Jump to content

User talk:Mackensen/Archive14

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

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Read the DRV, then read this

[edit]

My reply to you at AfD:

The DRV ordered relisting, Mack. Tony wants to enforce silly red-tape against abstentions, and too busy to fight it -- so I express the will of the DRV (and my own opinion, too) that this has a WP:V problem. Unless you, Mack, are also in love with b'cracy, I'd suggest that we let the AfD, an expression of the DRV's consensus that this needed to be here, continue. Or, if you like, I can use the DRV to justify outright deletion -- a little extreme, since everyone said "relist", but if you and Tony wish to mire AfD in red-tape such that referrals from DRV become impossible here, it is one option that remains. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you tell me? If a DRV concludes unanimously that we need to "relist" an AfD, what am supposed to do? Delete it? Keep it? Because Tony's action -- and your line of questioning -- would appear to make AfD an impossible way to proceed. I do what consensus said: I relist. If this strikes you as objectionable, start an RfC, and we'll see which one of us is more grounded in reality.

When did Wikipedia become an experiment in bringing Kafta to the Internet age? Xoloz 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly, I ask myself that every time I see process triumphing over common sense. If the DRV concludes that it ought to be relisted it's a fair assumption that somebody thinks it ought to be deleted, yes? If that's the case, then the most sensible course of action is for that somebody to go nominate the thing and actually provide a rationale for deletion (which, I note, you actually did after Tony raised the matter). You as the DRV closer don't need to do anything--for that matter, it isn't an appropriate issue for DRV in the first place. The article doesn't benefit from a procedural listing. Mackensen (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen put it in a nutshell. Just close the deletion review and either (if you want to delete) list for deletion with your deletion rationale, or else let someone who does want to delete the article list it for deletion. A deletion listing without any rationale is useless and I'm surprised that you cannot see this. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I just explained to Tony over at his talk, quite often, DRVs relist for a variety of different reasons that coincide only in the result of relisting. To be accurate, and to be fair, I "abstain" because I would have difficulty expressing all relevant points, as would any lister at AfD. That's why I provide a link to the DRV, open the matter up, and express no firm opinion myself. I give commenters enough credit, that they can read the DRV, and make their minds up. If they wish to say, "Keep... DRV commenters were silly", let them. The matter is best not left lying open, though, because comments made at the DRV are fresh -- why let a "renomination" drag on waiting for someone to take the time to do the relisting themselves? They will present a picture less complete than the closer will, more than likely. A relisting with abstention by the closer is the most accurate way to reflect what DRV does when it decides to relist, it is timely, and it is the fairest option, consistent with the maxim "when in doubt, don't delete". Best wishes, Xoloz 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on Tony's talk. Let's consolidate there. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free pass

[edit]
Comments from proxy refractored on User talk:203.109.157.80#Refractored

So why are you giving MariusM a free pass now? He has been highly disruptive throughout the course of the arbitration, turning the talk pages into a battelfield, edit warring, personally attacking users. He has proven the most difficult user to deal with and now he can get back to it again. El_C 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your (non) response is to take a break? That does not inspire confidence. El_C 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My non-response is to be at a conference with limited access. I don't support the existing principles because MariusM is not, in my estimation, a single-purpose account. 70.228.216.130 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously he attempted to escape that imperssion during the course of the arbitration (which has been dragging for a long time), but how many non-SPA edits do you estimate were undertaken by him prior to the RfAr having been filed? El_C 05:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria arbitration

[edit]

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your pro censorship ruling

[edit]

Is it ok to have in the User:Tobias Conradi page the following

The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.

This user thinks Wikipedia should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.

Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. User_talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Proposed_decision#Laundry_lists_of_grievances

So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses.

It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored.

http://transparency.org

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

[edit]

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Seeking info about block

[edit]

Mackensen, can you shed some more light (by email if necessary) on your block of Biophase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've procedurally declined the unblock request pending comment from you. Even identifying the arbcom case would be helpful.--Chaser - T 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know what's going on here.

Naming Duchesses!

[edit]

Would you care to comment here? Giano 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1RR per week

[edit]

why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what I did you think to cure with 1RR per week. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Lane

[edit]

The new station is at Wood_Lane_(Hammersmith_&_City_Line)_tube_station

Diyako checkuser logs

[edit]

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([1], [2], [3]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat chi? 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Brewing problem with User:FatherTree

[edit]

I filed an AN/I on this user regarding knowingly making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet and later about his canvasing, which when deleted was refiled. ( [4] and [5].) Another editor, YechielMan suggested I contatct you to look into this. If you can respond on my talk page or by e-mail I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions...and any action you can take. DPetersontalk 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly banned user

[edit]

According to your remark at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/EJBanks, a certain vandal and creator of quickly deleted categories and articles, who has been repeatedly banned under numerous usernames (Creepy Crawler, EJBanks, Poker Master, BarackObama, TheJediCouncil), has a static IP address. So how does he keep coming back? Doczilla 07:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky

[edit]

In May 2006, you nominated for closed the AFD for this crime report/memorial article about a murdered teenager, which was kept. You commented it might need looking at again in a year. I do not see the details on the WP:AFD page on how to do a repeat afd nomination. By the more recent outcomes tabulated on the talkpage of essay WP:NOTNEWS and the policy WP:NOT do you think you might give it another nomination? Or does a re-nomination use exactly and only the procedure described at WP:AFD? It appears that additional info about the prior AFDs appears, but I don't see any reference to it on the how-to page. Thanks Edison 18:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The procedure is substantially the same, especially as the first nomination was over a year ago. You use the {{afdx}} template instead so that the nomination goes in the right place. When nominating, it's good form to mention the previous nomination, and why you think the issue ought to be revisited. In light of my remarks, it might be worth asking whether this incident is still mentioned at all in the news media. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom activity

[edit]

Hi and welcome back. Please let us know if/when you want to be put back on the active arbitrators list, and if so, on everything pending or just on future cases and those you actually vote on. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad 13:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar 2

[edit]

Hi Mackensen! Have the arbitrators examined the (onwiki) behaviour of all involved parties and was it ignored? I am unable to make out whether anybody apart from Rama Arrow's behaviour has been looked at carefully. As you are probably aware, there were many uncivil comments and personal attacks made by other people. GizzaDiscuss © 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing the issue more overtly. Please also see talk page User:JFD has requested the arbitrators to look at one of particular remedies. GizzaDiscuss © 03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glomp

[edit]
We kept the script kitties busy, while you were out.

