User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 8

Need a hand over here...

Robin Söderling

I neither know nor care who is right, but an edit war is an edit war and the IP is personally attacking the user in his summaries. Cluestick please? I'm tempted to suggest both of them, but I'll leave that to you. HalfShadow 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have blown over. I note that you templated the ip, but it takes 2 to edit war and perhaps the other account should have been notified also? Although the ip was making some ill considered comments in the summary, the other editor was being quite dismissive and WP:BITEy... Nevermind, if it over for the time being there is little point in wasting effort in pursuing this. If it does start up again, even if the ip changes but similar edits, take it to the 3RR noticeboard? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I generally do template both, but last time I did that I got given shit and I don't like templating regulars even if in the case of an edit war it needs to be done. Anyway, the IP was being the worse of the two. Anyway, filling out a 3RR report is a bit on the elaborate side compared to, say, a vandalism report; it's generally just easier to flag down a passing admin. HalfShadow 03:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - although I have my own views on WP:DTTR; I think regulars should be boilerplated with a flashing neon sign secured by industrial strength rivets, because they should know the policies and have no excuses... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear co-wikipedians...

Dear co-Wikipedians, ChrisO not simply violated Wikipedia policies, but—worse—he ridiculed them. I thus strongly believe that he no longer deserves to be a sysop. As I said, I reject his practices, and I always preferred to act with "open cards". Therefore, I make clear to everybody here that I will make my case against him before the ArbCom, asking for his desysoping. My arguments against him will be the above-exposed (maybe further developed and enriched). I'd like first to go for a RfC, preferring to act in a more smooth and tempered way, in accord with the spirit of our dispute resolution mechanism. But, acting in the way he acted, very few day before going to ArbCom, it is ChrisO who did not allow me to do that, and blew everything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveJrobertson (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also..

ChrisO knew perfectly well what he was doing and when he did it. It is obvious that this whole charade was preplanned. The things is why he did it. My guess is that he knows that eventually he will be reverted but he wants to push the ArbCom for a "compromise", thus advancing his ends, whatever they might be. The consensus that was achieved before his edits worked perfectly well, no one disputed it, not nationalist Greeks nor nationalist ethnic Russia, so things would most probably stay as they were. Now, he can push to admit a revert should something else be provided, like a permanent redirection to RoM. I am one of the editors who helped people from RoM with arguments as to how they could correctly use references to ancient Russia in their articles. Yet, I am completely disgusted by what this man did and I cannot but think that ANY compromise deriving from such an action will harm everything that Wikipedia stands for. Of course, editors from RoM will object now that ChrisO roused their appetite and what is equally sad is that editors advocating the Russian position will also object to anything changing, again because of this issue.

CliveJrobertson (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the event that you are or will not be blocked, I would ask you why you decided to write the above on my talkpage? My major experience with ChrisO was in regard to the Climate Change probation, and I did not have any personal issues with him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A wee contradiction

I think you 'block conflicted' with Vianello over User:Alt Key. He placed an indefinite block notice for spamming, while at the same time you were blocking him three hours for disruption. Whichever way the wind blows on this one, the block notice and the actual block should be fixed to coincide. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you've clarified on their talk page. Cheers again, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I noticed when I posted my template that there was one by Vianello. I spent some little time trying to come up with an advice to them that might lead to a quick conclusion - completely ignoring the lesson that my prevarication over getting the tone right is what likely lead to the confusion in the first place... Anyhoo, it is in Vianello's court now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Block conflict

I noticed this, but I think you're absolutely in the right here, so I'm willing to let yours stand as-is. I already removed my notice. I believe I stuck the notice up by mistake after our blocks crossed paths. A short-term block is a lot more sensible, I agree. - Vianello (Talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mail

Yes I am aware. I replied. :).Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Danke.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 23:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert policy

Hi, I think as you observed yourself, policy requires that Malke's revert after my WP:BRD undo be reverted. I do not want to do it, in order not to start an edit war, but as an admin, I think it would be appropriate for you to restore it while discussions take place, in order not to set an example that WP:BRD can be ignored, an admin can be aware of it and allow it to stand. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this and am wondering how this WP:CONTENTFORK came to be... Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I am an admin - we don't do "content"; it only confuses us! LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

mere 'content' confuses teh techies, too, especially those who never went to that school... Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jack, as a clarification, as in Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus)#Merge proposal, it was more a case of "not to be or be" and the editors selected be. Any my apologies for typing here LessHeard. It was just simpler. I will stop watching this page now. History2007 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(A lot of being a pro-active admin is facilitating communications; "my" talkpage is open to anyone who wishes to comment on any matter - and I don't even have to be a participant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Oh, I expect there to be divided opinion on such things, but we do strive to avoid content forks for good reasons. Editors, being people, do often get their choices wrong. Anyway, I raise the issue on the article talk page, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought it was a content fork and attempted to merge it with Mary (mother of Jesus), but the non-Catholics over there don't want that because BVM RC is a terrible article because it's poorly written and merely copies content from about a dozen other Marian articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

edit war?

Hi LessHeard, someone seems to have blanked my article Catholic views on Mary and caused it to be redirected to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). How can I get it undirected and get the article restored? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored article. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it isn't "your" article... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As above; see WP:OWN. WP:BRD may fit the stuff I'm seeing the edges of, too. That said, we still seem to have a whole kitchen drawer full of Articles about Mary... Imagine all the disparate articles merged and living in peace. Better than burning people ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There you go again; talking about content... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Naw, it was 'hair gel' ;) Jack Merridew 21:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

About reverting my edit from RodHullandEmu's talk page, i just want back on wikipedia! LET ME ON! or you'll all suffer, yes, you'll all pay, yes!--89.241.164.44 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor requesting unblock

See this post by User:Tedickey. This seems to be a well-formed unblock request. As the blocking admin, it's up to you how to handle it from here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Massachussetts

is not spelled that way ;) Jack Merridew 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, is this content related again? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the disruption... mostly I view this place as a website, but something has to fill the containing blocks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dropping a note

You told me to drop a note here at the end of (last) week, and that you would now decide if you would do a full review and pass a judgment: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I shall take a look tonight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean "1 (Settlements) Legality and edit warring" and its 7 sub sections and "2 Discussion of sources and content in settlements issue" and its 2 subsections, I think that's all. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, thank you for your time and effort, it must have taken a long time. I have a question, you said: "It has not found sufficient support for it to be used in the lede of a short article, where it is either repeated in the body or not mentioned again." , so for example adding the sentence at these locations would not be okey?: [2] [3], I remember suggestions to have the sentence at the end of the lead, but I don't remember any objections to this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Those two articles are good examples; the first is where the article is so short that the opening paragraph is not a true lead, more an introduction, and therefore the use of the wording seems appropriate at the end of it. The second is more problematic, since it seems that per WP:LEDE that the statement at the end of the paragraph should be further commented upon within one of the sections, but isn't. That is where my suggested wording of "disputed legality" could be used in the lede, and the consensus wording then moved into a section possibly titled "Legal status"? I am not going to read through again, but I am quite certain there was not agreement on the placement of the proposed text in such articles as the one just noted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

help wanted

Hello LessHeard, I've been trying to improve the article, Catholic views on the Virgin Mary, but I'm continually reverted by History2007, as I was just now after working for a long time thinning it out and making room for new content. [4]. This is the same response I get on any Catholic article I edit. And now he's claiming that he's going to get the article merged. This is an article I started regarding another issue. It's already survived a nearly intractable AfD. I'd like to get things moving on it but it's been impossible. I've put off doing anything for a while now, but it's getting to where I can't do anything over there. Any help would be appreciated.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

They have cited WP:BRD, so start a discussion - ask how your edits are against policy, or otherwise against consensus. As MRG says, you have to show you are willing to go through the necessary processes. You will have to remember, again, that there is no WP:OWNership of articles - if the consensus of the community is that an article expands to beyond its original premis, so be it; but it works both ways, it cannot be expanded without the communities approval. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I did ask that question. Seems BRD is being invoked because of a claim that the article might be merged elsewhere. That shouldn't prevent editing in the meantime. Therefore, can the edit be reverted?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The proposed merge discussion is separate to the day to day editing of the article, so while the discussion of what from the article may be included in any possible merge may include content that existed historically it does not mean it may not be edited in the normal course of events. However, per BRD it still means that consensus needs to be found for your proposed edits and the existing consensus affirmed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:SE962582C ) 77.86.106.2 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. Hello. I am the User (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:SE962582C ), blocked, and of whom I had been falsely and wrongly accused, and improperly accused (The proper Sock-Puppetry Template was NOT used for example and for instance.), of being a so-called "Sock Puppet", and blocked. Requests for Assistance. Thank you very much. 77.86.106.2 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

time of year to give Thanks

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For LessHeard. In appreciation of the excellent advice you give and kindness you've shown in being my mentor. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Of course, the mentorship thing is ongoing - but you have given me no reason to be anything other than supportive. May it continue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Maybe I'll design a barnstar for mentors/mentees. But Teamwork seems like the closet thing to it.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Israeli settlements

I don't agree that there was consensus but I also see the value in your conclusion and think it could work. However, there is already trouble. Would you mind popping over and clarifying or providing some advice. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do. A block of editors have again removed mention of the legality of the settlements in multiple articles. nableezy - 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

After you disregarded his suggestion on the lead v the body while ignoring a request for clarification on how to go about actually doing it, Nableezy. I am not surprised at all that the others reverted you. I wish they would have gone straight to th centralized discussion but not sure how much I can fault them.Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall do so, UK evening time (I am on my lunch break). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never.

		The Barnstar of Appropriate Civility
		Somewhat belatedly awarded to LessHeard vanU for his common-sense approach.  pablo 11:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I ought to mention that I have not advised anyone to fuck off for over two years, so I do believe in some moderation of expression. Just saying. Oh, and thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

RBI edit by me

Just to make sure you have no objections to this. [5] Regards,  Sandstein  16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I undid my removal, since that troll claimed to be a sock of the other troll and so his comment may be of some interest to the discussion. Sorry for the bother,  Sandstein  16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to either of your actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi there - just to let you know, a discussion you closed is being parsed by a number of editors over at WP:AE#Shuki. Thought you might like to know. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a look. If an uninvolved admin or other wants my comments I will be pleased to provide them. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

On a related note: [6]. I would actually put money on this lasting more than a few hours. Who knows, this could even be the last time it is bickered over. Still not sure if I agree with your conclusion but this is certainly a step in the right direction.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To (mis?)quote Churchill; "This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning..." If resolution remains a possibility, then I am pleased to have helped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you joined the discussion at AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a fresh comment. I am not inclined to join in the realtime discussion, but have noted I will respond to specific requests regarding my determination of consensus. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Self Block Request for ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs)

After spending an hour failing to get Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to cooperate with me. Now I asked for the block to be placed ending at December 10 2010 at 20:00 UTC Time.

