User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2010 01

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! I hope you have a happy, safe and successful year. Bidgee (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...

Sock check at isle 1 please... Timeshift (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

G'day OiC :-)

...and a happy new year :-) - I've begun userspace tidy up and general improvement of the chinese sydney immigration article - and look forward to getting it into mainspace in due course :-) - I'm swinging by here though to let you know that I mentioned you here in asking for a bit more advice on the issue of sourcing etc. at the article (related to whether or not we can use the author's source as a reliable one) - thought I should let you know..... I also responded to a post you left on the talk page of the article, but that might be all water under the bridge now? - drop me a line any time if you want to raise anything, or chat.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - I'm sure the RS/N people will be able to offer useful feedback to that end. Personally I think it's a waste of time trying to force the deleted essay to meet Wikipedia's standards - it was never meant for us and the massive time needed (which I'm still not convinced would produce something that would get through DRV/another AfD) could be much more productively spent. John V has come up with a list of likely useful collaboration articles with DoS and Witty lama is working to achieve those. Orderinchaos 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that - why waste time on a dead horse? SatuSuro 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Red roo

Bobisbob2 keeps changing the infobox image[1] to an unnatural image as the roos are not found in green grass areas and the image is from the US of A. Bidgee (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ZooPro has reverted[2] and made this comment on the talk page. Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

NAB

An IP under the 124.xx.xx.xx (Who is likely to have a COI in the NAB) keeps removing the image[3] and has been for sometime (Steve knows this issue). Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Falling rain

Hi. You have admin tools, please block falling rain. There is a consensus already. Gogounou had been using falling rain as a source for over a year and claimed it had 1071 people referenced to that site. It makes me very angry because this and official 2002 census data indicates Gogonou has 80,000 people. A huge blunder, it was out by 79/80. Please lets remove falling rain from wikipedia asap it is very damaging as shown here... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Am totally in agreement - but not sure what I can do, and whether it will stick. If it's something I need to add to an admin-locked file or something, probably best to let me know where and what :) Thanks. Orderinchaos 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask Stifle. But if we don't do anything about it swiftly we are basically authorising 9,000 odd article to contain false sometime grossly inaccurate data... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is enacted, will they still show up in Special:Linksearch? Reason being so they can be appropriately stripped out (if someone's onto this already with a bot or etc, that's cool.) The Australian ones I removed a week or so ago were mostly a link at the end of the article rather than used as a source, so were quite easy to strip out. Orderinchaos 16:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, but I think I organize a bot or AWB operator to remove the links to falling rain. As Rich Farmborough said the problem will be removing the false data. Well if somebody tries to reference an article to falling rain I guess it would said "Spam filter" and block it. But it needs to be sorted asap as 9,000 articles which reference or contain links to false data is not good... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Sniff around Western Australia and you'll find entire things dreamed into existence which I'm not sure ever did exist. Orderinchaos 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm SatuSuro 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything need doing? Just to put falling rain on the blacklist asap and remove all links to it... Ask Brion Vibber or somebody if you are unsure how to do it.. I can't see any counterargument for keeping it so blacklisting it shouldn't be controversial... While we are at it those "dream" articles need deleting too.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Gigs is the only one who objects to the blacklisting. Oh it wouldn't work like that. The falling rain links would need to be removed first by a bot and then black listed to block it appearing again... I'll ask Farmborough if he can use AWB to remove the links but sometime we need to think about removing any false data it referenced too... First of all though the blacklisting has to be approved or declined so removal of links can commence.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given where the discussion is hosted, I don't think it'd be right for me to block it. I agree it *should* be blocked, though - but only after the bot or AWB etc removes the links. Orderinchaos 10:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pong

we do have WesternAustralia-rail-stub if you need it - we need a coffee/orange juice in the next week or so so i can give you about 3 vip cross ref items that can help coordinate stuff a bit better - real life, gmail or here is fine List_of_railways_constructed_by_the_Public_Works_Department_of_Western_Australia now exists SatuSuro 08:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockchecks

Can you have at user "My mother in law owns officeworks" who edited on Tony Abbott, and 60.225.52.134 on Current pendulum for the next Australian federal election. Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No need. I had a look and one appears to be bored kids (drop a warning and if they keep at it they get blocked) and the other is actually (w)right. Orderinchaos 09:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One editor we may need to keep an eye on is AusRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it could be a Jackp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock or someone else. Bidgee (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a Kapitalist sock. I'll block them. (I've spent a frustratingly high amount of time trying to sort out the Stravin/Watchover/Kapitalist mess in recent days so I knew it on sight...) Orderinchaos 10:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just who I thought that someone was! Cheers for that! Bidgee (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What about User:LibStar? Why not just check all Lib-leaning contributors, there's not many and it seems half of them have been socks! :D Timeshift (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rayesworied, the list never stops growing. Latest sock of that editor is Ccpu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:BEANS, we had an editor called David York who was at last count up to well over 300 socks. Orderinchaos 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just the mention of the name brings thoughts that are unprintable here SatuSuro 12:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well he did have some rather interesting editing obsessions (which are also unprintable here). Orderinchaos 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Shudder. --Merbabu (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

David York...?[4] How long ago was he? Surely pre-mid-2006 cause I don't seem to recall him... Timeshift (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a long story - like [5] Prester Johns - not really worth the explanation - believe me SatuSuro 12:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh be a sport SatuSuro! Timeshift, at further risk of BEANS, think of the <sarcasm> closely related subjects </sarcasm> of yoga, autoeroticism, Mike Gravel, Indonesia during the WW2 Japanese Occupation, Adolf Hitler the painter, and Muhammad's slaves - in one article. --Merbabu (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not joking - I think he got every last one of them. And it was well after I became an admin in March 2007, just didn't edit on Australian political themes (apart from indigenous people) despite being Sydney-based. Orderinchaos 13:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sport? - nah his are unprintable - he also had a thing about a certain author having a particular bias in gender issues - that was a later obsession - I still think hes probably currently destroying unencyc or some similar place where they think he is cool or funny... :( SatuSuro 13:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

At least there was a macabre humour (probably unintentional) on the part of David - PJ had a more sinister humourless lack of irony inmho SatuSuro 13:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes one wondered whether DY71 was taking the piss - but not an ironic bone in PJ though. But, I laughed at him no with him when he called one sock - a SPA to remove any edit of my - "Putzremoval". --Merbabu (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Other fun sockmasters on the Australian scene - remember Premier / Steakknife / (insert IP here), the right-wing guy who could be relied upon for topics of Indigenous Australians and cannibalism, monarchism and Sir Joh. Orderinchaos 13:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about AustralianMelodrama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (edit count)? Bidgee (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

David yorke on valium? or cerepax perhaps SatuSuro 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This guy seems very clued up for a newbie... sockcheck at isle one please! Timeshift (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. Thanks for letting me know earlier. It's difficult to tell whether it's Kapitalist or Stravin/Watchover at this point. Orderinchaos 13:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Also GlobalReviewer please... ugh... Timeshift (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I can already tell you that one's unrelated. That's just the earlier IP who tried to add that thing on Zed Seselja. I think the weather over that way is bringing out the wild and weird in people. Orderinchaos 06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What about this guy? Based on his edits, his apparent familiarity, and picking up where Watchover left off on a particular page, i give it a 99% chance. Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockcheck please! Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering some of the choices of page edits, it's certainly an interesting time this user picked to start editing again! Timeshift (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That one was on my spreadsheet as the original account of Stravin. I'll block it now. Orderinchaos 04:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New account, wikiproject texas and NSW? yeah right... Timeshift (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Glebe Island

Where can this draft be seen ? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Atkinson

