This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Message from Coordinator: It's been almost two months since the last newsletter came out, so there are a fair few people who haven't really been kept up with our project. I'd like to welcome all those who have joined and those who have returned, and strongly reccommend that you use the talkpage for any queries or problems you have. Happy editing!
Article News
The ongoing effort to create a comprehensive list of LGB people has begun to bear fruit - /A AND the /W-Z lists have been featured! Congratulations to Dev920 and SatyrTN who nominated them respectively. Please consider pitching in the the remaining lists to help us get them finished before the end of the year.
Project News
WP:LGBT now has an IRC channel! It is #LGBTProject on Freenode. Users without IRC or Xchat can use the java app at java.freenode.net to access the channel from their web browser. Hope to see you in there sometime!
David Shankbone has taken a LOT of photos. An idea has been mooted to create a page for listing people who are willing to take images in their area on request, please give your thoughts here.
Considerable discussion has recently been held on our coverage of same sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. You may be interested to read it.
The list of LGBT people to be sorted has now been reduced by over 30%. Please help us with it, all of us adding just one person a day would have a dramatic effect!
A gay cabal conspiracy ghost has been created to do with what you will. :)
Wooh, massive gay conspiracy...
Member News
Since the last newsletter was released, we have had more members been labelled inactive than who have signed up - please consider recruiting a few more people if you can, a WikiProject is only as good as its members. :)
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Technical Analysis Page
This is beyond a content dispute. If the person used his real ID, and preferably his real name, then we would have a much different story. He has accused me of lying about communications I had with John Murphy. I can prove them. I have the emails. jonkozer, happytech and the mystery URL all need to be blocked. I don't know how to go about requesting that. This is not a full time job. Please tell me the right steps. Thanks.Sposer00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It might be worth you posting about the problem at the Adminstrator's Noticeboard - WP:AN/I - so an administrator can look into it and take appropriate action. I'm not sure protection is the right way to go though. WjBscribe00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it necessary to block Danna Shinsho indefintely? Just some misunderstanding on convensation results being blocked forever? If I am right, you are quite netural in this event. I think this is not the worst that you think. Please consider carefully whether it is a right decision to block her indefintely. I claim that I am netural to this. But I just don't want to stop a user's to make his/her contribution on Wikipedia. Thanks. (Addaick13:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
I haven't looked into the matter in great detail but plenty of admins who have my confidence have done so. Our policy against legal threats is absolute - it requires they be withdrawn before someone is unblocked. Remember that indefinitely does not necessarily mean forever, just for an unspecified duration. We do not block people forever for legal threats, but until they withdraw the threat. I have also seen doubts raised that Danna Shinsho is really a new users. At some stage we have defer some issues to other and trust their judgment and decision - I am satisified that those who dealt with the matter initially would have done so correctly. WjBscribe18:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Page protection
Hello. On User talk:Black Rhino Ranger, the talk page of a user who was indefinitely blocked for using sockpuppets, the user in question frequently uses the page as an attack page to broadcast his views on the pages he edits and his disapproval with several policies. Two users, Dora Nichov and CBFan, frequently edit war with Black Rhino Ranger on his talk page, and their discussions are more or less filled with incivility and personal attacks, particularly on CBFan's part (see this edit summary and this). As there really is no point in continuing this banter on the talk page of an indefinitely blocked user, I request that his user and talk pages be fully protected to cease this. Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What are you supposed to do again if you come across an image that's supposed to be fair use but isn't justified? I just found this on Michelle Tea, and I can;t remember what I supposed to do with stuff like that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! I've given your MedComWiki account sysop, bureaucrat and checkuser rights. Do you use IRC at all? If so let me know your nick and sort access for #wikipedia-mediation. WjBscribe00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the congrats. As for my IRC usage, I've never learned how to set up a permanent IRC username. However, I'll figure it out and set one up in several hours (later in the morning for me). -- tariqabjotu07:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Question
What happy camper says here concerns me. I'm half tempted to believe him, but I want to know where did you get the CU evidence saying Farenhorst was a VoB sock? You have a link to the RFCU page, yet no specific case or talk page diff. Either would help. Kwsn(Ni!)20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the fuller repy to Q4 - I will give this further thought. I realise that had I been aware of this issue last time, it would now have been 2 months for me to get used to it. I guess it seems like a fresher issue for me than it does for you. I will rethink my position over the next couple of days. Whatever the outcome of this RfA though, I'm certainly not saying never - I'm just rather surprised by the whole thing because it doesn't fit what I thought of you previously... WjBscribe14:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi WJB - a quick question - I noticed that you commented at Useight's RFA regarding his deleted edits (i.e. from CSD tagging etc.). I appreciate admins have access to extra logs but is there a method/tool for non admins to get a count of deleted edits? I'm sure in the past there was a way of getting a server count but I could be wrong. Cheers. Pedro | Chat 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a tool run by Interiot (who is away at the moment) but it was hopelessly out of date for enwiki. Maybe the only method is to ask an admin very nicely to count? :) Majorly (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I confess I did it the old fashioned way - I looked through the deleted edits and counted all those where the edit was adding a speed deletion tag (his edit summaries are conveniently in the form({{db-attack}}) etc.). I you're interested, I'd say you tagged about 250 pages that have been deleted... WjBscribe15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks both, and particularly WJB for the manual count (for my own CSD contribs I have to count the number of "advise user of sd tag" comments I have left on user pages!) It was only an idle thought that had come into my head, as this particular RFA seems to have some opposes based on edit count yet the applicant has "lost" 1,000 edits. Again, thanks. Pedro | Chat 17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And specifically opposes 4,5 and 6 which cite "too little experience" - of course there are also valid reasons to oppose this RFA but I do feel that with 1000 "CSD edits" this particular candidate is getting a rough ride when they have clearly stated it is an area of interest. Too little experience does whiff a bit of edit counting, that's all. I think the RFA will fail, sadly, but I wouldn't like it to be because of comments based on the Interiot tool alone. Pedro | Chat 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Bug 9213. See this discussion - the IP may not have been notified that they had any messages due to the bug. Also, sometimes a short block is enough to show people we're serious and won't let them carry on. If they carry on again when the bug expires, feel free to report them for a longer block. WjBscribe22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
He may stop now - the idea is that blocks rise by increments and that we give people second chances. He could get bored and stop - and we don't know how many other people might use the same IP. WjBscribe22:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation - Ebionites