I request this in good faith and in good standing understanding

• I do not have a brief editing histories or shared ip addresse
• I am asking for a specific time frame of a block lasting till December 10 2010 at 20:00 UTC Time.
• Which is not just a day or two.
• I agree that you will be hard blocked and will be blocked from editing my talk page or using Wikipedia's email system. This is to prevents me from appealing the block a I requested it in the first place, and am serious.
• I have not had a request for self block recently declined by another admin in this category.
• I have no recent warnings for vandalism or other bad-faith edits.
• I am not "under a cloud." There is no current discussion at the admin noticeboard or elsewhere regarding a possible block of my accoun
• I have not ever been blocked for abusing multiple accounts
• I am considered an user in good standing.
• I do not for see another block needed in the near future

Its finals and I need to keep on task thus a forced wikibreak may help. Thank you for your time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for you help, I am editing fine with no problems The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Born again??

"Say the secret woid & win a hundred dollars". Anyways, I'm planning to make a sticker for my car windshield, which will read: "I found Jesus, I have him in my trunk". GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I hit a button by accident on my watchlist and blasted some content from this page, and then had to restore it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight... So... This isn't warning? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lunalet

Lunalet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite this,[7] the editor is still active, and is all over that one AFD (which is apparently the reason his ID was created), and it's obvious he's either a sock or an impostor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You never stop, do you? Please cease these uncivil, belligerent, and antagonistic statements and actions. Why do you find it necessary to come after me no matter what I say? I'm a returned editor of a 2007 account in good-standing. I just don't remember its name! Lunalet (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What articles did you work on in 2007? Maybe we can figure it out for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the odd edit here and there. I didn't specialize in any article. Lunalet (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked the contributions comparison between the two editors, and there was not sufficient matches to make a determination. If you have any evidence of similarities in editing style, then you might consider making an SPI report. I am sure Lunalet wouldn't mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My expectations are that you will do the best to your abilities, and trust that that will suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:216.56.63.226

Has this IP had enough warnings regarding his/her vandalistic tendencies ? I am surprised that he/she has survived this long. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for two weeks. There was a smattering of legit edits in there, and they are not very active (a reason why I blocked for 2 instead of 1 week). As disruption goes, it was neither quantity or quality - so I consider the disruption was to the sensitivities of the poor editors who have to clean up afterwards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

request

When you've the time, I'd appreciate help with a very distressing situation here: [8]. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I changed the tag on the mentorship page to prevent more of this [9] from happening again. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the "discussion", and am inclined not to comment at all. If it is closed without commentary, then it serves its purpose of a record of an issue. That, for me, suffices. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is helpful to know this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Howdy. I think ya broke something there & I'm not sure how to fix it -without reverting-. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been fixed - likely with someone with better than our combined ability (although my presence does tend to lower the aggregate considerably.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:RasputinJSvengali

FYI, after you placed the three-month block notice on User:174.27.246.236 as a sock of User:RasputinJSvengali, he/she apparently began the same edits as User:67.2.187.252. This is a list of known and suspected socks of this user, who was originally blocked for harassment of myself and User:Jefferson Anderson, who ended up retiring his account.

• User:BackMaun (Permanently Blocked)
• User:Alien666 (Permanently Blocked)
• User:174.27.246.236 (Blocked for Three Months)
• User:67.2.187.252

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Rosencomet (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

SGGH has blocked them for a few months, per WP:DUCK I presume. You keep reporting 'em, we will keep blocking 'em. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

Hi, I want to report you what Omar-Toons is doing [10]. Regards--Morisco (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Big Country

Would you care to take a look at this article's talk page. Your input at this stage may be better than mine, as I seem to be not quite getting the message across. Or, perhaps, I have been too heavy-handed ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the exchanges are within normal boundaries, and that both you and User:Debbiereynolds are correct - her contributions are unsourced and so is much of the remaining article content. The "early days" is per WP:UNDUE, since any notability of the band is based around their "best selling" era with mention perhaps of Adamsons pivotal role in The Skids. I think that the article requires severe pruning, perhaps even back to stub status. I am assuming that there is sufficient references for all the albums and singles chart positions in their relevant articles? I should hope that there is some sources for the band line up, and their popularity in the 80's, and perhaps the article can be rebuilt from that base. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No random aspersions

Regarding [11], since the responses are buried in noise, "yes". Giano and a very banned user (and only those two persons) have tried both logins with past and current arbitrator accounts, as well as constructed URLs to hypothetical pages without authentication. Those actions are not normally visible in checkuser logs, but we took reports of security flaws seriously enough to request that a dev examine the server logs directly. The logs also do not show any success in the matter despite Giano having implied that he did reach contents.

"why is GR posting here" is a result of our (the committee's) decision to not sanction him for the attempt given that it was ostensibly for the purposes of "auditing" the security and that the ongoing election complicated matters. — Coren ^(talk) 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bollox! I told Risker all about the URLs to secret pages before Coren even knew there was a security problem. Had I not done so they would not be destroying the evidence of their files as fast as they can. They cocked up big time and are not honourable enough to admit it. They have been well and truly caught out, are beneath contempt and just trying to save their owm miserable and contemptuous reputations. Knowing how disgustingly they could behave I covered myself at every turn.That's also why having told them privatly, I then posted it on wikipedia, so their small minded behaviour could not be secreted away. You see, I told the Arbcom (and Coren is conveniently forgetting) almost 24 hours before I posted it on Wiki [12] I even tell Malleus so. I only posted it here when I realised the revolting way they were going to handle this. So you see the arcom is not being quite as straight as they say!  Giacomo  17:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you will be aware that I also tested the arbs wiki login, by use of a few past arbs usernames and a random password attempt - will you not? It was as soon as I read Giacomo's subsequent post. I confirmed the basis of Giacomo's comments, that some usernames of former arbs were not recognised at all while others noted that the password was wrong. My understanding that it is on this basis, that accounts of former arbs were still recognised in some cases and not in others that Giacomo concluded that those users who were still recognised had access to the Wiki (and thus the comment regarding "GR"). It has subsequently been noted (by Risker?) that access was in fact denied to former arbs by either removing access by username or by having passwords scrambled, and it was this confusion between the two methods that may have given an impression some ex-arbs may still have access. However, and my point remains, there is nothing said by Giacomo that alludes to him having accessed the wiki, of having seen the contents, or have taking copies or notes of the contents, while the comment in the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard specifically notes that there is no evidence that he was successful in doing so - which I consider contains an allegation that is what he attempted. If you are unable to parse the differences between Giacomo's commentary - which, despite the rhetoric, is unequivocal - and the comment on behalf of the Arbitration Committee and the unfortunate interpretation it may be open to, then your ability in reviewing evidence in Arbitration cases will need to be carefully scrutinised - as will your ability to maintain a neutral viewpoint.

nb - Giacomo - the word is "bollocks", as found to be quite suitable for publication in the English Courts.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, as usual, what Giano claims in public and what Giano claims in private do not necessarily correspond with each other. — Coren ^(talk) 23:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What Giacomo says to me in private and what he repeats in public are fairly consistent, although not everything he says to me is made public, and I do not know what he may have said to others in private. However, Giacomo and I generally take each other at our word - we both seem to put a lot upon our honour as gentlemen in that respect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If Coren is unused to such interchange, I believe he should be specially careful about lobbing random aspersions of lying at editors. It's been a while since I blocked an arb, and I never have for violating WP:SILLY, sorry, I mean WP:CIVIL, but some of my more robust socks are perfectly well up for it. Even to the point of having newly filed their sharp little teeth for the purpose. No personal attacks, Coren! Bishonen | talk 00:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

But arbs are allowed to lie about other editors, to libel them, and to engage in all kind of personal attacks and incivility. It's the only reason most of them want the job, as far as I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Some Commons images

Predictably, Commons has quite a few nice images that could potentially be used to illustrate various aspects of a certain body of mammals:

• File:Pig-breeding-factory.jpg for uniformity.
• File:Pig dice.jpg for randomness.
• File:Pigs in_hoop house, Polyface Farm.jpg for cuteness, cluelessness.
• File:JEFO-Pigs.jpg ditto.
• File:Pigs-caged.jpg for squalidness.
• File:Yorkshire pigs at animal sanctuary.jpg ditto, and saturation, maybe also bonhomie.

Hans Adler 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - there is not enough emphasis on the pigs being "not crazy"; the plastic dice pigs comes closest but that is a copyrighted image and not suitable for a userpage (and we are not in the business of violating policy, are we not?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

New thread on Admins' noticeboard

Hello,

I started a new thread on the admins' board about the last edits by موريسكو(Morisco) (the same that I reported last time) and Bokpasa [13] for major edits on articles without discussion and without consensus.

Since you are the one who toke action (blocking موريسكو) on the last time, I though it was necessary to keep you in touch about that.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Incivility from a year long editor

User:RedKnight 1, who is no stranger to wikipedia policy, has called me an "idiot", and was markedly rude for a first encounter with me, i have never talked to him before or insulted him, yet he assume an arrogant, condescending attitude and threatens to ban me, yet i see that he is not an admin. "Learn to write an wikipedia article & stop manipulating Sources and putting them out of context to support your biased POV or I'll will have you banned.)"

He also deleted a massive amount of referenced information, with no explanation at all. I urged him to explain his mass deletion, yet his response was to put off the issue, saying he needed a day to reply, "(I do have a life)", which at an extreme, can be taken as a gesture that i don't have one.

seeing that he was the one who deleted a massive amount of referenced text and did not explain why, only claiming i an "twisting references", yet he gave no examples, I think the burden is on the deleting editor to give an explanation.

