User talk:CIreland/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

CIreland, I want you to take a few minutes of your time

and carefully read what I have written here. This is very important

I seriously don't know what do do anymore. Administrators at wikipedia has not only failed me, but they have also failed the articles and the wikipedia community. I have asked so many people for help over the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles. I have asked several administrators. They don't care. This issue can not be resolved, its impossible without direct involvement of an administrator, an administrator that puts his foot down. There is now other solution to this. I have tried, believe me, I have tried for so long to reason with that guy at the talkpage. I have tried to revert the article back to before the edit war because I believe its from there we should build up the article, not his twisted made up version, the guy has removed so much of her Syrian heritage, undermining everything Syrian about her, even removing the words "returned" and "hometown" when she returned to her hometown in Syria. It wasn't until just recently that I started adding some more info to the article, I added several sources showing that what he had deleted was indeed true and also corrected several things like her mothers name and rewrote some sections to fit the sources better.

This is the original article (slightly edited by HelloAnnyong) before the edit war compared to Arab Cowboys version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299905520&oldid=281326186

This is the original article (slightly edited by HelloAnnyong) before the edit war compared to my version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299903052&oldid=281326186

I am asking you now, please get directly involved in editing both the Asmahan and Farid al atrash articles or get some other administrator to do it. If not, this will continue, and I am so sick and tired of it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to get more people editing the article. To that end, I notice that the article has been claimed as being with the area of interest of four Wikiprojects. I would suggest that you make a short post at the talk page of each of these Wikiprojects, inviting, in a neutral manner, editors to give an opinion at the Request for Comment as the comments so far have been largely restricted to the current editors of the article. I think you will likely get the best response from Wikiproject:Biography, as that is the most active of the four. If it still proves difficult to get other opinions after this measure, I will look again for other ways to resolve the dispute. CIreland (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

CIreland, Arab Cowboy will not listen to other opinions, I asked for an official 3O and he supported my version minus one single sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=299901100&oldid=299900516

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299908041&oldid=299907400

The 3O later asked for a RfC that has been added here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies

The only two "people" that has showed up are one account and one IP, both of them have never posted on Wikipedia before and both of them are using the exact same language and phrases as Arab Cowboy, Even the 3O became suspicious. I know its him, I cant prove it, but I know.

I ask you know one more time, please get an administrator directly involved in editing the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User Supreme Deliciousness is not interested in truth or facts on Wikipedia articles. All he wants to do is to make everything/everyone Syrian. This has brought him the wrath of many users, hence his hellucinations and conspiracy theory allegations. Please see other users's comments on his edits.

User Supreme Deliciousness's claims are biased and arguably racist. 'As other users have described User Supreme Deliciousness:

"I hope you are banned from Wikipedia soon for your comments on this and many other pages. You are a disgrace to Wikipedia (if not the human race)."--Gilabrand (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC). Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Za%27atar#Israeli_culture_theft

and

"Please understand that this is an encyclopedia. Statements must be supported by verifiable sources, opinion is not enough. Edits that are aggressive, highly political attacks on particular ethnic and national groups are not welcome here. And please try to read up on a topic before you edit. Your assertion that is is somehow illegitimate for a nation to adopt a foodstuff Za'atar is absurd. And your assertion that the Druze are not Arabs because they are not genetically Arab is not merely ridiculous, it is borderiline racism. Historicist (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Historicist (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)". Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#Settle_down

The truth of the matter is that User Supreme Deliciousness is the one who deserves to be permanently banned, not just blocked, for the following reasons:

1. User Supreme Deliciousness has been edit warring with numerous editors, and most lately myself. Please see comments by other users about User Supreme Deliciousness at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Za%27atar#Israeli_culture_theft, among many many other pages including User Supreme Deliciousness's own user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness#Settle_down, where User Supreme Deliciousness is proving to be unfit for Wikipedia.

2. User Supreme Deliciousness has previously taken his "crying wolf" complaints to two other administrators who have responded by telling User Supreme Deliciousness that they were practicing the same behavior of which they were complaining. Evidence: you personally blocked him yesterday for the same allegation he was making against me. Please see also:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

I can bring forth many more.

3. User Supreme Deliciousness has gone around using my contributions page, undoing every change that I had made to every page on Wikipedia, even on pages where they had previously shown no interest, and inviting other users to intensify the edit wars against me on all of those pages. Please see:

(1)

(2)

Again, I can bring forth many more.

All evidence from reliable sources has shown that Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin. Yet, SD refuses to accept this fact. Instead, he's crying fowl and making false allegations all over Wikipedia. We had agreed to stop the edit warring and let the RfC take its course. SD's accusations here, here, and here, at least, are more than sufficient. Why do they need to be in the RfC?

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me make a few points to both of you: The first, and most important, is that any administrator, myself included, who becomes involved in editing the article is then immediately forbidden from taking any administrative action in that area. We are not allowed to use administrator functions to enforce our opinions content.

The only way that content disputes are resolved on Wikipedia is by consensus is that means getting more opinions on the issue. I'm going to drop a note at a few Wikiprojects to try to get this happen.

An alternative you may consider is a Request for mediation in which someone with experience mediating difficult disputes would assist in finding common ground. CIreland (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Danger Will Robinson

CIreland: Can you please amend this edit history to eliminate the edit of July 7, 2009? [1] Sometimes, kids don't think, and this is one of those times. The contributor listed the name of a Federal Judge's "favorite niece". I left a message for the contributor to avoid ever doing so again. Thanks, and please let me know when it's done. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs) has already done what you asked. CIreland (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I thought he might still be on vacation.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Collectionian

I'm a bit surprised by your block. Reviewing the case shows Marktreut repeatedly adding the same contentious material. Collectonian took it to the talk page, and she, KrebMarkt, and Dandy Sephy were unanimous in opposing the addition. Marktreut was the lone support, but continued to insert. Given that consensus, Collectonian removed the material. When she approached 3RR, she took it to WP:AN3. Where's the blockable behaviour?—Kww(talk) 13:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked on the basis that Collectonian was edit-warring and that discussing the issue at the same time does not excuse it, especially in the manner she was doing with remarks like "Yes, Dandy moved it because unlike you, he is trying to help this article retain its good article status." is disruptive. Consensus on the talk page emerged only after the revert-war between Collectonian and Marktreut. CIreland (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Heya, Collectionian has raised some reasonable points for consideration on their talk page. I've put their last request for unblock on hold pending any review by you. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 20:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to unblock User:Andi 3ö

