This is an archive of past discussions about User:Euryalus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Problematic edits
This editor has been adding various pics all or most of which seem to be lacking the proper permissions etc. I posted an images helps section on their talk page but in light of your reversion of one of their pics at Christina Aguilera wanted you to be aware of their overall contributions. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, and also for your helpful advice to Raisedbynutella. I've left a message for them as well, hopefully together we can encourage them to stop adding non-free images to these articles. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Apollo (1794), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capstan. 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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prince of Wales (ship) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have probably language question regarding your oppose to clarify the Andy's restriction in the infoboxes case. English is not my first language, perhaps you make me understand better?
It's only a clarification of the restriction, not a "narrowing". As others pointed out, the case went through several "clarifications" and "enforcements", and the same thing happened again and again: no action.
I found Andy extremely collaborative and wonder where the idea that many don't comes from. Examples of collaboration: in 2013 he helped me to create {{infobox Bach composition}} and helped project opera to create {{infobox opera}} (note the last example with a portrait of self-irony, note also please that the reverted infoboxes of operas - little is it known that they were a reason to request the case - are on their way to be restored, look at Rigoletto and Don Carlos, look also in the talk archives if you see Andy acting disruptively). In 2015 he nominated for merge the 2007 {{infobox hymn}} with composition, helpful indeed. - As I said in the current clarification, the case failed to name evidence of disruption. The one diff given was uncollapsing an existing infobox and moving it to the normal position, and - as one 2013 candidate pointed out: that edit rather ended an edit war.
I worked on Kafka, and it helped to take the case, but I would love to ask the 2015 arb candidates a question which is not a third misunderstood edit by Andy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Lack of adherence to PROD protocol in the deletion of the Anna Thomson page on 12:08 at 22 October 2014
G'day Euryalus. I am writing to you to let you know of my concern about the administrative decision, which according to the log page was made by you at 12:08 on 22 October 2014, to delete the Anna Thomson page on Wikipedia en using the Wikipedia process formerly known as PROD and now known as Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion.
In my view, whatever the notability or not of Anna Thomson (and this is now being debated, as it should have been prior to the decision to delete the page on 22 October), it was not appropriate for you, nor indeed for any other Wikipedia Administrator, to delete the page using the process described at Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion.
The reason for this is that the Wikipedia page at PROD states that, PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is considered by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag.
In my view, there were no reasonable grounds for a Wikipedia administrator to conclude in this case that no opposition was to be expected. In this instance, therefore, to delete this article in the manner in which it was done was unreasonable and unwarranted.
If Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion is not be abused by those seeking to circumvent the usual debate about whether or not to keep a page, then it is vital that Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion is only used when and only when 'no opposition is to be expected' as stated clearly in the Wikipedia rules.
In my view, on the face of it, the use of Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion in this case appears to have been an attempt to try to fly under the radar and circumvent the usual debate about whether or not to keep the page.
I set out my reasons below for why there were no reasonable grounds for a Wikipedia administrator to conclude that that no opposition was to be expected in the deletion of this article:
1. The first and most important reason why opposition should have been expected is that, as I write, there are six foreign-language Wikipedia pages for Anna Thomson (born Anna Kluger Levine on 18 September 1953 in New York City) aka Anna Levine, aka Anna Levine Thomson, aka Anna Thomson, aka Anna Thompson, aka Anna Levine Thompson.
In alphabetical order, the six foreign-language Wikipedia pages for Anna Thomson are in:
Czech; Italian; Dutch; French; German, Spanish.
2. The second reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is an ' Interview biographie d'Anna Thomson' ('Interview biography of Anna Thomson') on INA at http://www.ina.fr/video/I08260832. Here, on 27 April 2002, Thomson was interviewed by Thierry Ardisson about her role in Bridget (2001).
4. The fourth reason why opposition should have been expected is that there is an IMDB page for Anna Thomson under her name of Anna Levine at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0505764/
5. The fifth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson, who is 61 years old and still working as an actress, has fifty nine (59) credits to her name on her IMDB page (see above) dating from 1969 to 2012.
6. The sixth reason why opposition should have been expected is that, according to her IMDB entry, Anna Thomson 'Gained cult status among French movie experts due to her performance in Sue (1997)'. Sue (1997), was the first film in a 'Trilogy of Loneliness', all set in New York, starring Anna Thomson, directed by Amos Kollek. The second in the trilogy was 'Fiona' (1999). The third in the trilogy was Bridget (2002) (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_(Film) ). See http://www.planet-interview.de/interviews/amos-kollek/34007/ for the interview with Amos Kolleck about the trilogy.
7. The seventh reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson had a substantial role as 'Alexandra "Alex" Arnold' in Jaded (1996). Notable about the English Wikipedia page for Jaded is that out of the eleven actors listed in the Principal Cast, only Anna Levine (Anna Thomson) no longer had an entry following the deletion of the article about her on Wikipedia [en] on 22 October.
9. The ninth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson starred as herself in 'A Bitter Glory' (2001), a documentary directed by Amos Kollek, produced by Arte France. The film is also known as 'Bitterer Ruhm'. It was filmed in New York and released on 11 December 2001 in France and in Germany.
10. The tenth reason why opposition should have been expected is that Anna Thomson had roles in two Clint Eastwood films, the character of 'Audrey' in 'Bird' (1988), and that of 'Delilah Fitzgerald' in 'Unforgiven' (1992). Thomson's role as 'Delilah Fitzgerald' was substantial, and played a key part in the development of the film's remarkable, haunting and unforgettable pathos.
I have taken some time to put together the ten reasons above in order to make clear to you my concern that this entry should not have been deleted using PROD now known as Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. In my view, too many Wikipedia administrators are overzealous in their enthusiasm to delete Wikipedia pages on the grounds that a page fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sadly, this is yet one more example of this. 121.222.177.134 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the message. Some responses:
The process - The page was nominated for proposed deletion on 13 October 2014. A review of the page at the time of nomination indicates it comprised a list of film credits, some fairly minor (such as "Woman at basketball game" and "Following woman"), and referenced only to imdb. The article was deleted nine days later as an uncontested PROD with no reliable sources and an insufficient claim for notability
Sourcing - Per WP:RS/IMDB, imdb is unlikely to be a reliable source for claims regarding an actor's career or notability. Regrettably, nothing in the article indicated significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Likewise, nothing indicated compliance with WP:NACTOR; such as significant (ie non-trivial) roles in multiple notable films; a large fan base, or an innovative or particularly prolific career.
Source checks - Please be assured that before I delete any expired PROD, I do check for available reliable sources that might support its retention. You provide a list of sources above - if I may, I'd say that Ms Thomson's Facebook page and imdb reference are not reliable, and the nytimes links seem to be to cast lists rather than to significant secondary coverage. However, some of the other points do suggest notability, in which case they should be added to the now undeleted article (for more on which see "Process" below). No source check is perfect and it is possible for any good-faith examination to miss materials, especially where they are not in English. Please accept my apologies if sources were missed in the source check at the time.
Process - A key feature of PRODs is that if editors later locate material that argues for notability, they can quickly and easily get the article undeleted via "Requests for undeletion." They can also simply ask the deleting admin, who will usually agree to undelete the article or send it to AfD. A review of my talkpage archives will show numerous occasiosn where I've undeleted articles on request, for example here and here. There are also numerous occasions where PRODs were declined.
Outcomes - As you have now contested the PROD, the article has been undeleted and you're free to add any additional material you choose. All the best for expanding and referencing the undeleted page. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi George Ho, have left a message on Contaldo80's talk page requesting that that he provide diffs to support his statement. He has not edited since that message, so will await his response when he returns. Thanks for raising this. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
May I ask why you support this for The Devil's Advocate, but oppose it for Ryulong? It seems like it would be open to being gamed in both instances. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the message.
First, please note I did not support one remedy over the other on the basis that any particular remedy might be gamed.
Second, as you probably know the committee considered private as well as public evidence, including private evidence submitted by some of the parties to the case. This public and private evidence was taken as a whole when considering the remedies. If a particular remedy appears stronger or weaker than another, relative to the Finding it draws upon, it may (or may not) be because that remedy is partly based on private evidence. I appreciate that this makes it difficult for the community to interpret the thinking behind every remedy, but regrettably that's the nature of private evidence. As a statement of the obvious, please be assured that where the committee chose to accept private evidence in this case, it did so advisedly and after considering issues to do with personal information and privacy, and the wishes of the person submitting the material.
Third, as you are also probably aware, remedies follow findings of fact and there is rarely an equivalence in findings that would lead to an equivalence in remedies. The remedy is tailored to the finding, which is based on the individual evidence. There are not blanket findings against everyone involved ("kill them all and let God sort it out") - each proposed remedy is considered on its own merits, relative to the public and private evidence. Or the short version - just because one person received a 1RR restriction based on the evidence against them, it does not follow that another person will receive a 1RR restriction based on an entirely different set of evidence.