Your opinion as an experienced admin? Timeshift (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta. Timeshift (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That section on video gaming is appalling. I checked three of the provided citations - the information was not there (indeed, Atkinson's name wasn't even in two of them). Did I read somewhere that this had been discussed? --Merbabu (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can have a look at the expected re-revert that would be appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Two McGraths

I know he's worn two hats, but do we really need two John_McGrath_(Western_Australian_politician) and John_McGrath_(Australian_politician) articles? Don't know if one should be redirected to the other or if a history merge is needed. As the main political editor in WA who has all the tools, I pass it on to you.The-Pope (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Support deleting the OZ pol one and not giving him the pleasure of a mention in the worsts 2nd page as having two arts :( it might go to his head - and the second sentence here - yoursSatuSuro 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I merged them - it seems two of our project editors created them at different times. I simply moved the (WA politician) one over the top of the other one then undeleted the first few diffs so an audit trail was maintained. If someone could fix the links I'd be grateful. Orderinchaos 03:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh I got confused with mcillwraith the australian newspaper person - so much for highly retentive memory of wrong info :( SatuSuro 05:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Thomas McIlwraith? :D Orderinchaos 06:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not - SatuSuro 08:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you forsaw this coming...

User talk:TroyfromAust is contesting their block. Of course, I'd agree that broadly they demonstrate a level of knowledge about Wikipedia usually not seen in brand new people, but also presumably you blocked them because you have the actual sockmaster in mind. Could you just let us all know who this is supposed to be so I can decline his unblock request? Thanks! --Jayron32 04:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

quickie

Want to stick your neck and speedy User:Nezzadar/tools/Blacklist? User has left. While they were here it didn't give a shit about it; now they are gone I see no reason to continue ignoring it. (I thought it more proper I ask someone else rather than nuke it myself). Hesperian 05:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries - it wasn't really acceptable use of userspace while they were active, it's even less so now they're not. Orderinchaos 06:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank ya kindly. Hesperian 13:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are ya?

Your moniker at AWNB would be appreciated SatuSuro 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Aquinas College, Perth

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Aquinas College, Perth/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why I was notified of this? I'm not near a fully powered computer atm and won't be for a while - if someone could copy this to WA, Schools or AWNB, I'd be appreciative. Orderinchaos 06:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

AWNB already has it, as do several people who care no more than you do. I don't think you need to worry about notification. ;-) Hesperian 07:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for that. Had wondered why I of all people would be notified of it!! Orderinchaos 08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey! No one notified me, and my lack of caring is easily on par with yours! Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I really appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors.

You may also be interested in the group WP:Article Rescue Squadron which has fought hard to restore these 236 articles which the three administrators who have "utter contempt" for consensus deleted.

Thank you again for your comments. Ikip 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Have been watching the debate & discussions about reducing the amount of Australian unreferenced BLP at WP:Oz - think its a great idea & am more than happy to help out - if you want to shove any WP:Aus music articles my way - I'll see what I can do. In saying that will reference up Adalita Srsen as per your request. Dan arndt (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who stalk my editing

Even I can't quite believe the amount of useful info I've gotten on this Melbourne trip. I have sourced populations for local governments to 1911 in NSW, TAS and SA (already had the other states), election information for VIC back to 1964 (perhaps 1955 by the time I finish tomorrow) and ministries in various states. Sadly UniMelb got rid of their QLD govt gazettes and SLV is missing five critical years of the Adelaide Advertiser. But I guess one can't have everything. Orderinchaos 12:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Next sourced additions: QLD 1907 and 1908 elections, "key dates" sections on some WA election articles, and some random LGA stuff I found on the way through. Dunno where to put the QLD school stuff I found on the way through (gazettals of schools getting commissioned). Next research thingies: 1960 and 1963 elections/ministries, and 1925-1956 BCC lists (I'm thinking of doing them up as lists similar to the Parliamentary lists - I believe the sheer size of BCC and the quasi-parliamentary nature of its proceedings and elections justifies this as against other local councils.) Orderinchaos 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lyons state tas

The map is crap - the text and map dont coincide - any ideas how to fix? SatuSuro 05:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Paruna, South Australia

Hi OIC. Can you please restore the above article when you get a chance. I have some photographs of the "town" at Commons:Category:Paruna, South Australia now, suitable for adding to an article. Also, if you have information on the District Council of Brown's Well, I have suitable photos for an article on that entity too. Hope you have enjoyed your trip out east. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 11:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored it and added a little bit of info. Welcome to the dark side (of the continent) OIC :) Melburnian (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And Bower, South Australia too, please. Photos at Commons:Category:Bower, South Australia. Thanks heaps, Mattinbgn\^talk 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Melburnian (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - (sort of) back in action again. Will be doing articles for historic SA LGAs much as I did for Victoria a couple of years ago, as soon as I can gather together all the info I obtained in Victorian libraries. Orderinchaos 08:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

One more please! Time for Weetulta, South Australia to be restored, photos at Commons:Category:Weetulta, South Australia. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 07:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks heaps. That should be it for SA towns for now. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries :) Orderinchaos 05:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perth

Hope you had a great trip. Because of the heat and lack of rain I suppose, compared to the north-east of the country. Most of the south is suffering from a lack of rain; Lonnie only had 7.2mm of rain last month and 22.2mm in December down from an average of about 45mm per month ahead of Feb and Mar which are usually the driest. I was surprised about how big the Swan River was, especially after being used to the merky/muddy Tamar, yuck! And Kings Park is huge! —Aaroncrick (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Great :) Is that a record yet? —Aaroncrick (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Australia–Kosovo relations

This article has been renominated for deletion by User:Libstar. Since you took the time to comment in the first discussion, you deserve to be notified of the situation. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I probably will abstain this time simply as I can't think of an intelligent comment to make and I really can't decide whether to stick with my Delete vote from AFD 1, or vote to keep it as I found myself then to be in a minority. Orderinchaos 03:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Help please...

DavidHuo... Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm here. Your request for "help" has been recorded. Asking favours of admins to enforce your view is unacceptable and a corrupt action.

@OrderinChaos I expect you to respond to my discussion points on the ALP article. DavidHuo (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DavidHuo, asking an admin for help is not unacceptable. Orderinchaos, can you checkuser DavidHuo based on the recent issues, coupled with this user's newness and his oddness of his pattern of contributions thus far... Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check, please

Do you think this revision was over the top? I'm not a fan of Nuttall, but I think that a list of every controversial call he made was over the top, regardless of whether he was corrupt or not. I have a feeling the removal might be controversial so I'm going early for the impartial third-party view =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Seems to be the sort of situation WP:LAUNDRY was written for. As it's a BLP we have to be responsible and fair in our coverage, and let's face it, there's plenty that could be said about him which is perfectly within BLP without having to go outside it. So yes, the removal seems fair to me. Orderinchaos 09:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Moyes

A watchful eye would be appreciated... thanks... Timeshift (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - also, what is your opinion on the latest Mike Rann contribution? It's definately WP:SYN... Timeshift (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rann

"WP:BLP; WP:SYN - the added section appears to be advancing a "1-->2" argument which is not supported by the sources."
Really? I'm surprised. But it's well past bed time. I'll review ir again in daylight. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agre22

In this Internet café, I had used another computer, but the Internet café's owner told me that it was scraped. I lost the password. Above all, the link didn't helped to me in nothing. I wrote more than one hundred articles for wikipedia, but I can't do nothing on it.201.8.108.172 (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)agre22

John Crase

Thanks for the research - I have access to BCC's 1907 minutes and he was not mayor at that point, although I do know he continued to serve as an Alderman for North Ward for a number of years after 1906, per here. Oh well, I shall keep digging :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Macquarie Group

I believe we have a blocked editor (LUUSAP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) socking under IP's (129.130.32.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 206.248.133.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) (possibly a proxy or two) just to add the non-notable incident[6][7] over the finance report on Seven News which happen to show so called "racy photos" in the back-ground.