I've looked at User:Andi_3ö's block request, and it sounds reasonable to me. His "edit war" is that he's redirecting a page that one other user doesn't want redirected. But the page is marked for deletion, with a reasonable consensus that the page shouldn't have its own separate article, meaning that Andi 3ö's redirect is perfectly appropriate. I think the block is unnecessary, and I think it should be removed. Do you agree? rspεεr (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time of the edit war the page was not up for deletion and there was no clear consensus on the talk pages, despite Andi_3ö's claim to the contrary at WP:AN3. There was no emergency that meant that the material had to be reverted immediately or that meant that regular discussion or some form of dispute resolution was inappropriate to find consensus. Consequently, I blocked all edit-warring parties and I still believe the block was warranted - believing you are right (or even being right) is not an excuse for edit-warring. Normally I will unblock almost anyone I have blocked for edit-warring if they agree not to edit articles in the disputed area for the remaining duration of the block; if you wish to extend such an offer to Andi_3ö, I would have no problem with that. CIreland (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point about why an edit warring block was appropriate. I do find Andi 3ö's unblock request reasonable, though, and I'd hate to deny it. So I'd like to go make the offer you describe. Thanks for your input. rspεεr (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Heyo

Do you figure this should be clarified somewhere or should your comment only be raised if a similar issue returns?[2]
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to think about this and look over some past ArbCom cases and clarifications. I might submit a new clarification request depending on what I read. CIreland (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note me if you need some briefing on the history. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...

Did you have some reason for rollbacking my clerk actions here, or was this a mistake? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete error of which I was totally unaware. Almost certainly I misclicked "rollback" on the watchlist entry. Apologies. CIreland (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I thought. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Christina Ricci

• 19:59, 26 May 2008 LessHeard vanU protected Christina Ricci ‎ (vandalism by ip range, not able to block all & blocks are after the fact [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)))
• 10:59, 1 June 2008 CIreland protected Christina Ricci ‎ (Renewed identical vandalism by IPs after protection expired/ [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 10:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)))

That was sixteen months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I have started at talk:Christina Ricci. --TS 06:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this (at least no more worthwhile opinion than any other editor). The protecting admin was not me, it was User:Acalamari so I'm not sure why you are asking my opinion but not his. CIreland (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I really should learn to read protection log expiry dates properly. --TS 17:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I wondered what that was about. A weird screen popped up and I couldn't get rid of it. Hope I didn't take up too much of your time. Serendi^podous 20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(Revert: unsourced, dubious)

I wanted to revert as vandalism, was it vandalism, it was designed to alter to a falsehood and was almost immediatly googl-able to the false information. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, obviously. Moreover, removal of unsourced potentially controversial information from a BLP is not typically counted as a revert for editors subject to a revert restriction, if that is what you are worried about. CIreland (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Yes it is, I notice although you agree with me that you did not revert as vandalism, at least you and other good editors are there to take care, so I am attempting to leave anything that although is clearly wrong, is not totally clear vandalism, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain closing edit war

A user BC opened a case about a problematic selection of reverts by a user who has already been notified of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and your closing remarks are merely to warn me? What exactly does stale mean? Can you confirm my hunch that there was a successful gaming of the system by having the user's friends come along and devert the discussion to other issues besides that of user Nableezy? You can answer here. --Shuki (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Stale means that because the edit-war was no longer when I reviewed the report ongoing blocks can no longer be justified as preventative. I did not warn you, I merely notified you of the existence of a relevant arbitration case; I always make such notifications to all parties to an edit-war who have not already had such a notification. The notification in no way implies any wrong-doing on your part; it is merely to apprise you of the full background to the topic area. CIreland (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems very odd. Most 3rr decisions either decide whether the user was in error or not and/or whether the user was edit warring or not. Granted that most of the time, a second before posting to the 3rr page, the accused will get a warning on his talk page, will back off and the edit war will take at least a 24h break (unless the user wants to commit 'suicide' which seems to occur often...) and since this specific report of 3rr was turned into a discussion and then 'stale', you are essentially advising future complaints to take this strategy of canvassing editors into a longish discussion until the complaint is 'stale'. It worked. The complaint was made and the issue was closed by ignoring it. Frankly, I was expecting much a quicker decision by admins following the 3rr page and a decision in either direction as well. --Shuki (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Shuki was expecting an admonishment or follow through on previous sanctions. I like Nableezy but he does edit in a fashion that is not OK. I brought this discussion up here.Cptnono (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A thread that may concern you is here. –xeno^talk 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would you have a problem if we reduced the length to 'time served' as long as the editor avoid the article in question for the original length of the block? –xeno^talk 14:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would typically make such an offer to someone I have blocked for edit-warring. I tend to simultaneously imply that participation at the talk page is expected. However, I also note that this is Vintagekits' third non-overturned block for edit-warring this year. Feel free to act at your discretion - I am going shopping so won't be able to engage in wiki-negotiation until this evening. CIreland (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm against shortening the block; leniency would send the wrong message to this editor. --John (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

arbcom enforcement

i submitted a request [3] but messed up the formatting. another editor tried to help, but it still isn't quite right. since you were the one who notified the user in question of sanctions, could you help me format my request properly? thanks, and sorry for my incompetence. :) untwirl(talk) 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Book of Mormon semi-protection

That anonymous IP is back to vandalizing the text at Book of Mormon again. Could we get permanent semi-protection there? No amount of temporary IP blocking has been effective. The moment that the anon IP gets off being blocked, he/she starts vandalizing the article again. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

I have semi-protected the article for 1 month. CIreland (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see if our anon IP shows up again once semi-protection is over. Hopefully, he/she will be discouraged. (Taivo (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks!

Thanks for the speedy speedy-deletions. One day I'll have my userspace down to just a few pages. Until then, {{db-userreq}} is my favourite template.

Cheers, ~SpK 15:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Block of User:Captain Occam

I apologize if this is not the proper place to voice this concern. I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, but I feel that something needs to be said regarding this block.

I feel that you may have been misled by T34CH in the block of User:Captain Occam. The diffs he provided show that: (1) Captain Occam made 3 changes to the statement in question over a 24 hour period. As far as I know, this is not a violation of 3RR; and (2) In one of those changes, Captain Occam was applying the suggestions made by other users on the talkpage. He was not simply reverting to an older version, and other editors supported this change. I do not feel that this justifies a 72 hours block. Captain Occam has repeatedly requested that other editors refrain from editing this statement until we have reached a consensus, yet despite his requests, editors Aprock and T34CH feel justified in making the changes they desire against consensus. I can't speak for anyone else on the talkpage, but I certainly do not find Captain Occam's behavior disruptive, as he was simply trying to prevent changes from being made unilaterally while discussions on this statement were underway. I don't know if that makes any difference in your decision, but I would request that you please review the material again and reconsider your actions. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In evaluating the report, it is not possible that I was misled by T34CH since I did not look at the diffs he provided; I know from experience that it is wiser to simply examine the article's history and user's contributions; I only resort to the provided diffs if I can find no substance to the complaint. I drew the following conclusions when I evaluated the recent edits:

• Since his last block expired, Captain Occam has reverted seven times.
• Captain Occam is aware that edit-warring is forbidden, having been recently blocked for it.
• Captain Occam has reverted multiple different users.
• An argument of "my preferred version until consensus says otherwise" is not a valid reason to edit-war. (Not least because the same argument could be advanced by those supporting an alternate version.)
• There was no BLP or copyright issue; there was no emergency that meant the article had to reverted immediately.
• All disputants were editing in good faith and were making credibly competent edits.