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, WjBscribe23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please hold the acceptance period open for 14 days. I suspect this is a way to avoid responding. I'll let you know if Michael is actively editing on Wiki during this period. Ovadyah13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Its OK - I spoke to Betacommand and he is aware of the problem and fixing it. The Bot has stopped editing so no need for a block. WjBscribe03:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL. At the moment I'm trying to badger the crats as much as possible when stuff needs doing in the hope that they might give in and flag me just to make the nagging stop! :-) Seriously though, I'm glad people are asking - good to know I'd have some support. Last discussion of this is at User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 9#'Crat if you're interested. As I said there I don't think people are yet ready for a crat that's been an admin for less than 6 months and hasn't even been editing Wikipedia a full year. Besides which, the current crats are getting the work done - with a bit of poking. WjBscribe06:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I just came across your question on the significance of the "15" part of my name while going through the history. There is really nothing important about it. I checked for Phoenix5, Phoenix10 etc and I thought I'd remeber 15 better--Phoenix 1520:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure - no problem. I wasn't sure if the crats would have an issue with the name similarity so I checked - seems that Dan (Rdsmith4) thought it was fine anyway so doesn't really matter :). WjBscribe10:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
any one can edit wikipedia pages without logging in
any one can still edit wikipedia pages with out logging in
I noticed that you were an administrator and I was wondering what to do with articles that are permitted to be deleted. This specifically applies to this page. Thanks. ~Ambrosia-talk05:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I'm unsure what you wanted to know. Did you want that page to be deleted or were you wondering how to prevent it from being deleted? WjBscribe00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not practiced in the UK - English law has always accorded much less freedom for peremptory challenge - they were phased out over the last hundred years or so and finally abolished in 1988. Unless a juror is actually disqualified - i.e. is ineligeable for jury service or is known to one of the parties to the case - no objection can be made to them. So effectively its "challenge for cause" only - though I think the rules work out slightly stricter than that. We therefore have a much less developed jury science. So you shouldn't expect to find much in in non-US sources. The only other country I know of that makes widespread use on challenges is New Zealand - that's probably the best area to look for non-US sources about how it works in practice somewhere else. I guess the UK is pretty anti scientific jury selection - I'll see if I can dig up a good academic paper on it next time I'm in a decent law library... WjBscribe00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about a paper too much. If peremptories haven't been in use for twenty years, I'm comfortable not including anything. Of course, if you really want to, even before I get it into mainspace, you're welcome to edit "my" article. Cheers.--Chaser - T00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure - well certainly don't expect anything quickly. But if I do come across material for a "why this doesn't happen in the UK" section in the future I may well add it :-). WjBscribe00:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I see Elonka has rejected the nomination - I agree that it is probably too soon. Hopefully she will pass one day however :-). WjBscribe12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
~*~Grin~*~
Ariel♥Gold gives you a huge smile, because tomorrow is Monday, and everyone can use a pre-Monday smile!! Smiles promote WikiLove, and hopefully hers has made your day better! ({{subst:smile}})
Can you delete this? I am going to reupload it to Commons under PNG formatting instead of here, and the reuploads are a little much.. — Moeε10:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Some doofus, with nothing but an unsourced claim that they heard it on a radio station, has changed the name of Britney Spears's fifth studio album to Piece of Me. I don't know how to change it back without screwing it up completely. You wanna do what the community has entrusted you to do????? How's it hanging, by the way? Jeffpw11:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine thanks. I think that's all fixed and I've move protected the page to avoid it yoyoing about the place. Do get someone to lift that when a title is actually officially confirmed :) ... WjBscribe11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks honey, and you're a px150peach. And to think you actually followed my tracks and removed it from requested moves! There's a good reason why you're admin and I'm not.
About Poor Britney's new album: I will absolutely get that protection removed when the title is officially announced. We're all waiting with baited breath, especially since the MTV debacle last Sunday evening. Did you see it? Really tragic, but she did look bangingly hot, even to this confirmed bachelor!Jeffpw11:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(Butting in here, sorry WjBscribe) I actually noticed this earlier, the IP editor also changed the Template:Britney Spears. I don't know a thing about her, so I didn't revert it, but I think if it has not been confirmed, perhaps the template should be reverted as well? Ariel♥Gold11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks WjBscribe, I tend to avoid changing templates like that when I'm completely unfamiliar with the artist, so I thought I'd just keep an eye on it, and I happen to have your talk page on my watched list (wonder how that happened... hmm) and saw this, lol. Anyway, thanks for fixing it! Ariel♥Gold12:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I've just put out two more Britney brushfires on the Wiki today! That gal is a handful, no doubt about it. But well worth the effort. Remember that flick, Being John Malkovich? I would love it if I could pull a Being Britney Spears for a day--especially at the time she was making babies with Fed-ex. Jeffpw12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
...when they deleted Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators (or whatever it was called). :) Thank you for the kind offer, it's flattering, but I lack the ambition or desire for an admin's powers and responsibilities. And even if it were my ambition, I would have to argue that I lack experience in some critical areas, like FA. But thanks again. Cheers, Xtifrtälk12:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
WJB, I suggest you make a very long statement if you accept this request (fairly or not, people may hold it against you with such a short nomination). USAx3, I think you wanted Template:RfB. It's mainly the optional questions that are different.--Chaser - T20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that, Chaser. It's fixed, now. Thanks to Chaser and to Newyorkbrad[2][3] Sorry about that, WJBscribe. I just want to clarify that I did NOT add your RfA sub page to the main page. I made that mistake in the past with ProveIt. I know to wait for your acceptance or decline of the nomination.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing. But it will almost certainly fail. There is a de facto standard at RFB that means that editors with less than one years experience as an administrator will not become bureaucrats. --Deskana(talky)23:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Essjay, Redux and Linuxbeak are just some users who had less than a year. This is one candidate who will not fail, and it's really not helpful saying it almost certainly will. In fact I am positive WJBscribe would pass now, he's pretty much a bureaucrat already, just without the flag. Majorly (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I'll explain how I saw it. I think that if a canadate is fully qualified, then he/she shouldn't have their canadancy fail just because of timing. But that's just my opinion and I respect yours.