LUUSAP also has a lovely large link on the Seven News talk page. Clearly they have a POV they are pushing and even though it made the US news it only did so as it's just another slow news week. Bidgee (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Today's meal

Thanks, it seemed harsh to simply delete without singing its gastronomic praises. I am amused to see that C.Fred had been making a diligent effort over many edits to de-crapulate it—though perhaps he recalled Mythbusters #113 and decided they can polish it, so can he - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they (who created that Meat Salad Rice article) could polish these two carp as well? I've heard they taste nice! Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Darebin

Yeah, I've been watching the additions there. My instinct is to torch it - while it's interesting, much of it is unsourced and questionably sourceable, and the fact that Andrew Landeryou's been editing the article (User:Caitcatt) makes me wary as hell about the sudden interest. Thoughts? Rebecca (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

caitcatt is not Andrew Landeryou and the material on Darebin is sourced. I suggest you look at the Elsum report which is cited, and also the cited material by some of the authors. The Neos Kosmos English Edition story is good about the Greek Councillors. The material is factual and can easily be checked. The election results are on the vec web site and the current councillors are on the Darebin Council website. Landeryou is not mentioned anywhere in the Darebin material. He did get make comments about the Darebin elections and so did Poll Bludger, but neither source has been cited.

Caitcatt (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Another check

Per wikiproject talk, questionable Abbott images again. I also find the user's contributions to have a similar pattern to recent banned sock accounts... can you take a look? Timeshift (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ley Abbott Farmer.jpg

I've indef blocked the editor who uploaded this photo as they'd uploaded a bunch of other similar photos of Liberal politicians which lacked metadata and didn't appear to be self-made under a claim that they were the photo's author. I had the deletion page for this particular image open at the time you deleted it! Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha... The only reason it took me so long was finding the image :P I didn't find any of the others, but finding one on a blatantly false rationale with a proven source was always going to lead to the others getting deleted. Interestingly Wikimedia Australia (as in the chapter) is pursuing various channels and avenues of getting freely released photos of politicians which should alleviate the need for this sort of silliness. Orderinchaos 11:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:King-Macca

Does this look like another sock of User:Watchover to you? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do I recall this happening once before?

This seems a bit de ja vu'ish... feels like we've been here before with this and think you were involved somehow... thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please also have a quick look at the mess that John Olsen has been turned in to? Timeshift (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. It seems to be a product of bot-driven idiocy rather than any malintent. The licence was valid when first added but isn't now - it needs a FUR. Once it has a FUR it should be OK.

Re 2. Fixed. Orderinchaos 05:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re 1, happened again :( Timeshift (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Branch stacking and Amy McGrath

You've complained about Amy McGrath not being objective, and have removed references to her, then you've removed all references to Lyle Allan and Ernest Healy. Allan has probably written more on the subject in Victoria than anyone else, and you can't say his work is not objective. You may disagree with Ernest Healy from Monash, but he made a significant contribution to the debate and in fact wrote the first academic article in a peer review journal (People and Place is peer reviewed) on the specific subject of branch stacking and you deleted it. Amy McGrath has some self published books to her credit, and runs an anti corruption organisation called the HS Chapman Society, but she is promoting a particular point of view, as you correctly say. If you don't think Allan is objective re-read the transcript of the Stateline program, to which there is a link, or was before you removed it. Could you please give this some thought, as much of the material you removed is very useful to students of the Victorian ALP. There is almost no Victorian content now on branch stacking.

Bagdadjenny (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Making this about particular references is clearly a red herring - I was objecting to the masses of incorrectly added content leading to a very very strong POV to the article that Victorian Labor is the only place where branch stacking occurs or is alleged to occur (hint: it's alive and well in the Liberal Party too, and there were claims of it in the Greens in a recent WA by-election - and what about non-Australian branch stacking? are we seriously suggesting it only goes on on this fair island?) and the references were tied to the content being added. If the references (sans McGrath) can support other material in the article then by all means re-add the reference, either linked to content which it does reference, or as "Further reading" or such in the end notes. (After a second look - what relevance are the Healy references to an overall understanding of branch stacking as a phenomenon? why are we using 16 year old references which precede most of the key events as primary references? etc) Orderinchaos 05:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP needs historical material. Branch stacking is old and it has occurred in all parties. My first knowledge of it in the Liberal Party was in the preselection of Phil Lynch in the 1960s, when BA Santamaria was said to be involved. Power Without Glory gives a good description of the practice in Richmond in 1945 when Stan Keon won for the ALP. It does go on in all parties and if you read the references by Allan he mentions that at some length. The Healy articles are specifically about ethnic branch stacking and were the first written on the subject. Healy argues multiculturalism is a factor in branch stacking and you may or may not agree with this. It is still an issue. In Queensland ethnic stacking is not an issue. The areas in Victoria and NSW where stacking takes place in the ALP have ethnic populations and it is important that a distiction is made between ethnic stacking and mere stacking and that was done in the Stateline interview last year. You say why are we using 16 year old references yet you removed an important reference where that very point was made and it was made last year. Also the old DLP stacking is sometimes argued in the Victorian ALP. In Isaacs Right wing stacking that wasn't ethnically based caused the defeat of Ann Corcoran. Landeryou denied there was any stacking in Isaacs, as he would. Stacking occurs in the Greens, and it has not been documented as the media don't want to know about it. David Risstrom's loss of Senate preselection is a case in point.

It's just that most of the material about stacking relates to the ALP. There has been Indian stacking in the Liberal Party. A Mr Srinivasan is reputed to have spent $70,000 to obtain Liberal preselection for Forest Hills in Victoria in 2002, but the Liberal Party lost in a landslide to the ALP in that year and while he won preselection he lost to Labor's Kirsty Marshall. Most of my knowledge is Victorian but there is a lot of material on the site about NSW stacking. The failure of the site to now include the most important and relevant articles, even if some of them are old, is a great omission. I'm not an authority on non-Australian branch stacking but it appears that when there is a more centralised party system there is either less of it or it takes a different form, like stacking political conventions and changing party rules to get a desired result.

I'm happy to rewrite it to include the important references and make it shorter. I think some historical material should go there. I think Healy should be included because of the debate he engendered (Theo Theophanous being a big critic of his) and perhaps only one of the Amy McGrath references, for she mentions the subject at considerable length although her material is not from first hand knowledge.

Bagdadjenny (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the branch stacking article as most of the wording in it was pretty terrible anyway. You've also bypassed Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia I notice, where significant and major branch stacking has occurred for one or both parties at different times. The specific allegations relating to John D'Orazio (Labor-turned-independent), the member for Ballajura and mayor of City of Bayswater, in enlisting as many as 600 people (the Sunday Times had great fun with their surnames) to vote, together with the fun times that were had by all in the Girrawheen and Ballajura area around 1999-2000 (apparently one of them resulted in a sitting member getting punched in the face!), means WA does have its own contribution to the tale. Essentially as I understand it the Right faction in WA split in two, and the two sub-factions ("New Right", which was one of the dominant players in the Gallop years, and the "Old Right"/"Centre" centred around, but no longer including, Brian Burke) have been battling it out in former Burke heartland ever since. In both parties, though, the head office is more powerful in WA, so issues regarding preselections tend more to focus on the method than on branch issues. In South Australia it's mostly been questions about the Liberal Party. I'm not sure about the exact details surrounding Tasmania, but as a regular Newsradio listener I do hear the odd story coming from there. Orderinchaos 07:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Noel Beaton

WP asks for the entry on Noel Beaton to be expanded. I did just that and quoted two references, but you say it is not encyclopedic. Although he died about six years ago he is still talked about fondly in the Bendigo area. He had potential, and ill health prevented him from continuing in parliament. If you object to the detail you cannot object to the references, and they ought to at least stay. Clarey's book on Labor in Bendigo is quite good on his preselection, and even if you just put in a footnote about the election result the book should be mentioned. Whitington's book is good on a lot of rising MPs in the 1960s, and it should be referenced too. If you consider my material not encyclopedic it just needs to be shortened. I'm happy to shorten it if you wish.