I'm sorry! I didn't mean to question your decision, I just wanted to make sure the decision was consciously made instead of a simple oversight! I brought this up to Salvio, as he seemed to be voting against the remedy in general rather than applying it in this instance, and he did simply forget that 1RR was also in discussion for TDA, so I dropped a similar message to other arbs who voted against one but for the other. As long as your decision to vote this way was made knowingly rather than an oversight, I'm more than happy. Please enjoy the rest of your day, and I apologize again for pressuring you to justify yourself. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh no worries, I'm not bothered at all. It's entirely appropriate that people question any or all decisions like this, so feel free to ask or disagree with anything you like and I'll do my best to offer answers. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi George Ho, I saw your message re the deadline and have raised it with the Committee to collect their views. I'm not immediately inclined to support an extension (the usual six-week case length seems sufficient in most circumstances) but am interested in what additional evidence you feel will come in if we keep the Evidence phase open past Feb 2. If there's a good argument for extending the deadline, please let me know and I'll discuss it with the others. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Roscelese requests raising a maximum limit at the Evidence talk page. I think that would be a reason to extend deadline, right? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it appears we're talking about two different things - if so apologies for that. Roscelese has requested an extension of the word limit for her evidence, beyond the current 1000-limit that applies on the main Evidence page. That's not related to the time limit for submitting evidence, which is currently 2 Feb. I support a word limit extension, but will discuss it with other Committee members. I don't presently support a time limit extension, but am open to your or anyone else's views on the merits of doing so. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd also consider requesting an extension of the time limit as well, for the same reason I initially requested an extension of the space limit (although you're right that my request did not cover this). Other than me, and the potential for extension from Callanecc, George, or Esoglou, we're still waiting on diffs from Contaldo's evidence and possible submission of evidence from Elizium, Kite, Padresfan, Binksternet, and Dominus (other users named as parties didn't submit a statement or declined involvement). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roscelese. Let me have a quick chat with the others and come back to you shortly. In passing im likely to also propose the removal of a couple of minor parties from the case, as they appear to be irrelevant to the evidence that has or is likely to be presented. But will post something about this on one of the case pages shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
"An entirely unhelpful response." - Nah, hey, couldn't ask for fairer! There's still time in the workshop, and I'd rather have your considered response than one on the fly that makes no sense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Precision.
I look forward to you participating in public deliberations in cases where there is no meaningful private evidence. Please be certain to ping me during the decade that happens. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't really recall interacting with you in the past, but there are times I'm not around for a while too. I wanted to thank you for the note on the arbcom review page. I'm glad to see that I have some time to do some research. One question, and I can post on one of the talk pages if that's better: Will Arbcom be looking at other editor's behavior during this? I don't want to get anyone banned or sanctioned, but I do think it's important to show that Andy has been treated VERY poorly at times. Thanks. — Ched : ? 14:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Salvio's oppose
Please consider the merits of Salvio's oppose. I think it's the best idea in front of the committee now for this situation and will help vastly address both peoples complaints. Nothing say it has to be a popular result but a fair result that benefits the encyclopedia that stops disruption is the way to go. Those sanctions of admin boards removal is something that has seemed to work well with Tarc. I would ddefintely sacrifice my pride for such an equitable result. It doesn't address the off wiki issues butI don't follow people on private websites and can easily ignore the attack page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope your withdrawal from drafting arbitrator is unrelated to any comment by me. I do not doubt your impartiality. Whatever is the problem that has made you go inactive, I hope you soon find it resolved in the most satisfactory way. Esoglou (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Esoglou, and certainly nothing to do with you. A family member is ill and I'm spending the next little while in hospital with them. In the circumstances I'm not sure I have the time to give the remainder of the case the attention it deserves. To avoid any delays in case finalisation I've withdrawn as a drafter to let others move it along in my absence. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dr Blofeld:, sorry for the belated response, and thanks for the kind thoughts. All seems ok, a couple of weeks in hospital but we seem to have dodged any lasting problem. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
...so I thought it might be fine to contact you here on your talk page. I will impose an interaction ban upon myself for the purpose of promoting good faith on Wikipedia and to stop conflict between myself and the other editor involved in this issue. I had no idea I was disrupting the work of anyone. I fully intend not to edit any of the pages that the other edits on for a period of three months and to have no discussions with the other editor; edit the other editor's user and user talk space; reply to the other editor in discussions, make reference to or comment on the other editor anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or undo the other editor's edit to any page (whether directly or indirectly).
My current list of articles that the other editor either created, edits on, or is a major contributor to was necessary for me to compile for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant interactions, though at this point, that action of mine probably was also misinterpreted.
You're trying to ping a like 12 edit newbie?? Do you think they'll ever know what that little red number means??? Remember "user talk pages"? ;) Anyway, I've left a note for them User talk:Beauxlieux. NE Ent23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Mm, they found their way to the mysterious recesses of ARCA so I reckoned they would also be able to navigate the ping system. But thanks for leaving them a followup note as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
At meeting from Collective Farm Group these prizes was being awarded for outstanding accomplishment.
The milkmaid, Anastasia, is receiving the prize of a hen and a rooster for caring for her hen so efficiently. After the award was announced there was great applause and music.
It was then announced that Petrov, the stable boy, would get a new suit for having raised a very fine prize horse. There was tremendous applause and music in honor of this award then.
Finally it was announced that Short Brigade Harvester Boris, for harvesting 390% more than his quota of grain, for working seven days from a week, for his high political acumen, and for setting 17 records for other workers to emulate, would get a Grand Prize: a complete set of the works of Lenin.
There was no applause and no music.
From one corner of the large room could be heard the whisper of one peasant to another: "It serves him right!"
Swarm blocked me today for edit warring. Despite I had made 2 reverts in 5 days and the concerning content was violating the WP:BLPCRIME, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTABILITY and other aspects that I have explained below.
I've been unblocked by Bgwhite, who termed it as an unwarranted block. The whole issue is bigger. Other blocks by Swarm includes:
Vtk1987(2 reverts)
Human3015(1 revert)
Padeton(2 reverts)
While WP:ANEW requires 3-4 reverts in last 24 hours, Padenton was the one to address this edit war, he was discussing the issue and he was not going back to restore his version. They all were avoiding the violation of numerous polices that I have mentioned. They were equally opposing a 3rr evading IP who recently created a new account, TCKTKtool. He called other editor(Vtk1987) a sock and continued to violate these policies.
Reverting an obvious sock puppet is another exemption from 3rr. Proof of reverting the sock puppet was the ANEW thread itself where we had discussed the apparent sock puppetry.
When Swarm had already blocked me, he went back to change the block settings, for explaining the reason that why he was blocking. Is that enough for saying that his actions are riddled with faults? I don't think that Swarm had even thought of protecting the page, not even a non-admin editor would've thought of making 6 blocks even after agreeing that there was one person behind a account and IP.
What you think about that? I had another incident of not only inappropriate block, but the blocking admin was involved and continuously made false allegations of me sending him and others "harassing emails", upon investigation(by a bureaucrat) he revealed nothing and went on to a break of 9 days, once he returned he took no responsibility, nor explained any of his actions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Eurylalus - I don't quite understand what it means to leave me on the list or take me off? I've never done this before, so can you explain? When I said uninvolved, I meant that I never edited the article in question. Atsme☯Consult11:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Euryalus, your advice was very welcome for the fine-tuning of the Belgium national football team article. A lot of editing and condensing (by using summary style and transferring tables and text to related articles) later, I brought the article down from +/- 127,5k to 106,5k. Sygmoral also did a great job, especially in making restructuring suggestions, changing formats and style adaptations.
A couple of questions that remain:
Any other suggestions when you take a quick look at the current article page?
How do you think the readable prose is exactly measured - and what is the result you obtain if you apply it? If I get it well, <50 kB readable prose is "always ok", between 50 and 60 kB is often still acceptable. When copying it into a Word file, I came to +/- 5700 words, which should correspond to roughly 35-40 kB. When I stored the document (only the visible prose, so not the citations and hyperlinks) I even came to 29,8 kB. I had some difficulties with Dr pda's tool so used another one, but this did not "capture" the sentences after the bullets.
You already brought an article towards FA. I presume best is to try it step by step, first trying GA nomination then FA - any advice you can give me about getting it reviewed for GA?
I found this which pertains to something different. When he followed me to the help desk. But I share it with you because I think it shows my diplomacy and maturity. I.m still searching for my personal request to him. I'm sure I'll finf\d it soon. . Buster Seven Talk04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Alerting you just in case you won't receive my comment until significantly later because you don't check your email as often as others do or because your Wikipedia email is different than your regular email. Flyer22 (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for patrolling Dramabeans, wrt your concerns in the edit summary; a preview of Why Do Dramas Do That is available on Amazon (use ASIN B00FJXQ476 or ISBN9780986059803 to find it) , in the section Why do Korean dramas insist on the live-shoot? Don't people get tired? ( no numbered pages in the preview but I reckon its 6 or 7) a paragraph reads
Producers and writers will commonly follow fan reactions via message boards and fan cafes, keeping tabs on what their fans want from the show. Minor characters who stir unexpected response with viewers have routinely been given expanded roles. Or perhaps a second lead sparks more sympathy than the hero, causing lovelines to change direction mid-drama. We've even had the strange experience of reading Dramabeans comments (you know, the stuff you guys write) translated into Korean and posted on Korean drama fan sites—that is, Korean reactions to English reactions of Korean dramas recapped in English for non-Korean viewers. In short, drama-makers care what viewers think and will often pay fanservice to satisfy viewer desires, whether or not those viewers reside in Korea.
However, it is from a publication by the subject of the article in question, and I was unwilling to use it as a source. I respect the removal of any and all material which isn't verified, but just wanted to let you know that I wasn't making it up.--KTo288 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@KTo288: No problems, I certainly didn't mean to suggest I thought it was untrue, just unsourced. It's a pretty good article, well done on creating it. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, and thanks again for approving it, time for me to leave it now and see how it fares on its own.--KTo288 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manjapra Mohan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carnatic. 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.
