [And are dishonest distortions, even if proved, of high negative value around here, compared to easily diff'd PAs!? I think so, but the culture here puts no negative value on strings of small dishonesties and disingenuousness laced together. The same issue as how other forms of incivility are nearly never identified.]) For example, DP has massive IDHT. It would take massive diffs for a single editor to prove it, though it could be done. I think that'd be excessive for the case page!? Plus it represents a lot of work. And I refuse to give DP any more my time, unless an arb asks. (Giving one or two examples crossed my mind, but doing so couldn't represent the density of the real picture; I felt it would end up only looking "petty".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ee Jeeva Ninagagi - another infobox-only stub

The problem continues. How can we encourage this editor to start to include some text in their new stubs? And preferably a source, too. Any thoughts? You were one of the three editors at ANI who seemed to understand the problem. (I'll also leave this message with Drmies and Noyster). PamD 12:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

  • I appreciate that you care about the important things around here (mainspace).
  • You've done the right thing by raising the issue at ANI.
  • Unfortunately, admin activity is generally lower on weekends, and this weekend is an American holiday weekend, so it's probably worse than usual.
  • Our only, voluntary obligation to Wikipedia is to put forth our best effort when we have the time and energy to do so; we are not personally responsible for the quality of the encyclopedia.
  • Given the lack of evidence of notability, I don't think it's worth your time to stubify the boxes -- I think they're likely to all get deleted anyway.
  • I'm not terribly familiar with Afd processes, but I found an example of a mass deletion request ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_destinations ), so posting one of those might be in order. But I wouldn't bother until the editor starts communicating, which I'm afraid isn't going to happen without a block.
  • Sometimes Drmies is too nice and too much of a slacker.
  • Perhaps we'll get lucky and one of my mysterious (talk page stalker)'s with a sysop bit will take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BKPATIL1234_continuing_to_create_contentless_stubs_after_warnings. NE Ent 15:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry I got to this late. I guess that confirms that I'm a slacker. Maybe I didn't want to look because I didn't want to block the editor--but I'll never confirm that. In the meantime Bladesmulti fixed up the latest infobox. I just don't really know what to do about a situation like that and the easiest solution (a block) is not much of a solution in the larger sense of the word: improvement of the project. Drmies (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
He is improving his articles now.[19] - [20] - [21] - [22] Bladesmulti (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

That's why you gotta be careful with those non-admin closures. Having the ability to back up your threats means you can be more black-and-white. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It can. And if the editors with that ability would step up to the plate before the third day, it'd be less work for me. ;) NE Ent 00:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm done -- too nasty

I'm done commenting on the DP case (unless someone lobs another ad hominem PA at me personally). Some observations:

1) Jehochman's thinking seems polluted by combination IDHT + unrecognized bias.

2) He doesn't understand the case because he clearly thinks losing tools requires a sufficiently high percentage of misused tool application. (He s/ ask Kafziel.)

3) There's no shortage of ad hominem upchucking. (I presume is symptomatic of "We're losing one of ours!!"-sort of desperation.)

4) There're numerous encouragements at DP's Talk encouraging him to respond. As I mentioned to him earlier I do not think he is capable of representing himself without harming himself further. (It seems to me therefore his encouragers do not see the extent of the problem.)

5) If he is not desysop'd then Arbcom will be unleashing him again, no doubt emboldened (ala: "If Arbcom thought there was a problem they would have desysop'd me. They didn't. Case closed. Consensus has sided against you. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. One more word from you in this vein and I'll block you for disruption. You're lucky you got me because any other admin would have blocked you already. And frankly it looks like you're teetering on a site-ban. I have faith you'll listen up because you're smart and that's why I've always liked you as editor. I'm trying to help you return to productive editing, can't you see that? You're welcome!").

6) And what's with this "balanced" thing?! (That if an Evidence presentation is not "balanced" it is somehow deficient. I've read the Evidence instructions and see no requirement or even suggestion like that for parties. BLP articles require balance. It's Arbcom's job to deliver balanced rulings in cases. [When I return something to Walmart, I'm prepared to tell Cust Serv what's defective about a product or how it didn't meet my needs or expectations. I don't give them a "balanced presentation". It's up to them to balance their considerations when deciding to re-shelve the item or even stock it to begin with.])