Bagdadjenny (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The summary of the addition (which was in very long form) is "he might have ended up being something and one journalist speculated so but he wasn't". I don't see how this falls at all within Wiki's writing guidelines. I'm not objecting to the references but the content the references were linked to - if they relate to other matters that may help in expanding the article then certainly include them. Orderinchaos 05:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the references but have deferred to your views. I think the comments about Bill Allan should go in as he is Jacinta Allan's grandfather and the fact that he stood down for Beaton is in Cleary's book. Bagdadjenny (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

2004 Federal Election

That article has been cited a number of times and represents a point of view. What is the consensus of mainstream sources? When the article was written it was criticed by Andrew Landeryou, for whatever reason. Boundary drawing can influence the result of a close election. For example several federal elections were won by both major parties on a majority of the 2PP vote. If you read the article, which is in a refereed peer reviewed journal, you will see the figures that show polling booths along the Oakleigh to Dandenong railway lines where there are high NESB populations recorded Labor votes around 70 per cent. All of the three seats concerned were won by small margins. A different drawing of boundaries (the Americans are good at it and it is called equi-populous gerrymandering) would see Labor winning one seat, Hotham, instead of four. That would have been important in a close result. Of course there are other factors that determine an election result, like interest rates that were an issue in 2004, but birthplace is obviously one, and even if you disagree with that the fact that it has been suggested in academic journals with some degree of presige means it at least ought to be mentioned.

I've been fairly restrained in my response to you, and I have not reverted any of your edits, but I would ask you to reconsider your deletion, even if you disagree, as Andrew Landeryou does, with the findings of the research.

Bagdadjenny (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite aside from the Wiki issues involved with including it, which I'll outline last, the Melbourne electoral map ridicules the hypothesis openly. I have here a map which notes each booth and colours it according to how its 2PP vote went, and notes its primary vote in text form.

For one thing the margins aren't terribly small - we're talking around 3% for both Chisholm and Bruce. Bruce is a north-south polar seat - Liberal in Glen Waverley, Labor in Dandenong. Chisholm has Labor votes right through it even to Box Hill and some parts of Mt Waverley. Isaacs was marginal only because of the territory it already held and its inclusion of Carrum Downs and Patterson Lakes in the far south. What the hypothesis ignores is that for every loss of people from a seat you've got to make it up from somewhere else, and generally this means if you move a seat northwards you lose the southern end. Isaacs would pick up Dandenong in the move, and lose Patterson Lakes and Carrum Downs, so it'd actually be safer in 2004. Chisholm loses the southern end, but the neighbouring bit of Deakin which would likely be included was Deakin's only Labor bit at the 2004 election, so it would be retained. Bruce would become a safe Liberal seat, acquiring Vermont from Aston. However this would push Aston into Ferntree Gully and Holt into Berwick (which may see Holt become Liberal), and the Liberals would lose La Trobe to Labor (as it's a polar seat too and those two regions it loses are the "stabiliser" balancing out the Green-Labor vote in the Ranges). The entire concept of moving Hotham north would make planning the coastal seats impossible - you'd have this massive area around Cheltenham-Bentleigh which would probably have to go into Goldstein, then one moves Melbourne Ports, only to find one can't because it's at the end of a peninsula. This is where the deceptive simplicity of race-based theories of voting and their geographic impact kind of fall apart, and the fact that only one academic (a sociologist, not a political scientist or statistician) can be trundled out to support the claim and he doesn't examine any of the above sort of suggests it's not a widely held view, and per WP:UNDUE as it's only about one little bit of Melbourne in an election which was federal in scope and was only some guy's theory, shouldn't be there. Orderinchaos 05:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered getting into an over technical argument. Of the three authors you criticise two are sociologists but the one who did the work on the Melbourne booth figures is a political scientist. The article may be some guy's theory. Academics can be very bitchy and it is very easy to selectively demolish someone else's arguments. Andrew Landeryou would be proud of you, for you mirror everything he said on this topic.

It would not be difficult to move the boundaries to produce three Liberal seats. Labor did better in 2007 and any analysis of that year is irrelevant to 2004. In 2004 the margins were about three per cent, but the Labor win in Holt was a narrow one. The boundaries were different in 2004 to the boundaries at an earlier election, and that was why Holt changed from a very safe Labor seat to a marginal one. Part of Labor Dandenong was excised from the new Holt. Chisholm benefits from a housing commission estate around the Alemein railway line, and that area has a Labor Councillor in Boroondara Council, believe it or not. Chisholm could go north to include parts of Menzies which are safe Liberal territory, and incidentally the birthplace data there doesn't hold up as a lot of wealthy Chinese are not Labor voters. The areas of around Ferntree Gully and also the Aston electorate are swingers, and the ALP Greens combination is not as strong as you might think. The ALP lost most of the seats it held in the ranges area in the state elections of 2006, possibly over a toll road. The area is an area with Labor organisation less than strong and a Labor vote that is rarely a majority 2PP. No one, apart from Andrew Landeryou and yourself, has criticised that research. It is your opinion the research is flawed. It isn't. You can claim there are other variables and there are. That should be your argument, not the qualifications of the writers or your claim that this is a race-based theory. That is your view. It is not mine. Birth place doesn't necessarily mean anything. It can suggest there are large proportions of people from a particular ethnic background living in an area. It doesn't suggest race. When a member of the Victorian Electoral Commission objected to birthplace studies (without criticising the accuracy of the research) as being racist it was pointed out that an respected book on the rise of Hitler contains a study of the ethnic and religious regions of Germany and how they voted in the last free elections in Germany in the 1930s. Nazi strength was greatest in Lutheran and areas considered "pure German" whatever that meant. The Roman Catholic areas of Germany had the lowest proportion of Nazi voters. She ceased her criticism.