A belated welcome back! – Luna Santin (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

[edit]

Hey, when you get a minute or two, Armedblowfish would like to speak to you on IRC. He asked that I let you know. Have a great day. :-) ^demon[omg plz] 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here

[edit]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
For the "...will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves." line here Kwsn(Ni!) 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qst checkuser

[edit]

On the checkuser for Qst, you indicated that all the users listed, except for Qst, were socks of Molag Bal (talk · contribs). Does this include the anon IP user:81.153.223.189? This is important as an accusation of sockpuppetry has been filed against Qst alleging that Qst used the IP. Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Qst or drop a note by Riana (talk · contribs), the blocking admin? Regards, Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Check Request you declinded

[edit]

Regarding this user request [6], there is a basis for checking, as the suspicion has come up a few times and such accusations have been made, brought to my atttention, and others I'm sure. True, the evidence is circumstancial, so its not fair for UltraMarine to have this shadow haning over him (if he is not the banned user). Therefore, I think that ruling this out with a user check should be a welcome thing for him, to establish his innocence. Now, if it is the banned user, displaying the linguistic evidence is not a good idea per WP: "don't spill the beans". I've seen serveral user checks carried out on the basis these circumstancial suspicions before, suc as as been presented by the editor requesting the user check. But, if you need more specific evidence for the suspicions, that can be provided.Giovanni33 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hello, are users allowed to make proposals: [7] I thought that was limited to Admins. Also, I'm not done posting my evidence.Hajji Piruz 01:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind.Hajji Piruz 02:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

[edit]

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sebring(Florida) Amtrak Station Infobox

[edit]

I see you've found a way to combine the two infoboxes for the Sebring (Amtrak station), aka the Old Sebring Seaboard Air Line Depot. Can you give me some tips on doing so for various Long Island Rail Road stations, as well as others? ---- DanTD 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom activity Azerbaijan-Armenia

[edit]

Dear Mackensen

I see my name appears in the ArbCom [8] and UserCheck [9] which proved negative has been filed once already. While I am getting really tired of biased and groundless accusations from several users such as TigranTheGreat and Haji Piruz, who only try to intimidate and spoil my good name by accusing me of sockpuppeting and being someone I cannot be, I request your immediate attention on this matter. I am a new user to Wikipedia who has a certain degree of knowledge in history and politics of Middle East and Caucausus and is willing to contribute as much as possible. These kind of accusations, including those of my national origin are very baseless. What can I do to stop these attacks on my personality?? Ehud 05:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You listed my name and user:Atabek for parole violation on workshop page while missed to note parole violation of user:Hajji Piruz.--Dacy69 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not same account.

[edit]

They are not same account. I created the account User:R-1441 on 9th July, 2007. I made a comment on the behalf of Devraj5000. Then, Hemlock Martinis blocked my account without giving me a chance to clarify. What can I do? Now, my account is User:RaviJames. RaviJames 11:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitation evidence being vandalised

[edit]

I have a right to post my evidence before the arbitation closed which I did it is being removed by a accused editor.Please help.It is for the panel to accept or reject my evidence. [10]Adyarboy 12:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cat changes

[edit]

Sigh. I made about 500 edits in 2 days. I'll take a look. Thanks for the heads up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the fixup work you did do. Forgot to do that. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:R/Single Letter Group

[edit]

Good evening Mackensen! I noticed your edits to User:R/Single Letter Group. There's a little (hidden) notice in the wikimarkup: "Please don't edit this page unless your username is a single letter. Having only single letters editing this page makes the history funny :)" See? As the (self-appointed) Second Assistant Deputy Underviceroy for the Single Letter Cabal, I hope you'll note that WP:UP begs for your deference to User:R in his user namespace, and User:R begs for your deference to single letter users when it comes to editing User:R/Single Letter Group. Thank you! User:J talk 02:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • His Excellency the Lord High Marshal of the Counter-Counter Vandalism Unit, Once and Future Former Arbitrator and Warden of the Cinque Ports welcomes Mr. J and assures him that His Excellency can, in fact, read and comprehend the written word. His Excellency also hopes that in the future Mr. J will be so good as to leave a more modest calling card; His Excellency could barely find his end-table underneath it. Yours, His Excellency etc etc. 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Your Excellency, my Lord: my most sincere apologies for my superfluous signature and its offense to your senses. Seriously, though, just out of curiosity, had you noticed my oversight request from a few days ago? User:J talk 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL at this. Miranda 04:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RFC discussion of User:Daniel

[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Daniel (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel. -- User:J talk 04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_block_of_Dangerous-Boy

[edit]

Hi again. Newyorkbrad has based his reasoning of Dangerous-Boy's recent block on this remedy [11] that you proposed. Since being "hit on the head with sticks" is quite subjective, I hope that you as the proposer could clarify the remedy and comment on the issue at ANI. Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser question

[edit]

Was this simply an opinion or the result of running the checkuser? I'm asking for clarification because the accuser has mentioned it at an AFD discussion, and the accused is demanding an apology. Personally, I read it as an initial result, but if that isn't the case it needs to be clarified at the AFD. Thanks!--Isotope23 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Köln Hauptbahnhof

[edit]

Hallo Mackensen, I tried to correct line RB 38 in Köln Hauptbahnhof, but I am not familiar with the template system used in en:WP. The correct way of line RB 38 is Köln Messe/Deutz – Köln Hauptbahnhof – Köln-Ehrenfeld and then passing station Horrem without stop towards Düsseldorf Hauptbahnhof, not as shown in the article from Horrem via Köln Hauptbahnhof to Düsseldorf. Could you please correct that, or tell me how to do this. I please you to answer me (if necessary) on my german discussion-page de:Benutzer Diskussion:Loegge. Thanks --Loegge 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a rat

[edit]

Hi, Mackensen. I've just been looking through contributions to see if an ArbCom member seemed to be online, having seen this. I imagine that if the ArbCom wanted to desysop two compromised accounts, one of the ArbCom members would make the request, rather than an account created for the purpose. You might want to take a look. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I noticed your message to Loegge today. I'm involved in maintaining and creating Interwikilinks of several languages. Be free to contact me for transporting from Scandinavia, Spain, Portugal, Germany to English resp. to german Language. --SonniWP 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please

[edit]

I’m one of the parties involved in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. With SirF on wiki break and despite continuing to report ongoing [12] harassment nothing is being done. This harassment has escalated with the absence of SirF, [13]., in my opinion. It is now set to escalate with no sign of any intervention. Your advice assistance or opinion would be grateful

O RLY?