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. Thanks to U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. the kind nom. My last response to a discussion of this nature can be found at - User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 9#'Crat. I'm not sure that my opinions have changed greatly since then though I keep an open mind. I still think asking people to support my RfB is asking a lot when not only have I not been an admin for a year, but I haven't even been editing Wikipedia for a full year. I also note that there is no crat backlog at the moment and that 4 crats are presently doing renames. Seems to me my time is more helpfully spent elsewhere. In any event,there a few things I'm dealing with at the moment that mean I can't give this my full attention at present. It will prob be a few days before I decide whether to accept or reject this nomination. If I do decide now is too soon, I hope no one will be offended - I truly value the support. WjBscribe01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all very much for your input. I've thought about this a long time and I do still think its premature. I take onboard some of the points made here and elsewhere and agree that maybe a full year as an admin isn't strictly necessary - however I still believe that a few more months of experience before asking the community to extend their trust of me is a good idea. Also, the present crats have everything more than under control and there are plenty of other things for me to be doing. I certainly won't let thing go undone however and would consider running whenever backlogs started to mount again. Otherwise, perhaps this is a matter we could revisit towards then end of this year, or start of next... Thanks especially to U.S.A. for a kindly written nomination. WjBscribe12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. On a previous occasion (see here), I requested that the talk page of User:Black Rhino Ranger be protected due to soapboxing and related activities. On User talk:Snakezilla, the talk page of a sockpuppet of this user, he is attempting the same activities. This comment is particularly egregious. If at all possible, I'd request that the talk page of every single one of his accounts be fully protected, as he seems to move on from sockpuppet talk page to sockpuppet talk page in order to broadcast his views. Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)19:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. I'm not yet prepared to protect all of those pages as protection isn't meant to be used preventatively. Do get in touch if this resumes elsewhere - you can also request protection of these pages at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I see here that you changed my tag, which I don't mind the change to a hard block, but my question is that on the Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention page, there is absolutely nothing about using a different tag for a hard block. There is also very little guidance on when to and not to use a hard block. 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I went for a hard block because I edit conflicted with you on the block and having looked at the account's deleted contribs thought they should be hardblocked for vandalism (never mind the username issue). I usually keep username blocks soft - it was the vandalism I was responding to. Agree the new tag wasn't ideal but the standard {{usernameblocked}} tag encourages the user to create a new account - which seemed inappropriate when I'd just deprived them of their ability to create a new account. I would normally have discussed it with the other admin concerned but I thought it was a fairly minor change in the block - apologies for stepping on toes. WjBscribe17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but I'm mainly interested in the template usage. No biggie. SInce I'm not fond of vandals, I may adopt this policy when dealing with the dual vandal/username issue too.Rlevse18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess what I really wants is a "The combination of your contributions and username lead me to conclude you have no interest in contributing productively here" template :-) ... WjBscribe18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Bullshit:[4] That's called following the rules. Did you even stop to check, or do you just post what sounds true to you? If there's something personal you'd like to discuss, use e-mail. Otherwise, WP:LEAVEMEALONE.Proabivouac12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that- it was a recommendation, not a rule. You chose to follow it and then to conduct yourself in such a way that no longer what your real name associated with your editing here. Both were the results of free choices you made as a presumably intelligent individual with free will. WjBscribe12:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Go find even one policy which supports what you're doing. It doesn't exist. Yet the language of the policy I've just forwarded to you is crystal clear. No exception of the type you've just made up in your head exists on paper, even digital paper. Really, you may as well cite WP:IAR because that's all you have: just the naked acknowledgment that you've no intention of honoring the assurances you give your volunteers.Proabivouac12:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You want a policy that says you can't create new accounts to avoid ArbCom sanctions? That tells you that if you did so for another legitimate reason (such as to change your name) that you might need to notify a lot of people so the sanctions could still be enforced? That sometimes the consequences of punishment for misconduct can be harsh? Did you think the fact your first account was your real name would absolve you of further responsibility for how you behaved while editing under that name? I think you need to calm down a little and think about how poorly you have conducted yourself in this matter. WjBscribe12:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Clue: you don't have a right to publish malicious bullshit about people no matter what your house vision of Karma. You recall the Don Murphy discussion: "he was mean to us, so we don't have to listen to him anymore!" Wrong. Morally wrong, socially wrong, ethically wrong, professionally wrong, legally wrong. Wikipedia is responsible for anything it publishes, period. To appeal to what in your mind is someone's "comeuppance" only supports the appearance of malice. If you mean to punish someone with what you publish, you'd better step away from the keyboard, and WF would be smart to keep those tools from you until you get some perspective. You're supposed to be a senior editor of a responsible publication, WJB. Act the part.Proabivouac12:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not a "senior editor" - there is no such thing as a senior editor of Wikipedia. All contributors hold the same editorial standing as you well know. You seem under the impression that you are a subject in this encyclopedia - you are not. We have no article about you. There are some records within this site of your conduct as a volunteer who edited this site - those contain your full name only because you chose to edit under that name. Otherwise your name would not be contained - you are to this day free to deny that that is your name and nothing would change. You seem to wish to blur the line between our internal proceedings relating to our contributors and our encyclopedic content - they are separate things and must be governed by different rules. For example, if you agree to cease editing this website, there would be little need for us to keep most of their records. They are however necessary in order to chart disruptive behaviour by those who contribute. WjBscribe12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Step out of Wikiland: an "internal" proceeding is one which is not accessible by the public. As ifthe New York Times could title a section, "The Internal Proceedings of the New York Times," and publish there anything it liked.Proabivouac13:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny that it is accessible. And if they did contain something defamatory that would be quite serious - but something you would have to resolve outside of Wikipedia having taken legal advice. However this is a separate issue to the fact that you have evaded sanctions and that a record of the link between your accounts is needed so that those sanctions can be enforced if you choose to continue to edit. If you wish to email OTRS detailing statements on Wikipedia that you believe should be blanked someone will no doubt help you - but the entire ArbCom decision does not fall into that category. As you have been asked before - identify the specific content you believe to be "malicious and false" (the term you have been using) and we will take appropriate action having reviewed that content. WjBscribe13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
WJBscribe, it is quite true that when Proabivouac originally registered, people were encouraged to use their real name. It seems also to be true that when he changed his name, he privately informed several administrators, and Danny. He may even have informed Jimbo. As far as I know, any administrator — perhaps even any user — who suspected his identity and asked him by private email received a prompt and truthful reply. I know very little about the His Excellency case, but I have looked at the evidence page, and have seen that His Excellency (while hiding behind anonymity) was making some pretty disgusting personal attacks (check evidence submitted by Merzbol).