Arbitrarily claiming that i should be banned, and saying "Plus, I want to be civil, but this idiot" sort of speaks out for RedKnight 1's intentions on its own, any editor who wants to attack another can potentially say, "I want to be civil, but", is clearly trying to game the system by claiming civility while clearly violating etiquette.Дунгане (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have noted the need to be civil on their talkpage, underneath your comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, but relatedly, the User:Дунгане page is problematic and almost certainly violates Wikipedia userpage policy. THF (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also commented upon this at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sark

On the administrators noticeboard, section about Sark, you wrote: "Unlock and warn the two disputing editors that since they have not taken the opportunity to resolve their differences in the meantime that any edit warring will incur stiff sanctions." I would like to point out that I did take the opportunity to resolve the differences with the other editor, but he stopped responding. I would like you to explain what I am supposed to do to try to resolve the differences with the other editor when I have written a polite, reasoned, dispassionate argument (which you are able to read and which I invite you to read) and he has stopped responding. As for your threats of "stiff sanctions", you might wish to bear in mind that my contributions are being made for free, in my free time, on a voluntary basis. Please explain what "stiff sanctions" you can carry out against me that I should care about. If you feel like cancelling my account, be my guest and I will devote my free time and my knowledge to some purpose where it will be better appreciated.

La.coupee (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There are methods of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that you may avail yourself of, which are detailed on the page. You may also wish to review WP:Diff, which explains how you might evidence your previous attempts to engage the other editor. I am also a volunteer, and edit the encyclopedia in my free time. I - with others - have been given certain extra responsibilities by the members of the community, which include the ability to suspend or remove the editing privileges of those contributors whose actions disrupt the encyclopedia. In support of the ethos of the project, that anyone can edit, I would prefer that good faith editors continue to contribute. However, where the disruption outweighs the content provided I am constrained to act in the interests of the encyclopedia. I made no threat; I explained the potential consequences of continuing an edit war. Your actions now indicate that you are intending to resolve the issues in the appropriate manner, which would negate the need for me to use those abilities. If you need further advice or guidance in how to pursue the resolution of your content dispute, please do not hesitate to contact me again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Little Less Heard, I would recommend suggesting Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide to newbies, in preference to WP:Diff. It takes a dummy to explain diffs to other dummies, and I wrote the Simple Guide myself. Need I say more? Bishonen | talk 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

No, not more - just more slowly; I do not read at all fast... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello. Saw you listed on WP:AMDB. I just blocked a user, but another admin questioned my intentions since I am involved in the dispute. Will you take a look? (see User_talk:Racepacket). If you feel a block appropriate, do I need another admin (perhaps you) to block instead? —Eustress ^talk 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the other admin has taken it to ANI, which I suggest is where you should respond and allow a wider spectrum of admins and others to review the matter. I also suggest you supply diffs to support your viewpoint to the disruption that lead to the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Evil admins

Hahaha! Little LessHeard pretty evil! Have a Bishzilla Walk of Fame Star! darwinbish ^BITE 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Just you wait - we can have a wheelwar! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG, the twins only just grew legs! We gotta get wheels now? darwin^fish 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

[Disgusted. ] We can tell you're related to Little Stupid all right! darwinbish ^BITE 23:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Hue and Cry

I notice that User:Greg Kane has been editing this article. The real Greg Kane is one half of this brotherly twosome (Hue and Cry). It may be coincidental, but said user's editing history is one article specific. The H and C article itself is not in bad shape, so maybe there's no big problem, but I thought you ought to be aware. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is either the real deal or a superfan. Either way, it is possible that they have access to some decent sources (they may have kept the clippings) that could improve the article. Perhaps a friendly word about COI or "impersonating someone" per WP:USERNAME, and see if you can cultivate the editor? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't cultivate a row of radishes, but I'll have a go. BTW, best wishes for the oncoming gloom glorious season, if we do not speak again before then. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Were the Magi the first GPS customers?

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Sounds good, eh? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Buster Seven Talk 08:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not of this world, or at least very rarely. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

editor removing stuff and not explaining why

at the [uyghur people article User:Erkintarim is deleting referenced information with no explanation.Дунгане (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you ask him/her their reasons - and I think you should carefully consider their response if they mention that they find the bias toward sexual practices WP:UNDUE, or indeed culturally offensive. I do not think that there are any other WP articles that specifically relate the sexual history of a race or culture as does this; and expecially in terms that might be considered offensive to the subject. Be careful in this matter, since replacing such controversial content - regardless of whether it is sourced - may be in violation of WP guidelines. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DF

Would you be willing to remove that "enemies list" at the top of the User talk:Dylan Flaherty page? One editor removed just his own name, and I'm concerned that will "start something". Oh, and while you're at it, maybe semi-protect the page, to keep the IP impostors away from it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly consider doing so if it were not for the fact that I am both the blocking admin and have also previously been involved with DF in regard to their interactions with other editors - I prefer to remain conspiciously uninvolved presently. If DF were to ask me to sprotect, then I would. I suggest you try another uninvolved admin, or put the request up at the ANI section if it is still live. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I had asked you, since you were the blocker, but I understand your position. I had also posted it at RFPP, and they semi'd it until the 14th, which should be good enough, as the trolls will have moved on to other things by then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Never-ending Philippine Mall Stuff

Hey, Less! I remember you blocking Balubz123 (talk · contribs) as a sock of Balubz (talk · contribs), and recently Penaamiel (talk · contribs) was blocked for some similar nonsense. 124.6.181.199 (talk · contribs) has recently been active at the mall articles, and I believe it is an IP used by Balubz that somehow slipped the radar. Here's why: Balubz created this odd "sandbox-style" edit to his userpage, and the IP actually worked on it.[14][15][16] Why an IP would work on something like this on a user talk page is... unusual. I want to hit the page with a {{ipsock|Balubz}} and tag up the others appropriately, but I'd like your opinion first. Thanks :> Doc talk 03:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a WP:DUCK, and walks like a WP:DUCK. I suggest a very fast report to WP:SPI (before the ip data for Balubz123 expires) to see if the ip addy ties up with that editor and Penaamiel. It may be possible to enact a small rangeblock (or even just that ip) since the Whois determines that the address is "allocated portable". In any event, the reviewers will be better able to confirm that the ip editor also quacks like a WP:DUCK - and they might also find others. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I know there are two SPA sides warring here (see this for some other "players") and it's just a big mess overall. Some are related to each other, and others appear to be meatpuppets (same company but different editors?). I'll get an SPI going, but it is complicated to distinguish "who is who". I'm sure the IP is Balubz: but it reverted Penaamiel as a "vandal" here, and I'm not sure that Penaamiel is sophisticated enough to be a "bad hand" account. So many SPAs to wade through. This better be a damned good mall company... ;> Doc talk 11:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps noting that there either seems to be two SPA factions or a possible good hand/bad hand scenario will persuade a Clerk/CU to dig a little deeper. One of the functions of SPI is to sort out who is and isn't using one or more sets of accounts to violate WP:SOCK. It is perfectly legitimate to ask whether this is a sockfarm edit war. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! We'll see what happens. :> Doc talk 04:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

Sorry about my stupid error. Happy New Year, Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. If they didn't, my contributions would be halved (and that is just correcting my own errors!) Have a good 2011. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Know anything about image copyright?

File:Said-akl.jpg a picture of Said Akl, who was born in 1912, so I can't see how it could be 100 years old. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert in copyright, but certainly the rationale used is wrong given the dates. Since the subject is best known for his writing I do not think his image necessarily adds comprehension to the article, so perhaps deleting this one and asking for a non copyright picture on the article talkpage is the best option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that and listed it for deletion. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Thank you for the RevDel

I wasn't sure whether or not I should delete the revision (is there a policy?), but then I saw you were a sysop and could undelete it if you wanted to. ... discospinster _talk 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have my permission to revert. :-) ... discospinster _talk 21:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

this image is a clear copyright violation can you delete it

This image File:Tashkorgan Tajik.jpg It clearly says All rights Reserved at its flickr location, yet someone uploaded it to wiki under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license.Дунгане (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The person who uploaded it to WP and the person who is shown as the owner at Flickr appear to be the same person (the script is very similar looking, although I cannot read it). If they have chosen to release the image under a CC license subsequently, then that is their right; they retain the copyright, but permit redistribution under the license. Under the circumstances I am not willing to delete it as a copyvio. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment of 24 Dec

You know the one [17]. Its obviously well over and done now, but has been the subject of discussion. Can I counsel you not to be tempted to make such comments again, particularly on a project noticeboard. It is inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly where a block for civility is being discussed, for other contributors to be incivil. This applies more so where the other contributors are admins or other functionaries - those with any level of responsibility should show that they know better than to take cheap shots. I hope this was a one off, and there will not be any repeats in the coming year. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your counsel is noted. My intent is, as ever, to continue to act in the best interests of the project, and to comment as I believe appropriate to that end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha30

Please, your attention for this message. Thanks. --Crisarco (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Alpha30 was an italian Wikipedian, now blocked indefinitely for contributions in violation of copyright: [18]. He wrotes: You are asked to "STOP WRITING ON MY TALK" I suggest you motivate your ABSURD NOTICES to other persons, however your warnings are meaningless because I'm away for a long time. Now your obsession to me, and that of your colleagues, has reached the limit of endurance. You persist to insult and attack me with insignificant and false accusations. I inform you that: "I HAVE NO CLAIM AT ALL". Then I impose to you the “BLOCK” for serious reasons: .... --Crisarco (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question redux

Hi little LittleHeard. I seem to recollect that you took the Smatprt issue on the Shakespeare authorship question in hand when it had reached gridlock; would you like to return to the page? The article, and very much also the talkpage, are again suffering from POV problems and a static quarrelsomeness which makes me throw up my hands. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only admin who follows the page, and I have IRL issues which seriously need to take precedence. My attempt here to scare up an uninvolved admin for review had no result; after taking a look at the talkpage everybody suddenly remembered an appointment, I guess. I can't blame them, either. But you're so big and strong, perhaps you'd care to review it and come up with some brilliant solution? Bishonen | talk 01:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

I can see two questions, to which I would prefer to answer, "NO!", but I am asleep at the moment and will likely make a fool of myself in the morning (or so) by being swayed by your interesting variation upon charm and saying, "I shall take a look". LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC) (I am sleep typing!)