You have made my day. Blessed relief! Thank you for your support, particularly your offer to protect some of the impacted articles. From direct experience, these three especially have suffered repeated trauma at the hands of the individual in question: List of Downton Abbey episodes, List of Downton Abbey characters, and Downton Abbey. Interest in these articles is high. On average, they are collectively being viewed about 12,000 times per day and clearly matter to a lot of people. I will certainly notify you at the first sign of renewed disruption. Thank you again, and best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, if you could please include any CU notes you might have on the Atomic Meltdown socks, that would be appreciated. Link here. Related ANI here. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Request
Hi Euryalus, per a discussion at BD2412's talk page, I wonder if you could please cast my vote for me on the HRC move request, as I will be "out of pocket" for a week starting Sunday. I support the move, mainly because of conciseness, preciseness, and naturalness which are all emphasized in the "nutshell" of article title policy (though they weren't a year ago). Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
endeavour
Thank you, editor of military history, ships, piracy and Australian places, for quality articles such as HMS Endeavour, for a simple clear user page (with first: To do), for your endavour to gnomishly take care of articles, asking for sources, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
@Gerda Arendt: Thanks, have supported lifting the restriction per the commitment to consensus. I can honestly say I have added Infoboxes to the vast majority of articles I've created - they are essential in ship and port articles, and a generally useful part of geography and biography ones. But if course I wouldn't if consensus was on the other side. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I wrote the above while you supported ;) - I agree, completely. Never ever did I add an infobox where I expected no consensus. Sometimes I was wrong. After seven masses by Schubert, one by Mozart seemed only logical. I suggested one for Bach after the discussion on Robert Stoepel had lead to accepting. The popular belief that I suggested one for Wagner right before TFA appearance is wrong, - I said from the start to keep it on the talk, following the recommendation by an arbitrator (which he regretted later but how would I have known that). What's left of my alleged battleground behaviour? - True, I fight - for good treatment of editors who have no idea of a conflict, see Chopin and Beethoven, two examples of too many. Their good-faith edits should not be reverted with edit summaries they possibly don't even know to find. I remember that it took me a while to discover article history and talk. An new editor adding an infobox to a composer is not in a battle, he just copies from sculptors, architects and scientists. AGF would help in many of these situations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for, at the very least, acknowledging it. I realize that I am, perhaps, the only one that finds issue with it. At the conclusion of the case, depending on the result, I may ask for advice as to where to pursue the issue. Of course, the easiest solution would be for the editor in question to simply remove the offending material. That would require AGF which is in short supply on some talk pages of WP. . Buster Seven Talk15:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have requested, in a very humble and genuine way, on the editors talk page that he kindly remove the offending material. I hope he can be magnanimous. . Buster Seven Talk03:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I assume that you're swamped with Arb stuff at this point, but I wonder if you have an hour or so to spare to close a long-running thread on AN/I?
This has to the with the Interarction Ban between Alansohn and Magnolia677. (That thread is here.) Very soon after that, Alansohn was accused of breaking the ban, and the consensus at that time was that it was accidental and should not result in a sanction. You closed that thread here, which is why I'm bringing this to you now.
When Alansohn was once again accused of violating the ban, it set off a very long thread which has twice been returned from the archives (once by me) in order to be closed. That thread [1] remains unclosed, and I'm contacting you to see if you have the time and energy to close it. At this point, although I definitely expressed in the thread a view about what I thought the outcome should be, I'm not particularly concerned about how it is closed, just that it be put out of its misery.
I fully understand if you'd prefer not to do this, or if you simply don't have the time, but I thought it was worth the effort to see if you could. One way or the other, best, BMK (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for what I think is a fair synopsis of that very convoluted discusssion. Next up for you: untangling the Middle East. BMK (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't take long: 4 hours and 6 minutes between your close and the first report by one of the subjects. Yikes! Not asking you to do anything, just commenting on the silliness of Wiki-life. Best, BMK (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there!
I just wanted to say, I remember hanging out in #Wikipedia about 7 years ago and seeing a coordinated and passionate campaign to get you adminship (some of the more uptight users in the channel weren't too happy with it, though). Something reminded me of it today, so I decided to google your name and check what came of it. And lo and behold, you're an admin! Congratulations!
I've never used IRC so this "coordinated and passionate campaign" is news to me. But thanks for your well wishing. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Schedule for Clinton requested move decision
Hey Euryalus,
Don't mean to hassle you, and I understand your task isn't simple, so feel free not to answer, but do you think you can a rough idea of what "a little while" means? NickCT (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: by coincidence I just proposed a timeline via email with the other panel members. Essentially, a couple of days. Will let you know when/if it's agreed. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thought that was probably the case - we've all been there. I didn't want to revert you just on the offchance that it was something serious. Yunshui雲水12:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Its why I usually use Euryalus2 when editing from phones. Rollback needs an "are you sure?" tab to avoid this kind of error. But thanks for asking, seems like no harm done. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Euryalus, for your dedication to the finer points of NAMING. While I was one who opposed the move, I think most of us appreciate your panel for making the hard call and the rationale illuminating. I'd like to generate consensus for a moratorium next, because if we were to have this discussion again during the 2016 primary season, the pedia's reputation could suffer irreparable damage IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that I violated the spirit of the rules by participating in Project Wikify at all. That was suggested to me openly on GGC and nobody objected. I was motivated to begin editing the article and so I did it. That is the extent of my 'gaming the system' however. I believe the number of edits in Project Wikify was about 200. I am going to honestly and sincerely try to forget this all ever happened and resume using Wikipedia like I used to (landing on articles of interest organically and editing where I felt appropriate). And at such time as I make an additional roughly 200 edits normally and naturally, I will come to you directly to ask you to reverse your decision. I will concede it's possible the time it takes to accomplish that may aid by allowing me to relax and clear my head about this. Handpolk (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Please note there was also a part (b) about useful approaches on Gamergate pages. Should you wish to appeal you can also do so directly at (for example) WP:AE, which is where I am likely to refer an appeal lodged here, for second opinions. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me this decision is not-appealable. Consensus there will never, ever, ever agree to me being allowed back on the article. Because I disagree with them on the content of the article (which dictated their views here. It was perfectly split based on content, who wanted me gone and who did not). Handpolk (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope you are not seriously suggesting that if somebody vandalizes my user or talk page I can't revert them and leave an edit summary? Handpolk (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Ask yourself this -- Is the diff linked above in anyway related to GGC broadly construed? If so, it's a violation of your topic ban. In fact, that whole section on your talk page and user page about hosting a forum dedicated to the discussion of GGC really needs to go. 208.76.111.246 (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It was already there and vandalized. I simply reverted the vandalism. Please find something else to busy yourself with than what I have on my talk and user pages. Handpolk (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Some latitude for user space reverts. Personally I think the reddit link is borderline unsuitable for a talkpage, given the offensive content that others have posted there. Suggest you consider removing it, but other views welcome either way. More relevant to the topic of this thread, It would be a breach of the topic ban to add anything to this subject in your userpage (or anywhere else) but as a personal view A one-off revert to an earlier version is ... meh. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Euryalus addressed this and said I was given the benefit of the doubt of not knowing but that I needed to not edit it again. I appreciate that because I indeed was not aware that applied to an AE that I started.
Euryalus sorry but I do have one last question. What happened there was BOOMERANG and maybe it was appropriate. But that does not negate the original claims that I made about that editor. Which were completely ignored by you. That you think I gamed the system to get my edits changes nothing about whether or not he should be instantly hatting people and making threats of sanctions for discussing things. Ignoring that seems to violate the spirt and possibly the letter of our duty to focus on content and not people. It shouldn't matter who files a complaint, if the complaint has merit it should be acted upon. Handpolk (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The hatting of your comments is addressed in the section relating to not rehashing old debates absent any new and reliable material and/or a thorough reading of the relevant archives. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
My 'rehashing of old debates' led to changes in the article and talk of dramatic changes throughout by other editors. It seems like you didn't even look at the talk page and just trusted what people said. Fresh eyes are not always dumb eyes and should not automatically be shouted down and threatened with sanctions (AND INDEFINITELY BLOCKED). Thank you for your assistance. Handpolk (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Good close.
I just wanted to say that I think you did a great job closing the fut.pref. ANI thread in general and my comments in particular. Thanks! I have made an offer of a truce here, so we can only hope that this is the end of the matter for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, though it was (hopefully) just a bureaucratic analysis of the views of those who had actually contributed to the discussion. Nice olive branch note btw. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
A comment, if I may...