"The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots..."
"You fuckers say NPOV is non-negotiable, even if consensus goes against it. REALLY? Prove it . . . the honorable members of ArbComm can suck my dick"
"Take your Arbcomm case and shove it up your ass."
"For god's sake, fuck off... At best, you're stupid, at worst you're both stupid and a hypocrite. And yes, that's a personal attack."
"I do feel that Jews are screwing up the planet"
"Fuck it. I made a bloody mistake even thinking these clowns had an ounce of crediblity. Such a waste of time."
"What are you complaining about, you crybaby - You're a Jew, for Yaweh's sake. The administrators here wouldn't dream of holding you accountable for anything you do."
"Jimbo, please take a break from patting yourself on the back and look around. Wikipedia is being used to push propaganda and offensive hate rhetoric... you're likely to be sued for it in the near future."
I have not found one single example of behaviour from Proabivouac that came close to the digusting viciousness of His Excellency. I have found some example where he was a bit provocative, which would likely never have happened if His Excellency had been banned indefinitely, for his vile, disruptive behaviour. Again, I admit I'm not particularly familiar with the case, but there was nothing in the submitted evidence that suggested that Proabivouac was harming the encyclopaedia. His Excellency seems also to have made several accusations of bigotry against Proabivouac. Now, I don't edit Islam articles, so I don't really know how Proabivouac behaves there, but having seen the posts from His Excellency, I certainly wouldn't take any of his accusations at face value, would you? (I also notice that Proabivouac seems to have the support and friendship of at least one Muslim, which would be unlikely if he were at Wikipedia for the purpose of spreading anti-Islamic racial hatred.) Yet His Excellency's accusations of bigotry, made by a repulsively vicious anonymous troll against a person who was at worst slightly provocative and who was using his real name, remain visible for any potential employer to find when he googles the names of job candidates.
It's rather unjust to blame someone for registering with his real name, when that was what was recommended at the time. A lot of reasonably intelligent, decent people might not have realised the possible consequences for real life harassment. I'd ask you to examine His Excellency's personal attacks (many of which were made against Proabivouac's real name, while to this day His Excellency's identity remains unknown). Ask yourself would you be comfortable in having that kind of person free to write anything he liked about you with your real name, on one of Google's top ten websites, so that potential employers could see it? It's possible that the answer may be that you wouldn't mind, as some people have jobs that are extremely secure, and care little about their personal reputation. Others are more vulnerable and care a lot. It's not really for us to judge another person's circumstances.
In any case, whether you think Proabivouac is right or wrong, what is the harm in making a little effort not to make things worse for him? He seems to be upset. You seem to think it's ridiculous. Fine. Is there anyway that you can keep that opinion without goading him? Remember that he did inform several administrators. Remember that several innocent people have suffered serious harm as a result of their Wikipedia usernames being linked to their real life identity. Remember that he did not use a sockpuppet to do any double voting or reverting, or to evade a ban. Do you think that real life harm is an appropriate punishment for violating a Wikipedia policy? Do you want to increase that harm? Do you think it would have done serious damage to Wikipedia if the committee had made an announcement that Proabivouac was under probation for one year, for reasons which he wished to remain private? Do you think that it would have done serious damage to Wikipedia if the committee, after Proabivouac's probation evasion became known to them, had offered him by private email the option of leaving Wikipedia for one year (or even permanently) as an alternative to having his identity published? It's a very very sad thing if Wikipedia administrators do not even have a desire to find some solution, where possible, that doesn't involve causing the risk of real life harm to an editor who has violated a rule. ElinorD(talk)13:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Elinor, Proabivouac is editing my talkpage and has now been doing so for some time - I am not goading him. I have asked him to cease edit warring - that is always unhelpful in all circumstances. It is not for me to review the correctness of the ArbCom decision. I defer to them that if they sanctioned Proab's previous account his conduct required sanction. He did indeed inform some admins - but I have no knowledge of the basis on which he selected them - where they impartial or allies? I am concerned that those admins then helped conceal from ArbCom the evasion of sanctions. ArbCom have an email list - they are an obvious choice to contact, Danny is not and nor are a random selection of administrators. I have in several places detailed what steps Proab could have taken - leaving for a year is an obvious one. I am willing to work to find a solution that minimises the upset to Proabivouac as long as he stops his recent disruptive behaviour. Already the evidence page of the ArbCom case against him has been blanked - something I support. If Proab now announced a wish to cease contributing (such that sanctions were no longer needed) I would accept that less of a link were needed. Is Proabivouac at risk of harm? Has he ever alleged this - no. I am one of the more willing admins to help people to protect their names when they are threatened, however I expect (1) some legitimate risk of harm to be explained (e.g. SlimVirgin or Musical Linguist) and (2) a record of good conduct. The later is important - it is not because the original account is his real name that I think a link to it is needed but because that was the account under which the misconduct occured.