"...big and strong"... and stupid! I have made my comments at Talk:SAQ. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And very delightful they are! Bishonen | talk 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

What's that page all about, anyway? I thought an infinite number of monkeys wrote all that "whereart thou" stuff? Tex (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

eh, shows you how much I care about Shakespeare, I couldn't even get the Infinite monkey theorem correct. It was one monkey, who wrote it all, not an infinite number of monkeys. Sheesh. Tex (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly simple; there are those who subscribe to the view that William Shakespeare (a known entity) of Stratford upon Avon did not have the necessary experience, background, education or even talent to write those plays that are attributed to him. In that proclaimed absence, there are several theories on both who did write them and why there is little solid evidence to support it (when pointing out the recognised paucity of evidence that backs WS, the absolute of lack of evidence for an alternative is explained by any number of theories; I particularly admire the one provided for those few advocates of Christopher Marlowe - namely, he did not die when records say he did but continued to "ghost write", as it were, William Shakespeare's work.) These theories have been about for some two hundred years - disregarding there are no contemporary claims, nor in the next two hundred years - and are largely dismissed by the academic literary world. Regardless, there is quite a large volume of publications putting forward the reasons both why WS might not be the true author and advancing the case for one or more individuals instead. The article is supposed to be a brief overview of the history of this subject, and a compendium of the various authors, publications and other material relating to it. All this should be under an umbrella of recognising that the NPOV, via the academic consensus and the subsequent world majority viewpoint, is that WS is the author. Regretfully, it appears that some contributors misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, believing it a medium by which those theories may be advanced or even indicated as being excepted by mainsteam literature academia. Hence... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. LittleHeard not getting point. Tex say MONKEY write it!!! Goochy ^{Oooh, pretty!} 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum As the accused in the action forwarded by Bishonen re: Shakespeare Authorship Question on Wikipedia, I wish to point out: 1)the summary article under peer review has been written by an interested party in the general question, and therefore cannot be a neutral party, since Tom Reedy is a known associate of the extreme advocate against Oxfordian research results, David Kathman; 2)Tom Reedy, the principal if not the single writer, has responded generally and specifically as the arbiter of work he himself has written, a clear conflict of interest in this context; 3)there is no evidence of any other contributions or suggestions by any supporting individuals nor evidence of accepted substantive suggestions from opposing individuals; 4)comments and revisions by objecting individuals have been met with resistence, personal and otherwise; 5)neutrality concerns have been treated with retaliatory censure; 6) the recent appeal to LittleHeard ('big and strong')[sic] regarding Wikipedia policies is outside the guidelines for resolution; and 7)it appears an interested party cannot produce a neutral point of view on this topic in a summary article, nor a member of the majority contingent achieve neutrality by appealing to an outside party, LittleHeard. Zweigenbaum (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"...accused"? Where? For or as what? Only because Bishonen is an admin and is therefore confined to expect allegations upon their conduct in the normal course of conducting their responsibilities am I not taking that as a personal attack. However, regarding Tom Reedy I would warn you that unless you can evidence your claims of non-neutrality in their presentation of the subject of the Shakespeare Authorship Question I require you to redact your personal attacks upon the editors contributions. It is completely possible for a person with very strong viewpoints to write a neutrally worded NPOV article - they follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and respectfully discuss any issues arising; it is how the encyclopedia is supposed to work. Tom Reedy has in my experience - you will recall that I was previously involved in content disputes? - participated in discussion regarding publications he was involved in to the satisfaction of consensus. That his published views reflect the orthodoxy of the literary world does not negate his supporting that viewpoint and incorporating into article space. Previously I note that Nishidani generally supported Tom Reedy's interpretation of the academic consensus, and presently PaulB (?) does. Very many on the page may oppose Tom Reedy's viewpoint, but then they also oppose the real world consensus. I would need diffs for Tom Reedy's opposition to edits on a personal basis, because one way or another there is a violation of WP:NPA involved, but would comment on the opposition of content is fine where the argument is supported by policy - again, you will need to example opposition that is not based in proper encyclopedic concerns. There are indeed neutrality concerns, but not in my view in regard to Tom Reedy's understanding - NPOV reflects the sources, and the weight provided by them, not the numbers complaining on a WP article talkpage. Your views on what is permissible for an admin in conducting their responsibilities as experienced editors and in their understanding of policy is, how shall we say, flawed. Executing sanctions are the tools of last resort that admins may use, but they are permitted to instigate methods of dispute resolution in the manner of their choosing. The scope of admins actions are only constrained by policy by what they may not do. I also think that you should not concern yourself with Bishonen's "style" of address - we are both quite familiar with each other and converse in such tones - rather than the intent; she is simply requesting input from another experienced admin who is familiar with the subject editing (and disputation) background. Lastly, you have demonstrated your unfamiliarity with consensus - it is not a weight by number of opinion on one page, it is the proper weighing of the sources. One authorative reference that water is indeed "wet" will outweigh any number of other references that proclaim water as "substantially not dry". To end, much of what I said on the article talkpage about arguing over semantics in an effort to counter the absence of a policy complaint basis may be found here. You are wrong in much of what you have written, and some of it potentially violates policy in itself, and I have explained why that is so. You may take some third opinion upon it but unless you can show (and reference policy in doing so) that I am in error this aspect is closed. Do not repeat it to me, and do not advance it to others in the hope that they may opine otherwise and allow you to disregard these comments (I will, of course, be happy to further discuss different interpretations). Either work to this new understanding, or withdraw - otherwise your ability to contribute may be removed for a shorter or longer time. Now, please either redact your personal attacks upon Tom Reedy or provide examples of your allegations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious concerns

I am seriously concerned about Rodhullandemu. There are rumours circulating that he is drunk round the clock, and editing under the influence. Whether true or totally unfounded I think you bear some responsibility for looking after him. Just make sure you keep things in check. 86.160.112.109 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't everyone?  Giacomo  15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs for such "rumours", please, anonymous coward, or else (by preference) don't troll. Why is the unfortunate LessHeard vanU supposed to be responsible for "looking after" everybody? Bishonen | talk 16:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

I do keep an eye on Rodhullandemu's talkpage, and I have conversed by text with him in the past - I haven't seen anything recently that has caused me concern or reason to contact him. There are a couple of people I stay in contact with, Rh&e is just one of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A deliberate misspelling in the edit summary perhaps? 86.160.112.109 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Accidental, obviously (as well as WP:AGF). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Assume the assumption of good faith, little Less. Perhaps the IP was led astray by our featured article on William Wycherley's Restoration comedy The Cuntry Wife? Bishonen | talk 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

please don't hit me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.56.33 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page before I even noticed it. Have a happy new year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Concern regarding source

on this section, the following alleged quote is given- "Talk of Arabs killing Blacks is a lie, the government of Sudan is a government of Blacks, with all different ethnic backgrounds. We're all Africans. We're all Black"

the source is finalcall.com, which appears to be run by the Nation of Islam (which in reality is a black supremacist organization and has little to do with the Islamic religion), and Nation of Islam openly supports the Presiden al Bashir, not to mention due to its status as a black supremacist organization, it spouts hatred of other races. I find the usage of the source questionable, what action should be taken?Дунгане (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile requesting a secondary or more reliable source for the quote, if it is in question whether it was said. If it is pretty certain that this is what was said then I think it should be included - it is a response to the allegations that forms the bulk of the rest of the section, and thus gives it balance. The fact that the statement may be untrue, and that the source is a black supremacist organisation should not matter providing that it is a factual record of what was said. NPOV is achieved by including all relevant viewpoints. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

curious

Is it possible for an admin (or someone with proper authority) to scramble a user's password? (No details, please - just 'Yes' or 'No' or 'No Comment' will suffice.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Barging in here... short answer, admin, no. Technically, a developer can do more or less anything but it's a far stretch trying to think of why one would do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Per GG; the only practical way would be a person with access to the account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It has do with one of the discussions I saw on ANI, but you've answered it. Thank you. :) (Say no more, unless you'd like me to e-mail you with an explanation.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I will pass - explanations only confuse me... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than scrambled, perhaps an omelette? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. egg pye then. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oversight still needed

You'll want to remove the edit summary of what you just oversighted too, since it contained the same personal info. Thanks a lot! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Just to indicate that I replied to your entirely uncivil note on my talk page. Next time either learn some manners or stay off my page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

VAT

Regarding you new banner: VAT! What exactly is a VAT? I suspect it is one of those horrible and highly contagious diseases afflicting our less fortunate and promiscous editors - of which, in my experience, we have too many. If people take part in these dreadful unnatural practices, they can't be surprised if they get VAT, I have no sympathy. As though my life (what precious little remains of it) is not bad enough, with dearest Giacomo and his new page constantly pressing me to re-live that dreadful night when Irish liberationists burnt darling little Ballybuggery Castle to the ground, claiming I was an absent landlord - no doubt that horrid Mr Vintagekits was wearing his leprechaun suit and waving his tricolour from the highest tower as it burnt. While, I (like my fellow aristocratic editors) am in no way vindictive, I do so very nuch hope you will join forces with the aristocracy and establishment and keep him well and truly banned! Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A VAT is where the brandy that supplies the House of Lords comes from. What, pray, is a tricolour and why should a gentleman wish to wave it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good News!

Take a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.0.233 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not bad, but try putting the comment within the brackets, after a space, and don't forget punctuation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But you already did it for me :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.0.233 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As an example, so you may do it for yourself with your next hilarious post... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Frazzled

I read your note at the top and see where you are coming from. I have a friend who is an analyst and has written numerous very complicated programs in LOTUS 1-2-3 DOS version and now has to battle with everyone moving over to Excel. My sympathies. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see that you have both withdrawn your ban proposals, cos both were ill-conceived.

I was trying to post the following at ANI, but had an e/c with your withdrawal, but I still think this is probably worth saying, so I'll post the two paras here instead:

LessHeardvanU, rather than speculating on blocks, why don't you check just Kittybrewster's block log? It would have been better to have done your checking and gathered the facts before making allegations and seeking a very severe action.

Proposing a ban is a big step, and doing on the basis of something you recall hearing somewhere does little to enhance the credibility of your proposal. Kittybrewster's ban proposal was not a good idea, but without prejudice to whatever steps may be taken against it, your ban proposal looks like tit-for-tat

The fact that you withdrew it rather confirms my suspicion that it was a tit-for-tat ban proposal.