[edit]

You are awesome. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 21:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

Could you get on IRC, need to talk to you for a minute. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You went silent. Kwsn(Ni!) 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, real life intervened ;). Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, how did that check go? Kwsn(Ni!) 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for checkuser/Case/Silveriver

[edit]

I have added more infomation as you have requested.

ExtraDry 11:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please clarify

[edit]

Mackensen, could you leave a message on the Irish famine page as to what exactly you meant by your proposal as it is now causing a dispute with Domer48 as further evidience of my campaign to prevent him from editing. --sony-youthpléigh 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, Mackensen. Could you look at my comment here. You dealt with the checkuser request that I made. Now a fourth SPA-like account has contributed to the fun and games associated with this debacle. --sony-youthpléigh 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serious misgivings about that. I've replied on the talk page. --sony-youthpléigh 19:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: checkuser on Mmtrmm

[edit]

Hello Mackensen. I noticed that you declined my checkuser request[14] with "nothing to check." What I was hoping to find out was whether there was an IP match between the named account (Mmtrmm) and one or more of his three apparent IP socks. I'm sorry that I didn't specify that originally. Any chance that you might be willing to take a second look at it? Poindexter Propellerhead 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Poindexter Propellerhead 12:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOME QUESTION MORE

[edit]

SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for moving a town article to the correct name, but the admin without any grasp of the topic thought this was vandalism and blocked Tobias, protected even his talk? Did you see this?

JUSTICE AND FAIR TREATMENT

[edit]

some people are very sensitive if it comes to unfair treatment, out of policy actions etc,

Advice

[edit]

I Just wanted to draw this to you att: [15], now it's been sorted, so thats not the problem. On this users talk page they still have the claim. Not a bar of truth, check the article in question. Thanks --Domer48 12:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

[edit]

Hello User:Mackensen, I would like to add these comments to your conclusions, in reply to your observations. I do not wish to hog the discussion talk page with a whole raft of text. Just on the points of original research. I checked and verified that a) the author was notable, and b) that the information was reliable sourced and verifiable.

These are just some of the examples to illustrate the point.
Point 1


Point 2

  • [21]
  • [22] 5. WHILE UNDER BRITISH COLONIAL RULE, MILLIONS STARVED IN BENGAL, INDIA
  • [23]
  • [24]


Point 3 The context in which the edit summary arose was that a discussion was ongoing on the article talk page. This editor, regardless of any discussion and in light of what I would describe as conclusive evidence to the appropriateness of the title, entered into an edit war over the subject heading. This was only one alternative heading the editor had attempted to use. It was in light of this behaviour and an extensive history of disruption that the edit summary was framed.

How would I place this information in the comment section provided without takeing over the place. Thanks for all the help, Regards --Domer48 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive275#This is officially pointless

[edit]

Was closed as "resort to the next level of dispute resolution". I don't want to be fed to Bishzilla. So what avenue would you recommend for this? -- Cat chi? 09:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some assistance, if you've got a moment.

[edit]

It's a bit weird for me to ask this, since it involves someone involved in the BDJ arbitration case you recused from, but I can't think of anyone's opinion I respect more around here so I'd like to ask for just an opinion (i.e., not a call to arms, action, or Domino's Pizza).

BLP came up on AN/I again recently with a short wheel war between JzG and Violetriga over a redirect to Baby 81. The BLP issue was whether or not the redirect, which is the baby's name, is a violation of BLP or not. Violetriga's viewpoint is that a clear consensus was established over on Talk:Baby 81 that inclusion of the baby's name (and by extension, the redirect) is not a BLP violation.

I've been looking over the article, the arguments on the talk page, and I can't see that 'clear consensus' she speaks off. I've tried discussing it, but I think we're going 'round in circles. So, I'm wondering what to do next. I don't think there's a clear consensus about the BLP factors at all, and I'm worried if another wheel war sparks off then admins will start losing their bits left and right.

The ANI thread hasn't drawn too many people to the talk page. I've considered either a post to the BLP noticeboard or even an RFC...but like I said, there's been so much discussion, and it's like things keep going 'round in circles. So, is there a way we can do the right thing and all feel good about it? --InkSplotch 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the official route might be to seek a clarification from the committee as to what it had in mind. I wasn't just recused--I was fully absent for almost the entire month of June, so I'm also left playing it by ear. The tricky thing is that you'd be asking ArbCom to rule on content--which it is rightfully loath to do (and isn't supposed to do). Let's leave the formal option off the table for now. It's a content issue and those should get resolved on talk pages. I'll head over there now. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time. I didn't want to reawaken the whole arbcom, mostly for fears of inflaming the situation instead of calming it. Your comments have greatly assuaged my concerns over BLP, and while I'm still concerned about volatility on that page...there's nothing really I can do at this point. Altho, I hope your comments will help others who've expressed concerns similar to mine. --InkSplotch 03:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am making strikeouts for Videmus Omnia on ANI

[edit]

Videmus Omnia (per my talk page) wants me to make some erasures on the ANI (not the RFC, at least I think I covered that), so I will do that. Please forfend any accusations from Durova about this. Thanks. BlueSapphires 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish famine ArbCom

[edit]

Hi Mackensen, I take it from your revert and exchange with MarkThomas on the talk page that I also am no longer "out" of the ArbCom? --sony-youthpléigh 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can't voluntarily withdraw from arbitration; it takes a motion. On the other hand, your conduct isn't really under examination--no one provided any evidence concerning you, and in my own reading of the talk pages I didn't see anything. I'd be very surprised if a specific remedy mentioned you. On the other hand, given your extensive participation in the article, I would strongly encourage you to engage the workshop page. It's in sore need of more eyes. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thank you for unblocking me! JasonDeLima 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for checkuser/Case/Silveriver

[edit]

Thanks for your help, I have posted another question on the page. ExtraDry 09:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

[edit]

Hello Mackensen, could you try to catch Armedblowfish on IRC? Thanks! :) — E talkbots 20:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIC sockpuppetry

[edit]

Hi Mackensen, wow, another…where is the related discussion?Proabivouac 02:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mess ArbComm can't untangle

[edit]

You wrote Decline. I agree with SimonP that it's a mess, but it's a mess that ArbCom can't untangle.