Merry Xmas. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IHTS, I am sorry if I've intimidated you; that was not my intent. I have asked about half a dozen admins to resign, so I'm not opposed to chucking bad ones. Losing the tools can be due to (1) repeated errors and failure to recognize and correct, or (2) even one really egregious error. It might be useful to explain which theory you are relying on, NE. I am also opposed to the way you didn't really present evidence in the required 1000 word format. Perhaps you could speak with a clerk and get leave to summarize what you presented in 1000 words. Sorry for hitting you with these requests late in the process; these things just dawned on me. Jehochman Talk 05:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
If someone has exceeded their (completely arbitrary) 1000 word limit, I don't think it's any of your business to complain. If the ArbCom or their clerks don't like it, they're capable of responding on their own. Anyway, it's not exactly up there with personal attacks, not even with the relatively tame ones you posted recently. I agree with Ihardlythinkso's assessment of your behavior and your general bias and I think you should pay attention and take it to heart. Msnicki (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IHTSO, Msnicki -- let's stay focused on the big picture. This edit of mine [23] was a mistake I've stricken and requested the case clerk remove, if possible. The purpose of the page is for each of us to make our best cast to the drafting arbitrators as to what the proposed decision should be. Jehochman is entitled to make their argument, and make it forcefully -- the drafters and/or case clerk will address any excesses. NE Ent 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Even reviewing the comments on DangerousPanda's talk page; I'm not seeing a significant argument that the conduct has been acceptable, more that if DangerousPanda acknowledges that, the committee might approve a remedy short of desysop. I've already stated my opinion and reasoning on the Workshop page. Hovering over Mr. X's evidence, approximately half the links are to WP:AN, with four thousand watchers [24], or WP:ANI with six thousand [25]. So this behavior has been in plain sight, and the overall community did little to nothing (although obviously, some of us have tried). So, while the validation of our complaints is reassuring, the time for community feedback has passed. At this point, it is the opinion of eleven specific editors that is most important; I'm going to focus my intention there. NE Ent 02:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the rest of it, editors are entitled to their opinions, but the community has endorsed contributing the encyclopedia in ways other than mainspace contributions -- there's even a shortcut: WP:NOTNOTHERE. I documented my approach that three years ago in Other duck. I've always considered the shift to ad homimen modality -- very common in dispute resolution space -- as an indication parties do not have policy, diffs, or anything else substantive to add to their argument, so it reflects far more on them than me. Regarding mainspace edits -- Barney has 5,400 / 57% mainspace edits[26]. He was here to build the encylopedia. DPs mismanagement of a conflict over a very minor article has resulted in Wikipedia losing (at least for now), a valuable contributor.

Finally -- I expect the off topic comments and ad homimens will pick as the case moves the Proposed Decision stage. The purpose of that page should be clear in our minds: six votes. Squabbling with others just clouds the discussion, so I'm not planning to any squabbling myself. NE Ent 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolving a conflict

I realize that I've got some simmering conflict with you and want to try to work it out. If you don't mind, can we chat about this briefly? My concern is that you don't seem to spend a lot of time lately in the trenches writing content. Neither do I in recent years, but a while back I spent considerable time writing articles, long painful FA's like gamma ray burst. I remember how hard and frustrating the work can be, and how vexing it was when somebody cames along and destroyed something I spent weeks to write, or left a lengthy criticism of my work (@SandyGeorgia:). My proposal to you is that we go work together on an article so that we can better understand how other editors feel and see what they experience. What do you think? (reading the section above I add:) I respect that there are many different ways to contribute; article writing isn't the only measure of worth. However, article writing is central, and all of us who do other things should try to do at least some article writing so we can better empathize with those who suffer its unique frustrations. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I hate that pingie thing :) I resemble that remark (yes, that was me). All's well that ends well ... and all that. I hope you two work it out ... now I have to go back to supervising plagiarizing students. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting idea. Perhaps at some point in the (not real soon) future. To be honest, if it wasn't for the ac case I'd have gone back on break some time back (real life stuff is piling up). NE Ent 03:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. If you ever have a few minutes to kill, your services remain welcome at WP:ITN/C where we have candidate articles that need to be evaluated and lightly updated, and we have frequent heated arguments where you might assist as a voice of reason. Jehochman Talk 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice comment

I just noticed this comment. I think it shows real insight. If you ever go crazy and want admin privileges, I think I would support your RfA. Meantime, keep up the good work, and keep thinking deep thoughts. --John (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

To pass RFA it would really help if NE Ent were to write a good article (or better). This would assuage the likely objection, "not enough mainspace contributions". I'm not now saying this is a good objection, but as a fact of the matter, it's what would happen. Jehochman Talk 01:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't answer other editors for me

Especially if you do so with condescending crappola that I would never write as evidenced below.