I believe that the above points are more than sufficient grounds to prevent Captain Occam from editing the article for a few days. Of course, Captain Occam is free to request an unblock and so have his edits examined by a different administrator. CIreland (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For your information

If I re-add input to the discussion, I know you will just revert it anyway because you don't understand that you don't just remove other user's comments from such discussion pages unless they are vandalism but how dare you call it vandalism! I don't suppose you know anything about the Neutralhomer incident, do you?--219.89.57.102 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take you to AN/I--219.89.57.102 (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Sarkozy

There appears to be a mix up, between that articles Infobox & content, concerning Sarkozy's birthplace. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction, his father was born in Budapest. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I misread it too at first. If I get the urge I might rewrite the relevant paragraph of NS' bio. CIreland (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Farming Berbers

I have listed the article for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farming_Berbers. I thought that given Sophian's record, speedy deletion would suffice. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, CIreland. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of America First Credit Union

An editor has nominated America First Credit Union, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America First Credit Union and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. – Eastmain (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Australian Central Credit Union

An editor has nominated Australian Central Credit Union, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Central Credit Union and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. – Eastmain (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation

The copyright I get, but why was it deleted in seconds 3 times before a hangon could be put in, and why is it now protected against re-creation assuming the copyright gets fixed??? Bachcell (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask Orangemike, who deleted in that basis; I deleted purely on the copyright grounds - I didn't even read the article with regard to assertion of importance I just compared the words without consideration for their meaning. CIreland (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Good catch! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lori Heart Deletion

• Lori heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why did you delete my page for Lori Heart? She is a real person —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britzzey81 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also a real person; that doesn't mean I ought to have an encyclopaedia article. The article I deleted did not indicate what makes Lori Heart important. CIreland (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your edit to WT:3RR, which was merged into this page, was months ago, but we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Athlone link

By all means delete my link; I lack the time, energy, and inclination to play edit war with you. But I don't particularlly appreciate your message. If you specifically object to linking to the Town's most active social network, then rather than deleting the link, be specific and let us all know why it should be deleted; perhaps the discussion of the link would be the place for that. Regarding Wikipedia standards, I have been contributing on and off for years without encountering negative messages such as yours. If I have violated some specific standard then by all means mention that in the discussion. Cheers, Dmccabe (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you placed a 'do not delete' template to my talk page and labeled me as a spammer. Now don't you think that's just a little uncalled for? Troll through my contributions for since 2005 and find even one instance of me adding spam. I think an apology is in order.Dmccabe (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong-arming in uncontestably unsuitable links is spamming. Given that within minutes of me semi-protecting the page in response to the harassment detailed in this report, you turned up to continue to revert, I think dropping you a reminder about our external links policy was a very mild response. CIreland (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

'Strong-arming'? 'Continuing' to revert? From my point of view all of your responses to me are to a single insertion of a useful link. I won't be dragged into other issues you may have. I objected, not to the reminder, but to the 'do not delete' tag that listed me as a spammer. An apology would be a civilized response. This message will be my last response.Dmccabe (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Ducktastic.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Ducktastic.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. emerson7 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much

For blocking the anon IP that has been vandalising the Aileen Wuornos page all morning today and for few days. Very much appreciated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for point me to that page. I note that it says, in part, the following:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are...page blanking....

Please don't blank pages, or effectively summarily delete a page that you yourself on an earlier summary quite correctly said does not meet speedy deletion criteria.

I'd also note that this story will run over all the Sunday newspapers - and if Perroncel does, as is now being suggested (albeit at an early stage) sell her story, there will be much more to say. Certainly stuff which merits her own article. I also note what I said on the relevant article's talk page, that even the High Court said she is famous. Hibbertson (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about WP:ER

I requested a review on WP:ER, but as I'm used to typing my username in all lowercase, I think it screwed something up. Should I just move it to the capitalised version or is it fine the way it is? Thanks in advance. XXX antiuser ^eh? 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The subpage was created but was never transcluded. I have transcluded it for you; I doubt that the problem was connected with your use of lower-case name. CIreland (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for your help. XXX antiuser ^eh? 04:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What an idiot

Please unprotect the page! MickNacMee (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

Oops, I didn't realize a second one had been added, thanks for the fix. Prodego ^talk 01:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:BBC Television Centre Newsroom.jpg deleted

Hi, I received a message telling me this image had been nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of an image from Flickr. This image was from Flickr, but I contacted Adele Prince to ask for permission for its use on Wikipedia, which she gave. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Under what license did she release it? CIreland (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember for certain but if the image can be undeleted then it can be checked. With images I obtained with permission from Flickr, I passed on the agreement from the uploaders to Commons. If I am mistaken with this image then I apologise but I definitely received permission from Adele Prince. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The image was marked as being under copyright but with permission for Wikipedia to use it. For our purposes, that's not an acceptable license (and is thus eligible for speedy deletion) as the image is still classed as non-free. Hence, with such a license it would not be accepted at commons - you would need to get it released under a CC-BY-SA license or freer with appropriate proof - typically the copyright holder would update the flickr page to reflect this - when I checked the flickr page still said "All Rights Reserved". CIreland (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I'll get back in contact with Adele Prince and see what can be done. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Khaosan

I am on one side. The editor is obviously having trouble differentiating between their user page and article space, and keeps removing the db-test tag. Please take a look. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not a test page, just language difficulties. It's a valid subject for an article - so much so that we already have one. I have redirected. CIreland (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I thought the name sounded familiar! Will double-check next time. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yosef Babad (Hebrew Theological College)

Hi, Can you please userfy the article. I have yet to get a chance to work on it. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, just the cross-namespace redirect. The article was moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Yosef Babad (Hebrew Theological College) by Spartaz (talk · contribs) in January. CIreland (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

oh, ok :) i saw some "funny stuff" go across my watchlist and thought it was deleted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutrition - don't know if my revert of the anon-IP overwrote you

Sorry if I did, could you please check? --Morenooso (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, you can't "undo" page protection by reverting. CIreland (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool jelly beans!! : )--Morenooso (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee edit

hi CIreland. Regarding Polly Toynbee edit, the information of her political leanings is in no way pejorative. She openly aspouses both left-wing views and socially liberal ones in the National Press in the UK. It is important that wiki gives as much informtation as possible and that it doesn't filter anything out to satisfy certain predjudices. I ask you to stop the content deletion being performed and leave my valid information in tact.