What do you suggest? --John Nagle 04:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

[edit]

I filed a checkuser request here after an unblock request indicated Orderinchaos, et al. know each other in real life, raising doubts about whether sockpuppet abuse is really present. I also requested a checkuser who wasn't involved in the RFA (which we both supported), to avoid any stupid accusations. I just wanted to drop you a line to say that I'm sorry for any implicit doubts about your integrity that might be conveyed by that request. I have a high regard for your work on Wikipedia, and I don't mean to denigrate it.--Chaser - T 04:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

My apology for my unnecessary outburst in the Elonka Rfa sockpuppet discussion, I know OIC personally and have good reason to presume that I had edited from the same IP as him, though on differing days. I also realise that given the closeness of the result and the shear number of editors who commented that it is reasonable to expect that a checkuser should be done prior to the closing of the RFA. Again my apologies for causing ill will against you and presuming bad faith in your actions, I let my emotions respond without proper thought first. Gnangarra 04:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_apartheid

[edit]

I understand that arbcom deals with member conduct most of the time, but there are several examples of WP:Point violations being pointed out in this request by multiple parties. I ask that you please reconsider your decision to deny reviewing this request for arbitration. Thank you. 128.122.253.229 19:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks vs. Meat

[edit]

I read your message at Elonka's RFA and had a related question. What is the precedent for users who admit to sharing an IP address with blockably disruptive editors? From your edit above, you allude to it not mattering whether they are indeed two individuals but I was wondering if you had more detail.

If you're interested in context, I stumbled on to a peculiar sock ring case explained here. The definite leader of the ring, Soxrock (talk · contribs), is an apparent teenager with over 40,000 edits and is generally well-regarded. Paraphrasing his talk page, he is claiming that he has an older brother that hates him and created all of the sock accounts to tarnish his image. An RFCU case has not been acted on yet but I'm about 100% sure all of the accounts were at least editing from the same IP (three cases of autoblocks connecting the accounts have already been found). I'm trying to weigh options like unblocking the account but hard-blocking the IP so he has to edit away from the disruptive brother (who is supposedly going away to college in a few weeks) or just forgetting the brother story and blocking based on the merits of the case as is. Soxrock has not been entirely forthcoming (he stayed quiet all day yesterday rather than request an un-autoblock) and the sock edits indicate a near pathological storytelling inclination. They've been white, black, male, female, Jewish, Christian, they've stacked votes in Soxrock's favor but also nominated his pet articles for deletion and vandalized his user page. It's so crazy, it actually does sound like two people.

Anwyay, any help you can give regarding precedent both for the sock vs. meat issue as well as whether to block and, if so, for how long - is greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are several related issues here. Many sockpuppeteers claim meatpuppetry as a defense--it's their room-mate, or brother, or child, etc. These claims are not verifiable, so it's really up to the community whether they buy it or not. A related question is utility--if we accept that so-and-so has an evil brother, who edits from the same IP address, are we prepared to leave that IP unblocked? We had a case similar to this with NicAgent (talk · contribs) some time ago, where an ostensibly good account was fronting for dozens of page-move vandals. I wound up hard-blocking the underlying IP address. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image question

[edit]

Unfortunately, at the time I took the photo, I didn't take note of the time or any details beyond what's already on the image description page. I only know that it was one of the Michigan Services trains as it was headed northeast from Porter. Slambo (Speak) 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote!

[edit]

Hi,

Since you've been involved in the recent discussions at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, your vote would be appreciated on this proposal. Thanks. -- Hux 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shreshth91

[edit]

Confirmation request de-sysop Shreshth91. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-sysop done. --Walter 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the decisive action, Mackensen. I was afraid of being dragged into a case where some less-than-sympathetic arbitrators (not you) would take the opportunity to Mindspillage the fuck out me. Luckily, your deysop request stopped these paranoiac 'possibilities' dead on their tracks! El_C 03:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds terrifying, whatever that is! No worries, always glad to help out ;) --Mackensen (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't, really. Well, good thing she didn't rise up the wiki chain of command, then I'd really be screwed for resurrecting this. Oh wait! El_C 03:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look at it, you were there, too, and voting in favour of me blocking whomever I like. Guess I owe you double thankses! El_C 03:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Walter Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

[edit]

Thank you for having taken steps to prevent libelous material from being inserted in this biography. Please see the Biographies talk page for our suggestions on preventing further disputes in relation to the "Philosophy / Political Views" section that has been added to this entry.


Virgil Vasquez

[edit]

Mackensen, I merged the content you had saved at Talk:Virgil Vasquez/Temp, using it (via a merge) as a basis to rescue the article from a possible G12 speedy deletion. I've expanded on the article myself to flesh it out. Let me know if you have any concerns or questions. Cheers, Caknuck 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Realm

[edit]

You forgot the 'protection' tag. When will they ever learn, 'edit wars' solve nothing. GoodDay 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it looks more 'official' and 'dramatic'. GoodDay 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the Protection expires on 10 August. Please maintain it till at least 15 August, which is when the second of two outstanding votes on methods of resolving this lunatic dispute is closed. If you reopen the page to edits before then, JDM is only going to jump back in and reinsert his contentious edits. And I and others will again revert them because they have not been agreed.

Not that the vote will make a difference if he loses. JDM has made it crystal clear that he intends to gets his way on this issue by any means he can, and consensus be damned. Even after the vote closes, I'd suggest you check on the state of the discussion before lifting protection. --Chris Bennett 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on [[Talk:Commonwealth Realm shows that a restatement is needed of the case for capitalising. I have added it immediately after your comment.
Truth to tell, what concerns me much more than the issue itself is the monomania. G2bambino is certainly a little one-eyed on Commonwealth issues, but here the running is entirely being driven by JDM, who is clearly unable to take No for an answer. If he really believes what he says it is totally mystifying why he cares about it so much. --Chris Bennett 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template cleanup

[edit]

A few templates you created, Template:Arriva Trains Wales stations, Template:Arriva Trains Wales lines, and Template:Arriva Trains Wales color, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia Britannica on Commonwealth realms

[edit]

Would you lift protection of this article so that I can correct the capitalization?