Proabivouac's recent conduct has been Wikilawyering, making threats against other editors and he has generally refused to engage in discussion. I (and many others) have asked what "malicious and false" statements about him are present on Wikipedia so they can be looked at and maybe removed. He has not chosen to impart that information. He continues to be hostile and uncommunicative. Once he is able to acknowledge in principal that his sanction evasion was wrong and that some link to the original case will be needed, I agree that a way to minimise the use of his name (which distresses him) should be able to be found. WjBscribe13:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"I am willing to work to find a solution that minimises the upset to Proabivouac as long as he stops his recent disruptive behaviour."
That's ridiculous, as the only "disruption" you can point to - and the only reason I now have a block in my log - involves exactly me blanking your links to your house attack farms, as ElinorD underscores, basically a pile of vile antisemitic filth the Committee solicited and has perversely curated all this time.
Danny was the counsel of the publisher of this encyclopedia. If you mean to say that communication with your counsel is ignored… well, that doesn't look too good, does it?
Danny was never the Foundation legal counsel, you are thinking of User:BradPatrick. How can you think that describing the final step in this website's dispute resolution system as "your house attack farms" is condusive to a mutually agreeable compromise being reached? What are you asking me to "quit" - you are the one who is posting here on my talkpage. I do not intend to post to yours unless your disruptive behaviour resumes. WjBscribe13:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
An ArbCom decision is not "an attack". But if you like, if your disruption resumes I will ask at WP:ANI for an uninvolved admin to deal with the matter rather than handle it myself. WjBscribe13:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"For example, if you agree to cease editing this website, there would be little need for us to keep most of their records."
Let's reframe that: are you saying that if I don't edit, that Wikipedia will stop publishing attacks on me anywhere on its site, and delete (not blank, but delete/quit publishing) those which now exist?Proabivouac14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets bear in mind that I have no authority to make such guarantees - however I think the argument for keeping some of those pages would be considerably lessened if there was no current editor under ArbCom sanction. You presumably do have a right to vanish provided you are not going to reappear under a different name. I don't think the entire ArbCom case could be deleted though. Also, as you avoided the sanctions once, people might feel there was a risk of you doing so again and that those (like yourself) who spend a lot of time hunting for sockpuppets need to know what to look for. By contrast, I am perhaps too trusting in this area - a criticism you have hinted at yourself in a different matter. In any event, this is all something that ArbCom would need to decide - perhaps a compromise worth suggesting at WP:RFARB. WjBscribe14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There is precedent for actually deleting most evidence of a users' presence. HOTR, for example, although it was contentious at the time it was arranged (and required intervention by Jimbo and Fred) it seems to have stuck. As far as I know, he has not actually returned to editing, and has therefore kept up his part of the bargain. As much as it pains me to suggest that someone should simply accept a voluntary ban and not edit at all, that may be a necessary step here to preserve what is left of your peace and privacy. For one thing, you orginally edited with your real name, and that cat can never be completely stuffed back in the bag, even with deletions and account renaming. Another problem is that you came to the attention of that other site through your vigorous pursuit of sockpuppets, and were ID'd because your article interests and style were the same as they were under the old name. Adopting a new name without some kind of agreement will likely have the same result (or worse) next time as it did this time, unless you suddenly become a Pokemon fan. Any agreement that you could change accounts and continue editing would require safeguards (for example, three neutral admins--not friends or allies--who would monitor your talk page for complaints and intervene if necessary) and would have to be approved by ArbCom and not simply discussed with one member, and could still end up in an outing unless you change your editing patterns. However, if you truly are willing to stop editing for a year under any account name, a disappearance could probably be arranged without too much excess drama. E-mail me if you want to explore this further. Thatcher13115:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher has more experience of these matters than I and if the scenario he outlines is appealing I urge you to get in touch with him. I would be willing to support such an arrangement. WjBscribe18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Since these are clearly schoolkids, would you consider adding {{Schoolblock}} to that page instead of the more generic block? Simply offering the option of requesting unblock from that address is unlikely to be productive. / edg☺★14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The post you edited was not by me but by User:Sfacets[5] - I agree it wasn't briliantly worded. As to the block summary, you will see that I used {{schoolblock}} as the summary when blocking the account. That means that they will see that template in full whenever they try to edit the page - the note on the talkpage isn't really all that significant and is more so other users known easily that the account is blocked. WjBscribe14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello WJBscribe, I'm posting again in regards to adminship.
OK being now at 24 000 edits including 1 800 Wikipedia articles/talk edits (including about 25-30 afd discussions, 150 AVI and 140 RFPP), editing 10 000+ articles, created something like 360 articles, 9 templates and 6 categories, and now having edit summaries in both minor and major at close or at 100% I believe now that giving some requests by other users to try out again at AFD So from now on I will accept any nomination of me at WP:RFA. I Still though have possibly some issues in regards to the sockpuppet and image policies (although the latter I can just stop adding images or do less so often even though I'm at 160+ image edits and close to 80 images downloaded). Thanks!--JForget16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much - you're not expected to be a policy encyclopedia, just to be able to find it and apply it with common senses when necessary. Anyway, I'll get on with writing a nomination for you. WjBscribe17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete an item from my talkpage?
Hello. I'd like an explanation for this. I've read enough Wikipedia policy to know that manipulating another user's page is a serious violation of rules. Citadel1808005:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:CANVASS. The users in question was aggressively cross-posting in violation of that policy. I reverted all of their canvassing and warned them on their talkpage. WjBscribe11:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Forgot tomention he is checking my contributions daily and commenting upon them, as well as offering unsolicited advice, and has been messaging me even after I requested he stop. Jeffpw13:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've been your charming self again ;-). Still - I do hate that sort of collection of "evidence" against other users. It really does need to go... WjBscribe13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I won´t say another word. Really. I´ll watch some Britney Spears videos until I feel more my old self. Jeffpw14:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
FYI. Michael Price has returned to active editing, and all editors have agreed to mediation for the Ebionites article. :0) Ovadyah22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Good and good to see you :-). I rather thought you'd fallen by the wayside... In Wikipedia terms, you now have grandchildren you've been away so long! C.Fred, FisherQueen & RockMFR are all now admins despite having been nominated by me ;-). Anyway, dust off that desk and get to work... WjBscribe23:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
All good choices. I'm proud of you :o) And my mother will be pleased. Actually, no, she'd be horrified. Lack of grandchildren is a very good plus point for her in the whole poky-bum-sex thing. And so to bed... ➔ This is REDVEЯS23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no edit war going on. The discussion regarding the pronoun use was, for all intents and purposes, over. The last statement made by any other editor was well over a week ago and it does not appear that Schumin wishes to take part in discussing the edits I made and defended. He's obviously watching the article as he was quick to revert my edits, so he should've known how the discussion was faring and should've made his thoughts known. What justification is there in protecting a page when the person requesting the protection does not wish to discuss the issue, opting instead to make mean-spirited comments in the edit summary (see here)?