Yo

Please could List of UFO sightings be protected for only, say, 12 hours, so as to make sure the freak goes away but is avaliable for me to edit tomorrow? 86.177.218.90 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do. CIreland (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism was from logged-in users, so semi doesn't help; anyway, they have now all been blocked; Jason Owen (talk · contribs), Baby P's mum (talk · contribs) and Stephen Barker (talk · contribs).

Thus, could you please consider lifting the protection so that the IP user above can resume editing? (Per their talk page). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(Struck 'semi doesn't help' - I see they were new accounts, thus it did help. But hopefully the ducks have flown; I'll try to watch it too  Chzz  ►  00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

P.S. I suppose that ducks could count as UFOs :-)  Chzz  ►  00:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I will try to check on the page. I also gently mentioned to the IP that they shouldn't refer to another editor as a 'freak'.  Chzz  ►  16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section

Hi, I think that when I wrote it that drork was saying that nableezy had brought sandstein into the situation with Amoruso, it seems that either I had misread or he has refactored the comment, regardless, I am removing it as offtopic. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Unomi (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Solomon Trujillo

Hi there what was the issue with Solomon Trujillo? I was trying to figure out what happened to the page. Was it deleted? Since I have it on my watch list I was trying to figure out if there was a discussion? Ozdaren (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There was some particularly nasty vandalism to the page (and, later that evening, also to the talk page) - it was sufficiently serious that simply reverting was insufficient. In order to remove the vandalism from the history, I temporarily deleted the page. I then immediately restored the page, but without the unwanted revisions (when undeleting, admins can select which revisions to restore). That meant that the offending material was visible only to admins (who can view deleted revisions) and it would appear to others as if the edits had never occurred (except the logs will show me deleting and then undeleting the page). However, the material was so bad that that was only a temporary fix; I then emailed WP:OVERSIGHT to have the deleted revisions fully suppressed (i.e. not viewable by anyone). CIreland (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought there may have been some tools of that nature available to admins. Although there was some lively discussion regarding Solomon Trujillo (he was a figure of great interest to the Australian community), vandalism and attacks are not acceptable. Thanks again for replying, it's good to learn more about wikipedia. Ozdaren (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Carmen

Your edit appears to have removed sources, although your edit summary says "rmv unsourced". Did you click on the wrong thing, perhaps? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I made a mistake, checking it out now.... CIreland (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now, thanks for the note. CIreland (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Romac

Regarding [4]: With him taking a self-imposed break and you warning him it loks like my report should be closed without any further action. I am under the impression that it cannot be blanked. Would you mind closing it out? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (Result: ) Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the report at WP:AN3; I'll take a look. CIreland (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks for chiming in. I'll take this opportunity to not hit the revert button myself.Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Clreland, I appreciate your position. I just want to note that I was reverting section blanking, which I saw as vandalism. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Edward R. Fitzgerald

Do you mind since you protected the page if I add a confirmed sock tag to this user? This user has been confirmed as sockpuppet of Sorrywrongnumber at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sorrywrongnumber. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I will reply by email. CIreland (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no I won't - you don't have it enabled. Sorry then, I would rather it was left deleted, as recreation ought not to happen without consulting another editor, who it would be inappropriate to identify here. CIreland (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks for responding. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not yet but is imminent

Resignation imminent --Dogjumpsoverthecat (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Block

Hi Clreland,

I'm aware that I was blocked by you for 24 hours due to reverting and for edit warring on two articles. I believe this block was unfair since I was never even given the opportunity to justify my actions. I had decided to take a look at Mikrobølgeovn (talk)'s contributions, and was concerned to see that many of his edits consisted of pushing "Israeli military victory" into various articles regarding Israel's wars/battles. Many of these assertions did not have consensus, and so I removed them, yes, all within a 24 hour period (though I did not realize this was an offence). I realize I was also blocked for edit warring on List of wars 1945–1989. However, I was already warned to cease edit warring, and prior to the block, I had already agreed to use the discussion page and to stop edit warring, as can be seen here. Regarding the Yom Kippur War, I don't believe that was enough to justify a block, especially since all my reverts were intended to maintain the accuracy of the article, and to prevent POV pushing by Jiujitsuguy (talk), who appears intent on ruining the article's FA status. His actions greatly concern me, especially since it appears he took advantage of my temporary absence to once again remove referenced material from the infobox, to the protest of others. I just wanted to justify my actions to you, as I do not wish to gain an early reputation of a relentless reverter. Respectfully, ElUmmah (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have had my differences with Jiujitsuguy in the past, so I hesitate to pile on here. But how to deal with a situation where an editor has come to Wikipedia to edit almost exclusively on Arab-Israeli conflict/war articles, and invariably goes to these articles' infoboxes and pushes "Decisive Israeli Victory!" or somesuch. Frankly this behavior almost always stirs up conflict among editors. I have advised ElUmmah not to get sucked into edit-warring, but it seems he rightly feels that standing down gives Jiujitsuguy/Mikrobølgeovn the "victory" they seem to be fighting for. Might it be possible to control or stop such editing under WP:COI provisions, that is, Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is just as likely that he is trying to improve Wikipedia. Regardless, this isn't the correct venue to be seeking a block and you should at least notify him. Furthermore, accusing him of trying to ruin an FA is way out of line. That article should have been delisted long ago and he could have easily created the FAR after it was recommended by one of the FAR folks if he wanted it demoted. Wrong venue though so please open this up over there, ANI, or AE. Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted here not to get JJG blocked, but, as mentioned above, to justify why i made a bunch of reverts in such a short time span which resulted in my temporary block. Though I do agree with RomaC, Jiujitsuguy is a fine editor even if I might not agree with all of his edits. He and I have already begun what will (hopefully) be a positive collaboration process on the Yom Kippur War article. No need to get all worked up. ElUmmah (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clear. M first line was directed at RomaC's COI comment.Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Dad's Army episodes copyright concern