Thanks for your reply to my ANI post regarding Beyond My Ken. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the essence of my complaint was not a content dispute, but what seemed to me to be a violation of Wikipedia policy on harassment and on threat. The admin response didn't address this at all. I fully understood that on content, BMK was correct. My issue is with, as I mentioned above, harassment and threat. Thanks again for your attention to this matter! Regards, Kerry (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the message. I had a look at the wording of the edit summary you provided. To be honest, while it was hardly a friendly greeting, it didn't strike me as harassment. Obviously opinions and contexts can vary, so this is just my view. I would add that the more participants there are in a discussion, the less risk there is of heated conversation getting started. It's worth inviting others to take part in any content debate, for this reason alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Handpolk
The editor appears to be testing the boundaries of their topic ban. See [4], which he deleted (referring to me as a "stalker" in his edit siummary, as he referred to other editors as "trolls"), denying that they were related to Gamergate, but it's clear that the only reason he edited them in the first place was Gamergate related. I'm right about out of AGF at this point. BMK (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:The point of GG sanctions is to stop people editing disruptively around the topic of gender based controversies. By reverting edits about basketball coaches, that are related by 27 degrees of separation to a gender based controversy you are not helping to improve an encyclopedia. Kindly cease. (Also once an editor in good standing takes responsibility for an edit by a supposedly banned editor you're meant to stop reverting). Bosstopher2 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the opportunity to read these articles. Views:
Handpolk's Joe Lacob edits to date are not breaches of the topic ban, as the edits themselves do not relate to Gamergate or to gender-related controversies, and Joe Lacob is not notable solely or even principally for the Pao court case (which is a gender issue) ;
Handpolk's Kleiner Perkins edits to date are not breaches of the topic ban because they are to sections of the article that are unrelated to any gender controversy, and Kleiner Perkins itself is notable for more than gender issues (that is, the entire article cannot accurately be described as being gender-related)
Exception: 'This edit is a topic ban breach as it removes content that is specifically related to a gender issue.
The question is whether this breach is worth a sanction. There is no actual need for Pao to be linked in "See also" as she is already wiki linked in the article text. Notably, an anon IP removed the bulk of the Pao content immediately prior to Handpolk's major edits to this page. Had this been done by Handpolk it would be more significant than this single breach above.
On balance I'd say the single edit is not worth a block, especially as it has now been restored. But am open to discussion, especially if I have missed some key point. In passing any other breach like this one should be considered cumulatively.
Well, it is only since this afternoon (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Ellen Pao) that Kleiner Perkins and Ellen Pao were considered to have anything to do with Gamergate and this discussion occurred after Handpolk made his edits to Kleiner Perkins.
I have to confess that I have been harassed by Handpolk, called an SJW shill and a troll. But even I think that editors are dogging his edits and looking for reasons to impose a block. And, what do you know, Handpolk has just been blocked. To be honest, in this kind of atmosphere, I don't know how this editor will be left alone to just edit. It's like they have a scarred reputation and no one will give them a break. LizRead!Talk!02:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Pao should be entirely covered by Gamergate sanctions as she is principally notable for a gender-related issue. Articles on Kleiner and Lacob should be covered by Gamergate sanctions only to the extent that their article content relates to Pao or her lawsuit; as both are notable for other things as well. The block seems to be related to issues other than these Kleiner or Lacob article edits. But you're right, they are the subject of some incredibly close scrutiny; which would perhaps be addressed if they didn't skirt so close to gender topics. I, for example, mostly edit obscure articles on historic sailing vessels and irrelevant colonial officials. I would welcome Handpolk's assistance these dry and dusty fields, and can reasonably guarantee that there are no Gamergate-related articles in the mix. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree as these fine points of association seem to be slipping into so broad a category as they are a weapon. I read the article edits and did not see a connection to GamerGate or even broadly construed gender issues unless it's so broad as to imply anyone with a gender is covered and companies are covered since Citizens United afforded them status as people. Editors and admins that followed him to an article completely unrelated to GamerGate and an edit completely unrelated to GamerGate and gender should be harshly warned about wikistalking. The below warning should be evidence that certain admins are no longer uninvolved if they seek out their targets so boldly. This is pathetic [5]. BTW, the finding of court and jury is that gender was not an issue, if we even have to get into that, but the fact edited by Handpolk in the article is that Pao is no longer a partner. In light of the verdict, we should be very careful about naming anyone at that firm or the article as being anything other than gender neutral. --DHeyward (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The relevant precedent disagrees with you, DHeyward. I edited an article entirely unrelated to Gamergate and was dragged before AE for my troubles by an obvious sockpuppet. Anything remotely resembling gender or sexuality issues is, in fact, covered by topic bans imposed by those sanctions, as per the AE decision. The fact that a court ruled there was no actionable discrimination does not magically mean the case doesn't involve gender issues.
Moreover, I find it interesting that you weren't then jumping in to stridently demand that those editors who went after me "be harshly warned about wikistalking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Pao's notability in relation to the firm is entirely gender-related. The court finding against her does not make the case no longer about gender, or that her notability relative to Kleiner is not about her gender harassment claim. So, I stand by my point that removing her name from the article was an edit related to a gender issue, and covered by the ban. That said its all a bit trivial - Pao was already referenced elsewhere in the Kleiner article in relation to the lawsuit, so if the intention was to hide her link then it wasn't very well executed. And in the grand sweep of gender-related editing, this is at the very fringe. Which is why I wouldn't, on this alone, block someone for breaching the ban. Opinions differ of course, and a block was legitimately applied by another admin. Either way, again, it would be a good idea for Handpolk to edit even further away from this topic, at least for the next little while. There's 4.5 million articles out there, surely a few others are worth a look. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
No, NBSB, I didn't comment at AE regarding Lena Dunham nor have I supported HandPolk in his AE requests (though I do notice that MarkBernstein continuously violates his IBAN with no enforcement - his latest AE takes statement issue with my misspelling of "genesis" and he calls me a "gamergate supporter" which is false and defamatory but why he felt the need to do it despite the IBAN, my lack of participation at AE and with no defined reason except to harass and he knows the IBAN won't be enforced against him by Gamaliel, the issuer, is par for the course - he chimed in at an ANI request I made as well that didn't involve him - I daresay the rules, which you mention your own non-punished and narrow interpretation are different for Handpolk that resulted in a block and very broad interpretation - note also that your accuser was blocked the next day as an obvious SPA that is not much different than PeterTheFourth in terms of edits yet PeterTheFourth continues to edit unimpeded). Neither he for ForbiddenRocky have 500 edits outside of GamerGate but thats the rule made for Handpolk. But note, I did make edits to Dunham's article and talk page that supported your edits when you couldn't make them and I have the "Thanks" logs that you gave when I made those edits. Your ruling was much narrower than that being applied to Handpolk when he was essentially banned from the entire Venture Capital firm article because of a single lawsuit. He was being reverted for edits that had nothing to do with Pao. I don't think the finding in your case was so broad as to ban you from Lena Dunham article completely, just narrow sections. I just removed Pao from the list of partners as it had no source and the criteria is vague. If you look at PeterTheFourth's contribution to that article you will see it's just reverts, same with BMK, on the grounds that the entire article is a topic covered by GG DS and he is topic banned. --DHeyward (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked Handpolk for 48 hours after he continued to discuss Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers with other editors after a direct warning by me to stop. I was not aware of the above conversation, but until my direct warning to stop I gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, I feel the boundary-pushing has gotten out of hand. I do not believe that this editor's interest in an article on a firm that has recently been involved in a very high-profile gender discrimination case is coincidental, and I do not agree that portions of the article can be isolated as you describe above. As you state, the cumulative effect must be considered, and given my warning and the polemic they posted and restored on their talkpage last night, the erosion of limits has to stop. Consensus at AE is leaning heavily in favor of an indefinite block for this editor. Acroterion(talk)03:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Acroterion: Thanks for the message. I was equally unaware of your warning and block, until I posted my comments above.
I would say that portions of most articles can be isolated from topic sanctions, where the article covers more than a gender-related subject. To use the common example, a topic ban from weather would ban an editor from changing details of weather patterns in an article on New York, but wouldn't stop them from editing details of NY subway networks or the availability of hotdogs. I agree Handpolk seems determined to skirt around the edges of the Gamergate/gender topic, as do other editors on both sides of this subject. I don't agree that these specific edits are a topic ban breach, except the one I noted above.
But as you noted, what this issue really comes down to is rope: do a whole bunch of minor and non-actionable things combine to form an actionable editing history. You say we're at that point, I suggest we are not quite (and throw in a free plug for more editors in my preferred topic area). We are certainly heading in that direction, but I didn't find these individual edits to be unhelpful to either article.
It's a good-faith judgement call either way. If Handpolk disagrees with your block he will no doubt lodge an unblock request, and we can get a third opinion then. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Handpolk is looking for lengths of rope, and we can allow him to get more rope. As it were.--Jorm (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Judgement call. I'm not fussed if others believe enough has already been offered. I just don't personally agree (yet). -- Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer to allow people to draw enough rope that there's no question about what needs to happen. The encyclopedia is resilient and we can always undo. --Jorm (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Background: Starting this weekend, Gamergate fora were advocating for concerted action at Ellen Pao’s page. This would naturally spill over to the pages of the lawsuit and her former employer. The reason here, I believe, is that Pao is currently CEO of Reddit, and Gamergate is currently at odds with Reddit management over whether Reddit will continue to host many of Gamergate’s planning and publicity fora. I tried to alert some administrators when I saw screenshots extolling vandalized pages, and also added DS notices to some of the talk pages. I agree that the extent of Gamergate sanctions is preposterous -- I argued this quite visibly off-wiki during the Arbcom case and then reargued it at ARCA for good measure -- but Arbcom in its wisdom demured. One wields the mop with the sanctions you have, not with the sanctions you might wish for. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
ANI stuff
Hi Euryalus, i think you done a good job over at ANI(User Dmcq at Climate change denial), summed up nicely. Though two questions, i closed per a recent close, but the right corner archive message box was not displayed, i double checked but couldn't figure out why it was missing. And then someone pointed out that i should not close at ANI because i edit climate articles. However, i wasn't involved and didn't gained anything from it in the particular matter. Then I read WP:BADNAC, but that is a bit brief and only because I edit related topics, is imho not a COI. But maybe you can clarify and advise me for future engagements, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want the little response box to appear you need to type {{archive top|1= (text here) (signature)}}. If you leave out the "1=" you get a close without the comment box.