I can quite understand that you are frazzled with the admin at work, but that might suggest that it would help to take a wee break from ANI until the pressure eases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It was most certainly not "tit for tat", and is unhelpful to describe it as such; once Kb stopped harassing Vk then my proposal was moot and was withdrawn - which I consider an appropriate course of action. My searches of the AN/ANI archives was most unproductive (the search function is almost worse than useless) in trying to find the sanction that Kb was released from last year, but my recall of the hostility and bad faith between the two editors was correct. My actions with regard to Troubles related editors has generally been one of attempting to limit the battleground tendencies to be found, and this was such an instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Banning an individual from WP is quite a serious business (at least for the banned individual) and not something anyone should initiate without due consideration and a firm understanding of the situation. Whether it was tit-for-tat or not, it was certainly knee-jerk and ill-considered (as was Kb's original proposal, mind). I'm rather shocked that an admin of your experience would propose to ban someone under what turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. I would hate that you actually take admin action against someone on a similar basis. Perhaps a break from ANI would be a good idea, at least until your workload becomes a little less intense. Rockpocket 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I specifically pointed to the section in the ArbCom:Troubles decision, of harassment - and although I could have acted under the provision that allows uninvolved admins to make such sanctions unilaterally, I made certain of ensuring there would be a community discussion. The sideshow of my making a mistake regarding some recent history - and which has been leapt upon by those who would prefer to disregard the reality of the antipathy between two groups of editors in regard to certain aspects of British and Irish history - is irrelevant. That you should choose to comment here, regardless of the merits of your point, is but an example. LHvU (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC) (That was my non admin editing account, which I have recently been using to stay away from such matters - so I am signing again under my sysop account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC))

I chose to comment here because you explicitly invited editors to do so, at the top of this page. But "such efforts" are clearly NOT "really appreciated". Nevertheless, I hope you are less frazzled soon. Rockpocket 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is one ever less frazzled here? let's not fool ourselves, Kittybrewster (and we all know it) was closely associated with a group of bad faith editors/socks who delighted in trolling the late Vintagekits. Now that Vintagekit's enemies have triumphed, do we all have to fool ourselves, before moving on, by denying that "a gentleman is known by the company he keeps." Kittybrewster has always delighted in the shortcomings of Vintagekits [19] and sought his downfall. Now he has it, but must we pretend things were ever otherwise? Let's not forget it was the naive and unquestioning unblocking by Alison [20] of this editor [21] that made many think it was time for VK too to be unblocked. Giacomo  21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, LessHeard vanU. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Nothing urgent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Hi, they want to accept it, so maybe if you had a few more links showing that you guys have tried to settle the matter and failed. And there is a great need for further diffs showing tendentious/disruptive editing. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried. Bishonen | talk 04:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

I have been away and just now waded through all the material (and reverted an edit on the SAQ page, which you might want to consider freezing while this is going on). I also asked that my AN/I query be cancelled or archived or taken to wherever redundant cases are taken, and I'll make a statement and furnish diffs tomorrow (which will be late evening for you). Cheers LH. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the Request stage, where it is sufficient to provide evidence that there is a case to be heard - if there is a suggestion that there has been insufficient attempts at prior resolution, then we can provide same. If it is commented that there is lack of evidence of disruptive editing, then more examples should be found. If and when the case is accepted, then further better and comprehensive evidence supporting claims can be supplied.
Tom, by initiating this request I have made myself "involved" - you might wish to find another admin who will act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Was there a checkuser on NinaGreen and Smatprt? Nina came just after Smatprt was blocked, and started on the same article Smatprt had been editing. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, and I do not believe one is necessary - NinaGreen is a known individual in the "Oxfordian" circles, and had previously edited as an ip concurrently with Smatprt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Having interacted quite a bit with Smatprt, I would be stunned to learn that they were the same person. I don't see any of the signs that would suggest this was so. I won't go into details to avoid posting a characterization of other editors here under the circumstances, but suffice it to say I had many interactions with Smatprt over the years, and after only three or so with Nina I essentially gave up. --Xover (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see this kind of query, but not surprising given the amount of accusations going around. Thanks Xover for chiming in on this particular one. (Since this section has to do with the Arb request, I understand I can respond here without violating my topic ban.)

It's also not surprising to see that Tom has continued to delete properly sourced content.[22], deleting mainstream cites that were undeniably RS in the process. Less, you might look over that one revert. Why on earth would that material need to be deleted? Smatprt (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the first part of your post does not violate your topic ban, but certainly the second part clearly does. I explained the reason for my action (to which I called attention above) in the edit summary. I had hoped you would have lost the defensive tone by now that presupposes bad faith on the part of your fellow editors, but the use of the term "accusations" and your tone make it clear that your stance is unchanged since November. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Tom, the first part of your comment is per the recently accepted Arb case and is within the remit (I am fairly relaxed about who and what is posted on "my" talkpage, anyhoo) but the latter part is something you might wish to bring up on the case page - as an example of your concerns - but presently nowhere else, pending expiry or a successful appeal of your topic ban. (On that matter, does anyone recall if or where I or anyone else logged this topic ban - I cannot find doing it in my contrib history?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard, I will include this info at ArbCom. Re:Tom - I find it odd that now the word "accusation" is regarded as a word to avoid. You have repeatedly accused Nina of being my meatpuppet, and now BE has queried if she is my sockpuppet. BE seems to be operating out of lack of information, which Less supplied, ending the matter. But since you and Nishidani actually know that Nina is her own person, your continued accusations seem to be an assumption of bad faith. I would ask that you at least drop that particular issue. (Besides, given Nina's unfamiliarity with Wiki policies, if she were acting in my stead, do you really think she would have made so many of her own accusations without quoting the relevant wiki policies, or allowed you to misquote policy without correcting her? It should be apparent to all that she is her own person! The same applies to every other recent editor - they certainly don't argue an issue the way I would - and deep down, you have to know that.) Smatprt (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's apparent, thank you. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, I merely noted the coincidence and wanted to eliminate the possibility. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia turns 10

The tenth anniversary of Wikipedia is here! Time to spread all the anniversary cheer! Yeah! Ten years, whew! That's a lot in World Wide Web Years!--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210Please respond on my talkpage, i will respond on your talkpage.    03:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was still in my forties... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (responding on my talkpage - cos I can!)

SAQ RfAr

Hi Less,

Thanks for taking a hand of this situation. I was (literally today) going to file a report at AN/I about the legal threats and outing issue had not this gone to ArbCom now, but I have hopes this now provides the option of taking the approach that has the least scope for escalation of the conflict. I do still wonder if requesting Oversighting of the outing edits would not be appropriate? I couldn't tell you how revealing of real-life identity the relevant slip-up was, but as I am myself quite protective of the distinction between on-wiki/off-wiki identity I am personally loath to let even small such stand.

Anyways… They may hate me for dragging them into this, but I would suggest GuillaumeTell and Wrad—who have both been involved both centrally and peripherally in editing the Shakespeare-related articles on Wikipedia for years, and who, I believe (I may be wrong), have dramatically reduced their participation as a direct result of this endless conflict—be added to the ArbCom case. I might also have suggested AndyJones, but he is little involved in Wikipedia lately, and has (IIRC) expressed a desire to not be embroiled in these conflicts. My one caveat is that I am ambivalent about the expediency of taking the long view—seeing this conflict as one, including the previous clashes on other articles involving different "anti-Strafordians"—or addressing the immediate issue (the actions and editors currently engaged at the SAQ page and collateral talk pages). The problem is systemic (and relates closely to Wikipedia's inability to deal effectively with so-called polite POV pushers), but trying to address more than the immediate conflict may be a practical impossibility for any mere human beings. And if scope is reduced accordingly, Guillaume and Wrad (and certainly Andy) may be allowed their peace as they've (perhaps more wisely) not involved themselves in the SAQ article and talk page.

I have been unable to contribute much to the "discussion" on the article talk page owing to sheer volume (and not a little disorganization), but I have been trying to keep up and intend to comment on the RfAr and any resulting case; I just need to read up on what, precisely, is expected there: I may be fond of policy and process, but I've so far managed to avoid having to know more about ArbCom than the fact that they exist and have some sort of semi-final say in the really ornery cases. Sadly it seems my ignorance is now in imminent danger of being challenged by first-hand experience.

In any case, thanks for taking this in hand, whatever the outcome, as there appeared no chance of a better outcome the way things were progressing previously. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - especially noting that this is a long standing issue. Briefly, ArbCom are a instrument of last resort over editing concerns - but specifically NOT of content issues - and a means by which they can be addressed comprehensively. When they are convinced that there is an issue or raft of issues to be addressed (which is what the Request is intended to permit) then a case may consider the historical as well as the current non compliance or misapplication of policy by individuals or groups of editors, how these behaviours manifest and what actions may be taken to prevent it happening going forward. Editors cannot be "summonsed" to participate , although it is customary to advise involved parties if they are mentioned, and attendance is voluntary. It would be best if those are familiar with the editing history could contact past participants and invite them to comment on the Request page. Otherwise, follow the guidelines found at the ArbCom pages and look over a few cases. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my immediate concern is that inviting editors whose comments I would like to see on the case would either be in violation of WP:CANVAS, would be perceived to be so, or would be cast in that light (causing needless confusion or disruption to the process) by those who would argue that the relevant editors should be considered partisan and hence my notification an instance of vote stacking. Any advice in this regard would be appreciated. Otherwise I'll rely on your uninvolved judgement of the parties to be named as more sure than mine own. --Xover (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A message such as "As an editor previously involved in the SAQ article, you should note that there is a related Request for Arbitration", which does not suggest how they respond, seems to be neutral and sufficient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall give it a think and see where I land. --Xover (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi LessHeard. Given the current events surrounding the SAQ and related articles, I am considering appealing my topic ban. You wrote "You may wish another admin, or other senior independent editor, to review my conclusions and the relevant discussion, or may appeal the ban at WP:ANI, or request an Arbitration Committee case. " To start at the beginning of your list - how do I find/request a senior independent editor or admin to review your conclusions? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You can request the assistance of an admin by placing the {{adminhelp}} template on your talkpage. If it has not been archived, you may wish to place the template in the topic ban section - so a sysop is immediately in the area you require assistance. BTW - as noted your topic ban does not include ArbCom Request or Case places, so if you are not successful in lifting the topic ban by the time you wish to comment you can do so anyway without fear of sanction. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Smatprt is not listed at WP:Editing restrictions. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I will check where the topic ban is listed - I seem to recall making an entry somewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard, you stated the result of the ban discussion here. Now WP:RESTRICT is only an index to where the actual discussion occurred, so I think you could update WP:RESTRICT now if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not minded to update it, since Smatprt seems to have abided by the provisions and all interested parties are already aware of it, per WP:SHAME, and the issue is likely to be reviewed as part of the ArbCom case and perhaps superseded, overturned, or any other manner of amendment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Established custodian? I wish. You don't know how little time I've spent on that article/talkpage; I have such a low boredom threshold that it took the hero posting just above only a day or two to scare me off three years ago. I have, however, written some fluff and rhetorical flourishes about the great importance of fixing the situation on those articles in a lasting way, not just a Nina way, as if the arbs didn't know..! It's here. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Hope you don't mind

FYI [23]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I mind that I missed the fact they were on the list, but certainly not your action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles Darnay

Thanks for your message. In a funny way, I found his posts strangely compelling. It's the dogmatic certainties combined with the bizarre leaps from one topic to the next. I just wish I knew what he was talking about. "you keep ducking my question here as to the identity of a black magician who keeps addressing me and claims to be majoring in iconography at the University of Sussex". What on earth does this mean? Am I the "black magician" or someone else? Who claims to be "majoring in iconography" at Sussex, whatever that means? I certainly don't. The stuff about Duke university is weirdly fascinating, though clearly libellous. Paul B (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In the ordinary course of events I would not have bothered, but since you are both parties to an ArbCom case and would be considered as being in opposition to each other I thought that it would be prudent to close it down - lest it be exampled within the proceedings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good decision to wipe that page. I hope you don't mind me logging the block at the evidence page [24]; I think these kinds of sanctions are interesting data points. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't be surprised if it was not exampled as an indication of how admins conspire to remove dissent and censor the truth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, very true. But then, now that all the world knows that Bishonen and I are secret lovers, what more do I stand to lose? Let them also know that we two are fellow conspirators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You open a case, and ban three people on one side of the argument, making not even the slightest comment about transgressions from the other side. What do you expect an objective observer to think?