Sorry that you were sacrificed in the process but your efforts weren't wasted. The Becky Bell article is now a hell of a lot better than it was before you began working on it. Hang in there! 131.109.225.24 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Thank you for you kind words --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Although you did end up with a logged statement, that it was phrased the way it was and does not exclude you from the talk page is a good outcome. It's very ambitious to focus on controversial areas early in your Wikipedia experience; there's nothing wrong with that and we appreciate the help. You just need to be aware that not all Wikipedia practices are necessarily clearly written down, so be careful moving forward. If you have any questions, feel free to ask Drmies. NE Ent 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the intent, sorry. In 20/20 hindsight I agree it appears I was answering for you. I've refactored the page to clarify I was responding to a post BobMeowCat made on another editor's talk page. NE Ent 22:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User talkpages privillages

Same situation, see my block-log. It's good to see that Carol will be treated better then I was, when her 1-year waiting period expires :) GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The point is she should have talk page access rather than having full protection so on one else can comment. Her talk page log [27], and your talk page log [28] -- yours was never full protected. NE Ent 03:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I getcha now. Other editors were able to post on my talkpage during the whole time I was banned from my talkpage. PS - BTW, thanks for this revert at my talkpage, back then :) GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. NE Ent 17:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Vince193

Thanks for replying. Fair enough. I'll refrain from adding anymore fuel. The only point I want to make is that I don't fully understand what merging means. I wrote my article with no knowledge of his. Another person from a separate website pointed me in the direction of his after I was finished the main body and I took the bottom stats box and person's middle name from it since I didn't know how to make my own. The main article itself is quite different from what he has in his page. He didn't "merge it" He deleted mine and whatever appears on his doesn't have the information mine did.Vince193 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you click on the sandbox version history tab, do you see some version that has your edits? NE Ent 16:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The initial one that appears on the revision history, where it mentions that page had been created, is all my work. If you notice there is no stat box at the bottom and the player in question has no middle name listed. I don't know what he did but the main body of my article is completely different from his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince193 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so it's there when you need it. We need to wait a while -- like maybe a day or so -- to see what other comments appear at WP:AN. NE Ent 16:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

All right. Thanks. Just for further clarification. Can users stake a claim on articles? I made mine just by using the "create page" with no knowledge of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince193 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Short answer, no; if you have enough sources (WP:RS) to establish notability (WP:N), you can just create the article. Longer answer -- if you create articles which aren't considered notable, that will annoy people, and you shouldn't create the Dylan Carreiro one since it's the subject of a dispute. You'll also want to get in the habit of signing your posts with four squiggles ~~~~. For an "anyone can edit" place, we have lots of rules ... but as long as it's obvious you're trying to do the right thing it'll be okay. NE Ent 17:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

don't trim

please don't trim articles based on your manner Alipoor90 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Formatting question

Hi... Thankfully I have almost zero AE experience but it's time I learned a little about the mechanics. Specifically, can you point to any especially good examples of the format and packaging whereby involved parties requested boomerang enforcement against the filing party, or cross-enforcement against other commenters? Thanks in advance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

For some reason (other than checking of course) I thought you were the clerk, and Callenec was an arb. Apologies for posting this here when it was intended for the clerk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for DangerousPanda arbitration case

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the proposed decision DangerousPanda arbitration case has been posted. Relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello NE Ent, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Please notice that the material is long standing and the debate is going on

Please notice that the debated material Allies of World War II is long standing and the debate is going on you do not just remove the disputed text when the talk page discussion is going on. --E-960 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello NE Ent, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

JudeccaXIII, thanks! Merry Christmas to you also. NE Ent 00:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please notice that the material is long standing and the debate is going on

Please notice that the debated material Allies of World War II is long standing and the debate is going on you do not just remove the disputed text when the talk page discussion is going on. --E-960 (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