Bagdadjenny (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an academic, although I have studied the topic of geography and demography and the link to voting and I am enrolled in both statistics and politics courses at present as a second-year undergraduate. (I already have a science degree, though, but my background is that of an IT professional turned educator - the rest is primarily hobby.) I was looking specifically at the 2004 numbers in making my analysis above. Chisholm couldn't go north into Menzies because there is a natural barrier there (I suggest reading various AEC distribution reports to get a sense of how they actually conduct a redistribution), likewise any move north raises the fact that Melbourne Ports cannot move with the population figures as they stand. Ferntree Gully was in 2004 a solid Liberal area, and the Ranges vote for Green-Labor has held steady at state and federal level across at least four elections (strangely, this seems to be a feature of such areas in all capital cities... it used to be Liberal, then went Dem-Labor, then Green-Labor.) Losing "seats" means nothing as they are large, polymorphous entities (ok, some are not, like Electoral district of Broadmeadows, but you get my drift) and the seat boundaries, not the suburbs within them, define what way the seat goes - have a look at Division of Swan, usually among the most marginal seats in Australia, and you see a solid Labor bloc at one end and a solid Liberal bloc at the other that neatly cancel. I learned a long time ago to look at booths rather than seats for indicators for that exact reason. As for Holt - the 2007 election saw that area transform from marginal-Labor-to-somewhat-Liberal to solid Labor in the blink of an eye, it would not have mattered where one drew the boundaries, there were rather large swings in anyone's language. And reference to "Labor organisation... less than strong" is meaningless. The Division of Brand, a moderately safe Labor seat in WA, has a Labor organisation which borders on non-existent and ironically Labor's organisation is often best in safe Liberal areas. Organisation matters little anyway - money and what I'd call social attitudes/community are usually the greatest factor in determining the vote. Anyway, I digress - I maintain that the research is flawed, that it is written by someone who, while very skilled and eminent in their own area, is writing outside their expertise, and that it leaves so many questions in the air that it can't be taken seriously. Yes, hypothetically, one could move the Division of Swan east so it's a safe Labor seat, or southwest so it's a safe Liberal seat - you could in fact do this anywhere in Australia in a "choose-your-own-adventure" style of hypothetical electoral redistribution - but in a way which completely ignores both the fact that every action must have a corresponding action somewhere else due to the equal proportions rule, and also the way that Distribution Commissioners carry out their work. Wikipedia is not the place for that "what if" debate - in fact it specifically bars original research and disdains fringe theories - the debate belongs firmly in the realm of academic conjecture and blogosphere. And despite your claims to that effect, I doubt Andrew Landeryou and I would agree on much of anything when it comes to politics - my "political compass" (as seen in my userboxes) places me *firmly* in the left-liberal quadrant and if there's one thing one can generalise about Landeryou's writing, it's his hatred of the left or anyone associated with it. Orderinchaos 07:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Branch stacking is obviously your pet topic and you have edited the article so that it has only a definition (and it is quite a good one) and some descriptive material but no references whatever to Victoria, so the article is not very valuable to anyone seeking references on the subject as these have all been removed. There is no reference to the difference between stacking and ethnic stacking, for example, that took up a bit of time on Stateline.

You differ from other editors, who are happy for articles to have references added. You only want references that conform to a certain style. As for debate on WP and fringe theories I think you need to give examples where these apply in my case. I spoke this morning with a person who works for a Senator in Canberra about my problems with various editors, and he said he had given up WP as he has better things to do in life than to argue with the sorts of people who edit on the so-called encyclopedia called WP. He does not agree with some of the views expressed by some of the authors you've deleted, but he thinks they should at least be there. He told me your friend rebecca is a member of the WA Greens so I think he knows who she is and may know who you are although he didn't tell me.

I find arguing with editors pointless. They continually change the goalposts, quote WP procedures like a lawyer when they conform to their own point of view, and use arguments only they can understand. Often they are ignorant of history.

Boundary changes, for example, may be crucial to the performance of a party in a particular seat. Look at HV Evatt, who narrowly won his seat in the 1950s. The Holt boundary change was important, yet you dismiss it. Your reference to Broadmeadows I do not understand. The Liberals held the seat prior to 1962 when it included a large rural hinterland. Broadmeadows then was not the population centre it is now. Harold Kane also worked his guts out. The Liberal candidate at the 1962 by-election after Kane's premature death was not a good one. He talked like a cocky and said people who lived in the cities had never had to put up with outdoor sanitary facilities. He was ignorant of the fact that many houses in suburban Broadmeadows at the time were not sewered and still had a pan toilet. This was offensive and he lost the seat to the ALP. Boundary changes made the seat urban rather than semi rural and it has been safe for the ALP since.

On contiguous boundaries and natural boundaries the AEC doesn't always follow its own policies. Look at Franklin in Tasmania. It includes the Eastern Shore of Hobart north of the Derwent, where most of its booths and population are located, and also includes areas of low population south of the Derwent like Taroona (where Princess Mary of Denmark comes from), Kingston, Huonville and then the big but depopulated rural areas south. Another example is Yarra, which once included Richmond and Hawthorn, ignoring the Yarra as a natural boundary and that made the seat marginal when Jim Cairns won it in 1955 and Batman which didn't go north south but went east west and included Northcote and Ivanhoe, crossing the Darebin Creek, and that made the seat marginal when Sam Benson only won by about 300 votes in 1963.

One of the worst examples of a non-contiguous boundary was Barron River in Queensland during the Bjelke Petersen era. A small town with about 200 voters, almost all Labor, was included in a nearly Labor electorate, yet all of the area circling the town was in Barron River. It was a clear case of gerrymandering. The AEC is professional and doesn't do that.

I don't want to argue about what if. I think the point was well made in People and Place and if you think it's a small point I won't pursue it. I'm not going to put in place grievance procedures for I can't be bothered.

Bagdadjenny (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pet topic? Hardly. I have 53,879 edits apparently on this thing, and the reversion last night was the first time I've ever touched that article. In case you're unaware, all hell broke loose about 3-4 weeks ago about biographies of living persons, to the extent that people are going around everywhere deleting stuff. I ended up removing the section as way too little of it was referenced to independent reliable sources (emphasis on both independent and reliable) and said an awful lot about living people. In fact, it neatly resembled a laundry list. As I said in my edit summary, I'm quite happy for the issues to be added in sensibly, but the two I added back, one had an inquiry report behind it, the other had a book by an alleged player and related legal cases behind it. I'm an admin here, and when on Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself is my first responsibility. Playing factions on here is tedious because a partisan whitewash is taken as seriously as pronouncements from the old Soviet Russia, and partisan opposition is not likely to stand in an article because there's enough people to spot it and fight it.

I'm not even from Victoria, nor can I vote there, so I have no idea why you'd be hinting I have any particular axe to grind there - I like Melbourne a lot, it's got a lot more culture than my city, I was there not even two weeks ago, but I like Perth's climate and atmosphere way too much to move. And Rebecca and I are fellow editors, but not friends - it wouldn't take too much poking around to find out we have huge disagreements on a range of issues, although we do both respect each other as good faith editors. As for my own identity, it's not too hard to figure out my real name, but I'm sadly a nobody in political terms. As I said, I am a qualified educator and formerly worked as an IT professional. For someone who "find(s) arguing with editors pointless", your failed attempts to smear my contributions in lengthy essays suggests you enjoy doing so far more than I do.

And your reference to historical examples (and suggestions that I don't know my history - which given my main area of editing *is* historical politics, I find quite amusing) is interesting, but ignores the professionalisation and distancing from Parliament of electoral offices at both State and Federal level during the 1980s. In WA for instance we did not have an independent Electoral Commission until 1989 - there was a single Electoral Officer managing the show, with temporary Commissioners appointed at various times to assist him. Victoria's emerged somewhere around the same time. All reports in Victoria until 1988 were issued personally by the Chief Electoral Officer. Queensland's was modified in Parliament by use of an Electoral Districts Act each time and appointment of commissioners - that stopped only post-Fitzgerald (WA did the same thing until 1948, but went more like Victoria's system around then.) Oh and if you want really weird, the boundaries of the safe Labor seat of Collie in WA from 1911 to 1930 are truly a sight to behold - it was a Liberal attempt to lock all the Labor voters in one seat (hence saving the then Premier's neighbouring seat of Sussex), and looked strangely like a badly drawn cartoon bird. The Labor newspapers of the time had a field day with parodies of its shape, but couldn't change it in office as they never had enough votes in the Legislative Council to proceed with a more reasonable distribution. (Mind you, Labor's plan to change things looked eerily like what Queensland ended up with with the four zones - the Liberals put something similar in place in the 50s but it was not as inflexible as Queensland's.) Orderinchaos 10:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to smear you and I'm sorry if I've given you that impression. I wish you well in your editing. I won't give up on WP but I will contribute, not as much as I have been, but I'll mainly be adding references and not content. I just can't stand the politics involved.