Hi there - on the contrary to your concern about copyright infringement, I suspect that the David Croft website has simply copied and pasted the information from this site, which is kindof a nice tribute I guess. I know that I wrote some of the descriptions used on the page, so I wouldn't worry about copyright infringement. If anything it's the other way, but as it's the writer's website... Bob talk 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you certain? This diff [5] show almost all the material being added by RHB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in February 2007. Unless RHB an alternate account of yours? CIreland (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean - the earlier descriptions are quite a bit shorter, aren't they? I was pretty certain I'd written those, but maybe that was the earlier shorter ones from when it was part of the main DA page. Having said that, the whole edit is pretty enormous, almost like a "written in a sandbox"-type transfer - it seems to have lots of other references and other material added in that edit as well. I think it's probably worth waiting for a response from RHB, as I get the impression the Croft website is quite new and might have borrowed the text from here. Bob talk 16:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, after a bit of looking around, I notice the page for Oh Dr Beeching is also duplicated almost verbatim from the List of Oh, Doctor Beeching! episodes, which I started. Also, the summaries used for Allo Allo are much shorter, as are the WP ones, so I think it's a fair assumption that it's the other way around. Bob talk 16:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When I was writing all of that up I tended up use the book as a reference, so I'm fairly sure his website have copied it from here rather than the other way round. As Bob notes above multiple sitcom webpages correspond exactly to his website's summaries, which itself is more recent than most of the edits on the corresponding Wikipedia pages. RHB - Talk 18:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. When I get time, I'll find out what the proper procedure (I seem to recall that there is one) is for contacting a website owner is to ask them to give proper attribution. CIreland (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Gray

Cheers for saving that page dude, i'm not even a fan of Slipknot, but that excessive vandalism angered me, absolutely no respect. Sepmix (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, it wasn't me that was vandalizing the Paul Grey page. It was some douchebag troll called Ahpook or whatever. I was trying to FIX the page! Look at the page's history before you starting shaking your finger. Sheesh. I try to help Wikipedia and this is the thanks I get? Yummgumm —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

I didn't single out anybody, it was being edited by multiple disrespectful idiots. Sepmix (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Troy King Article

I am slightly confused about the revision that happened to that article earlier. Granted I know very little about how some of these processes work, but was the reversion done by some sort of automatic tool? I'm just curious about how it happened so I can be prepared in the future. I had been editing a major addition on the site and when saving the edit conflict caused a loss of my work. I'd also like to know so I can share with my professor who encouraged our con law class to work on the site.

Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Alaclerk (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the editor who reverted you was a bit trigger happy when he saw a section be blanked. I don't know enough to say whether I agree with your edit, but it was clearly in good faith and should not have been reverted without comment. I asked the reverting editor for an explanation but he appears to be offline. CIreland (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

AN3

I swear I refreshed AN3 just before blocking User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. If you would like to unblock with the rationale you gave at that board I would not object. See my blocking summary for my analysis of the situation. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ach, what a pain. What's your opinion of the BLP problem claim? CIreland (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not find it compelling. There is talkpage discussion (started by LAEC, a point in their favor), but it looks like consensus rejected the wording twice. Their comments at the AN3 report do not give me great hope, though. If you think it is iffy enough for BLP/N, we can leave the article protected with a conditional or unconditional unblock. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I looked at the talk page, I saw two editors (LAEC and Ink Falls) arguing one way and two others (Tom and DougWeller) arguing the other. I found both sides plausible and, including my own judgment, decided that hedging with protection was both fairest and assumed the good faith of all parties. I would prefer if LAEC were unblocked, in the interest of consistency and, in my judgment, fairness, but will only do so with your blessing. CIreland (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think LAEC is wrong on the BLP... but not egregiously so. Stating the SPLC's take on what is a hate group as if it were objective fact is, I believe, incorrect, but even with that perspective, I think the amount of BLP damage is mitigated by groups vs. people being named, as well as the fact that we're not making up new assertions here, just reiterating those from a very high-profile group. I would favor him being unblocked, but I think this is part of the reason I started WP:CRYBLP... I think in this case, a marginal BLP claim is being made essentially as a way to get around 3RR. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I am convinced - LAEC unblocked, thank you both for the discussion. Hopefully this can be resolved while the page is protected. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(@ Jclemens)I agree that the claim is marginal, but I am reticent to block an editor when it is credible that he/she believes the marginal claim rather than, hypothetically, is exploiting a marginal claim in bad faith. Talk page discussion and the agreement of another editor in that discussion are additional factors in making a difficult call. CIreland (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely--I agree that blocking someone who thinks they're upholding BLP is an unfortunate outcome, and should be avoided when there's an acceptable alternative. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Edasent

Saw that you blocked this user. This user name appears to be an alter ego of User:Everton Dasent - not sure if that's relevant... – ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but since that account hasn't edited since February and the username similarity obvious (so he's not avoiding scrutiny), I'm going to AGF and suppose he lost his password or something - I don't think the multiple accounts are an issue. However, the previous warnings about neutrality in BLPs at User talk:Everton Dasent would probably be a factor in the nature of any future sanctions, if needed. CIreland (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see additions to the Peter Holmes a Court discussion page answering Stifle concerns about some material. Please also look at the sockpuppet case involving the complainant Berkinstock , which is integral to disputes about the relevant entry. Edasent (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Uffie

I noticed that you protected the Jeffree Star page and it has became an excellant wikipedia article. I am not an administrator so I can not protect pages. But the Uffie article and her singles/albums are subject to constant edit warring by people who try to cite itunes charts and not official charts. Several pieces of information on the page are false or poorly uncited. I've noticed that several editors have tried to correct the pages mistakes but have had their changes undone/changed. Uffie's fans have created a horrible article depirved of neutrality and they don't know the difference between a EP that is a single and an EP that is a minialbum. Burnberrytree (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a bif different from the Jeffree Star issues. It would be better if you listed this at WP:RFPP because I'm not familiar enough with the content to make a judgment here - I really know next to nothing about anything in popular music since 1985 so I'm not comfortable dealing with this. Sorry; if you need help listing it at WP:RFPP, I can help with that though. CIreland (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, I didn't know how to proceed. Burnberrytree (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:Breein1007

Re "demonstrates a persistent pattern of poor behaviour that has gone unaddressed by isolated blocks";