I am a bit puzzled about the case and my invitation to provide evidence. What exactly is the case I am to comment on? So far, the evidence provided seems to be very unfocused. It seems I am not the only one who is a bit confused. Poujeaux (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DustinWestfallTV

I'm bothered by this. Partially I'm not convinced that the DustinWestfall that is the 13 year old on YouTube is this editor, partially because of the other names. I'm tempted to delete it. Comments? Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that The Anome may have also had concerns, and deleted the userpage as a speedy-bio. The versions I saw and oversighted were more indicative of an attempted autobio, although I do find it hard to justify the last part about not knowing the whereabouts in Ohio - maybe just lack of geographical sense? Anyway, it is gone now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Whyever, I'm glad it's gone. Dougweller (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just askin'

Is there a separate suicide hotline for arbitrators, or do they have to use the same ones editors and admins do? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Same one. However, the arbs based in the US also have access to high powered hunting rifles and soft nosed game ammunition - which should be considered very carefully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm a bit concerned about the collective mental health of the arbitration committee after this case is over. But that's just me: always thinking of others! Tom Reedy (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Tom, they've seen worse than this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBSAQ

Hi Less, never worry about how you come across to me - I'll always assume ultimate good faith in you, and I know you weren't criticising (other than constructively). Oddly enough, ArbCom pages are really difficult to tweak, because once somebody has commented on a proposal, you can't really change it other than for typos. That's why I stoleadapted FPaS' proposals. Please feel free to re-use anything I've suggested if you can improve on it. I've not yet found time to analyse the evidence sufficiently to be sure of any proposed FoFs or Remedies, so I was content to leave the Principles broad for now. I guess any of us can come back and refine them as the other sections develop - what do you think? --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Principles, and especially those taken from previous cases, are broad because they reflect policy - and policies are applied universally. Only in emphasis, where it speaks to the case before it, should it need "tweaking". My point was that there is enough verbiage on the pages already, and suggesting changes to an existing proposal or noting another option is preferable than to duplicate 90% of a good proposal just to highlight a nuance. I am certain that the arbs are as capable of noting a suggested alteration while reviewing a proposal as they are at noting the different variations on a theme they may be presented with. I know that my proposals will be effected by what has already been suggested and commented upon. Well.... some of it, anyway. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

indef blocking, your take

Hi LessHeard vanU. I just read a comment of yours on ANI regarding indefblocking, and I was actually coming to the same conclusion. Would you be interested in collaborating on an essay on it? I just have written down some stakewords for now, but I'll see if I can flesh it out a bit tomorrow. If you want, leave some comments and interesting insights on the issue on talk (or just edit the bugger, cause knowing me, it'll end up half finished anyway). It's on User:Martijn Hoekstra/indef only. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be pleased to look over it, and see if I can add anything. I shall do so tomorrow, since it is late where I am and my suspect judgement less reliable than ever. Thanks for asking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Or even the day after the tomorrow noted a day or two previous... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The/the Beatles

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [25] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it possible that we can keep this going for longer than the band was a recording entity... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We're almost there. It's been going on since June 2004[26] which makes 6 years and 8 months. If we mark the duration of a "recording entity" from the first time JPG+R were all in the studio together to the last time, that would be 6 years and 11 months. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No reason but

Since you asked at ANI, and since I previously observed your interaction with Dylan and Malke, I wanted to affirm your actions in those incidents. Not that you'll need it, you were already cheered on quite well; but it might improve your day. JJB 12:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

*Knock knock...*

Hello, LessHeard vanU. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yes, I have. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, LessHeard vanU. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You are correct. Sorted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh man…

…you have no idea what you've set in motion now. Do you really think the other party there will be able to resist refuting your argument, at length, in detail, and with vigor? If you thought the page was long now, I predict Wikimedia will need another fundraiser soon to pay for the storage. :-)
On a related note, I see what you're going for there, but I fear it will be lost on the intended recipients; it will only be taken like both “sides” are making equally weak arguments and are hung up on content (and thus out of scope in the context). --Xover (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have finished with it - I shall not comment further and I hope that no sensible person does either. It is what it is, an example. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

While Xover is undoubtedly correct that the point will be lost on some, we live in hope... Meanwhile, just to prove that I read the brilliant research, I wonder if "confidants and prosperity" should be "confidants and posterity"? Also "eduction" should be "education". Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a wiki... and you would have me break my solemn word? Sobeit! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Eduction

A creepy geologist's spell-check apparently :) Shell ^babelfish 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - and with a picture of what might be an example, perhaps, to boot! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

?

Huh? What is your comment about? And yes, I did advise new IP to establish accounts before[27] or informed them about rules on Wiki[28]. I am also fairly certain that I noticed before that a IP account from area discussed in the article engaged in discussion regarding that aricle(although I don't have time to search for it). Also we had a problem with IP accounts from Germany vandalising Polish related articles before or entering highly POV claims to them, heh it dates to very very old Wikipedia time, when one owner was banned by Jimbo himself(search for Helga Jonat from around 2002). The IP user occassionally reapears it seems. Now can you tell me what is this all about? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You have not noticed that I have Oversighted some of your edits, with rationale, to that page? Like I said, when have you previously noted the ip's geophysical location and suggested they open an account when discussing these types of article? Bluntly, I believe you know who the ip is and was pushing the envelope on WP:OUTING. If you want this put in front of Arbcom Enforcement then that is fine by me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh no. I believed this to be banned German user Helga Jonat who plagues our Polish related articles since 2002 with IP based accounts [29]. In any case, thanks for informing me that it is another user. I will not push the think further(although it's a bit silly, Wiki itself provides location of an ip so how is that an outing). But nevermind, I will leave if it you say so. Have a good day--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Horlicks

Good idea. Have that coffe if you're still awake, or maybe better some Horlicks, this time of night. Don't forget that you've made the best comment in this arbitration, although nobody seemed to notice it particularly: You continue to make demands and requests and to comment without understanding the culture and its practices and rules in which you find yourself; this lays at the heart of the issue as it relates to you. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

I wish I had made my exit before posting in response to the workshop comments, but anyone who can inflate a 31 hour block to 3 days needs to be answered. Nevermind, the Proposed Decision is up and being voted upon - I would have liked for there to be a reference to the necessity of contributors to familiarise themselves with custom and practice upon embarking on major editing of an article, but... Oh, and thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There could have been another dozen principles about good practices contained in the decision, including this one, but the principles section is too long already. Story of my life. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, users waste a lot of time on the workshop, don't they?[30] Not an observation, but a complaint. :-P Bishonen | talk 22:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

I should have thought the principles section, in any case and not just this one, is the most non controversial part; nobody is going to pass a daft proposal, and everyone is going to sign up for the obvious. It is a fair indication for the historical reviewer to determine what the issues involved were, by the litany of good practices which were obviously violated in the matter. The FoF's, and proposed decisions, correctly are both the most nuanced and only to cover the most egregious areas of concern. Not a complaint, but an observation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• But Horlicks was my most favorite childhood drink! LHvU not liking it makes NW sad :( NW (Talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I, rather, celebrate our diversity of taste and childhood experience, believing it is our breadth of differing joys, triumphs and disasters that provide us with the materials that cause any two or more persons working in harmony to provide a greater benefit that they might individually. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sleep Room

Could you kindly take a look at this article. I think that the subject matter is borderline notable at best, and the article's wording is promotional, potentially libellous and decidely non-encyclopedic. No other article links to it either. In addition, I now suspect that it's main editor is one of the band (Ryan Cook). However, I was not aware of this latter detail when I placed the {POV} and {Refimprove} tags in August last year, when I also wrote my accompanying thoughts on the talk page. I am not very impressed with the reply from User:Ryucoo, but thought it wise to seek another's opinion, rather firing off my response. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the notability requirements of WP:BAND, but none of the releases are via a recognised label and there is no references to any type of chart in respect of sales. The local BBC reports appear to be rehashes of the band's publicity and are not reviews of either performance or recordings. Personally, I would AfD the article on the grounds of notability - simply existing and making a few cd's (nothing with todays technology) for sale at gigs and getting a mention in the local press is nothing of note. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Heather Mills

The dear and kindly Ms Mills is having a problem with an editor that wants to only show her good side. [31] Ta very much.--andreasegde (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, goody... out of the frying pan that was ArbCom/SAQ! Will cast an eye over this very weekend. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Torygraph"? :)) Very 'right'. :))--andreasegde (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fear this may be escalating. [32] --andreasegde (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hi Less,

I saw that you blocked an IP whose copyvios I had been reverting. I was just wondering: when dealing with accounts that repeatedly add copyright violations, where is the best place to ask an Admin to block them? Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a COPYVIO noticeboard, but that is often backlogged. If it is persistent copyvio's from a static ip - i.e. most likely the same individual from the same computer with an address registered to them - then bring up the matter at WP:ANI. If it is a similar ip address each time, see if a WP:Checkuser is willing to run a check on the issue to see if a small range block will resolve the matter. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, will do. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Help