Have a look also at WP:INVOLVED for when to avoid closing a thread. If you do an NAC on an admin noticeboard you are effectively standing in for an admin, so this policy section applies. Basically, it's a good idea to avoid closing threads that directly relate to areas in which you are a regular editor or where you have interacted directly with the main players in the issue. Doing so may create at least the perception of bias, if not the reality. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Euryalus, that's what I was trying to convey at P's talk page in the thread "Cabal caution" (FYI, he seems to think I misrepresented him somehow, and per WP:OWNTALK it seems he has deleted my offer to do DR to explore that claim.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Re - my boomerang request; I'll agree that crystal clear diffs were not presented in my boomerang request at ANI. Reading the past cases I thought the user was well-known to ANI and it was hardly necessary. Guess that was a mistake on my part. The important thing I'd like to note right now is that I believe my boomerang request could have been well-supported had I taken the time. If the user in question returns to my watchlist without a behavior change, I may very well package a thorough AE complaint, including diffs from this underlying matter. But that's for another day. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar for you!
The Mediator Barnstar
For your participation in the 2015 Hillary Clinton move request. Took a little while for a decision, but I appreciate that you provided a clear and concise interpretation of the consensus. Couldn't have been a decision that was overly easy to make. Kudos. NickCT (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You noted here some agreement that a scope needed to be delineated on this case.
No scope has been indicated. Notices have gone out to participants without any indication there is scope (example), nor is there anything on the case pages regarding the scope of the case. As I predicted, it's already becoming a free for all on the evidence page, and it hasn't even been open for a day yet.
Just in Rschen7754's evidence alone, we have 'evidence' being pulled from Meta, testwiki, mediawiki, commons, wiktionary, and simple wikipedia, with some of it dating back to nearly two years ago. This is just one respondent. Seven projects (including this one) and two years. Technical 13 can't possibly respond to this. He would need a team of lawyers to do it.
The original complaint in this RFAR is vacuous at best. The claims made in the accusations are, at least from my perspective, baseless [6] (with the sole exception on the job queues issue with which I have no expertise and can't comment). Yet the original complainant has managed to hoodwink ArbCom into opening a broader case investigating all things Technical 13. This is absurd on the face of it.
The only way to stop it now is to place a very strict scope on the case, and do it soon before the snowball of Rschen7754's becomes an avalanche. If it is not done, Technical 13 should just walk away. Any effort to defend himself is futile. Plus, there's the anchoring cognitive bias issues that the case is plagued with thanks to it being named "Technical 13" rather than "Technical 13 and PhantomTech". I did a study of 35 cases titled like this one, covering 2009 through 2012. Based on that study, it is more than nine times as likely for Technical 13 to suffer sanctions from this case than anyone else involved in this case, and there's a 35% chance one of his sanctions will be being banned from the project.
@Hammersoft: you are completely correct re the need for a defined scope. I will discuss this further with the committee (noting I am not a drafter of this case). An agreed scope could then inform the case name. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend suspending the case until that is worked out. There is no pending emergency that has to be addressed by the case. As is, respondents are being asked to submit evidence by a June 30th deadline. I suspect you'll get strong resistance from ArbCom as a whole. What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hammersoft:, superseded by T13's self-requested block, and by the matters raised in the motion to close the case. But your general point is still valid about making sure case scope is clearly outlined as it commences (perhaps via a formal statement by case drafters at the start of the Evidence phase). Also, wherever possible avoiding naming cases after editors. I'm not sure this can be avoided in this instance as the case never really got to the evidence phase. But it's good general practice which I'll pursue with the others. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Narrowing
Hi. I wanted to ask if you could please narrow my topic-ban. I gamed the system so that I could edit Gamergate. I take responsibility for that and I am rightfully blocked from editing that article. However that's the only thing I've ever done wrong on Wikipedia, aside from arguably violating my topic ban. The edits themselves were fine, though. The language of the topic ban, especially 'broadly construed' has made me fearful of editing a huge number of articles. Very few of which seem warranted. For instance I've wanted to edit reddit, Sam Altman and Voat and have refrained from doing so for fear people would call them related.
I would request instead a defined list of articles I am not to edit, along with a prohibition from editing anything in any article that has to do with gender issues etc. Handpolk (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Handpolk: There's long history of discussions about whether topic bans should be defined by lists of articles rather than being "broadly construed." It's certainly possible to do, but unless a topic ban is extremely narrow (for example just the Gamergate controversy article) the entire thing becomes hard to administer. There's also the issue of subsets of articles - for example the Kleiner article as it relates to Ellen Pao, but not as it relates to any other aspect of the firm. Trying to build a comprehensive list would be very difficult, and almost immediately out of date as people add new edits across the encyclopedia.
Overall I'm not in favour of narrowing this current topic ban. I take your point about borderline articles like reddit, but there's 4 million other pages out there to play with. In my view, since the ban you've been making good contributions across several article areas - I'd keep working on these and stay away from anything that skirts close to gender or Gamergate.
Of course this is just my opinion. If you disagree please feel free to take this to AE and get a wider set of views. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Narrowing it to just Gamergate controversy then would seem to be appropriate. That's the only article I've ever had problems on and the only problem I had was gaming the system to try and edit it. I made no disruptive edits, I caused no talk page problems. I'm being caught in a system intended to keep out editors acting in bad faith -- but I'm not acting in bad faith and I never have been. My only crime was being over anxious to contribute to that article. Until I demonstrate that I have the ulterior motives I'm being implicitly accused of having, this all feels like a gross violation of WP:AGF. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯10:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The gaming of the edit restrictions wasn't exactly good faith. As above, am not inclined to amend the topic ban, and doubt there'd be consensus to do so. But feel free to test this at AE - it's a busy and somewhat freewheeling place lately so perhaps you'll get a different outcome there. Otherwise, in my opinion there's been some pretty good article edits since the t-ban so well done on those. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.
Thanks for the message. This injunction complicates my role as an arbitrator, as the dividing line between arb actions and admin actions is sometimes unclear. There's going to be enough disputation here to without me complicating it further. So for avoidance of doubt I've recused myself from this case, and have unsubscribed from the relevant mailing list until it closes. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I appreciated the way in which you explained to various users how it is that the actions which were taken during this dispute were taken in good faith. Even if you are recused, I hope you do keep reminding users about that in equal measures as it's important. I agree that they were taken in good faith (though whether or not I think there is a limited exception remains to be seen - even if it's more related to bullying, hostility, and misuse of position...but I digress). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ncmvocalist. Thanks for the kind words. I remain of the view the actions of at least the vast majority were in good faith and all that is likely required is a motion clarifying that AE closes are an admin action and an encouragement for everyone to get back to work. If AE no-action closes are not an admin action, then the only valid close is one that applies sanctions and other closes are just a kind of placeholder. I don't believe this is an effective way to run AE. However: without commenting on the merits of the injunction, its application is incompatible with adjudicating the case. So, am leaving it to others to take this forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A follow up on this IP vandal, whom I call the Destructive Destroyer Vandal, for her inability to write without using redundant language. I first spotted these edits by 207.255.191.36 (which geolocates to Stevensville, Maryland [ISP: Atlantic Broadband]) It might seem innocuous even if there are redundant concepts or adjective-laden prose like "new freshman student", "an extremely powerful and dangerous", but then I also noticed the phrase "in order to release her one true friend and master" which sounded like the hamfisted writer from Gaithersburg. This seems even more likely considering the next 7 edits at this article was from 96.255.210.254, which geolocates to Gaithersburg, Maryland, (ISP: Verizon FiOS) "Once she overcomes their strong Cage of Sorrow", "he betrays Selina, despite her loyalty and devoted service to him.", "Bloom's tremendously strong powers", etc. I think it's reasonable to revert past all of these IPs' edits and I leave the blocking considerations up to you. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if it's inappropriate for me to comment but that does not look like a 'vandal' to me and certainly not a 'destructive destroyer vandal.' I really dislike that IP's are treated this way simply for not making an account. They are making good faith edits, that require some cleanup. That's our job as people who watch articles, to nip and tuck their contributions to conform to policy. Handpolk¯\_(ツ)_/¯05:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Its not inappropriate for you to comment, please feel free to add whatever you like. This is certainly the same editor from April. They have a long history of making these histrionic contributions, but the real issue over time is their refusal to discuss or modify any of them when asked by others. They were blocked because their inability to collaborate or listen to others views made them disruptive across a large number of articles.
Now here they are again. The question is whether they learned anything from last time - on the one hand they haven't been asked (again) to tone it down and work with other people, on the other hand they've been told a dozen times on earlier occasions and there is a limit to the "last chances." Am kind of away from the keyboard for a bit, will read through the edits when I'm back and, y'know, do something either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Behavioural evidence strongly supports this being the same person as the one from earlier this year. Both blocked, noting also this. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Power to you, Euryalus. Not more power, of course, since as an admin you already weight plenty, just "power". As in, "may you always be empowered" or something like that. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
New South Wales Marine Corps
Hi Euryalus, I have just created the article New South Wales Marine Corps, lifting heavily from the materials you assembled. If you could correct the article and augment it with references and further material that would be great. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: Thanks, that's a project I vaguely started ages ago and then forgot about. Good work in actually making something out of it - i made one minor correction on dates but that's it.