My god it took a long time for an admin to come to this obvious conclusion. Thanks for taking the time to review thuroughly. NickCT (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Just want to make you aware of this comment: [6] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And I just want to request that you look very closely at the list of evidence this user supplied, combined with his own history, and seriously comment on whether or not it is a frivolous report. He was recently topic banned for 30 days for having a battleground mentality, and now he has brought a list of things such as "canvassing" when another user asked me for help and "asking an Israeli admin" for rollback rights, as if that shows I did anything wrong. It's really obvious he is grasping at straws here to get me banned which is really unfortunate, because it proves that the 30 day topic ban didn't work. His battleground mentality is stronger than ever, and for the record, many of the edit warring citations he listed, he was also involved with. As for what I have done wrong, I did go overboard on the Gaza Flotilla article when it was just created because people were writing ridiculously wrong and unsourced things so I kept deleting them - but I already got blocked for that. Breein1007 (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot a key one: his claim that I purposely communicated with another user in Hebrew so that nobody else would understand. That's complete bullshit and the fact that he included it as evidence in an AE says a lot about his mentality. What happened to WP:AGF? This user has been assuming bad faith about me and any other Jews/Israelis for a long time, and he was sanctioned for it in the past after consistently deleting things because they came from Jewish/Israeli sources, which supposedly are unreliable because of that fact. Now, since I chose to talk to someone who clearly struggled with English in his native Hebrew, apparently it's an evil secret plan to take over the world. Breein1007 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you are continuing to comment at AE, I really would appreciate a response. If you are choosing to ignore me you have that right, so this will be my last comment here should you choose not to reply. I'm not trying to pester, but I think my concerns need to be addressed - especially when you consider that additional editors raised similar concerns at AE. Breein1007 (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better if both of you raise matters at the arbitration enforcement page or a similarly public forum. I am reticent to use email or my talk page to discuss this. CIreland (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Annette Andre

Seriously you ought to be shot for deleting that article from wikipedia. Of all the lazy, ignorant things to do. You could have found a source in a minute and saved it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete that article, no-one did. And, in spite of my laziness and ignorance, I can read a log. I would also advise you that, whilst I don't care either way about your ill-considered insults so long as they are directed at me, you should not address anyone else in that manner. I cannot be bullied and I will certainly not let you bully others. CIreland (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a possible RfA bid (Richwales)

Hi. I'm considering a possible future RfA bid and have been spending some time preparing Q&A material. I'd be grateful for any feedback you might be willing to offer on what I've written so far (see here). I'm asking you in particular because you were, to a limited extent, involved in some of the discussions we tried to have about Illegal immigration to the United States (at a point where we got sidetracked over the activities of one multi-IP anon editor). Thanks. Richwales (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on RfA but I would offer some advice and point some potential areas of difficulty....

• • User:Richwales/Drafts/RfA Q&A has a couple of issues:
    • It's far too long; you will get a "tl;dr" response from some people.
    • Many editors come to RfA and look at a candidate's statement and contributions for a reason to oppose them. It's a regrettable approach, but it's the way it is. Consequently, the more detailed your statement, the more likely you'll say something the will be mis-interpreted, badly phrased or just be contrary to some random editor's pet cause. Keep it short, precise and leave no room for ambiguity. The question on Ignore All Rules and what you say about unregistered editors are especially risky in this regard.
    • Drop the phrase "fighting vandalism" for something less aggressive. Also, the phrase "hacker skills" makes you sound silly; pick a phrase like "computer knowledge" or somesuch.
  • Given you have highlighted dealing with vandalism in Q1, you will be challenged on your lack of reports to WP:AIV; if you want to retain Answer 1 as it currently is, you should start patrolling Recent Changes.
  • Further to the above the shortness of this might cause some problems.
  • In Q3 and Q5 you should more prominently highlight the Dispute Resolution processes you engaged in.
  • Some general advice on RfA:
    • Sometimes you will be asked a question on a current "hot" topic (a current example would be Flagged Revisions; previous, but recurring, examples have been BLP and Admin Recall). This is often an editor using RfA make a point; from your perspective, it will often be the case that any detailed statement of your opinion is going to get you opposed by a significant minority no matter how you answer. Either don't answer the question or combat politics with politics and simply state that you will follow whatever community consensus decides.
    • Some questions (e.g. What is the difference between a block and a ban?) are not there to test what you know, as such, but whether you are sufficiently diligent to find the right answer. Getting this kind of question wrong is bad not only because it demonstrates a lack of knowledge but, more importantly, that you were not familiar enough with policy and expectations to go look up the right answer.
    • Get someone to nominate you. Some editors will oppose purely on the basis of self-nomination, even if they do not give that as a rationale.
    • Greater weight tends to be given to more recent activity so try especially to highlight good recent editing.
    • RfA is not the place for bold statements, florid rhetoric or, worst of all, opinions. Try to be conservative; you'd be surprised what can get people's backs up.

CIreland (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Richwales (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CIreland. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 06:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

China terminology at AN3

Thank you for that close. That was pretty much my conclusion on looking into it last night, but given the history of the topic area I was not sure if a warning or some less formal guidance would be needed. Good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AN3

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_Wittsun_reported_by_User:_Stonemason89_.28Result:.29? Since you posted your last comment, Wittsun has made one more reversion to Reverse Discrimination, and since all four reversions were within a 24-hour period, he has just violated 3RR. You might want to reconsider your Decline decision.

This case seems almost like a classic case of Freudian projection; Wittsun keeps accusing me of edit-warring and POV-pushing, even though it is obviously he who is the one doing these things. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like B (talk · contribs) took care of it. CIreland (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Although it's always good to be reminded to get tested for AIDS regularly, I appreciate your assistance. Beam 04:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips on trolling, I had never came across a troll on the internet. Any other helpful tips? Beam 04:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured you enjoyed stating the obvious and wanted to continue. Beam 04:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm a jerk and was trolling the troll. Giving him what he wanted gave me what I wanted: him being banned. I did appreciate the help though. Beam 04:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Power of Darkness (film)

Thanks for declining the speedy. I've added a bit. The Argentine films need a lot of work, there is only so much one has time for... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Do Not Issue Warnings Without Reading the Edits

Hi Fellow Editor, I have not reverted on Vegetarianism and Religion as you have implied on my talk page, but restored references and fact tags which other editors have tried to remove. If you look at their talk pages, I have issued appropriate warnings for this behaviour. Please remove the warning from my talk page, as I believe you have been misled in this instance. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note, I am tryig to get edits discussed, but my discuss tags keep getting removed. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

^^^ What a sanctimonious statement by User:Sikh-history. He penned undue warning on my talk page and then whines when he is handed over one. Giving a fact tag with illogical assertions to a referenced statement is what he considers proper behavior. Arjun^codename024 10:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm Arjun, please Assume Good Faith, and please do not make personal comments. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stub sorting. (You can help!)

Hello CIreland. Thank you for tagging an article as a stub. I noticed that you used the {{stub}} template. In the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could sort the article to a subcategory by using one of these templates instead. For example, you can use {{US-novelist-1960s-stub}} for an American novelist born in the 1960s. Of course, if you can't find a proper category, you can always use the {{stub}} tag and someone else will sort it for you, or you can propose a new stub template or category here. Thanks!