The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., never uses the expression "Commonwealth R/realm(s)" in its articles on dominions (of the Commonwealth), the Commonwealth, Elizabeth II or the United Kingdom. However ...

On p. 454 in vol. 4 of the Micropaedia the article on Elizabeth II states her title as "queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories, head of the Commonwealth of Nations."

p. 98 in vol. 21 of the Macropaedia in the article on the United Kingdom: "This loosening of the previous connections was taken a stage further in 1949, when India stated its wish to assume the status of a republic but to remain within the Commonwealth. The other members gave approval. The crown thus became an institution applicable to individual Commonwealth countries, which remained realms, but not to the Commonwealth as a whole."

Jonathan David Makepeace 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? JDM has not achieved acceptance that this change is correct, nor that it is either necessary or desirable, but he's appealing to you to let him end-run the process. Please continue to keep the article protected at least until the 15th. --Chris Bennett 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to unprotect until either the conclusion of the vote or the appearance of actual consensus on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been unprotected anyway. Perhaps this needs to be reversed.
Beyond that, I really do not appreciate your interjection at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, Mackensen. I simply cannot fathom how avoiding unnecessary, irrelevant debates and insisting people focus on the actual issue at hand makes one a "jerk." I really think you need to reevaluate the situation and your reaction. --G2bambino 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied elsewhere. My issue is with your apparently dismissive attitude towards other editors. You think these debates are unnecessary--they obviously don't, and it's disrespectful to simply dismiss them. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've similarly replied at Talk:Commonwealth Realm. However, I'll say here that yes, I will have a dismissive attitude towards editors who are trying to veer the conversation away from the topic at hand, especially when it starts to do with issues at completely separate articles. It's disrespectful and disingenuous for them to do so, therefore there's no loss of respect when I don't take their bait. --G2bambino 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One year ban for User:Sarah777

[edit]

Good afternoon.

I apologise that I left my comments on the talk page without checking the arbitration project page.

I followed various URLs that had been left in G's last letter to his executors and I now see that you had expressed your opposition to this draconian remedy before I posted my first comment.

On reading again my second comment (in the General Comments section), I must also apologise for my abrasive tone. I am still rather upset at last night's events.

What does it mean?

[edit]

What this means: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Afrika_paprika? I don't understand what likely means, does it means it's now proven? How can that be? May I see the evidence which led you to this conclusion, and also if this is definite may I ask this request to be relisted or can I do anything to prove it wrong and remove this ridiculous accusation of my back? Thank you, regards.--No.13 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

You just closed this case (which I filed) as confirmed. Are the newly listed users puppets of Mynglestine, or just of Cornu? Just wanna clear up my confusion here. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria RFCU

[edit]

Sorry to bother you with this, but could you clarify in what sense the Mauco / Pocopoco checkuser request is "stale", as you said here [25]? This is a very much ongoing problem with renewed socking and renewed edit-warring on Transnistria. Sorry if my request wasn't sufficiently clear about this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. Frank checkuser

[edit]

I understand you saying you can't "out" IPs, but I am wondering what other options there are please? I am of the belief that W. Frank is editing as an IP to harass another editor to avoid sanctions on his account, he has referred to other editors as "terrorists" and "retired insurgents". Brixton Busters 00:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalbot IPs

[edit]

I'm keeping a list of additional ones I come across through watching recent changes at User:WJBscribe/VandalbotIPs, just in case those might be helpful in detecting a pattern that will allow others to be found. WjBscribe 06:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clarification?

[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DivaDome. I did not understand your comment. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Blocking a range of IP addresses

[edit]

Dear Mr. M: During the past two days I have experienced the following problem. While editing articles and doing other tasks, WP un-logs me, and an editing save brings up the message: "You have been blocked from editing. Checkuser has determined that this IP address has been used abusively." Blocked by User:Mackensen. The range of blocked addresses is 68.253.208.0/20. My IP address is 68.253.219.130. Could you please narrow the block range somewhat? Sincerely, Novickas 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid that doing so would expose the encyclopedia to the worst sort of vandalism. I blocked as narrowly as I could. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for responding. However, please note that my address begins with 68.253.219, while the posted block range is 68.253.208.0/20, and my IP does not fall within that range. If everything from 68.253 on is blocked, let me know, and I will continue to work around it. Thx, Novickas 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually it does: the /20 range is 68.253.208.0–68.253.223.254. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, clarification. It looked to me as tho 208.0/20 meant the suffixes only under 208. Oh well. Sincerely, Novickas 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about RFCU

[edit]

Hi: I've been away on wikibreak, and I returned to find that I had been blocked, for the first time in five or so years. A discussion of the block is here [26]; I wish to have someone with checkuser privileges examine the evidence and announce for the record whether or not I did break 3RR. (I couldn't have. I am fairly certain that I was in New York at the time.) I notice that you declined a similar request here [27] and I was wondering what the procedure would be for the subject of the CU to request a reopening of something you declined. Hornplease 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I declined for good reasons and will not revisit the matter. I'm not sure how you expect me to prove you were in New York when your account didn't edit for two weeks surrounding the block. You're of course free to post the request yourself but self-checks are almost always declined. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I am not certain what the reasons are. In any case, I must assume that you did not read the discussion linked above: the block was made for an alleged 3RR a fortnight earlier, the last time I edited. Am I to suppose that it is not normal to examine whether or not I was editing abusively, given that I was blocked for it? That seems absurd. Hornplease 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At AN/I here. Do look in if you get a chance. Hornplease 03:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Checkuser/RFCU

[edit]

I would be greatly obliged if you can help me in this issue.I was blocked for something that was posted in my talk page which is the last place I would put something for others to see..[28].I came from one country to another with a group of students even my IP address belongs to my University.I have edited allowed my computer to be used by others and also university computers are used by others students as well mainly for studies,listening music,email etc rarely for editing Wikipedia in both countries and the use of the computer also corresponded to our examination schedule.I believe one of the students may have the said ID.But now it is vacation all the students except me have left my University.It seems the concerned user is abroad ,I think to either California/Texas/Lousiana or India where most of my friends have gone and is appealing for a admin to check his case and has put the tag wrong.[29].Now how do I go about if he does not appeal his ban. I seek nothing ,I served my ban .I am not appealing his ban.It is between him and Wikipedia.My name is mentioned which I would like to clear after serving the ban.Now a self request is likely to be declined as per normal policy.Harlowraman 20:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for removing the inaccurate tag on my user page. Sincerely/PEACETalkAbout 19:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I see you are actively working on templates so maybe you can assist with the "What links here" issue with this template. Discussion is on the template talk page. Maybe there is no solution. If that is the case we would like to know. TIA ww2censor 15:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. Cheers ww2censor 15:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BJADON restore

[edit]

I started it contemporaneously with the start of the DRV this morning. I think the first edit over there was first, but I'd started the sequence of edits to restore and hadn't rechecked DRV until I finished the first set.