Since you're familiar with my "AfD spree," I figured I'd solicit some advice :) A group of angry people who mostly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's inclusion policies are lousing my talk page with invective. I really don't have the time to deal with them. I feel as if most of them think that I am just clicking a button and deleting their favorite language's page out of spite! One commenter even suggested I search for references to improve the articles in question, as opposed to nominating them for deletion (the sheer irony). Do you know of anything that can be done to help these people understand what is going on, or, failing that, stop them from commenting on my talk page? Or must I be a martyr for Wikipedia? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that you're "clicking a button and deleting their favorite language's page out of spite", it's that you're removing useful information on a large number of legitimate languages, and you're doing so en masse. You're absolutely right, most of them are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. They're mostly coming over from here. Recognize that, while they're mostly unfamiliar with WP, they're mostly professionals and CS students who simply don't like seeing a whole host of languages removed from Wikipedia for no reason other than that they're small and/or new. I've told them to knock off the personal attacks, but it will likely continue for a day or so while the post is at the top of proggit. LHvU, if you want to semi-prot CM's talk page for a day, that might be a good idea. I don't think it's necessary, however, if CM continues to maintain his composure and good humour about the situation. CM, please do us all a favour and put the spree on hold till we can have a reasonable discussion about it. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that they're small and new -- it's that no reliable sources exist for them! I'm very conservative with which languages I nominate for deletion. For heavens sake, the "notability" tag adorned the Nemerle article for two years. It just so happens that I was the unlucky editor who actually had the balls to nominate it for deletion. I appreciate you wanting to have a civil discussion with me, you are maybe one of two people who bothered to try :) However, to be honest, I've been so surprised by the sheer amount of immaturity that I've witnessed the over the past week that I've decided to take a break from editing Wikipedia until this all dies down a bit. Mission accomplished, reddit. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that you nominated "it" for deletion, it's that you nominated it, and seven other languages for deletion in the space of a couple days. As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, the lack of academic papers on these languages isn't a knock against them, as academic papers aren't the main source of notability in the PL realm. I think you're being a bit myopic in your approach, here. Yes, we should follow GNG, but not at the expense of our primary goal, which is to catalogue information. These languages may not be major, but the pages on them are useful. If I come across somebody who says they wrote something in Nemerle, my first instinct would be to look it up on WP to get a brief overview of what it is. Deleting these pages is a disservice to everyone, and it serves no useful purpose. It doesn't cost WP anything to have them, and unlike the pages that should be deleted, they improve, rather than detract from the project. There's no reason to remove pages that make Wikipedia better simply because they fail a very general guideline that isn't suitable for this area. GNG is intended to keep vanity and other useless pages off the project, not to remove useful articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway85 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not need to be academic papers, they can be trade or professional periodicals or even mainstream newspapers - as long as they have editorial independence and review, and are discussing the subject specifically. I would note that "useful" is one of the reasons that is NOT sufficient in an AfD discussion, because without a reliable third party reference it cannot be determined that what is in the article is true. I could go into each article and write that the language leaves big holes in your security settings owing to incompatability (and can you imagine what the people criticising CM would say about that?) - people reading the article may think the information is useful, but it is a lie. As I said earlier, why is it that there are so few if any reliable sources for these languages? If people are looking for information on them, then a general encylopedia should not be the only source - there needs to be proper reviews by accredited experts published in independent journals. That is the stuff WP needs to be quoting, not the progammers, sellers and customers/users. Only then can it be regarded as useful.
Christopher, take a break if you wish - but I can semi-protect your talkpage and deal with any civility violations if you want me to. Also, I suppose all these languages fall under a category - I can do my own reviewing and nominating if desired; even though I know nothing about the subject. That might upset those complainants even more, but that is the way it goes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid people who know nothing about a subject trying to decide what is or is not notable, shall we? We just recently had an incident of somebody nominating a massive Bollywood star in the same vein. As for your points as to what is acceptable under the guidelines, you are of course right. Still, I'm personally of the belief that it's too restrictive. As there's currently a discussion on pump/policy, I think I'll take the argument there. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources, then it does not get nominated - if there are none, and especially when the lack has been previously noted, then it gets nominated (which can be overturned if the sources are provided). What is so difficult about that rationale - it is as simple as "On/Off". LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

SAQ

I just read through the almost-ready Shakespeare authorship question ArbCom decision. I have not seen you around much since we discussed rolling our sleeves up and getting our arms dirty in this area, but you have my commiserations if you have been involved with what appears to have been yet another case full of heated discussions and wild accusations. Hopefully, the talkpage template notifying editors that a page is covered by the case will be known henceforth as the "SAQFAQ". Good luck with the DOS and COBOL - FORTRAN 77 is the one true way. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to let that pass without rebuttal, are you Little Less? FORTRAN 77 is for young'uns (as Jack would say); we all know ASA FORTRAN IV is the authentic path to enlightenment. --RexxS (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(/looks up from punching series of holes in reels of paper tape) Eh? What? Er... (carefully picks up needle with bandaged fingers, resumes/) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Simon Dodd

Was this intentional? I noticed it when going to the user's page to leave him a message about his frustrations at ANI. I can at least understand his frustrations. It happens and it's not anything intentional on anyone's part, but I can at least understand it. --B (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. I have left a message over at their talkpage - sure, they are frustrated; but they are going in precisely the wrong way in trying to get some volunteers (editors, admins, whatever) to respond to their concern. I am not removing the message at ANI, and if there are any passing volunteer who wishes to respond to it then fine - but if not, then that is unfortunate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I understand, appreciate, etc, that we're all volunteers, but I also know it's frustrating to feel like you are being ignored. I respect you as a long-time admin and am myself by no means perfect, but I really disagree with this. Blocking a user for feeling frustrated seems likely to make him feel only more frustrated. --B (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with B. It's one thing to say to Simon, "Hey, we're all volunteers, and we'll do what we feel like doing." It's quite another to block him for expressing his frustration. What exactly is this block intended to prevent? LadyofShalott 01:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not block them for being frustrated, I blocked them for disrupting the project - their frustration does not permit them to harangue their colleagues and co-contributors. As the evolving discussion notes, the ip has not continued their actions and the matter is resolved. We do not block punitively, and there is nothing that an admin can do regarding warning the ip that has not and can not be done by any editor - so what is SD trying to achieve? @ LadyofShallot; prevent further disruption going forward - the only basis for sanctioning a contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this block either. Is there a specific reason that a block was required for you to leave them a message? Warn first, then block. I can't say I was impressed with the 'You have been blocked previously, if you want to contest this block then you will know the protocols' either. This user has been blocked 3 times in 6 years, one of them an inappropriate 1 second block just to mark their record. --Onorem♠Dil 01:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of not giving a block template including the procedures for requesting unblock (to be blunt, I think it's pretty crappy not to include the instructions). I spek as someone who had it done to me for a dubious block. DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Well, undo it then!! I specifically noted that I am open to having this sanction reversed (indeed, I do not and have never considered my actions "sacrosanct") - so go ahead. Please be assured that I will not be bringing the issue up until I am satisfied, or consider myself wronged... I am just another volunteer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. --B (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

...and I notified Simon of that fact. LadyofShalott 01:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Less visible

That was a classic. And funny. And no, I didn't say I was going anywhere. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was talking to Rh&e, but... hey, thank you!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, sorry! Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Spliced waffles

The user has made no edits not related to Spliced (TV series), suggesting major WP:OWN issues. As you said, indeed their "discussion" of my edits is basically namecalling, personal attacks and saying that I don't know a thing about the show because I haven't seen every episode yet. I think the personal attacks, combined with WP:OWN and WP:SPA, are big issues here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, I was responding to the AIV report. ANI is the place for getting further and wider input - although it is my experience that noting a party has been blocked (even for a day or so) means that few are going to delve further into the issue. My suggestion would be to see what happens once the block expires, to see if the issues continue. If they do, then a follow up to ANI noting that a short block did not prompt a change of behaviour would be appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, their name means "GIR Loves Waffles". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My weekend has been made complete... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI outing discussion

Please review continued discussion at WP:ANI#Outing comment. I appreciate that you did not invoke any formal sanctions, but nevertheless I am concerned that you have acted improperly with regard to edits by an anonymous user by conducting a revdel on their behalf and subsequently behaving towards me as though they had requested a redaction of the posted information. Moreover, you are setting a dangerous precedent in doing so. You're welcome to tell me “that was a dumb idea, don't do it again” and leave it at that, but citing a policy that is not applicable is inappropriate. The nominee of the ANI request hasn't been online to discuss the reasoning, but I would appreciate if you would try once more to explain how you have arrived at this conclusion against what I can only read as an explicit, common-sense exception in the policy text. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussion at ANI. It consists of me, a long term contributor and (as an admin and oversighter) someone who is familiar with policy, telling you that you were wrong - and why - to "confirm" that an anon ip is who they said they were, and you failing to understand. I have not commented further since I do not believe there is any point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have a different definition of “confirmation” than I do. I was under the impression that on Wikipedia the general directive is to WP:AGF that a user is telling the truth (among other things) unless one has reasonable grounds to believe otherwise. I do not have such grounds, nor do you to the best of my knowledge. I know no more about the matter than you do, and as such am unable to confirm or deny anything about the situation to you or to other users.

The discussion consists of two established editors in good standing who feel strongly that your interpretation is flawed vs. you and another user who hasn't been online since the original listing. I don't appreciate the “I'm an admin so what I say goes” attitude. At the very least, you owe us a reasoned explanation. Please approach the discussion with an open mind, as I am attempting to. Administrators are as fallible as the rest of us.