^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion

Your opinion is not really valid as a close statement. In fact it is not really valid at all in the Lar/WMC case as you appear to have little knowledge of it. Polargeo (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On what do you base your assumptions concerning what I have knowledge of? CIreland (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No basis except you have not applied consensus. Polargeo (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to pile it on, but if being an opposing party in an ArbCom case does not make an admin involved with respect to another user, what does? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read all the evidence and workshop suggestions for the arbitration case. Simply being named as a party does not make one involved, but you wrote opposing party - could you clarify the basis for that? CIreland (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn it. Could you provide evidence to why you feel fit to individually overrule? Polargeo (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Two admins are asking you not to make a unilateral descision here, please have the decorum to defer to the due process. Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Overrule who? Wordsmith and Bozmo, commenting in the closure section were both of a similar mind. CIreland (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(Re. to CI) I think the fact that WMC calls for Lar to be desysopped, and that Lar calls for WMC to be banned (and topic-banned), and KDP to be topic-banned makes it fairly clear. I don't think the fact that Lar also want's me de-sysopped has tainted my vision too much - or the fact that he wants someone who has voluntarily dropped the admin tools years ago and who is generally one of the calmest voices of reason to be preemptively blocked from regaining admin status... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, advocating sanctions or giving an opinion on editor behaviour does not make one involved - consider the implications of what that would mean elsewhere on Wikipedia if it did. Review some of the past requests at Arbitration Enforcement for examples. CIreland (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Lar is not an independent observer, he is a named party in this case and in the earlier "Stephan Schulz and Lar" case that was merged into the current case. In both cases, his claimed status as an uninvolved and unbiased admin is the reason he was named. I've commented in a few ArbCom cases, and it never was acceptable for one party to act as an admin against another party. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

CIreland, Lar has been pursued relentlessly by the same 5 or so editors, who believe he is involved because he has expressed an opinion on enforcing a behavioral standard in this topic area. Their definition of "involved" for Lar would open up every single admin action to scrutiny -- i.e. if an admin warns another editor, he has thus expressed an opinion on that editor and is thus "involved", disqualifying the admin from taking action if the editor does not comply. This would make admin involvement ripe for gaming, which is exactly what is happening here. The fact is, Lar has never made a single edit to the articles in this topic area, and in fact he's been harsh in enforcing behavioral guidelines against editors on all sides -- Marknutley, TheGoodLocust, GoRight, and I have all received either admonishment or sanction which Lar supported. The difference with Lar is that he holds vested contributors to the same standard, and that ruffles some feathers. ATren (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That is a misrepresentation of Bozmo's argument. But would it have hurt to leave it open? Answer, is no. Does it hurt to close it before people have a chance to comment? Answer yes. You waded in with a close and a closing summary based on your own ideas and not those of others. That is not acceptable. Polargeo (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would very much have "hurt to leave it open". Enforcement requests are already left to fester far too long. Moreover, if my closure had been significantly out-of-step with the remarks BozMo or Wordsmith I would not have closed it in such a manner, if at all. CIreland (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reply simply shows a lack of familiarity with the issues. Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have made it clear that you do not like my closure. I do not think your suggestion that I acted against consensus has merit. There are procedures for appealing closures detailed at the probation page, if you wish to pursue this matter, you should follow one of those procedures. CIreland (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I agree. But in the normal manner of these CC things this is now being used as a stick to beat me with. I would appreciate some input from you that this is just a disagreement and not some major admin war. Polargeo (talk)

I just saw that a few moments ago. I'll make a comment there shortly; I saw you revert my closure and the reversion by NW - I was quite happy to turn a blind eye and saw no good that could come of bringing it up; I'm still of that opinion. CIreland (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Climate Change probation

Please stay around and keep at it. Your continued helpful presence would be good. We need more uninvolved admins.--BozMo talk 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading the pages for the last couple of months now but haven't said anything earlier as I wanted to be sure I was as appraised of the issues as I could be. I intend to stick around but I see the case has gone to voting (or will do in 48 hours or so), so it may all become moot. CIreland (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet a fair sum that the decision will not make moot the need for sysops in the CC area—if anything, I expect (or perhaps hope) there will be a more organized way of drafting volunteers to hang around, although the reception you received won't exactly be part of the recruiting poster. I hope you stick around, an I'll try to avoid questioning your sanity if you do.SPhilbrickT 17:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see enforcement moved to WP:AE at the very least; there is a very different culture there that I think would cut down on some of the nonsense. CIreland (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that combining all of the general/discretionary sanctions into one enforcement noticeboard would help a lot. Thank you for making a decision so quickly with the Lar matter (I disagree with it, but at least it is a decision). Hopefully, we will continue to see you around. :) NW (Talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the critics run you off. You're needed here. GregJackP Boomer! 19:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I sent you a mail to the same effect (I guess it's in your spam folder if you want to go check?)... thanks for turning up, hope you stick around. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for watching my user page. Pinethicket (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IP edit warring

Hello CIreland. Yesterday you warned IP about edit warring. Today he did it again: [7];[8] Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Roy Hinkley

Another of user:Grundle2600's socks popped up. Would you mind taking the honor of blocking? Cheers, TMCk (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; blocked etc. CIreland (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, CIreland. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for removing PoV on my talk page.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 12:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the assist at Criticism of YouTube. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You may wish to take a look at the latest, since your warning, as reflected here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to take a closer look later today. CIreland (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Declined speedy of Genex

G'day from Oz; I must say I'm a bit perplexed by your declining the speedy deletion of Genex. I assume your rationale was the number of links to the article; I can't claim to be an expert on WP, but I wasn't aware that number of links was a criterion for declining a speedy, I have learnt something today :-) Most of the article links were meant for a former East German mail-order consumer-goods sales service or for a manufacturer of a computer game. I have delinked these and now, apart from lists, WP and User pages, and links via the airlines of Belarus template, only one article links to the Genex article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a couple of incoming links that referred to the airline - that implied that someone else had thought an article on the airline may be appropriate. Since speedy deletion is only for clear-cut uncontestable cases, I was not able to speedy delete. Additionally, the article was created by an established and experienced editor which gave me additional doubt with regard to speedy deletion. CIreland (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

EEML

Excellent point about WP:EEML from ANI, I've added a specific section about that to the discussion because I think it was an early point that was missed over some arguing, I definitely missed it and think it's an excellent case to point to. --WGFinley (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Thanks for the info on tagging articles for speedy deletion. -- Ice (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Brews and meta

By the way, Brews should be fully aware that the ban extends into meta discussion by now. It's been explained to him countless of times before, and he's even had an ARBCOM hearing specifically on the topic of his meta-contributions where he would continue the fights started at Talk:Speed of light and other pages. It got him a namespace ban on top of his topic ban.