I did notify Alkivar immediately after doing it. See: [30] . I then rechecked DRV, there was an entry there, I commented there that I'd restored, it evolved from there.

Admin-Admin courtesy requires a notification that you BOLDed something, as my revert was. And I notified him. Ideally it's a discuss-first, but in the case of undoing an apparent and immediately evidently controversial overreach of BOLD itself, it's unreasonable to demand that I leave them a message first and wait for them to respond before acting.

In this case, Alkivar hasn't even logged in since he posted his AN notice at oh-whatever-thirty this morning, so that would have been a futile waste of time anyways.

I appreciate the concern of not degenerating into admins second-guessing ongoing DRVs or wheel-warring, but neither of those is precisely what happened today. I stuck notes everywhere that I'm supposed to as soon as I had a chance, and didn't end-run any process that was already moving when I started.

We do have a real problem with lack of respect for consensus among some of the admins, and people pushing BOLD way beyond any reasonable limit. It's an abuse. Reasonable admins can counter the abuse using the tools normally. Georgewilliamherbert 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

[edit]

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Amarkov stated that some people may have come to the Rfa after reading the mailing list, hence my speel about that and IRC...which I equate as time wasters. There wasn't any reason to deride the mailing list and IRC, but it's not the first time I have commented about them. It took the conversation away from the argument which was that these four editor's showing up to !vote after a week or more away and not editing since was a big hello. I doubt they are socks of each other, but I also doubt they found their way to that Rfa by happenstance. Best.--MONGO 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for your hard work today on RfCU, Mackensen. Nice to see the Sheriff back in town.Proabivouac 07:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, re your message (which I just saw, I get a few) I've not seen this private evidence - no one will share it with me - and there is plainly something very wrong with the scenario which has been offered on-wiki, and in my e-mail inbox. I do like to get along, and realize that this has become unpopular, but feel obliged to pursue this without serious exculpatory evidence of the sort you suggest exists. A photograph of three buddies on the beach doesn't cut it: I want to see some evidence that the posts in question propagated from three (or even two) different individuals, and I'm not seeing that either in the edits, nor in the edit times. If there is something else, please share it: I've asked Rebecca, and WJScribe, and gotten nothing. I will never post anyone's personal real-life information on-wiki. As it is, I'm concerned you've been given something that doesn't really explain the problems, but which you accept anyhow, and have no way to really resolve this.Proabivouac 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing what I've seen, you're sure it's insufficient? That's a neat trick. Now, you feel obliged to pursue this even though those ultimately responsible for handling the matter have pronounced themselves content? I'm left wondering what exactly you expect to accomplish except more drama. I'm not at liberty to divulge the information I've received, and frankly I don't see why I should have to. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Without knowing what I've seen, you're sure it's insufficient?"
I didn't say that. Naturally. You don't have to share it, of course, but there's no reason to be angry at me for trying to do the right thing.
I, too, received an e-mail which sounds very heartfelt and self-revelatory, but contains no actual evidence, and the scenario depicted therein is inconsistent with the on-wiki data. Besides the fact that all three sound on most (not all) occasions quite alike, there are slip-ups which strongly suggest one person pretending to be two, and the edit times don't generally suggest two locations at once. Both DT5 and Z85 approach SPAs in their mania for deletion debates in which they invariably agree with OIC about the smallest details. It is very difficult to believe that editors participate for the sole purpose of evaluating AfD's about shopping centers, primary schools and the like; it is also difficult to believe that they quit without regret when they are falsely suspected. Odd, too, isn't it, that - supposing you heard anything like I heard - it is DT5 who participates heavily and then semi-retires in favor of Z85, to return only on choice special occasions like the Elonka RfA and the Winchester unblock request? Odd, isn't it, that - supposing you heard anything like I heard - though OIC conducts conversations with DT5 and Z85, not once do they find occasion to talk to one another?
Even were it so that this is "only" meatpuppetry, it is extremely dishonest for someone to jump into a dispute pretending to be a neutral observer when they are all sitting around the same computer/are partners, etc., as both OIC and Z85 have done, in one case driving another real-named editor off of wikipedia through tag-team harassment, in another all three swarming ANI to demand the unblock of another friend, swarming (and conceivably sinking) Elonka's RfA; I cannot for the life of me understand why OIC remains as a sysop.
Far more likely is that, supposing these individuals exist, their accounts were loaned to OIC on various occasions, which is both sockpuppetry and impersonation.
Having no connection with the editor who was driven off, none with Alansohn, supported Elonka with hesitation and frankly agreed with the socks/meats most of the time, I am still unwilling to accept this. You may consider that I have no "ultimate responsibility" to look out for Wikipedia's integrity, but I feel one nonetheless. If an administrator is caught socking and merely has to concoct a candid-sounding tale of domestic complexity, and the only result is that the socks have to quit for awhile (they're not banned)…well, this won't be the last example, and I doubt it's the only one now.Proabivouac 03:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased editor

[edit]

I just noticed that an occasional editor (83 edits) with a sufficiently high profile in real life to be obituarized has passed away. Is it OK to just report these things on WP:AN, or is there a more appopriate channel? Best, Choess 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged ruby RFCU

[edit]

Having seen the checkuser at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#User:Jagged_ruby - would you mind if I emailed the university's IT department and took it up with them?? I'm also awarding you a barnstar too...

A Barnstar! ..it's for all your work as a checkuser, and for dealing with User:Jagged ruby and cleaning out a large sock drawer

Keep the good work up - on your history and train-related articles too!

Thanks, --SunStar Net talk 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Anyhow, what history/train-related articles you working on at the moment?? I'm trying to edit the Corn Laws-related stuff, and will be doing so soon! I'm glad that guy's been locked out - surely his userpage should have {{banned}} on it??