In a box somewhere I've got a fair few materials on the NSW Marines, including what is suspect is the only full-length history of their brief existence. Will dig this out and add some material from it to the page in a week or so. Perhaps also the officer list from my sandbox page - these are the sum total of all NSW Marine officers, so it's both a complete list and not too long to add to the article once it's a little expanded. So thanks for the opportunity to work on it. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be outstanding. In the meantime, I just found a reference to a New South Wales Marine Corps that provided 25 men to the NSW Naval Contingent/Brigade that participated in the Field Force that served in China around 1900 in response to the Boxer Rebellion. This later Corps is clearly a completely separate entity. I have no access to any materials on the NSW Navy (except what's on Google, which is apparently nil), so will not pursue this any further. I look forward to your expansion of the existing article. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Acad Ronin & Euryalus, Apologies for the interruption. I have just added a few potential sources to the Article Talk page. Also, if it helps, I am not sure that NSW would have had an independent Navy at any time; more likely part of the British, & later Australian, Navies. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'17:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Curiously enough, prior to Federation in 1901, each state had its own Navy. See Colonial navies of Australia. The mention of the 25 members of the New South Wales Marine Corps in China appears at p. 8, under the "Secret Societies" in the following article: [7]. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
Mail call
Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
About that thing that Brustopher just asked about...
Hi Euryalus, W.r.t the thing that Brustopher just asked about, the information is still available in the page history. You may wish to revdel the edit as well as the username. Hope this helps. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'00:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note on Ncfirefighter13's talk page about the Galveston Stingrays. One quick note: you say, "Please feel free to recreate it after there are grounds to assert its notability." However, this should be subject to a caveat, becaues Ncfirefighter13 has a documented conflict of interest with the page. Thanks for your help. Jd027 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Liz: happy for them to be deleted but I'm not the author - they were created by Balloonman to test my knowledge of CSD during my RfA in 2008. Balloonman retired a few years ago, but I'm sure they wouldn't object to deleting them either. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Really, you did? Because I checked the edit history of each one to see if you had edited them and you hadn't. In my travels reading through RfAs, I have run into Balloonman who mentored a number of future admins...although there was one spectacular implosion that was hard to read over. I am beginning to believe Kudpung that RfAs used to be much more hostile 5 or 6 years ago.
Really I did what? No, I've never edited them - my only role was answering the question (question 4 in the RfA). Thanks for the opportunity to revisit them - I'd forgotten they existed. Euryalus (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Really I did read your response too fast! When you said they were used to test your knowledge, I thought you meant you provided an answer on the page but apparently you provided the answer on your RfA. My mistake. LizRead!Talk!21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Baker (colonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hunter. 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.
Hi Euryalus, I could use some new admin advice: I've been noticing problems with 216.15.44.111(talk·contribs·WHOIS) lately and I have issued several admonishments for unexplained removal of references, disruptive editing (re-removal of references without explanation), introduction of OR in the form of speculation. However, I just noticed that the IP geolocates to Gaithersburg, Maryland, US; ISP: RCN and that means it's someone who has been a pain in the past. I'm thinking about blocking them, but I'm not sure if that would go against WP:INVOLVED. This user, whom I have dubbed "The Destructive Destroyer Vandal" for their excessive use of redundant adjectives has been to ANI three times or so. Thoughts? Since they've never communicated as far as I know, I don't think that I've ever had a "dispute" with them, but I'd rather get some input than make a mistake. Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Euryalus. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 22:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Prokaryotes: It depends on what you're looking for. If the article or topic area is not already covered by a sanction, you may need to lodge a new case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Please note it will likely be declined if you haven't already tried alternative dispute resolution processes like raising the issue at WP:RD or WP:ANI.
If the article or topic is already subject to Arbcom sanctions and you're looking to have breaches enforced, you should raise the issue at Arbitration Enforcement. And lastly, if its about a specific editor ignoring existing sanctions, you may need to give them an alert notice, which if they continue to ignore might lead to administrator action.
Apologies for all the acronyms and wikilinks - it really depends on the circumstance. If you could provide more detail, perhaps I can narrow it down. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It involves articles where a few users use delay or intimidation tactics to prevent article progress. Here (1 user in particular), and here (Very messy drags on since months), and there is now a discussion at edit warring board here. It involves basically article about GMOs and Monsanto.prokaryotes (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Arbcom
Here is as good a place as any to give advance notice of early retirement from the Arbitration Committee at the end of this year. It's been an entirely worthwhile experience, but it takes too much time away from what I enjoy a lot more, which is the writing of obscure articles on eighteenth century shipping and colonial figures. I have Wikipedia hours for either Arbcom or articles - after a year doing Arbcom I'd like to get back to the topics I left behind.
Am flagging this early to encourage anyone thinking of running in the upcoming elections, on the basis that there will now be an extra spot available. Some advice to anyone contemplating a run - the volume of work is high, most issues require more detailed analysis than time permits, and the outcomes aren't always cheerfully received. Further, consensus decision-making is essential but understandably causes delays and compromise. More positively, Arbcom offers an excellent opportunity to address some major issues facing Wikipedia. If you like dispute resolution, think there's work to do to improve the editing environment, and have plenty of time on your hands, then you should nominate for election and see how you go.
I'll be staying on the Committee until the end of the year and have plenty more to do in that time. But in the spirit of this message, thanks to all the case participants (and members of the Committee) for what has been an interesting experience since January 1. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work Euryalus. It's not a fun job and I certainly don't blame you for stepping down. I really hope to see candidates of your quality to replace you! WormTT(talk) 12:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Arbcom is the process by which we talk our (usually) best editors and feed them in the wiki - equivalent of -> To think you have to campaign for this .... Here's another yucky thing we can't figure out what do about -- let's dump it on Arbcom!!! Thanks for your service. NE Ent02:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Euryalus, Have you finished with the Aurora article? I have some info to add but want to avoid conflicting with any edits you might still be making. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ykraps: hi, and thanks for the message. I've got some more to add, but you go ahead if you like and I'll hold off for a while and work on some others. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add some bits and hope I'm not stealing your thunder. I'm not a quick worker however, sometimes adding a number of small edits over several days, so if I become a nuisance feel free to let me know. By the way, I believe there is a special template for citing the London Gazette. Do you know how to use it and where I might find it?--Ykraps (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't possibly be a nuisance - I could count on two hands the number of people with any editing interest in these old ship pages! So the company is welcome. Plus I don't have access to the London Gazette so whatever you're adding will be new to me. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello again! While trawling through old issues of the Gazette, for the Aurora article, I came across this piece [[10]] (second column, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) which mentions two prizes, a French privateer and an American cutter both with ransom bills on board. Any idea what ransom bills are? Do they mean written demands for ransom, banknotes paid as part of ransom, or something else? I'm intrigued.--Ykraps (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Ykraps: They're a mid- to late-eighteenth century concept most commonly used by American shipowners or masters. If a privateer captured a merchant ship they would usually want to get it off their hands fairly fast - they would not have the men to establish a prize crew, they couldn't defend the prize if tracked down by a naval ship, and they would be reluctant to routinely undertake the lengthy process of finding a port and advertising her for sale. The alternative was to loot what you could and sink the captured vessel.
To avoid this, private shipowners could offer a contract, carried by the ship's crew and promising to pay a certain sum for the return of an undamaged vessel and/or cargo. This would be handed over upon capture of the ship; the privateer crew would take the pick of the loot, accept the ransom note (and probably a hostage) and let the ship and crew sail on. They would then redeem the ransom note at a later date in a neutral (usually North American) court and return the hostage they had kept on board. The amount of the ransom note would likely be set at less than the value of the ship and cargo, but more than the likely return the privateer crew could get if they had tried selling her.
American courts did enforce the legality of ransom notes when claimed by legitimate privateers. British courts might in theory but were less likely to recognize the legitimacy of the privateer and therefore their right to make a claim. In 1765 a British court also ruled that ransom notes were invalid when claimed by an enemy during wartime and would need to be re-presented after peace was declared; as a consequence very few were presented in Britain at all.
A ship's master might also spontaneously decide to offer a ransom note if the ship was captured, even if the shipowner hadn't prepared one ahead of time. There is late eighteenth century American case law upholding the validity of ransom notes issued by ships masters even where the shipowner had refused to pay.
In this context, Aurora's crew would receive their share of the Admiralty prize money for capturing the privateer vessel; plus a sum allocated according to the prize money formula but paid by the merchants whose ransom notes were being redeemed. A merchant who refused to pay out the salvaged ransom note would then owe its value to Admiralty instead of the privateer - this could make life difficult for the merchant so payment was highly likely. This many ransom notes indicates Fleur de May had been pretty successful before they were defeated by Aurora.