Furthermore, this alleged edit war has been going on only for a matter of minutes and between just two people. I've never - NEVER - seen a protection request fulfilled so quickly and with so few edits and editors involved. I've made protection requests before that were rejected due to there being not enough activity. The activity involved on this article is far, far, far, far less than that. Based on this and the above, I see absolutely no justification for this page protection. Jinxmchue00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Who requests the protection is immaterial and protection is not an endorsement of the protected version. The article's history showed a recent pattern of edit warring that showed no sign of abating (especially given the previous edit war in June). I therefore judged protection necessary. Please discuss the disagreement on the article's talkpage and request unprotection when you have reached a consensus. You may wish to seek involvement from other editors, such as through WP:RFC. WjBscribe00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, honey! I was actually asked by another editor if I would draft it, since I am an uninvolved party. I'm glad you think it looks good--I will say it's easier to do something like that if you are truly uninvolved in the dispute. Jeffpw21:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on the page. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not edit
The rules don't prohibit me from editing. There are changes that have been suggested and discussed for months. you have done nothing. The rules say the actual person can make the changes. Why don't you just respond to the changes I've made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Who Makes these Edits??
This last edit is just a farce:
Worldnetdaily
"Sanchez's blog is occasionally syndicated on Worldnetdaily.[21]"
This is a false statement and I'm not sure how or who wrote it, or why they wrote it in a way that seems to diminish my contribution to Worldnetdaily.
I'm FEATURED on WND, and this is one of the top 20 traffic sites in the world.
"Beginning today, reporter Matt Sanchez, currently embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq, will provide WND readers with a glimpse into the Iraq war most Americans have never heard from a press increasingly hostile to the war"[1]
I'll try and find time to take a look at all this - your decision to edit your own article seems to have escalated things rather significantly. As ever, the more reliable third party sources you can cite to back up the edits you are proposing the better. WjBscribe12:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The discussion for this signalled an obvious no consensus - the respondents were clearly evenly split on what should be done with the article. Instead, the closing admin ignored the discussion and substituted his own opinion, which was made clear in his stated reasons. The rest of the closes in that batch were perfectly fine, and I saw no reason to go through the drama of a DRV for one obviously bad close. Rebecca00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Request for Comment on User Conduct - Matt Sanchez / Bluemarine
Hello, may I ask for your participation in an RFC established for user Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez? The reason for the Request for Comment is set out in the RFC summary here. Whether you support or oppose it, your input would be appreciated.Typing monkey18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and plan on learning from the experience and keeping the criticism in mind. If, in the future, you see me doing something that still concerns you, please let me know about it. --barneca (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to WaltonOne and DihydrogenMonoxide for nominating me.
Thanks for the message about my Rfa, I will certainly work on those things as mentioned. I should have been reverting more in the food and drink related pages. I probably have the most pages attached to my watch list out of anyone in the project as I have rated a large majority of the articles associated with our project. As I had stated in the nomination process, even just applying gave me quite a bit of Wikipedia knowledge in things to watch. Thanks again and I look forward to seeing you on here. --Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC02:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You blocked a number of accounts associated with NORDKAPP after the checkuser came back "likely", but two of the accounts listed at the suspected sock puppet page are not block. See my comment in the "Conclusion" section there, and consider blocking those two accounts. Thank you, and best regards, ShalomHello02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
mmm - the WHOIS on the IP traces it to BellSouth.net which I believe is a fairly major internet provider. I'd rather not block the IP without ongoing vandalism. They seem to have stopped - if they resume they can be blocked straight away. WjBscribe20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Over a week ago, you left a message on The Behnam's talkpage, asking him to remove this page. He acknowledged reading it, but has done nothing to remove the page so far. Perhaps you need to discuss this with him further. Or should I just go ahead and delete it, and let you know if he re-creates it? Jeffpw06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
the post was previously as the reason given was "no advertising" however, the post has be edited, furthermore to speak has been speeched at Montreal film festival.
and it was deleted again, the reason given was "Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing".
Hi, the repost looks to me to be pretty much the same as the deleted version. I wasn't involved in the decision to delete it the first time though - it seems that as well as an advertising concern, the text was felt to be too close a copy to material that appeared elsewhere on the net, raising copyright concerns. As User:Redvers (the original deleting admin) is now back and editing again he's probably the one best placed to let you know what changes the article needs if it is to be validly recreated. WjBscribe15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
1 week is the standard escalation for a shared IP - ah, and its school IP - what a surprise! Well I think if they don't get the message this time, at month is in order next time... WjBscribe16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Dude when you put up the shared user template you neglected to notice my warning about this user. The IP is registered to Qualters Middle School in Mansfield Ma. If you could please change that I would be most grateful. Thank you Foxtrotman21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I got that information you wanted about that candidates AIV stats. I put them on my sandbox. The link is to the edit where the report was added, but the label is the information regarding its removal(a bit non-intuitive, but I just hacked up this report format).
WjBscribe, I appreciate your fight against vandalism, but this IP address is shared by the entire internet service in the UAE. Therefore, blocking this IP address blocks an entire country instead of blocking one user. I don't know how we can fight vandalism through this IP, but surely there is an alternative to blocking an entire country. Thank you for considering this message.