The user reminds me a bit of User:Cplot, the way he keeps shifting IPs. --SunStar Net talk 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I changed the barnstar as my formatting wasn't very good!

Civility

[edit]

With respect, Mackensen, I think ChrisO writing (when all the eipthets are strung together) "6S7J, you are a stupid fool who ought to be ashamed of himself" can be fairly characterized as at the very least uncivil, along with ChrisO's alleging that greg park avenue was contributing (again stringing them all together) "incomprehensible, trollish, clutter." Was he angry at the time? I have no doubt he was. I'm not suggesting he be permabanned for it, but I think arbcom can at least note that this behavior is frowned upon.

I hope my leaving a note here is all right. If not, I'm happy to move it elsewhere. IronDuke 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for the quick reply. IronDuke 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commonwealth Realm

[edit]

Ummmm....the protection you placed on Commonwealth Realm has expired...should I removed the tag or are you gonna reissue the protection? Nat Tang ta | co | em 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checkuser

[edit]

Thanks for running the most recent checkuser on Billy Ego. I was wondering if you'd be willing to check Operation Spooner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as well. A previous request by another editor was turned down as a fishing expedition. I think, based on Operation Spooner's editing patterns, arreas of interest, and POV, that he's likely to be a sockpuppet of Billy Ego. A longtime editor on anarcho-capitalism-related pages with extensive Billy Ego experience whose judgement I trust, User:Libertatia, also feels Operation Spooner is a likely sock. Libertatia is considering leaving the project as a result of the frustration of dealing with Spooner. If Spooner's not a sock, then I'll tell him to follow WP:DR, but personally I think there are grounds to run the checkuser since his MO fits Billy's. I was wondering if you'd be willing; if not, no big deal. Thanks for your time. MastCell Talk 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry to bug you. MastCell Talk 00:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebring(Florida) Amtrak Station Infobox revisited

[edit]

Unfortunatley, your combination of the Railroad & National Register of Historic Places infoboxes fell apart sometime today. So I had to revert to the old style of one separatley on top of the other. Sorry. I was looking forward to it's success. ---- DanTD 04:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar
For getting the ball rolling to release Image:Russian anthem poster Moscow.jpg for our use in Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Commonwealth Realm

[edit]

Hey Mackensen, since you were the sysop/arbitrator that protected the article Commonwealth Realm, and it seems that the community has entrusted you with many of the tools that an editor wouldn't normally have, I would like to ask you if you would like to be the "closer" of the debate on Talk:Commonwealth Realm, which is expected to close on 00:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) per the 7 days agreed upon by the editors concerning consensus and the like. If you don't want to thats fine, it's up to you. Just let me know what you decide, so that in the case you decide not to, I can find another neutral sysop to be the "closer". nattang 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Longview (Amtrak station)

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Longview (Amtrak station), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Spa toss 19:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed the speedy delete tag to an article that you created with this edit. Per the instructions above, the way to dispute the speedy delete is to use {{hangon}} and an explanation on the article's talk page. Consequently, I undid your edit. Spa toss 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm familiar with the process. I'd quite forgotten that I was the creator; as the tagger, you're obligated to explain your actions. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good. Some other users and/or admin will read your comments and remove the speedy delete tag and/or delete the article. The article did not assert why subject was notable in my opinion. I will follow the article and see if I misapplied the no assertion of notability speedy delete tag. Spa toss 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does assert that it's a railway station served by a national railway company. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stanley_baldwin.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stanley_baldwin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Commonwealth realm

[edit]

Hello Mackensen,

A vote was held on Talk:Commonwealth Realm (sic), and the result was just over 60% in favour of lowercasing the "r". I've read that 60% is the lower threshold for a minor edit, and what could be more minor than lowercasing a word? We would also like the page moved to "Commonwealth realm." It's your call.

However, if you do not accept the vote, could you please tell me where I can appeal all the policy violations to? I have laid out the whole case both on my talk page and at Talk:Commonwealth_Realm#JDM.27s_response_to_the_vote.

Thank you for any help you can provide.

Jonathan David Makepeace 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Svidersky

[edit]

Howdy! Back in May 2006 you participated in an AfD discussion on the Anna Svidersky article. There is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving a disagreement over the state of the article and the use of the Anna Svidersky title as a redirect to the Mourning Sickness article that was created during the 2nd Svidersky AfD. I hope you don't mind the interruption. Any additional or outside input would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. AgneCheese/Wine 14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating sigs

[edit]

Hi, there is still a claim that sig updating edits are controversial. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Computer (05) was declined almost instantly. I was wondering what to do to "gain" requested consensus. What do you recommend? I had taken the contribution of one of the sig reverter to RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott. So what should I do next? Take the mater to ArbCom or Jimbo? What do you recommend? -- Cat chi? 13:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you are busy but can you please acknowledge that you have received this? -- Cat chi? 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

[edit]

Sorry to bother you - but i've waited for some time for you to actually look at the comments to the BLP noticeboard [31], as well as actually look at the article. The article is now locked, and as usually is the case - its locked at the wrong version ;-).

Now there are several problems with the article - some of which have been raised at the BLP noticeboard case, but apparently never acted upon (or possibly even seen). There is a new thread on the Talk page of the article that i would like you to have a look at [32]. Now if you do not have the time or the sufficient knowledge on the subject, to weight and assess it - could i then make you have another admin look at it? --Kim D. Petersen 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, why exactly is this article still locked? The anon editor has shown no interest in discussing anything, and I gather there's no complaint on OTRS that anyone seems to know of. I've raised the issue at WP:AN/I#Anonymous legal threats create an impasse for wider discussion, since BLP has proven fruitless - your input would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lulz

[edit]

"No doubt it was for the lulz and we got trolled." THAT made me smile... :P --Cerejota 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Train boxes

[edit]