I understand, it was a promise to pay a 'reward' to the bearer for not stealing the owner's ship. So these had been taken by the privateers named in the Gazette from merchant ships they had previously boarded. Seems odd that they were transferable but then I suppose it would be difficult to prove they had been come by 'legitimately'. I don't know why I haven't come across them before so thanks for the information (and the compliment). Regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Added to the article. It's a compilation of primary sources with Lavery's editorial comment and explanation. This one is taken from a chapter on the frequency and validity of petitions by crew. Annoyingly he rarely tells us what the outcomes of the petitions were - the Aurora one is an exception. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm about done with this article for the time being. I wasn't sure what to do with your piece about the carpenter's trial. I have left it as a stand-alone section at the end but if you want to rework it into what I've added or move it into some sort of chronological order, I won't object. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Euryalus, thanks for finding and adding info on what has to be one of HM's arguably most questionably named vessel, and certainly an obscure one. Was the info all in the Home Popham bio? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it goes into some detail as it was Popham's first officer position. Ironic that it was a failure, yet he goes on to become an admiral. Re the rest of the article - I haven't yet checked sources like Winfield, jstor or the London Gazette. Overall it needs some further expansion to avoid WP:undue for the court martial material. Will see what I can find over next few days. I actually have a short transcript of some of the court martial, which might be worth adding if we can make the article a little longer in order to support it.
I would skip the explanation. I have left a clue/link in the namesake line of the shipbox. I wouldn't worry about the undue either; more info is better than less. On these small vessels often all we have is one item of undue coverage because the vessel made no other impact on the records. I don't have Rif Winfield's 1707-1792 book so I haven't checked it. I may have checked the London Gazette, but there are so many variant spellings that I could well have missed something. I hadn't though of JSTOR. It would be along shot though. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom membership
Hi. I noticed that people are working on creating the page for the elections this year, such as this page which discusses the number of vacant seats to be filled. The current (early) draft doesn't mention your statement earlier in the year that you will leave the Committee at the end of this year, thus creating another vacancy. I was thinking of updating that, but before I did I thought I should ask you whether that is still your intention? This isn't urgent, and I for one would be glad if you decided to serve out your second year after all, but please let me know when you have a moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. Looks like someone already got there and noted that there are now eight seats to be filled. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Euryalus, I know you have been involved in this article. I have been doing some work using two books:
Clayton, Jane M. (2014) Ships employed in the South Sea Whale Fishery from Britain: 1775-1815: An alphabetical list of ships. (Berforts Group). ISBN978-1908616524
Hackman, Rowan (2001) Ships of the East India Company. (Gravesend, Kent: World Ship Society). ISBN0-905617-96-7
It now is becoming clear the the article on "Prince of Wales" conflates two vessels. The first, of 335 tons (bm), was launched at Sidmouth in 1779 and served as a West Indiaman before making the Botany Bay voyage in 1787-88. The reason she appears to have a 1786 launch date is that Lloyd's Register states that she underwent a complete rebuild in 1786. On her return from Botany Bay she became a South Seas whaler. The Prince of Wales that made the convict transport voyage in 1796-97 was of 279 tons (bm) and was launched in 1789 at Hull. I plan to check Lloyd's Register and Bateson to nail things down before I do anything to a "Good Article", but I did want to warn you that changes are probably coming. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: Thanks for the message. It's quite possible, given the poor record-keeping of the time and the common name for this ship. I agree on checking Bateson - that was my first thought on receiving your message. If he records them as having different dimensions (or otherwise indicates they were different vessels) then I'd say the issue was resolved. I have less faith in Lloyd's Register, as its eighteenth century accuracy was not always high. The 1786 launch data is well sourced, but that does not rule out a previous construction using the same hull; I suggest both sets of information could be included on the page.
If Bateson confirms two vessels, the essential edit would be relocating the "Second Voyage" section to a different article - let me know if this is intended as I will probably create an article on Daniel Paine and include most of this material there. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
In disentangling these and other vessels I am discovering just how slapdash the Lloyd's Register can be, and how almost random burthen reporting could be. I am finding up to four (+/-) different values for burthen for a vessel that other info (owner + name + ...) indicates is the same vessel. So, I will proceed cautiously and will check with you before I do anything drastic. Press of other business, including what I am paid to do, may result in some delay. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin: Unrelated - am finding some reasonable sources on UK and 1812 Sea Fencibles, will add them in over the next few days. Do you have anything on the Civil War era units? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing unfortunately. I have just been adding to the article from time to time when I serendipitously find material. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sea Fencibles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City Point. 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.
Is accepting evidence from site banned editors via email or some other channel allowed? This is a query based on your comment here. I could see it if it involves them specifically, but if a case does not, why would we allow a banned editor to have any input?--MONGO10:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. A purely procedural/ministerial question: Did you mean to vote support for your motion? At the moment one can't even see who proposed it without checking the page history. I expect you just forgot the four tildes. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: thanks for the message. No, per my comments here I don't support the motion. However, it was a suggestion by a couple of people during the case request and also in committee discussions, so I committed as a drafter of the case to move the motion at the outset and see if there was majority support for it. -- Euryalus (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, should have been salted back in 2007 when it was repeatedly recreated. Worth considering but it appears to have been deleted twice in the last eight years and one of those was for a page move. So might leave it as is. -- Euryalus (talk)|
Not at present. Speaking solely for myself, the rebuttal evidence was less conclusive than originally suggested. The matter was discussed at some length but no formal decision was taken either way and it fell down the list of open matters - still open, not under immediate discussion. I will go back today and seek consensus to have it resolved ASAP. - Euryalus (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Just curious, no need to do anything on my account. I'm not surprised to hear that about the evidence, though, from what I understand about the situation. BMK (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI I think you made a good call on the Blue Army of Poland. You said it was unlikely to please anyone, but it seems fair to me (even though I was the one who suggested a full Eastern Europe ban). Hopefully there will be no need to revisit the same issue in three months. Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Lets see how it goes - the disruption appears persistent but low-level so hopefully a minor sanction is sufficient. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Eightball's comments
Hi. I noticed that you blocked Eightball. Now I was wondering how we should deal with their very uncivil comments in the discussion. Per Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments and the fact that I am involved in the discussion, I cannot strike out or even remove the incivility, which is of course logical. So how should we deal with them the? Should we leave the comments as-is, should someone involved strike them out, or should someone uninvolved simply hat the off-topic uncivil comments? Tvx1 17:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Tvx1: hi, I'd leave them as they are. With some exceptions, it's not usual to remove another persons talkpage comments, especially where (amongst other things) they are also making an argument on content. And striking things just draws greater attention to them. Hatting might be valid, but the actual conversation seems to be continuing on the content issue, and the comments you refer to don't form a discrete section that could easily hatted halfway through. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: this close is unlikely to please anyone – I thought it was reasonable and well-reasoned, more so than I usually expect out of ANI. I also appreciate that you applied WP:AC/DS within the framework of ANI and community response. I'm too often running into people, including admins, who think that AE / AC/DS is some special fiefdom exempt from community norms and expectations, that DS is blanket license to impose any sanction they think they can get away way hitting someone with, and that ANI isn't even a venue in which DS-based remedies can be brought. Nice to see it all demonstrated otherwise. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Blue Army (Poland)
Hi Euryalus, I had a chance to review the notes from the ANI, and I can accept the verdict what ever it might me. But, I would like to note that as soon as the proposed band for me was suggested user Faustian, immediately went to the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page to propose new changes based on his POV. This problem will never end, and sooner or later Faustian will get into another fight with some editor on the Blue Army page. I would strongly recommend that the other end of this issue also get the attention to prevent another editing conflict. --E-960 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Again my apologies for following up on the issue, but taking into consideration my temporary ban front he BA, I'd like to highlight the serious flaws in how user Faustian just changed the "Wrongful Accusations section". He basically flipped everything upside down — taking the views of Hagen which were marginal and "fringe" along with the established arrival date of the army in Poland and simply flipped it. Now the new section is titled "Date of arrival in Poland" — there really is no controversy when the BA arrived, only if you skew the the issue to base it on Hagen's "fringe" claims. I'm actually very taken aback that this is allowed to happen. The article should have received a lock to prevent user Faustian from imposing this views on it, now this user will simply instal his POV on the entire article. --E-960 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I opened up a discussion before making changes here: [11]. Four other editors participated, a consensus was reached, and changes were made to the article: [12] based on that discussion. This may be tweaked further but this is how wikipedia is supposed to operate. Thank you, Euryalus. And E-960, I hope your complaints here do not suggest that you plan to make disruptions after your ban expires.Faustian (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, again I would request that the situation on the BA page is reviewed. It seems that since my block, user Faustian has taken over the page and is continually changing material despite genuine reservations by several editors on how this is being done. As I suspected, the reason why some editors pushed form my block is because I opposed their POV. Now, this is clear because Faustian is just changing everything to suit his POV. As user User:SMcCandlish noted sometime ago the article has a clear case of WP:COATRACK, and just by looking at the history the primary editor responsible for this is Faustian.--E-960 (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Given the unusual amount of dispute at and about that page and the increasingly interpersonal nature of it, some review is probably in order. That said, not too much should be made of the fact that I previous thought some coatracking was going on. That doesn't mean that every edit related to the content in question is coatracking. It's not that the pogromming charges can't be mentioned, they just shouldn't dominate the article, and spin off into material not really relevant to the Blue Army article per se. At this point, my concerns, in either editors' favored direction, would be whether there's WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR issues at play (including WP:UNDUE. I think the earlier discussions pretty clearly outline whether this article can and has gone astray in both opposing directions. Let's keep it centered. I'm super-busy right now and can't participate in detail in this round. (My role in the debate has been as an outside RfC commenter, in two related RfCs on it, without any prior involvement or even knowledge of the topic; I'm just trying to see it balanced, and that's what I think majority of participants on the page are working toward). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation on this topic ☏. Unfortunately it seems that E-960 is pursuing his fight on this talk page. He writes: "user Faustian has taken over the page and is continually changing material despite genuine reservations by several editors on how this is being done." That is simply a falsehood. Prior to making any changes I opened up a discussion here: [13], numerous other editors contributed, and as a result one of the other contributors, User:Darouet, not me, made the change here: [14] based on that discussion. E-960 writes "As I suspected, the reason why some editors pushed form my block is because I opposed their POV." Well, consensus was against him, and he was battling against it.Faustian (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that Talk:Blue Army (Poland) speaks for itself. Without E-960's generally incendiary behavior, a discussion was begun and concluded according to reliable sources and policy, and changes were made by consensus. I'm not surprised to learn that the only person who appeared after the fact to complain was someone canvassed by E-960 with no prior interest in the BA. -Darouet (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Curiosity
Hi Euryalus -
I'm legitimately curious, so please don't take this the wrong way. What do you find disingenuous in my statements about the CU unblocks? They were discussed on both the SPI page and the talkpage of the instructor, and the SPI clerk/admin who handled all the tagging (but not the blocking) advised me that they didn't count as CU blocks in a traditional sense and that I was free to unblock. Since I haven't been active at SPI in a really long time and since I verified it was an actual class, it seemed reasonable to follow the advice of an SPI clerk involved in the case instead of digging up the appropriate SPI specific policy. I should've notified Mike even if he wasn't a CU just as a matter of best practice in unblocking people, but assumed that he would've noticed the discussion at either the SPI or the instructor's page. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kevin Gorman: A couple of things. First, from your usertalk where you indicated the blocks weren't done by a CU, then that you only reversed the ones that Vanjagenije had placed, then acknowledged that MikeV had actually placed them all but you felt there may have been some sort of exemption in the CU olicy. I suppose all that is possible, but it suggests that you didn't thoroughly review the circumstances surrounding unblocks even after the concern was raised. Also, MikeV's evidence that you had indeed pinged him but the timing and edit summary made pretty clear this was a notification of a decision already made, not a request to discuss.