Merond e12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look into it. The IP has been bloced for nearly a month however, and little complaint has been received - suggesting it is not as widely shared as you believe. As a compromise it may be possible to block the IP but not prevent account creation. I note that the block is due to expire in a couple of days in any event. WjBscribe14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There hasn't been much complaint because there aren't many serious Wikipedians here (though there are many people who use Wikipedia). Those of us who are serious either a) already have a user name (which is my case) or b) use an IP shield. Though there aren't many serious Wikipedians yet, that doesn't mean we should block a whole country's IP address. If you could block it but not prevent account creation, that would be great. :) My brother is still considering making a user count, and he is having to wait until the block is over to make an account. Merond e10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Fabrictramp RFA
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp16:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as your one of the main people that deals with checusers, I thought I'd let you know that a backlog is starting to form at the page. I'm letting you know so that the backlog can be taken control of before it gets any worse. Thanks, Davnel0318:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I can archive some of the completed requests to tidy the page a bit but unfortunately, as I'm not a checkuser myself, I can't do much to speed things up with the outstanding ones. I will try and encourage the next checkusers I speak to have a look through the list though. WjBscribe18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, some serious concerns about the sources in this article have been raised and whether the claims made in the article are really backed by the citations. Could I ask you to have a careful look at these citations and see what you think? Thanks Tim Vickers00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Seconded - I agree that if the claims in the article text were true, Stanley Dunin could be considered notable. However, it appears they are comprised of exaggerations and outright fabrications. Neilム08:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think my comment on the AfD is still valid: "Aerospace engineer published in his field. Head of the astrodynamics section of a NASA project and part of a team that launched the world's first geosynchronous communications satellite." I don't think he needs to have been the first to work out the geosynchronous orbit to be notable. The article suggests his role was in the engineering over the project, not the theory behind it... The article contains OR and some elements may be overstated but I am satisfied the underlying person is more worthy of inclusion than the ridiculous number of minor modern celebrities kept at AfD every day. WjBscribe18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That statement about him being head of the project was contradicted by the first paragraph, which stated he worked under two other people. I changed the lead to agree with this section. The real problem is that there are just no reliable sources that discuss this guy. Believe me I've looked, everywhere you might expect to find some mention of him there is nothing. I really don't know if anything in this article is true, have a look at the present page anyway and see what you think. Tim Vickers18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I have absolutely no reason to think its untrue - just unverified. I don't know much about the field but my experience of other areas is that those who develop the theory tend to be more widely mentioned in publications than those whose job it is to put it into practice. I remain reasonably happy that we should have an article about this man. WjBscribe18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If its unverifiable, it will have to be deleted. Have you been able to find any sources about him? Google is a dry hole, the only things that mention him are Wiki mirrors. Tim Vickers19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Unverified and unverifiable are different things though. It seems there's enough to know that this person did exist and that he has been involved both with NASA aerospace work and with the world bank. I wouldn't really expect much google information but I'm sure sources will surface. If the consensus at AfD is to delete it (seems a close call at present), it can of course be recreated once such sources are found. That would also have the advantage of removing the present WP:COI problem. WjBscribe19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose so, but I can't vote to keep something that makes claims that nobody can verify. I'm particularly amused that there are more reliable sources discussing me than this guy! :) Tim Vickers19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Things are a bit clearer now. I wandered into Matt57's talk page when trying to get feedback from previous contributors to this article. Reading the thread in the admin noticeboard that was linked from there I now see why some people in this AfD discussion have made such heated comments. Can I reassure you that I have no personal opinions whatsoever about any of the past wikidrama surrounding this set of articles and have just been trying to apply WP:V to the subject. Tim Vickers16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've found that it was Harold Rosen who made the advances in the Syncom project. A description of the project in Discover magazine lists several engineers who contributed as well link, but doesn't mention Stanley Dunin as having done anything important. Tim Vickers19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Little intellectual puzzle for you
Hey, Sugarplum! You're a lawyer, so maybe you can help me out. I'm copy editing a translation of a German article and can't make heads or tails out of the legal mumbo jumbo in this paragraph. Can you give me a nice English sentence to fill in the blanks with????? Without further ado, here's the paragraph:
Sporadic "slavecontracts" are fixated in writing as an formal act of consent to the power exchange, stating "bindingly" both partners common vision on the relationship. From a legal point of few such documents are in no way binding. Following the general conception they do XXXinterfere with (insert Constitutional paragraph for contra bonos mores(against good morals), indefeasibility of human dignity).XXX[1] In the past the existence of such "contracts" led in several contexts to banner headlines in yellow press publications. Uninformed third parties are periodically led by such information seen out of context towards strong rejection and condemnation of the relationship on which it is based.
Occasionally, actual "slave contracts" are set out in writing to record the formal consent of the parties to the power exchange, stating their common vision of the relationship dynamic. Such documents have not been recognised as being legally binding. Contracts that are contra bonos mores (contrary to public morals) are generally illegal, and such contracts can even be constitutionally prohibited. In Europe, such agreements may be contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which grants a general freedom from "unhuman or degrading treatment". This right had been held to be absolute and no limitations or derogations are permitted by the Convention. Nevertheless, the mere existence of such purported contracts has resulted in banner headlines in yellow press publications and uninformed third parties are periodically led by seeing such information out of context towards rejecting and condemning the relationship it describes.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!! Try as I might, I just couldn't wrap my mind around the legal jargon. You have been a great help and a good friend!!!! Thank you for helping me with my contribution. :-) Jeffpw22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Will, do you think the AfD should be deleted too? I think it should be kept for record purposes... CO222:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem much point - no one had commented and it was deleted due to the author's request by Orderinchaos. There'd be a courtesy blanking argument for it anyway (it would soon become the top google hit for his name once we didn't have an article on the person) and Jimbo has made some persuasive point that we shouldn't keep meta pages about people's non-importance. I'm not sure it would record anything that the page's deletion log doesn't already do. WjBscribe22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings WJBscribe! Just wanted to let you know that the recurrent vandalism, blocked for several months by having the page protected, seems to have resumed at P.E.O. Sisterhood now that you've removed the block. I'm not sure if my repeatedly rvv'ing the page amounts to edit warring, so rather than continue down that route, I'm instead drawing this to your attention and asking for advice. Thanks, --24.21.106.17405:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Its not the most clear cut vandalism as presumably those removing that content feel that it shouldn't be in the article, rather than simply wanting to cause disruption. Ideally they should be invited to join in a discussion on the article's talkpage. You could try starting such a discussion and drawing their attention to it when restoring the content or direct them to it with a message on their talkpage (though that may not be effective if the IP doing the reverting keeps changing. WjBscribe12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration of an XFD
As I have seen your work on Wikipedia and trust your knowledge of the system I would like to ask a question of you. I submitted an article for AfD recently and after a number of responses I want to remove the AfD submission, how do I go about doing that?--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC07:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It depends:
If no one has expressed a delete opinion except yourself, you can close the XFD as "speedy keep" on the basis that the nomination has been withdrawn. The templates for closing are {{subst:Afd top}} and {{subst:Afd bottom}} (or change the "A" for the type of deletion discussions its - i.e. Tfd top, Mfd top etc.)