The NSW ones (and also the Indian Pacific/Ghan/Overland boxes) have been in place for a long time. I created them and I'm in the process of changing them to something better. The old templates which you put in place on the GSR pages are ugly and don't accurately reflect the colour scheme; moreover they don't fit with the existing templates that were on the WA pages anyway. If you want to change the code, I don't care, but it really doesn't matter - these templates should stay in place as there is no consensus to change them. As for the GSR templates within Western Australia, they should stay consistent with the ones around WA. JRG 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on NSW, but personally I'm in favour of the new boxes, and the WA/Perth editors who work on public transport articles had been appropriately consulted by Mackensen et al. The main issue we've always had (and we had similar issues prior to the national rollout of Template:Infobox Australian Place in geographic articles) was maintenance - not just a problem with manual boxes, but also when you have multitude different templated ones. Orderinchaos 05:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally I disagree that they're ugly, and I also disagree that they're old--the WP:TRAIN folk developed them last December, as a natural progression of {{rail line}}. For reasons I outlined on your talk page, s-line is an improvement over the templates you're just now putting in place, although I note you've incorporated my suggestions about the location of left- and right-hand stations. I have to agree with Orderinchaos about the Midland railway station--it looks terrible now. It makes little sense to me to maintain dissimilar batches of templates which are ostensibly conveying the same information. Mackensen (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have read OIC's talk page where I outlined a few issues. Here are my problems:

1) The colour bars - I don't like them and neither do the NSW users who agreed on getting rid of them. You say you tried to incorporate the GSR trains into them but you didn't - there is a text colour and a background colour that are specific to the train liveries which we tried to incorporate into the boxes (although the Overland has since changed - I need to update it). We decided on a coloured box with black or white text (where appropriate) or a coloured border. It looks better too. 2) The boxes you tried to simply tack onto the bottom of the Sydney pages didn't fit (nor did they on the Perth ones) - they looked bad. You need a template that fits with every suburban station box if you are going to build one - and it doesn't fit at the moment. 3) We already have perfectly adequate boxes for every capital city. Why there is some obsession with changing it every couple of months I do not know - why can't we leave it alone? And just because it is used elsewhere doesn't mean we should use it here.

Here's my compromise: you incorporate my colour scheme for GSR into a box that fits with your code, and we'll incorporate the GSR trains into the respective state boxes where that is appropriate (NSW & Victoria). What about it? JRG 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow text on grey background doesn't work - it must be on blue. But if you're not going to be bothered changing the code then I'm not going to bother arguing about it - I'll just leave everything as is (as it's fine and there is no reason to change). I've already set up a code in my previous templates and you're welcome to use that. JRG 11:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. Once it's stable, feel free to convert all the GSR templates to that, and if you do the CountryLink ones in the same way (see Central railway station, Sydney for the country train template I was using for the colours) you can convert all the CountryLink tables that way as well. Thanks for your cooperation on this. (By the way - the Ghan doesn't link to Darwin at the moment because I was in the process of writing a Darwin Rail Terminal article - I just haven't got round to it yet). JRG 13:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks for that. One more thing - can you get the background colour off The GSR site and use it as the header box like has been done with the Transperth boxes? If you can't that's ok. JRG 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy change, actually. That's all controlled in {{GSR style}}. I've added the lines main_color=CBB989 and main_font_color=FFFFFF. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on changing the CityRail ones to your new style for consistancy? IMHO I think the colours are a bit garish and prefer the more subtle bar colours as used on your original rail template.Quaidy 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it, but one thing at a time! First thing is get together all editors with a stake and see what people think about a switchover. I freely confess that I don't know where to start on that one. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have contributed quite a lot to the CityRail station pages, and would be very supportive of a changeover.Quaidy 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. What I'll do is design a mock-up of Central railway station, Sydney and post it in my userspace. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CityRail part looks fantastic, well done. I think the colours are more subtle and fit better into the overall Wikipedia 'look', and are consistent with other rail templates such as the UK ones. It also creates consistency of width between CityRail and CountryLink. I'd be happy to help change them over if there is consensus on changing.Quaidy 05:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um - Mackensen, can you please maintain the consistency and keep the ones we already have - albeit under the new template? Quaidy is already changing the boxes without consensus. In the past he has done the same thing with other things as well. JRG 00:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sigh. This is why I suggested waiting--without consensus we just get a revert-war. The changes needed are fairly simple; I'll do them soon. We can go back and forth easily enough, at least. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I reverted too far. Didn't mean to wreck your good work. I'm not going to do anything more on this. JRG 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm starting a discussion on the Trains wikiproject page so we can scare up some consensus. I don't want to see an edit war, especially not one I enabled. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just took a look at the Central station suggestion on the Flarp page. We need to be careful about the colour borders - some of them are wrong for the specific train service. Also, the South, East Hills & Airport, Bankstown and Inner West lines pass through Central twice so that needs to be fixed up, and the difference between the Airport Line and the Sydenham peak hour deviation. Taking a look at it, I actually agree with Quaidy that it looks a bit more garish than what's there at the moment. Can we try the original format but with the coloured borders too? That might be a better compromise. I'll write this on the discussion page. JRG 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An option may be to have the city destinations for the lines as towards City Circle, or something like that and then treat the City Circle as its own line with just one navigation box. Afer all, Circular Quay can only have St James and Wynyard on each side of it, and it seems a bit silly having it replicated 4 times. What about:
{{s-rail-start}}
{{s-rail|title=CityRail}}
{{s-line-jnct|system=CityRail|line=City Circle|previous=Wynyard|next=St James}}
{{s-end}}
It obviously needs to be fiddled with a bit, and I wonder if we can get the four colours into it?.Quaidy 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we not have a "City Circle" line. It's not a CityRail operational line, which is what the boxes are based on. The four lines will suffice, even if they are tricky to put in. JRG 10:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the current boxes are referring to are service patterns rather than pieces of infrastructure, or 'lines' as such. No one can deny that the City Circle is a line, but with four services running through it. Circular Quay is not on the East Hills line, its on the City Circle, its that East Hills line trains run through it. But I'm happy to leave it as is at it's the CityRail convention, it just seems unecessarily repetitive. Quaidy 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mackensen - the lines you mention run through the City Circle, but on all the CC stations they actually do run 2-way. Not all services convert to the other line, some of them terminate at Central - some of them do. If they do change over, they officially run to Central then become the other line, although they are marketed as the other service earlier - it's very confusing. You just need to know that they don't run in a one-way operation. So, by way of example, Inner West line trains run Redfern-Central-Town Hall-Wynyard-Circular Quay-St James-Museum-Central (where some terminate, and others continue as Bankstown Line trains). However, on indicator boards, they will appear as Bankstown Line trains as soon as they get to Town Hall, even though they're not officially Bankstown services until they get to Central. JRG 05:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! Well, I'll chew on this, and get back to you. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen/Archive14&oldid=1145834470"