I should add that there is a "storm in a teacup" element to all this for the reason I outlined: the revdel was quickly reversed and I agree with you that the CU blocks were probably misguided school students. So to quote someone or other, "where's the beef?" So there's a valid case for a case, and there's a valid case to simply say "meh" and move along.
On balance I thought the issue was worth looking at, at least to have it resolved rather than fostering conspiracy theories of favouritism. I don't presuppose any actual finding (or even that a finding would occur) and I think it quite possible the Committee would find there's nothing more here than some harmless errors. If so, whether a full case is required or whether that finding could come by motion, is fine either way with me. Note also that if the case is accepted the new Committee will be the decision-makers. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. As a simple answer to part of your query: I undid the unblocks and the userpage tagging at the same time, and the blocks had been done by Mike but all the userpage tagging by Vanja - so Vanja was the person who stuck in my head as the person responsible for both, completely incidentally. My reason for thinking it was fine to undo the blocks in general was actually just this comment] by Vanja. I make a practice of watchlisting pages I've recently been involved with, so I figured that Mike would've either noticed my comments directly on the SPI, or on Limelightangel's page - I should have explicitly pinged him at an earlier point, but failed to do so. Honestly, I'd rather have it resolved by this committee than let it fester for a month, even though the incoming tranche is likely to be more favorable towards me - I had been gearing up a bunch of drafts (some offline) and find it incredibly distracting to have an arbcom case floating over my head, since both any content disputes and any perfectly fine but disagreed with by someone uses of my admin toolset are likely to be brought up in the case - I'll essentially be uncomfortable making use of the admin toolset at all (even in situations I've already engaged in,) and worse than average at drafting content in the first five weeks in a year where I actually can draft content if this ends up carrying over to Jan/Feb/March. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean, I'd certainly rather not have that motion be "desysop" since the two most serious incidents involved were (a) short and (b) following the advice of another admin, but I certainly dislike the idea of the case waiting to even start until the next tranche of arbs has taken their seats and bee organized - which I would imagine would be rather late in January. I normally make plenty of useful use of my tools (as I mentioned somewhere, good admin actions tend to be less noticed than bad admin actions.) I restored several dozen previously G5'ed articles last night because I had checked their sourcing and it was solid and stuff we were unlikely to have anyone else write (one of the GA's I had earlier restored I literally went to an academic library to track down books for,) but despite the act that my restorations went over without controversy last night, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable doing the same today. Likewise, I've recently issued significant blocks to established but highly disruptive users that I doubt I'd currently feel comfortable issuing, since (particularly if they have friends,) such actions are often brought up in cases that are held in the moment, let alone two months down the road. I've been moderating disputes quietly between multiple individuals, including at times threatened or actual use of blocks to enforce decorum, and again am not sure I'd feel comfortable doing so with a multi-month gap between acceptance and actually hearing the case - or even for that matter, comfortable getting in to content disputes, or blocking students who are being disruptive or committing plagiarism (since blocking students at all tends to make people unhappy.) The case, if heard now, would involve two issues that lasted less than twenty minutes (one at the advice of an admin,) and one set of unblocks that were at the advice of an admin/spi clerk. The case heard two months from now would involve all of that, plus any admin decisions people disagreed with in the interim (and how many blocks have you made that made someone *happy* with you, regardless of the circumstances?,) plus any accusations of wrongdoing w/r/t content.
I have no desire to give up the toolset - it's too useful for both education program purposes, getting people in disputes to knock it off, dealing with certain undisclosed paid editors, resurrecting G5'ed articles that are worth saving, and a whole host of other things - but if this gets held in late January, I'll either basically be unable to do much between now and then, or it'll wind up including every trivial accusation anyone can think of tossing my way in the interim. Really, ideally, if this committee accepts the case, this committee should hear the case. Accepting cases to be heard by a subsequent committee seems... weird. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, the deleted comments here don't thrill me either, as a claim which didn't stack up under scrutiny. Not the end of the world, but it would have been good not to have said you had arbcom endorsement for outing an editor when that is demonstrably incorrect. However as the case will inevitably roll over the New Year it's not really my view that's relevant, but that of the new committee. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Violation of topic ban
Here User:E-960 appears to be canvassing others to take up "his" fight on an article on which he was topic banned: [15]. Wikipedia policy states: [16] "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as....discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia (emphasis mine).Faustian (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Faustian: Thanks for the note. You are correct, though I have assumed good faith that this is an accidental breach caused by not realizing that the topic ban extends to other WP space than just the article in question. Have left a message on E-960's talkpage to make clear that its necessary to stay entirely away from the topic while the ban is in effect. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. According to policy AfD is an appropriate place to conclude a move/rename. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC).
In my view it does not vary the snow keep on deletion of the dab, which follows from your declined CSD. However I gather you were requesting a page move and not deletion of the dab? If so there's two options:
a Requested Move discussion, which has the disadvantage of requiring you to state your case a second time but the advantage of maximising input from interested editors of the article. I believe this has the strongest procedural basis, and where this conversation should have started. If you choose this option I will nonetheless note the procedural issue you raise in an amendment to the close. Please also note the close already makes clear it is without prejudice to an RM immediately afterward;
as a path of least bureaucratic resistance I can reopen the AfD with a note referencing this conversation and observing that the AfD itself might (uncommonly) substitute for a Requested Move. This has the advantage of not requiring you to restate your case for a move. Happy to do this if preferred, though the debate so far seems opposed to this as an outcome.
I have no particular view on the actual content request, so with both procedural options open will proceed with whichever seems collectively reasonable for those involved. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of the RM process of course but in a lightly edited DAB it would hard to find editors to discuss an RM. I tried to be bold but an Admin insisted on reverting each effort. As all the reasonable titles around this are now burned, that left AfD. I have no quam with a DAB page at a (disambiguation) title. I would most appreciate reopening with your comment as very helpful given the type of page. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New South Wales Marine Corps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulkhead. 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.
The IP editor is likely to be QUIX4U and Roxburgh NZ but these accounts were mistakenly blocked as sockpuppets of another user. Peter James (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Peter James: thanks for the message. They admit to being a sock of blocked editor QUIX4U. Even if they hadn't, the talkpage comparison is fairly conclusive. Whether QUIX4U deserved an indefinite block is something I will leave to Favonian, the blocking admin from 2012, to comment on if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a quibble with the explanation of the site ban on this person's Talk page. That said, I don't feel strongly about it, so if you disagree, you can of course keep it the way it is.
I would change the first paragraph to read:
What this means (and how it is different to your previous indefinite block) includes that further edits from your sockpuppets may be reverted, regardless of their merit, by any editor; and you may not be unblocked without a specific community consensus to do so.
I omitted the phrase "ie unblocking is no longer a routine admin decision but something that requires wider input". It was a CU block and could only be lifted or modified by me or another CheckUser. Thanks, btw, for closing the discussion at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Yes, that's a fair point. I have a kind of boilerplate explanation for what community bans mean, and on this occasion used too simple a clause. I'll go amend it to avoid the minor potential for wikilawyering. -- Euryalus (talk)
Done. For some reason WP:CUBL is not redirecting from my device, but it's always worked before so will leave the redirect page alone and assume this is just some passing weirdness. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Euryalus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
; see Talk:Prince of Wales (ship) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Doing... -- Euryalus (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Done. Good luck with the further discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