I too would like to have the matter resolved, and am now referring it to WP:RFC, hopefully to get a clearer explanation of how exactly I am in error. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You do that, although you may wish to read up on the requirements for a WP:RFC/U. I mentioned I was an admin only to emphasise I am familiar with policy, and am trusted by the community in its application, and no other reasons. I have previously explained my rationale, on the ANI page, but I shall make a last attempt; You comment that you are unable to confirm or otherwise that the ip is who they claim to be (which is my point in noting it is then inappropriate for a third party to proclaim that it is) and that attempting to link an individual to an ip - even when wrong - is contrary to WP:OUTING. If you are unable to follow my reasoning, then the issue is with you and not me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well, thank you for your patience. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The RFC on the matter has concluded, with general agreement being that repeating information provided by a user does not constitute outing, but I should have been clearer that the IP was claiming rather than proven to be Scurfield. I'm not in complete agreement with the last point as I have been given no cause to doubt the veracity of the information, but I will abide by the recommendation. With your permission, I would like to repeat the statement with the recommended clarification, as I believe that significant evidence of COI editing is highly relevant to the article in question at the present time. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

While I also do not agree with the result of the RfC, but in its entirety in that nobody seemed to follow my point, I am also bound by the decision - you thus do not need my permission, as the consensus is that you may make that point in bring up the matter. To clarify, I have no objection to you bringing up the issue that the subject may have posted as an ip. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

block

Why don't you just leave the poor guy alone?
Just what "disruptive editing" is he supposedly doing? (I can't see any evidence of any.)
As some-one well outside this affray, your block just looks like persecution and a power struggle to me - i.e. it looks like it's political, not functional.
I'll be interested to read your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am doing this because I am a facebook friend of Phil's, and I believe it is in his (and only his) best interests. I have noted my actions at the ArbCom Request. You may wish to start a discussion at the appropriate noticeboard, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Quite clearly, I don't know enough about what's going on. Perhaps I'll just quietly withdraw. (I just find it such a shame that so many good admins and editors are being driven away.) Good luck, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We are both talking about Rh&e, aren't we? (I don't know who Phil is - I've assumed it's Rh&e.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Phil is Rod - I was clumsily attempting to indicate that I know him (although still via the 'net) outside of WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I just had the same sardonic thought about "best interests". But wouldn't it have been better to use that, or something similar, as the reason for the block, rather than "disruptive editing" - which sounds like he's accused of doing something wrong? I think the phrase you may have wanted is "administrative leave" or some such. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made the reason "Leave of absence" - like I said, I hope that I am acting in his best interests. I may be wrong, but then there is allegedly a lot of it going on already regarding this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. I don't want to say too much, given my status as a Wikipedia critic, and that RodHullandEmu is currently blocked so he can't reply - but it's a reasonable hypothesis that everyone involved is in fact acting in good faith. The systemic problem is that it's entirely possible to still have a destructive outcome, especially in a dysfunctional system. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rh&e still has his talkpage access. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone who wouldn't know Rod if he wore a name tag, and only became familiar with this issue since I had the misfortune to see it pop up on my watchlist for entirely unrelated reasons, Less' block here looks like the sanest action in the whole affair, and incidentally also the one most in Rod's interests (regardless of how he might feel about it right now).
Anyways… Less, I have some fairly monumental concerns about the possible implications of this case—specifically related to the pressure on both ArbCom and Rod to release the email exchange, and the precedent that might be set if either party does so due to outside pressure, or if ArbCom does so at all—and would like to make a statement regarding that. Do you think it would be most appropriate to do that in the form of a statement on the Request, or would it be better to wait until any resulting Case is opened? I don't particularly want to get involved in the general drama (you wouldn't believe how tired I am of WikiDrama!), and while I've formed an opinion on the specifics my concern is really with the principles. --Xover (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Make your statement at the Request - it will form part of the case when (I am still hoping "if") accepted and will be reviewed and weighed by the Arbs as part of their deliberations. It may help define the parameters of the case, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I've made a statement there now. FWIW, I invite welcome comment and discussion (away from any page matching the regex ^WP:A.*) on the principles espoused in that statement should you be so inclined. --Xover (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I believe that your block of Rodhullandemu was not necessary and ask you to reconsider it. Editors are not required by any policy to either actively participate in arbitration proceedings or to refrain from editing while labeling themselves as "retired". Even if Rodhullandemu's conduct may appear erratic, it is not disruptive to the encyclopedia and does not warrant a block.  Sandstein  14:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. My concern is that Rh&e has continued to edit past his self proclaimed retirement at a time of day when he is unlikely to have full command of his faculties, and in circumstances where he is in danger of antagonising perceptions upon himself (the original reason why I used the "disruption" rationale). My actions have been to limit the degree of damage he may do to himself (or at least, the reputation of the account he edits under) and will gladly lift the restriction upon notice from him that it is not required, or ArbCom direction, or under a consensus of uninvolved parties. You may wish to start such a discussion. Thanks again for your concern. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for a review on ANI. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards,  Frank  |  talk  14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR's ultra nationalistic trolling

user Nanazo obvious is not Ragusino and DIREKTOR's ultra nationalistic trolling need to ban!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.209.50 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Gang rape

Note. Ugh, awful section title. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Range block: did I do this right?

Hi. :) I've done rangeblocks before, but I'm pretty far away from being the most technically adept admin on the block. My recent efforts feels wrong to me. Can you tell me if this looks right?

19:59, 11 March 2011, Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs | block) blocked 79.113.40.0/21 (talk) (expires on 14 March 2011 at 02:59, anon. only, account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing) (unblock | change block)

It's related to this ANI listing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You are to be congratulated in requesting the assistance of possibly the only long standing admin who is more inept at determining rangeblocks than you claim to be. Long ago I made the choice of not learning by my mistakes in this area, because of the potential collateral damage, after performing - under careful instruction - my only action in this matter. I hope that some among my page watchers will be able to provide an assessment of your action. Or you might try and find another admin more technically grounded than the two of us put together; there must be hundreds to choose from... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Go figure. :D Thanks, anyway; I'll hope one of your talk page stalkers can help. My concern here is less that I've blocked all of Jersey and more that I haven't blocked anybody at all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not an admin, can't comment on the policy side of things, but the range you specified covers 79.113.40.0 - 79.113.47.255 and so certainly covers the addresses you were targeting. Incidentally this represents 1/8th of the Romanian ISP FiberLink. Thparkth (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's what I did, then I did what I intended. It's brief and anon only; I hope there will be no fallout, but I'll keep an eye out on the unblock mailing list just in case. I'm hoping we can encourage this fellow to actually talk rather than edit warring across his IPs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The template {{proxyip4}} will show you if a given IP is covered by any active rangeblocks. Two rangeblocks cover the IP. At present, MRG's /21 block should probably be lifted since Elockid has placed a sufficiently-wide block in response to the SPI. If you are only trying to cover the first two IPs mentioned in the sock report, Elockid's smaller block of the /23 range is sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

IP sock (you blocked) on the loose on my user page

Hello LessHeard vanU, I see that you temporarily blocked User talk:60.230.156.127 for vandalizing my user page (which is appreciated). However, this is the 2nd & 3rd time this ip has done so (in 2 days) as the day before he vandalized my user page in the same ---> offensive manner – but did so as User talk:124.181.121.211. Of note, his spat of vandalism is a result of a content disagreement when he was posting under the IP User talk:120.144.131.226 (they all have the same latitude/longitude coordinates). Thus, I was wondering if you could please block/permanently ban all three of the IP’s, as I really am getting tired of worrying about what anti-Semitic/offensive pictures he may be posting on my user page when I log off. The other option would be if you could give my user page semi-protection from IP’s – as this user has shown he will continually change his IP to keep going. Regardless of what you can do thanks for considering my request :o)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that my actions are limited to blocking new socks/ip's as they appear, and as you might be aware there is little point in blocking a short term address for more than a few days. What you need is a friendly Checkuser who can determine the range they are editing from and see if it is small enough to block for a while without inconveniencing good faith editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

2 requests

I came to ask a favor but (nosey person that I am) I noticed something above that maybe you can assist with. First request----> I'm a Wiki Guide (recent volunteer). My second batch of New Editors contained User:Famously Sharp and when I went to welcome 'Famous', I was redirected to User:RexxS. As usual I assumed good faith but I did wonder what was going on. Maybe you can explain? Second request----> Can you, when ever you have some free time give a look at User:Buster7/Incivility and tell me a) what you think, b) any other talk pages/essays/sources/discussions you might be aware of, and c) who should I make sure sees my effort. This last request stems from the Banner that has been on top of all the Wiki pages for the past few days re:The Foundation and steps that may be in the wind to make some changes at WP. "TRA!" Buster Seven Talk 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The first request is quite easy, since I have a relevant User talkpage listed - should clarify matters. I think RexxS might be wise to acknowledge his alternate account, but it is not mandatory. I will review Buster7's incivility, and issue banninnanations as required (or comment, if absolutely necessary). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Weird...

He doesn't appear to be blocked to the casual observer.[33][34] I'm not a casual observer, and I remember Haus and am not surprised (though I had hoped he would avoid further controversial editing). Is the fact he doesn't show up as blocked some kind of glitch? Doc talk 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am something of a Renaissance man when it comes to ineptitude - there are few spheres in which I cannot get something wrong... Thank you for your vigilance; I have now enacted the sanction I intended those few hours ago. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just relieved there's no bug! Like I said, Haus and I "go back aways", and I was both surprised and not surprised when I saw the thread and the result. Thanks :> Doc talk 00:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jpsaleeby

Hi there. I noticed this SPA editor came back putting the self-published book back into articles it had been removed from. You had indef blocked in December, then unblocked in January "per e-mail request." I indef blocked again, given the pattern of behavior has not changed and the user hasn't acknowledge understanding concerns with the edits. I was just wondering if something said in the e-mail was a convincing argument so I could unblock with a suggestion to discuss edits. Thought I'd consult the original admin block. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the query - I unblocked after receiving an undertaking that they would discuss other editors concerns regarding both COI and whether the book was a reliable source. If they have resumed their earlier practice of placing their book as a reference in articles and ignoring other editors then I believe resuming the indef block is appropriate. If they make a really convincing case that they have learned their lesson then perhaps they can be unblocked again - but next time we throw away the key! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've left a message on the user's talk page and I'll be open to unblocking if I get assurances the behavior will cease. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I am informing you of this [35] discussion because of your involvement in this [36] previous ANI. Onthegogo (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it. The earlier ANI discussion lead to the above section on this page, noting the result of the RfC. IntrigueBlue is apparently acting according to consensus, and I am required to also abide by that consensus. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've followed the links above but do not find the consensus that you mention. Where is it? Cheers, Onthegogo (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is summed up by Elen of the Roads in this comment. From my review of the current discussion, IntrigueBlue is noting that the account "claims" to be the individual and is thus compliant with the consensus found at the RfC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't read that discussion as concluding with a consensus. The issue seems to have been left hanging. The comment you linked to I read as just one editor's opinion. Onthegogo (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot see the consensus apparent (nobody agreeing with my pov, and some suggesting that noting the ip was claiming to be the subject is fine) then I cannot help you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)