If others have expressed delete opinions, just strike out your nomination and express a keep opinion and this will be taken into account when the discussion is closed.
Hi Will. Thanks for your reply, even if it wasn't the one I wanted. Anyway, if the page was going to be protected, what format would it be protected in? Would it include the disputed information or not? Regards :) ~~ [Jam][talk]21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It will be protected exactly as the admin who protects it finds it. If you request full protection now, I will protect it as it is now... WjBscribe21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Unfortunately, even the talk page might need protecting as the user(s) have now moved to that in a prevention of the discussion continuing! ~~ [Jam][talk]21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be inclined to see the blanking of parts of the discussion on the talkpage as vandalism, and would be inclined to block them if that continues. WjBscribe21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, they have completely ignored your warning and continue vandalising the page. Can you initiate the next step (I don't know much about warnings)? ~~ [Jam][talk]21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems to have stopped them for the time being anyway. Thank you very much for your help with this dispute. Regards ~~ [Jam][talk]21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked them for 24 hours. Maybe that will impress upon them the importance of good faithed discussion when their block expires. WjBscribe22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Your support in resolving this content dispute is much appreciated (since I've had little help from other administrators). ~~ [Jam][talk]22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Will. I've put in a request for content to be added to the protected page - my rationale being that the anonymous users have had time to discuss the addition of the content, but have not. Therefore, I'd like to the content to be added to see if we can get them into the debate proper. If you get chance, can you take a look at my request please? I've added an editprotected tag like you are meant to. ~~ [Jam][talk]09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit album name of Britey Spears?
I think we should chance the name to pieces of me because: www.play.com has confirmed pieces of me, HMV confirmed pieces of me, people magazine confirmed pieces of me and a radio station confirmed pieces of me! Isn't it about time that we say the album is called pieces of me? I mean they all are pretty reliable sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkomuitnederland (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely persuaded - the official website still indicates that the name has not been finalised [6] and doesn't include "Pieces of me" among the suggested titles. I recommend discussing the matter on the album article's talkpage. If there is a consensus that the article should be moved to that title, it can be requested - though I think it better to wait for official confirmation form Britney Spears or her record label. In the past, titles for albums that were widely believed to be correct have proven wrong. WjBscribe13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Jive Records has not confirmed the title, nor has Britney's website. People has only said it was a possible title. Wikipedia is not a place of conjecture, and it's notso earth shattering that it has to be done this moment. Jeffpw15:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Featured Article
Sorry didn't realise that - its not immediately obvious from the heading and the picture on the main page that those 2 articles are the same (though I can see that they are now). Kelpin17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies
Sorry about the comments on Jwales talk page, but it wasn't exactly a PA as it wasn't aimed at any editor in particular. I will change the comment and try not to be annoyed by various things on wikipedia. I mostly am a good editor. The sunder king16:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel like I am being unfairly harrassed and targeted re my involved in the paedophil;e articles. i refer specifically to this page, 3rd similar accusation in a week and Dyklos is using the same timing ideas as did the anon whio filed the second complaint, and exactly the same "you are Pol64 allegation" with no new evidence or accusations, just the same old accusations. This, this and this also appear to me to be edits made in bad faith. Some body or some group of people a[ppears furious at the recent blocks of Farenhorst and Mike D78 and they are blaming me for it and I have no desire to be trolled by themn on this site, SqueakBox19:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The sockpuppet case is ridiculous - Pol64 is not using a proxy and is geographically unrelated by you. Seems to just be someone else who agrees with you. WjBscribe20:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't refuse mediation. I disagreed that mediation was needed. Because the dispute has been resolved through a "request for comment" that jerry called for on the talkpage in question. But Jerry refuses to accept the fact that it didn't go his way. He requested arbitration to start with, I said yes to it. It was rejected as being to early for it. He then asked for a request for comment, which did not go his way. So now he won't accept the fact that it didn't go his way. On top of that on the talkpage, after he lost the dispute, he has repeatedly used verbal attacks and incivility. He only wants a next step as a way to circumvent the "request for comment" not going his way.Rogue Gremlin04:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The argument that it "did not go my way" is connected with two (2) posts made by third parties. One of them acknowledged the validity of a key part of my argument. The other is a suspected sock puppet of Rogue's. LinkJerryGraf17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I see there is an outstanding Request for arbitration about this dispute. You may wish to mention that attempts to try other forms of dispute resolution have been rejected and see if that affects the Arbitrators' decision about the matter. WjBscribe19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Other forms was accepted, He just doesn't like other had to say. After people keep disagreeing with what he was trying to put on the page. He is now just on a fishing expedition, trying to find someone to agree with himRogue Gremlin19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
To the extent that this information might be helpful to you, I wanted to advise that following my complaint that Rogue Gremlin was a sockpupeteer, he has been blocked for three months, and his puppet blocked indefinately. I'm sure you've seen this before, but I'm relatively new to this community. I am amazed both by the degree of argumentative crime which goes on here, and by the very vigilant attempts to police it. Many thanks.
^Furthermore an corresponding agreement would violate Chapter 4 of the European Convention on Human RightsXXXad American constitutionXXX. Therefore legal validity is absolutely not existent.