I am much older than I suspect you are and I remember a lot of things and some younger people tell me they don't know anything about what I am talking about. For example I find the Orr case in Tasmania fascinating. I hope you won't edit that out of existence. I haven't touched it except for adding a reference to a book co-authored by an ex Liberal MHR on the subject. The book was pro-Orr. I presented my first academic paper at Wrest Point Casino in Hobart in 1979 and I was told by my MA supervisor at the time from the University of Melbourne not to mention the Orr case in conversation as people still had strong views about it, and his advice was good as I later found out as the person chairing the session for my paper was one of the key figures anti-Orr in the 1950s. I think they still talk about it down there, and Cassandra Pybus wrote a book about it that turned out to be anti-Orr. I'm not taking sides one way or the other but it was a fascinating case.

Anyway I don't wish you any ill will and I hope if you ever go to the dogs at Cannington you are more successful than I was. I went there last year when I was in Perth with some friends who used to live in Melbourne about thirty years ago. Thanks for your comments about Brian Burke. I've never met him but I have met Geoff Gallop and he's a very nice man and was a very able Premier and it's a pity he had to stop down. Len Brush, who used to work for Brian Burke, was a neighbour of mine about forty years ago. I always thought that he was an honest man and I still think he is.

The Greens in WA and in particular Chrissy Sharp and Dee Margetts have done the state a lot of harm and are responsible for the Legislative Council being apportioned in a worse way than it was before. Under pr an odd and not an even number should be elected. All upper house seats in WA are odd numbered and this means the division in 5 of the 6 regions will be 3 conservative and 3 ALP or Green. In Agricultural the ALP currently holds one and the conservatives 5 giving them a majority in the upper house. The new boundaries were insisted upon by the stupid Greens at the time. Senator Kim Carr once said the WA Greens were mad and he's right. One WA Green elected to one local council is a psychic! She could be OK though. The campaign by the local government peak body in WA for first past the post voting was disgraceful. Unfortunately thanks to the Greens the conservatives have the numbers.

Best wishes Bagdadjenny (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm in my early 30s. It'd be fair to say I've spent a fair portion of my time over the last 3 years reading up on historical politics, although my knowledge is of course stronger on some states than on others. I find the historical stuff far more interesting than current stuff as the electoral-professional style of modern parties has drained almost all the life and characters out of modern politics. I was a great admirer of the Calare Independent MP Peter Andren and was fortunate enough to correspond with him a few times over the years.

Re your last point: I tend to share your views of the WA Greens. Have had some dealings with them and they don't even stand for what they claim to, and at a function I attended in 2004 I came to the conclusion the main reason why many were members was hatred of Howard, sort of like an anti-fan club. They hate to admit it, but the reason Adele Carles won was twofold: Labor picked a crap candidate, and Carles was anything but a typical Green - she could easily have run for Labor without losing any credibility.

And I honestly think the best system for WA is a much smaller upper house with one electorate for metro and one smaller electorate for country - perhaps 2:1. A house of 15 or 21 would provide for this quite easily. I think all the parties would hate that solution as it means less MPs, though :) Also share your views on Gallop - he was one of those rare premiers who actually wanted to serve the people and serve them well, I suspect that's why he came to ground ultimately as I can only imagine the level of crap he would have to have put up with on all sides. Agreed also re FPTP. My own local ward had five unknowns run for the position and you might as well have picked the result from a hat, there was a separation of 14% I think from lowest to highest.

(I don't tend to edit things out of existence as a general rule... sometimes something jumps out at me as being just so bad that radical surgery is required, but those are rare times. More often than not I'm putting stuff on Wikipedia that I'm finding at the libraries - at the moment I'm focused on elections, ministries and member lists but I need to return to QLD local government sometime, and sort and upload several hundred photos from various travels.)

I hope we can work together rather than against each other in future - I apologise if I have had a "tone" today but apart from offline life stresses (there are a few), in the last 3 months we seem to have had a rise of what I would call politically partisan editors with obscure agendas and I guess after seeing 5 one can too easily assume the 6th is another one. Orderinchaos 11:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note

At the Footnoted quotes arbitration request, I've responded to your comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I have responded appropriately. As I said there, I saw you as merely the "filing party" and not connected to the actual grievance. Orderinchaos 14:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you'll understand why I responded in the way I did. As far as I know personally, I am uninvolved, but people could very easily perceive otherwise because of the way in which Alansohn handled it - not something that should become commonplace. Ironically, I did want to help him with his concerns, but there's only so much I can do. In any case, thank you muchly for clarifying. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You said: "Good Olfactory's admission above that he has used his admin tools to further his position in a dispute to protect friends - something which he should most definitely have taken to AN/I instead - is also an issue." I'm not sure what you are talking about in making that statement. No where did I make such an admission, and if you interpreted it that way, you were mistaken. These editors were not "friends" in any sense of the word when the block was performed (in April 2008). I'd appreciate it if you would adjust those comments. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to check when WP Australia's first run-in with the CfD group was - I'm pretty sure it was the latter half of 2008, perhaps around August or September - but it was plain for everyone to see that it had become a rather cosy club even by then. I am really busy offline this week; it's come at a bad time. But as I have said, if the case goes ahead, I shall present evidence to back up any claims, and at that point, if something cannot be demonstrated, then I can retract it. Orderinchaos 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you don't want to assume good faith in this matter? It's usual to give editors the benefit of the doubt when discussion gets into things like "personal friendships". Shoot first—withdraw later if you find out you were in error is not a tactic that suggests any sort of neutrality on the subject. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