The issue here is not that he's not aware of this, but that he acts cluelessly and he does not recognize the ban as being legit in the first place. So he will step over the line, only to retreat and say "But, I didn't violate the ban!". He was banned from the Wikipedia namespace, and then commented on admin recalls (got blocked for it) saying it was not "clear to him" that discussions taking place in the Wikipedia namespace were included in the Wikipedia namespace ban. And then the next week, he goes on to vote in some other issue in the Wikipedia namespace because it was not "clear to him" that voting was not allowed either. Just check his block log. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, and the history here, but it's fairly usual practice to cut editors a little slack at the very start of a topic ban in the interest of assuming good faith. A subsequent similar transgression would result in a certain block. CIreland (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Up to you, but these transgressions are already subsequent. Things like this were routine during the last topic ban which expired about a month and a half ago. About two weeks after the ban expired, there yet another ARBCOM hearing about this. And he's completely unapologetic about it, as you yourself saw just a while ago.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just gave an opinion, I don't intend to close the report this time. CIreland (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: NFCC

Pls explain your comment on my talk page....I didnt add any image on Miley Cyrus page and you mentioned that my edit added 4 images which were non-free and u reverted the edit. Pls explain your actions as i feel that you have made a mistake...Gprince007 (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey sorry for the mistake.....I reverted the edit by previous editor and failed to notice the non-free images .....Hope it fine now and i shall restore the content without the images....Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience...!!!!Gprince007 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My Appeal

You said at my appeal: "I concur with this assessment. I would add that JRHammond's best approach to getting the sanction lifted would be to spend some time editing harmoniously outside the Arab-Israel conflict topic area. Indefinite ought not necessarily to imply infinite."

Come now, and let us reason. You have not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal. Moreover, you have not substantiated the assessment you concurred with that my "talk page conduct has been disruptive". If that has been the case, I would be happy to acknowledge my fault and apologize to anyone I may have offended, but it would seem incumbent upon you, since you are supporting an indefinite ban against me, to at least offer a single example. Please show me where you think I've erred, so I can be aware of whatever actions of mine you think were inappropriate and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do so at my appeal (not here). Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to further lengthen the AE section by posting there unless it is absolutely necessary. Ling.Nut has adequately summarized the problematic behaviours although others have offered useful advice too. I would give you one piece of additional advice - your approach to the appeal is working against you and will likely been seen by others as demonstrating a tendentious approach. CIreland (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary to substantiate the basis for the ban by citing something I actually did or said that would warrant it, not by citing Ling.Nut, who similarly refused to substantiate his stated opinions with actual evidence of wrongdoing. If people aren't willing to point to even a single place where I violated Wikipedia policy in a manner warranting the ban, obviously, that is grounds to grant my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would point out, further, that by refusing to answer my question about what I actually did or said warranting this ban, it is all of you who are being tendentious:

"Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor: ... You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors." -- [9]

I could do without the hypocrisy, just as I could do without the demonstrable lies of Wgfinley serving as the basis for this ban, and so on. I am not the one being unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You make 3 points in your appeal. None of them appear valid.

1) The basis of point 1 is that WP:TE only applies to articles, not talk pages and that you have not edited in a partisan manner. WP:TE patently does apply to talk pages (e.g. You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. etc. etc.) That you have approached the area of conflict in a partisan manner is clear - the fact that your POV is obvious to everyone is sufficient evidence.

2) You assert that WGFinley has has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of authority and prejudice. To "substantiate" the opposite is to prove a negative; suffice to say that one misjudged block is not a pattern of anything. The outing accusation is flat-out specious - I also edit under my real name and, whilst I don't wish to see my shoe-size on-wiki, if someone googles my name and finds other stuff I have done, that's pretty much something I've waived the right to get annoyed about.

3) The nonsense with the edit-protected request was the final straw and your conduct surrounding it showed a continuing unwelcome approach to discussion. Others have already supplied multiple diffs of incivility and refusal to accept consensus (or lack of), I can repeat them if you wish.

CIreland (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking more time to comment.

(1) I see what you mean about certain aspects of WP:TE applying to talk pages, and I agree. That is indeed a flaw in my argument for appeal. However, you assert here, in pointing this out, that my "POV is obvious". But this is a moot point, and neither a basis to ban me nor to deny my appeal; even assuming that's true, once again, as I observed in my appeal, "WP:TE states explicitly: "It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles."

(2) I never suggested anyone prove the opposite. Yet that Wgfinley resorted to a willful and deliberate falsehood is demonstrable, and you can verify it for yourself. Once again: "For example, User:Wgfinley alleges: you will be disruptive if you consider it necessary you will venue shop by abusing the 'editprotected' template and believe proper usage of it is "unreasonable". This is a gross wilfull and deliberate mischaracterization of the facts, and demonstrably so. User:Amatulic had arrived on the page and outlined the proper use of the template. Contrary to expressing that I "believe proper usage of" the template "is 'unreasonable'", I responded to observe that I had followed that procedure exactly, and what I actually said was "I'm using the tag precisely as it was intended, as you yourself just outlined. And, as I said, I will continue to employ the tag as it was intended to be used." User:Amatulic replied, "JRHammond, I am gratified that you have agreed to follow the procedure I outlined..."[95]" As for WP:OUTING, it is not "specious" at all: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation" Wgfinley posted my full legal name and my work organization, neither of which I had voluntarily posted on Wikipedia. That is, by definition, a violation of WP:OUTING. Whether or not such violations "annoy" the person who is outed is irrelevant.

(3) You are suggesting either that I abused the use of the template or that I was being unreasonable in my discussion. Please explain in what way I abused the template, and/or in what way I was in any way unreasonable. Also, where was I ever uncivil? Please provide the diffs. JRHammond (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela

Thanks for sorting that out. No idea why he spoke to me like that. Turns out there are two rather grand churches in Venezuela with the same name. Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a user uploading copyviolations

Hi, I saw that you recently dealt with this user. User:DaraH46 is back again uploading copyvios. See File:IslandsofAdventure.jpg and [10] (the meta data matches this one) or [11], for example. Any chance for a reblock and cleanup of the new uploads? Nymf _hideliho! 11:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have deleted the new uploads and blocked the user until we can be sure he will not repeat the same behaviour. CIreland (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the user may be back in violation of their indefinite block. --McDoobAU93 16:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory I could block the new account for block evasion and demand he asks for unblock at his original account. However, since he has not made any new uploads, I'm just going to bookmark his contributions and assume for now that he has got the point. CIreland (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Heavy handed use of sanctions

I should just like to point out that, trigger happy, and heavy handed use of sanctions against Wikipedia editors is likely to erode goodwill toward the organisation, and diminish it's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have not been sanctioned, so far as I am aware. If you are referring to the notification I left on your talk page, then that does not imply any wrong-doing - it is there to make sure you do not accidentally run in to problems by being unaware of the restrictions that apply to all editors. CIreland (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Prunesqualer (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)