0RR

Did you see my reply at WT:Edit warring#0RR? My comment is not important, but the case was extremely unusual and a worry IMHO. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder -- replied there. NE Ent 18:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERM Request

Your WP:PERM request has been completed. — xaosflux Talk 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

While you are of course perfectly allowed to tell me to bugger off, I cannot help but to express slight surprise at this (kind of unusual) request, perhaps especially so since I was the one that flagged you as autopatrolled about a year ago, since you were obviously trusted not to create pages that required extensive cleanup or CSD; the autopatrolled right benefits the NPP'ers more than the user who has it, after all, as you pointed out yourself, which led me to remove you from the "needs-to-be-patrolled" list by flagging you as autopatrolled. Can I ask why you asked for it to be removed, even if only to satisfy my genuine curiosity? :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Bugger off! I requested autopatrolled for this account for obvious maintenance activities when npp would be superfluous. I had created User:Alt Content to experience how the community functions for new users per WP:SOCK#LEGIT and would use that to create articles which would benefit from a second check for notability. As that account has (mostly) served its purpose, and I wanted to create Belvoir Media Group on this account, it seemed appropriate to have autopatrolled removed. NE Ent 00:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

DP has said a couple of times now that you were specifically aware that he would be gone for a month before you filed your arbitration request. I cannot find anywhere where DP or ESL said anything of the sort on wiki, particularly to you, but really to anyone. Before I make a comment about this, did you get an email or something from him to this effect? Or do you know of somewhere that he said this on-wiki, and I missed it (although I looked pretty thoroughly)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Three days before NE Ent filed the request, DP claimed he was "returning" to the discussion and made no mention of the impending arrival of his in-laws. The discussion might have continued there on his talk page had he not closed it the way he did. Msnicki (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't receive any off-wiki communication regarding this. DP may or may not have made such a statement, but I'm not aware of it. The timing of the filing was based the the AN close of my request for review of the RFCU deletion on Saturday, 24 Oct -- see User_talk:NE_Ent/Archive/2014#Eats_Shoots_and_Leaves where the closing admin clarified his reasoning following a request I left on there talk page. Do to my work schedule I didn't have time to gather and format the request properly -- the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case clearly states This busy page is not the place to work up drafts. -- until the following Saturday, November 1 NE Ent 23:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have done a rather tedious and exhausting review of every single edit of DP and ESL since 20 October. Nowhere on-wiki prior to the ArbCom case filing was his impending absence mentioned, I'm now 100% certain. I'll post the timeline on the talk page in a minute, when so many conflicting claims have been made it's easy to lose track. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't edit my comments

Don't edit my comments anywhere on Wikipedia, ever. If you have a problem with something I've said, ask me to fix it, because I'm generally good natured about such requests. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 03:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As a guest on a privately owned website, I always have always attempted to follow its Wikimedia:Terms of Use to the best of my ability and understanding; such terms include following the local policy of removal of "clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Your implication [29] Only in death was dishonorable and socking, in my intepretation, meets that standard. Despite your false accusation "are you following me around, too" of stalking, I am not following you around but when I come across egregious personal attacks by any editor I remove them if I can. If you wish your comments -- which you agree "can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." -- not to be edited: follow site policies. Regarding your "good-nature" -- my (and other's) efforts to address inappropriate behavior the arbitration committee unanimously agreed was inappropriate resulted in you making ad hominem attacks on myself -- "headhunting", "harassment", "attack page". NE Ent 00:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't like you. Stay away from me. Don't edit my comments. Jehochman Talk 00:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello NE Ent, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda closed

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

1.1) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bog-standard

'Common' 'Unremarkable' 'without note' etc. Its etymology is uncertain. It is generally used to indicate something is run-of-the-mill... And I dont know where that one comes from either. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting -- didn't recognize it as apparently it's not American English -- and perhaps not so easy to translate [30] NE Ent 19:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you do it?

You've participated in so many AN/I discussions (that you weren't the subject of) and you're still alive! Nice! You must have a high level of tolerance and patience. Anyway, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Old joke (Muppet Version)
Tourist: Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?
New Yorker: Practice, man, practice.
Thanks, that made me laugh. Happy New Year! NE Ent 00:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NE_Ent/Archive/2014&oldid=1232494013"