AGF clearly states "Assume good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary". I believe that such clear evidence exists - I may not agree with a lot of the things Alansohn is saying or doing, but there does seem to be a fair bit of "poking the bear" going on and then running to noticeboards when it bites. The keenness of desire of participants to only shut him up at CfD reeks of a political agenda, given in my observation he's generally behaved acceptably there. As one of the ten users who helped put the RfC together which got the ball rolling for the ArbCom case which ended with his being restricted, and having endured a fair bit of harassment from him at that time (mid-late 2007), I am hardly approaching this as a "friend of the accused". But my gut sense of fairness together with my memory of the facts leads me to view this as a desperate campaign for control of CfD, and *that* is something ArbCom should definitely be investigating (especially if you as an admin and/or others involved are misusing the tools to maintain the group's control over it or to silence criticism of them). I stopped assuming good faith at CfD close to the end of 2008, although I have found you personally the most reasonable individual over there to deal with - you at least listen to arguments from the opposing side, rather than derisively or abusively dismissing them. Orderinchaos 21:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting things in multiple ways. Personally, this is the first time I have ever "run to the noticeboard" regarding Alan, and this problem has been going on for months now. If you consider his behaviour acceptable, you're definitely one of the most incivility-tolerant Wikipedians I have ever encountered. My comments focused on CFD and DRV because that's where the problems lie. I could have said "just ban him outright", but I figured that would be overkill. From my perspective, really the only editors who have been consistently "derisively or abusively dismissing" arguments at CFD over the past 3 or 4 months is Alansohn himself. Interesting theories, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll second orderinchaos's endorsing Good Olfactory's status as a good listener - I'd have him on either side of the courtroom and I'd feel that I'd be treated reasonably and honestly - which is more than I can say for some of his fellow country persons SatuSuro 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, thanks. "... which is more than I can say for some of his fellow country persons". Which country? I have so many. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Anytime - you have evidence of having had abode at some point in time in the northern coastline province of the USA (the Toronto to Niagara Falls coach driver I was graced with last August was the most eloquent on the Mexico - Canadian border issue((See the Dubya speak websites for evidence of the location)) that I have ever heard - , which some call the ice skating country of the world - for some strange reason a few editors that identify being from there are what I would consider some of the most non co-operative editors on wikipedia SatuSuro 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the cold—it ticks everybody off, but only enough to make everyone passive aggressive, since Canadians find it painful to be outright rude, since it reminds them of you-know-who downstairs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(my apologies OIC for butting in) Speaking for myself only , I am prepared to give any editor plenty of leeway on the civility front when dealing with CfD considering the usual methodology of a group of the regulars there. Insult, abuse, belittle, wiki-lawyer and straight-out ignore are the usual tactics when members of the community do not support what the small group of the regulars dictate what the policy or guidelines should be. CfD is a cesspit that would drive the most civil to intemperate behaviour. I now avoid the place in an attempt to avoid the rampant flaming and baiting that passes for engaging dissenting views there, lest I end up on the wrong side of a RfC myself. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Perhaps you haven't been there in awhile. Different users come and go, some regulars change and mellow out, very few get worse. I would like to see some recent non-Alansohn related diffs to back up those allegations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• OIC, I really wish I knew what you were talking about at that RFAR, but I'm afraid you have completely lost me. You're going on about editors holding long-term grudges and manipulating processes, but it seems that you're the only one who's holding on to things from the distant past. A September 2008 DRV didn't go exactly how you wished it had, and suddenly those who disagreed with you in that discussion are villains today of the highest order. I'm reading a book on flat-earth conspiracy theorists right now, and it's amazing how some of your quotes in the RFAR correspond to quotes from these flat-earth guys in the book. A goofy comparison, I know, but there seems to be some common threads of thinking in all conspiratorial thinking. I suggest if you have concerns, start a new process about it, but it doesn't do much good for anyone to waste space in an RFAR about Alansohn's incivility going on about perceived skulduggery in a background Wikipedia process. Or do what you want. I'm just saying it looks a tad foolish. Incidentally, my comment doesn't suggest you are taking Alansohn's side in any issue. It points out you are using the same tactics of alleging conspiracy, shifting blame, and criticising underlying process. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Was actually an ongoing pattern over a period of around 9 months where the Australian project had to intervene to stop some truly crazy stuff (worldwide, although it affected us) going through, and got the crap abused out of us for doing so. I think I've only ever been in one ongoing dispute which matched that for the amount of bad faith coming towards a project which was only trying to do the right thing. That run-in (which, btw, did go the way I wanted, but only after a DRV - despite your and others' best efforts) was merely the start of it. Like I said, if this ArbCom goes ahead, I'll be digging up a stack of diffs which will hopefully lead to sanctions and end the silliness. The fact you have to resort to such lame accusations as flat-earth conspiracy, trying to suggest I am in league with my former harasser, etc, shows the weakness of your position, IMO. Orderinchaos 07:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I said you were in league with your former harasser? If you have that much of a hard time interpreting my last sentence above, I see I'm going to enjoy your interpretation of these upcoming diffs. My flat earth comparison was a funny coincidence in what you wrote and what I read today—I said it was goofy comparison, I'm not saying you're a flat earther—but I just thought you should know that from my POV you are sounding foolish. That's OK if you're not worried; then I won't worry. But it is generally bad for your health to hang on to grudges from the past; I think there may be some projection going on in that regard.... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on, mate - I know you were trying to undermine my argument by an ad hominem attack. I'm not stupid. :) As for your claim that the Alansohn thing should go ahead unabated, without any reference to what the other side may be doing to provoke him - I worked as a school teacher with year 9's (13-14 year olds) so I know all the tricks used to evade responsibility or claim a "win". The *classic* situation which kids of that age try to set up is where they can needle and prick and hassle someone until they react, then complain the moment they do and get them in trouble. Unfortunately for said kids, it wasn't that hard to follow what was going on. At the end of the day, this would never have happened if CfD wasn't the way it was, so trying to hang it on an individual who has acknowledged civility problems over a period of time is pretty silly when he is hardly the only bully in the playground and the playground itself, not the incident, is the problem. And re the "in league" bit - you edited your post several times, I was replying to an earlier version which omitted the last line where you attempted to explain your claims. I'm not at all into blame shifting - if Alansohn deserved something, my remarks at the RFAR would be pointing to the RFC which I helped draft all those years ago and comparing his behaviour now to his behaviour then, point by point. However, I believe he has genuinely improved over time (although some things are a factor of personality and never change - just as the Wiki community has grudgingly come to accept MickMacNee and others with strong personalities.) Orderinchaos 07:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's an attack of your argument; ad hominem means against a person. I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out the silliness of the general conspiratorial mindset. You can doubt it if you want to, but I was reading this afternoon, and I read some quotes that were eerily similar, and I thought it was a bizarre coincidence. Oh well—whatever. I think you're preaching to the wrong person, as I wasn't the person who started the RFAR. But since you pulled out the school teacher ace card: I submit, I submit. You must be correct. I'm glad you've moved on from your troubled past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But just one last time—where did I say you were in league with your former harasser? I'm still not getting that point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's go through it - you have suggested I am psychologically unsound, that I hold grudges, that I am "blame shifting" (a bizarre accusation given noone has suggested I or anyone I respect is at fault), that I have a "conspiratorial mindset" and now even a "troubled past". I think at this point you're digging a hole, and the general advice for such situations is to stop digging. I think it's about time you did so, and stopped posting at my talk page - I may well regard further correspondence of this nature as harassment, as it seems your only reason for being here is to discourage me from participating in the RfAr which, until I came along, was proceeding nicely towards your desired conclusion. I have a long-standing low tolerance for psychological bullies. Orderinchaos 07:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Troubled past" = teaching year 9s. That's bad stuff. I'm not trying to discourage you—carry on as you were. But I am concerned that you interpret my comments in the way you do. I can't find where I claimed you were in league with Alansohn, that sort of thing. I have no idea how psychologically sound you are—I don't really know you that well. I would assume you're as normal as me or any other average person in that respect. I'm not saying you are "blame shifting", but rather that you are adopting a tactic similar to the one Alansohn uses to evade any responsibility—if someone approaches him about a specific problem, he essentially says, "tu quoque", if you know what I mean—or points out the perceived problems with CFD. You obviously think that's a legitimate tactic, so carry on. I prefer to deal with a problem head on and then go to the next one sequentially. Just a difference in general approaches, I suspect. "Conspiratorial mindset"—some of your comments reflect this kind of approach to life, but I've no idea how much a part of your mind this is, so perhaps in was an inapposite choice of words. I was referring to the comments, not you as a mind–person. Hope that clears things up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be preferable to comment about your comments here rather than at the RFAR, mainly because I think some of the issues raised—while not illegitimate—are pretty much out of place in the RFAR at hand, in my view (see comments above regarding this). Since you've made it clear that you disagree and you see your comments as central to the issue, I shall cease commenting here since that is your wish and prerogative. But I do hope you realise that I bear you no ill will and I hold nothing from the past against you, despite what has been insinuated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a brief part of my past career that I'm not unhappy I left behind - the older kids (16-17) care more about the content, as do I. Orderinchaos 07:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes wish I was a conspiratorial person, because then I could have conspiracies to improve the coverage of dead Queensland and Victorian politicians - I think i've signed one person on to do Victorian by-elections, but seriously, some of the areas I edit, I can literally leave for 18 months, come back and pick up where I left off! I'd probably also have a better job (although I may do soon - fingers crossed!) Apart from a brief period in 2007, I've never been terribly interested in Wikipolitics, and the only reason that the toxic atmosphere and mindset at CfD bothers me is it has a habit of unleashing unexpected and drastic consequences on the editing bit of the encyclopaedia without warning and going to DRV to get crazy decisions overturned (which they almost always are) is a pain. The problem was beyond dealing with as it would have required far more effort (and dealing with more abuse) than I was prepared to invest/deal with, but as this opportunity presented itself, I saw an opportunity to do so with less effort. As for the "tactic", it comes down to - I see Alansohn as someone with a persistent civility problem. However, he generally behaves these days (post-Arbcom restrictions) unless provoked. The question should not then be "how do we get rid of him" (a rather negative approach, given that he often has a point of view worth considering, even if I strongly disagree half the time as he's more inclusionist and I'm more deletionist) but "how do we fairly deal with this situation so it will not recur". Short-term solutions don't fix problems, thoughtful, holistic ones do. Orderinchaos 07:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. One of the problems seems to be with Alansohn that the mere presence of half a dozen or so users seems to provoke him and set him off. In many of the cases, no one is needling him at all. It comes out of the blue, as it were. I can understand that he might be, under the surface, enraged about CFD process and how it works, but he does need to learn to control himself and grit his teeth and at least tolerate users he doesn't like, and not repeatedly go off as he does. I think we disagree about the fundamentals of CFD process, so I think we should leave it at that. As at the DRV, I think we just disagree about where the locus of decision making should be; WikiProjects vs. WP work projects. But that is nothing that need create enemies and nothing that couldn't be resolved with some creative working together. Apart from a few notable exceptions, I don't see CFD in general as having a toxic atmosphere at all. I think it typically has very lively debate that for the past year or so has been refreshingly above board (with the exception of a few editors) and it's generally intellectually stimulating. I can understand how someone who doesn't like participating there could find frustration with decisions reached there that they disagree with. But you know, I've been studying DRVs on CFDs, and very few are overturned now. Last year there were 6 in total. We could debate about this all night I suppose; but I do need to go. Best wishes, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, turns out I didn't have to go after all, but this will be my last comment here—I hope I haven't hurt your feelings about anything I said above. That wasn't my intent. Some of what I was writing was fairly stream of consciousness, and in looking over it I fear some of it didn't come out right and no doubt was misinterpreted. We all have bad habits—one of mine is to try to write on Wikipedia the same way that I chat with someone in person, but of course I always overlook the fact that they can't see my facial expressions and the tone of my voice, so in many cases what is meant as a good-natured jibe or something meant to provoke discussion can be taken as an attack. This is one of the hazards of written communication, I must remember. Good night, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: (as I break my pledge from last night about not posting here further...) I thought you should know that on the ongoing RFAR page I've withdrawn my observation about your post (the second one that I posted). On reflection, from my point of view, it's a largely irrelevant side-show to what's being discussed/considered, so I figured I would save some readers the trouble. I wanted to tell you because it may (or may not) affect what you want to keep posted there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AUS unrefBLPs

You've noticed that you had to del athletes again? See here. They were already deleted by The-Pope but inadvertently reinstated (assumming Good Faith error) by Hack later in the day. Other editors, myself included, have come along and done the usual business so that a simple revert won't do the job. I don't know how to fix this easily and have asked Hack to do so, here.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 06:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Full protection on Michael Atkinson

Hi. Can I ask why Michael Atkinson was been blocked for edit-warring, when only two edits have been made (apart from you placing the block) since the 3rd of February? I realise that question may sound a little accusatory, but that's not what I mean by it, I'm just wondering is all. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Those edits were made under semi-protection, and the newer edits are evidence that the same issues the protection was intended to address are now being attempted by accounts which are well past the four days. As the South Australian election was only called last week, I expect the disruption to increase; the date I nominated the protection to end is a few days after the election when, hopefully, things will have settled down a bit. It's worth pointing out that good faith edits are still possible by using {{editprotected}} on the talk page. Orderinchaos 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So you intend for the article to be fully protected until after the election. Isn't that a pre-emptive block? I appreciate that this is a BLP in the leadup to an election, and that this page has got a bit of a dodgy-edit/revert nature, but surely that doesn't mean that the articles of controversial political figures need to be fully protected all the way through the election campaign? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, reading that back that sentence sounds a little over-the-top (I should proof-read). What I mean to ask is whether this is going to be something that you feel should happen to the articles of controversial politicians at both the elections this year? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 00:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been done in the past, and will likely be done again, on an as-needs basis where there is consistent and ongoing evidence of vandalism or POV-pushing at a particular article. I could imagine both the PM and LotO plus Conroy might need something like that, though if there isn't the trouble I expect, there also won't be the protection. (Not speaking for myself here, as I only respond to particular situations - but I've been here for four years, and know the general mindset of admins both in general on the site and in Australia in particular.) There are different kinds of attacks on and issues at articles as you know - each type requiring its own solution. For example, routine IP vandalism of a pointless/incidental kind is suited to semi protection. "Lone cowboy" or grouped attacks from a user or set of users who have a strong opinion on one subject and would be best finding another hobby are better handled as behavioural problems and dealt with by first trying to reason with then if necessary blocking the users. This particular type (semi escalating to full protection) seems to be the best for an article which is not the subject or focus of any, for want of a better word, established Wikipedian but is the intense focus of people from outside Wikipedia (due to his being the whipping boy for the gaming and anti-censorship communities) who may wish to establish accounts and get around our technical limitations to edit in their POV and can't easily be dealt with by block. Worth noting John Howard was full protected for over two years - if it ever was lifted, there'd be a flood of activity necessitating its reimposition. Orderinchaos 01:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But surely this article is the focus of established Wikipedians. Of the two attempts to add content concerning the internet commenting censorship in the last month, one lasted three hours and the other less than ten minutes, and then they get undone. I would think that both the volume and duration of dubious edits would have to increase before a block of this length was considered. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I'm going to change your opinion or you're going to change mine - I see it as a somewhat organised campaign which has thus far been prevented by rolling semi-protection, but the people concerned have discovered the "chink" in our armour. It's worth pointing out that Wiki is not an "innocent until proven guilty" scenario - our primary purpose is preventing disruption and it's the job of the admins (myself included) to ensure that is what happens. Sometimes - and this is one such case - proof of concept is sufficient to assume the rest will follow and act accordingly. Orderinchaos 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear OIC. Repeated bad faith edits and general vandalism have been going on in this article for too long, and protection of the article until the election is completely warranted. Timeshift (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

2008/09

I wrote to you that it was April 2008, but that was a typo on my part. The diffs I included in my original response to you posting at the RFAR show clearly that the applicable time was April 2009. It doesn't change my own position at all. Sorry about the confusion. (To respond more directly to your post on my talk page—I would date the start of my "friendship" with Kbdank71 to around June or July 2009. Before that I knew him, of course, because we both closed CfDs, but didn't have much to do directly with him as he did not much but close CFDs. I never was what you would call "friends" with Otto4711—he actually kind of disliked me because months earlier I had tried to broker a peace between him and Alansohn, and he didn't like some of the stuff I said about what he had done.) Cheers, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, another careless typo! To err is human .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maughan

Where did you find that he was better known as Ryott Maughan? Psephos makes a distinction between him contesting as Ryott Maughan in 1901 (for Moreton) and as Maughan in 1913 (successfully). It looks as though he used Ryott Maughan only early in his career. Frickeg (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Frickeg (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim Houghton

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electoral_district_of_Redcliffe&diff=345429565&oldid=312311443

That's some career... I'd love to know the story behind it if you have any information! :-) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC).