User talk:SheffieldSteel/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

blocked page blanking

FYI. Time to semi-prot the page, or what's next? tedder (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The block's expired, so it doesn't matter any more. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi there. Firstly, I'd like to say that I disagree strongly with your establishment of your editing "rules" at British Isles. I feel that you are somewhat abusing your "powers" as an administrator and you should let the community's usual policies and actions dictate the editing. If there are edit wars ongoing, then block specific editors and/or protect the article. However, given that you have implemented your rules, you should really be enforcing them. I am referring to this reversion [1]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Which, as the edit history shows clearly, was reverting an unauthorised change by User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick of an established version. This version arose out of extensive discussions which started on 25 June 2009, namely the mention of John Dee and his well-referenced imperialist political viewpoints. The same user is now breaching Wikipedia policy and removing IP comments from the Talk Page in another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is indeed time to act. 78.16.158.187 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I had posted on the talk page, pointing out the problem regarding synthesis, left it there for a few days to see if any major objections came forth. None did, so I went ahead and made the edit. And at the same time I made a couple more changes, which I also explained on the talk page. Within a couple of hours it had all been reverted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the editing restriction I imposed was a prohibition on reverting another editor's revert, not on reverting any edit. This allows and encourages editors to follow the Bold-revert-discuss editing style. So far, there hasn't been a revert of a revert, so thankfully no need of "enforcement". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No revert of a revert - maybe because a lot of editors have now given up with the article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so, depending on what you mean. Any opinions or thoughts you have about encouraging dispute resolution are, of course, welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So what do you propose I do following [2]. Let's take number 3 - an unreferenced sentence for which there is majority support for removal. The two opposers have not provided any references so it appears to me to be perfectly valid application of Wikipedia policy (WP:NOR) to remove the sentence in question. However, if I do so, I will be "reverting a revert". What next? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was bold and implemented 3. I hope you will agree that the way I have gone about this has been far more "civilised" and in accordance with the way Wikipedia should work than most of the antics at that article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed bold of you, and in a difficult situation. So far it seems to be uncontroversial. I think you've conducted yourself admirably. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Redhat here. This article does need controlling, but I think you either need to police it more carefully or remove the restriction so that those would want to hang themselves have enough rope to do so. Some of the editors go to great lengths to get their way, turning parts of sentences into a link so the underlined text reads to reflect their point of view, ading misleading categories or removing referenced material (or even OR tags) because they can do so (against consensus) without fear of being reverted. It makes it very difficult to produce a neutral and verified article if the restrictions you've imposed give certain editors leeway to break the other rules governing Wikipedia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We are now relying on Wiki-Ed to Self Revert The most devious and inept and edit that those that would want to hang themselves could do. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that I've been adding referenced material to the article; meanwhile User:Þjóðólfr has been quite busy today deleting referenced material that he doesn't like, hence my original comment here - it needs to be policed or the restriction removed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(un-dent) Wiki-Ed, it seems that you've misread the restriction, which is intended to prevent edit-warring and to encourage a Bold-revert-discuss editing style. As such, reverts of bold edits are permitted, particularly if they lead to discussion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, so if I revert User:Þjóðólfr's bold counter-consensus edit from this morning so that the article accords with the discussion and consensus achieved here he cannot revert my revert. However, he can revert my bold addition from last night so that the rationale for my reversion is no longer valid, even though the section has about 4 sources per sentence. Or does his morning edit count as a reversion of this reversion, in which case shouldn't he have been blocked (again) at that point before making any of his other changes [3] [4] [5] [6] today?

Or, alternatively, having looked at it, does my reversion/edit count as a "bold" change which anyone, even our well informed IP (above), can revert? Are they compelled to start a new thread on the talk page to explain why they have reverted it? (If not, shouldn't they be?)

How does the BRD process deal with editors who continually try to undermine "bold" edits by reverting sourced insertions, slapping on irrelevant tags and inserting unsourced statements even when a general consensus has been achieved in "discussion" on the talk page? This article will always have a hardcore minority who disagree with everything even when it every statement has multiple references and widespread agreement and I can't help but feel that a process which seems to shortcut other established editing rules just gives them more power to express their opinions than would otherwise be the case. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As expected the revert has now been reverted, but no action has been taken. The edit summary reads: Restore sentence - no consensus on talk page for its remove, straw poll was more or less evenly balanced. Bold to delete in those circumstances, I have reverted, please discuss. Except the straw poll (item 2) was 5:3 in favour (i.e. two thirds majority) and the editor has made no attempt to "discuss" - leading back to my questions above. Apologies for the wall of text. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The straw poll was 5-4 Wiki-ed, that is not consensus to remove the sentence and you shouldn't have removed it. The discussion took place in the straw poll and elsewhere, why repeat? You are also making a series of bold edits, almost defying people to revert you rather than proposing changes first. I didn't revert a revert, I restored the position. To be honest I was tempting to take everything back to the start of the previous day. You have been around more than long enough to know what is controversial and what isn't. --Snowded ^TALK 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, regarding the latest nonsense at British Isles: we have flagged some information as constituting synthesis. We have raised it on the talk page [7]. We have given time for the objectors to find other references to show that it is not. We have even said that if they do, the information can stay, and are leaving intact the sentence that is referenced. Yet, the objectors clearly have no intention of doing so and Tfz has just reverted [8] my removal of this information per policy. This situation is ludicrous! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Father Christmas sent me...

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

archive me! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_7#Photo

I met some of these folks at the NYC wikiconference, and I'm really looking forward to the next DC meetup, which might be in early September ... in fact, the date is always negotiable, which is why I'm here. Would you be interested in a shortish or longish DC Meetup, and if so, which date, and would you like a ride up there? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SheffieldSteel/Admin

Generally, such lists should be kept offline, as they seem to provoke unnecessary drahmahz. I'd appreciate it if you would copy the information into a .txt file (or something) and delete the on-wiki page, to help reduce drahmahz. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 17:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists of editors who are perceived as potential "problem editors" and their actions are generally kept offline. SS is keeping a list of his admin actions, a completely different animal altogether, and one which I applaud, for transparency's sake. This is highly desirable and laudable, and I salute SheffieldSteel for the extra effort which this entails. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

When you get back, you're needed here. Since you were gone, edit wars and page protections. Comparing the last month to the previous two, I believe your idea of "no reverts of reverts" was genius and resulted in more stability and more collaboration than ever before. --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The previous "rules" played nicely into HighKing's hands. Any time anyone tries to do anything, he reverts it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your stalking is pretty noticable - I'm flattered. BTW. Once. I reverted an edit once. Now quit the taunting and wild allegations, most experienced editors have a brain cell and can see through this tactic for what it is. Don't bring shit onto this page - if you've anything to say, say it on mine. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern about discussion suppression on 350 (organisation), see history: Suggestions?

Concern about discussion suppression on 350 (organisation), see history: Suggestions? [9] Talk:350_(organisation)&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:350_(organisation)&action=history 99.155.153.197 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

Hi SheffieldSteel...in May you were part of a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive63#Neutralhomer.27s_harassment. Neutralhomer is continuing to call me by Metros[10]. Is there any way you can have a word with him? It's clear that the Wikiquette Alert had no major effect on him. Thanks, either way (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh...you seem to be gone for a long period here. Sorry! either way (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:SheffieldSteel/Admin

User:SheffieldSteel/Admin, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SheffieldSteel/Admin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SheffieldSteel/Admin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives

The above editor is back, identical behaviour to last time. Repeating the same point, mutiple line postings with colours etc. Has paid no attention to the effort you put into explaining the last ban. Is is possible you could leave a note for him or something for the sake of other editors sanity? Otherwise we are going to get another round of wasted effort. THe talk page of Republic of Ireland is the latest canvass for his/her art --Snowded ^TALK 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Slovaks in Hungary

I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bossadkins (talk · contribs)

I've indef blocked per the deleted edits - hope that's okay. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I've no objection to the indef. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Personally I was impressed you dared to use the "powers" of REVDEL - the instructions look like a one way ticket to de-sysop. Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Serious doubt about a quiet resolution with BAWAA and JacobiteRepublican

The bottom line is that they are removing all my material that they can find (BAAWA), and then attempting further damage through Wikipedia governance. The documentation that I am providing is specifically meant to give a truthful version of the sitution, though, of course, from my perspective.

Further, there is a Wiki research issue here; my area of research is workgroup collaboration in the modern Information Society, and I want to report my experiences as action research. As is, I have moved material to another location outside of the Wikimedia sphere, but I am uncertain as to why I have to remove material that I would want, say, to see so as to see the conflict from my perspective.

I have seen a lot of conflict here on the Wikipedia, but this is by far the worst I have experienced personally; simply no comparison. I cannot see a happy ending without completely documenting BAAWA's and RebuplicanJacobite's actions. This happy ending will not be for me -- but for all the others--many others. And then there is the research issue; this material is GDFL and free for use. My desire is to use this research (on another Wiki) to help assure a peaceful Information Society for the future.

This is serious business, and I genuinely hope you can see how serious it is. The bottom line is I cannot let this go; everything these two do seems to be architected to hurt others. Since I am very busy at work at the moment, I am not sure how quickly I can respond to, say, their accusations (and for this reason I may have to back off a little), but I cannot abandon this attempt to bring normalcy to Anarchy discussion.

Thank you in advance for being fair-minded. It you want to discuss anything with me at all, it may be best to contact me through the email system.--John Bessa (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(Replied on user's talk page, since I've also deleted material from their use page.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your attention to the above matter and the manner in which you dealt with it. Much appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Amendment: Derek Smart

Cla68 has initiated a request for amendment requesting that Bill Huffman be banned from editing. The motion is ongoing, but I decided it may be good to have some voices that actually interacted with Bill Huffman (besides myself, as I am not particularly active in wikipedia), as Cla68 doesn't seem to have interacted with Bill Huffman outside of various motions against him. Thank you for your time! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Ultimately it is for arbitrators to decide whether Bill Huffman has been editing disruptively or, indeed, outside the best practices recommended in our COI guidelines. I regret that I don't know of any evidence to offer on either of those subjects, and I don't think that a personal testimony (i.e. one unsupported by evidence) would help much, given the large amounts of text already present. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. Considering there was only one other person that seemed to have familiarity editing with Bill Huffman on that page, I thought it may have been useful to get perspective from those who have edited in the same space with him, besides myself. I hope you have a good day! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Anne Maxight

As I said to Baseball Bugs, I'm essentially backing out of the situation; admittedly, the name is an acronym of Axman Eight, and he does tend to make 'hide in plain sight' accounts, but that's basically the extent of my knowledge: he's a long time socker and he tends towards names that are basically puzzle variations on his original account name. Being as I have an issue with the account in question, I feel that involving myself further would be seen in some way as taking advantage of the situation, even if only to me. They may be a sock, but it would seem like I was saying 'I don't like what this account is doing; hey, someone thinks they're a sock. That's a good way to deal with 'em!' So, basically I'm not involving myself any further, whether they actually turn out to be a sock or not. HalfShadow 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the info. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've chaged my mind. Given the choice, I'd rather look like a jerk than let a socker get away with it. It wasn't who I thought it was (probably by design), but it was a sock. HalfShadow 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment needing your input

Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

John Bessa: my user page

That was a little quick. I was able to accelerate my work schedule to accommodate the development of the material per your suggestions, and I am going to begin that process now.

Deconstruction is how I build articles; from sparse but highly structured information derived from prose, I build support for the material, and then I reintroduce prose in a wiki format. Generally I build the structure above the original prose, and then insert the information from the original prose into the structure. Because there are two threads here, my own research and the research necessary to support my arguments of NPOV and other POV related abuses by "BAAWA" and "RepublicanJacobite."

Any experience with the WP will tell you that there is endless conflict across the wiki, and any experience with knowledge construction will tell you that the conflict can only hurt the information, and hence the Wiki's place in the world--which is not necessarily always positive. To support this, and to show how widespread this conflict phenomena is, the structure here will evolve in the way you have suggested. For instance, cited incidents will use "diffs."

The other thread will be action research. Any experience with action research should tell one that it is social research, and that the phenomena is studied as it plays out and documented by at least one participant, which is me. All participants are legitimate components of the "action," and that all information presented by them is valid. This will certainly strengthen my case.

Since the initiating incident focuses on a political issue; the role of the WP as an entity specifically with respect to political bias, or how the WP "cloud" of information communication (as we say in network technology) that hovers above so much of humanity is controlled by that bias will be the material that makes the research valid, and hence widely applicable. While this type of material has to be introduced at some point, I am stating this here specifically for your personal benefit--and for no other reason.

Methodology and my user page

I first have to design the research structure, and then insert the prose from the bottom of the page into it. Then I will introduce the supporting "diffs," and then finally bring the material forward in ways that I think will the changes necessary to mitigate bias and conflict here on the WP, and ultimately bring those benefits to the Information Society, which is, of course, the modern world we live in. I will put the structure at the top of my page, and then insert the prose and citations into it, which I will keep at the bottom of the page so as to make the process easy. I have done this a thousand times, from my experience these processes are by far the most efficient ways to develop wiki articles.

A final note: if there is something important, please contact via email per the note at the top of my talk page.--John Bessa (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Before you being a lengthy process that seems unlikely to result in a viable Wikipedia article, I suggest you review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. This will give you some understanding - I hope - of what is and is not appropriate subject matter for an article. I would also like to remind you of our guidelines regarding inappropriate use of your user page. It is a great page to talk about yourself; less so, about other people. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SheffieldSteel. You have new messages at Talk:Don Martin (Austin, Texas).
Message added 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing of Discussion on Don Martin - Lawsuit Section

This is to advise you that consensus was achieved on the section in question, thanks to an outside suggestion by SheffieldSteel. Comments on the section have be tentatively closed, baring objection from those involved. I for one appreciate the efforts of everyone that worked on this, even though at times it did get contentious. All involved editors are receiving this notice. GregJackP (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I meant to award you this sooner, for your re-draft of the lawsuit section of Don Martin (public affairs) which helped to finally resolve a long consensus discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your feedback and for discussing this so productively. It's you people who've solved this problem, not me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Paraserv

Hi
I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that they are not the same person, both based on technical and behavioral evidence. Also note that Paraserv was actually already registered back in early May.
Unless you see a smoking gun that I missed I'll unblock them. It is of course possible that they coordinate off-site, but I don't see disruption in this one article that would warrant a block.
Amalthea 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Paraserv's first edit was to remove a speedy tag from an article that Pa1985 had removed several times, and been warned about: "Do not remove a speedy deletion tag from an article that you have created." Paraserv's only edits have been to that one article, which is also the only article that Pa1985 has edited. The two editors' edits on that article have been (in terms of character, content and POV) essentially identical. No smoking gun, just a loud and clear quacking. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Coordination is a given – and admitted in the unblock request, where Paraserv comments that he'd be in a different state than Pa1985. I can confirm the geographical distance with, as I said, high confidence, it's unlikely (albeit always possible) that one person would have made the technical evidence look like it did. Furthermore, Pa1985 has continued to remove the speedy tag even after Paraserv did it once for him, the interleaving edits on June 4 are at the very least unusual if they were one person, and I think that Paraserv's wiki-code skills are noticeably better than those of Pa1985. Amalthea 19:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hoped to find you still online, but alas. I have unblocked the account. Cheers, Amalthea 19:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All we can do is what we think is right. I hope that in this case it's you that's correct. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg

Thanks for trying to be be helpful. I hope you will see that I neither reverted nor re-added a comment at User talk:Nutriveg. Here are the diffs:

• my note asking him not to edit war and to respect the discuss part of WP:BRD.
• his reply the edit summary of which accused me of edit-warring although I only made the single revert to his bold edit.
• my response where I noted my assumption that his removal indicated he had read it, and referred him to Talk:Abortion where I had opened a section asking for reasons why he had removed reliable sources from the text.

I see that the article has been plagued by edit-warring in the past and there is a sense of ownership about the article. I have carefully read the talk page, including Nutiveg's objection to a phrase that was sourced to one of the three sources he removed, but fail to see any reason why he believes he can be the arbiter of what sources are acceptable, solely on his personal preferences. The only way that article is going to move away from the warring is by establishing reliable sources and reporting them accurately without personal bias. As you can see from my contributions to the debate on that talk page, it has been my consistent view throughout.

There's my take on the issue, and I'd like you now to reconsider, please, your comments on my talk page. I would prefer it if you struck or refactored those assertions which have no basis in fact, and either substantiate or retract your warning concerning harassment, as you understand how serious that is. Regards --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded on your Talk page, since that's the locus of this issue, and I agree that I ought to clarify my statement there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my thanks (at the risk of 'harassment'!) for your efforts to calm down the dispute at Talk:Abortion. It is heartening to see that Nutriveg is working to incorporate the sources into the article, as I really believe that the content issues there will only be solved by a strict adherence to reporting reliable sources neutrally. I do sympathise with you, in that it cannot be easy trying to steer the right course when warning or sanctioning other editors. FWIW, I have "no dog in this race", and I will take your general warning at Talk:Abortion seriously. I've now realised that English is not Nutriveg's first language, and I'll make doubly certain not to be so blunt with him in future.

Looking ahead, perhaps you can answer a couple of questions: is there any way that the article can be protected from revert cycles – in other words, after the first (or perhaps second) revert (in the broadest sense), an obligation is imposed to take it to the talk page without further reverts? I've seen ArbCom impose those sort of conditions on topics (Macedonia, Israel-Palestine, etc), but could that be requested from the community without the drama of an ArbCom case? Any advice or thoughts would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to bring this to your attention so soon, but I'm going to be in dispute with Nutriveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) again - and for the same reason: removing sources. I'm sincerely not asking you take sides - and if I'm in the wrong I'll apologise - but you are familiar with the issues, and an outside opinion from someone both parties respect might resolve it. I've laid out my complaint (probably too extensively) at Talk:Abortion#Use of MEDRS. I know it's an imposition, but I'd rather try an informal mediation first than start formal dispute resolution. If you are able to 'referee', it would be appreciated and could eliminate the potential drama that none of us need. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I can see that Mastcell has been getting dispirited and I think the article would be much the worse if he walked away from it. I should add that I think Nutriveg also brings a lot to the article, and he obviously feels passionately about it. The goal has to be getting our experts on the subject to collaborate, but the only thing I can offer is to try to persuade everyone to focus on the sources. I really hope that some of the rancour will drain out of the discussions, and I want to register my appreciation for your efforts. --RexxS (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued supply of information. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Note on my talk page

I have made one recent edit to abortion. I do not see how this is in any way edit warring. Thus I consider it strange that you would consider blocking me. I see you bring up my misinterpretation of an abrcom remedy a year ago that resulted in a block. Please WP:AGF. BTW I would appreciate a clarification of your statement and how you think I broke Wiki policy. Unless you find policy backing up your assertions would appreciate a retraction of your statement.

I see you involved yourself in the recent edit war, and that you've been sanctioned (and subsequently blocked) in the past for reverting. I've just blocked the editor who reverted you, and have spent some time considering whether blocking you would ultimately be constructive. Your recent contributions and talk page history seem to show that your reverts, though many in number, are essentially productive rather than disruptive. Hence, please consider this a "word to the wise" rather than a draconian warning. I honestly think that the issues at Abortion will only be resolved by compromise, which is why I try to restrict myself to making uncontroversial and pro-discussion statements on the article's talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit that you made was a revert. It was a revert of an edit that other editors had reverted back and forth several times. If you compare this with Wikipedia:Edit war I hope that you can see why I described your action as getting involved, and why I described what you got involved in as an edit war. I am sorry if you got the impression that I was not assuming good faith on your part, and I'm sorry that you feel unable to accept that advice in the spirit in which it was offered. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the heads up. Just a note on the usage of blocks as per here [11]. Those who are involved in the debate are not to use admin tools but to defer to another editor. Looking at your history you appear to be involved in the abortion debate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll put in a good word for James - he is working hard at the Sisyphean task of providing reliable references. He's also stayed pretty calm (calmer than I, anyway) in the face of what is increasingly clear disruptive behavior and unreasonable shrubbery demands. It would be a shame if his attempts to address unreasonable objections are caught up in the effort to deal with the source of the unreasonable objections (I think that was the thrust of Sheffield's note in the first place). And thank you (to Sheffield) for your intervention and for posting it to AN/I - I think administrative intervention aimed at user-conduct issues is an essential prerequisite to making progress on improving the article's content. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both your your remarks here, and your continued efforts at Abortion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I will certainly take a look. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a sneaky suspicion...

B1, are you thinking what I'm thinking? No prize for guessing why I've placed that {{Welcomelaws}} for that "new" user eh? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're thinking. I still need a bit more info before I'm even sure what I'm thinking... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't have any either~! But I did left a note on Tim Song's page, hopefully he can enlighten the both of us. *fingers crossed* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I got the info I wanted. [12] Regards. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

You were former involved in a discussion in Talk:Abortion#More reliable references so, if you're still interested about the outcome of that discussion, I ask you to express your opinion in Talk:Abortion#Assessing the current agreement status--Nutriveg (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Donald G. Martin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Donald G. Martin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald G. Martin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineteen Nightmares (talk • contribs) 12:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the AfD was closed already, but thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Typo

Oops, what actually happened is I took the citation from the Christina Aguilera page and did not see it had vandalism in it. So I fixed it on that page, too.[13] Thanks for your help. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, well spotted and thanks again. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You were previous involved in an edit warring relating a "placenta previa" discussion in the Abortion article. But you continue to perform reverts of that very same text while it's still under discussion on the article talk page. I urge you to self-revert and wait for a consensual result of that discussion.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating, in a very similar form, the warnings I earlier posted on your own User Talk page. As for reaching consensus through discussion, last time I looked we had a consensus with one editor refusing to accept it. The edit that I performed was made in good faith and reflected that consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You were previous involved in an edit warring relating a "placenta previa" discussion in the Abortion article. But you continue to perform reverts of that very same text while it's still under discussion on the article talk page. I urge you to self-revert and wait for a consensual result of that discussion.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating, in a very similar form, the warnings I earlier posted on your own User Talk page. As for reaching consensus through discussion, last time I looked we had a consensus with one editor refusing to accept it. The edit that I performed was made in good faith and reflected that consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: outing

This situation is more complex than I think you’re giving it credit for, but rather than re-explaining everything here, I think it would be easiest if I could just point you to where it’s currently being discussed. The current discussion about it is here, particularly my last comment there.

One relevant issue is the fact that Mathsci is re-posting links that were on page revisions which have been deleted, and which were deleted precisely because Mathsci was using information from the pages linked to as a basis for personal attacks against me. In addition, there are at least two examples ([14] and [15]) of him linking to off-wiki blog posts made by another editor (David.Kane) which David.Kane has never linked to on-Wiki at all. The first one is part of a blog that David.Kane has apparently mentioned at some point in the past belongs to him, although he’s never linked to that specific post in it, while in the second case I don’t think David.Kane has ever mentioned here that he posts at this off-Wiki site at all. Mathsci has also done something similar to this in my own case, using an old blog entry from before I became a Wikipedian as a basis to claim that I’m a holocaust denier, and justifying his doing this on the fact that I’d stated in the past that this online account in general belongs to me, although I’d never linked to that specific post in it. (In this case he didn’t actually link to the specific entry that he was using as the basis for his claim; he just stated his conclusion from it.) It’s possible to find personal information about me and David.Kane by searching through other pages of the various online accounts belonging to us that Mathsci has linked to, although for obvious reasons I’d rather not go into more detail than that.

Other people (who’ve been around here for longer than me) have also brought up examples of Mathsci engaging in more obvious outing in the past, such as this. This example is old enough that it wouldn’t be relevant if not for the current situation, but I think the fact that no action has ever been taken against Mathsci for this sort of thing is part of why he has no reservations about still doing it.

Even though you aren’t involved in the arbitration case for these articles, now that I’ve explained this situation to you in more detail, I’d appreciate you offering your opinion about it in response to my comment there. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write such an informative reply. Unfortunately I don't think it would be a good idea to involve myself in the ongoing Arbitration case. As for the actions of Mathsci, I will need to consider the situation further. I'm sure you can appreciate that this isn't a simple case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. Please let me know whatever you decide about him, though. Even though I expect that ArbCom will be covering this aspect of his behavior in whatever decision they reach, the overall race and intelligence case is complex enough that I doubt ArbCom will be reaching a decision about it within less than a month, and in the meantime this aspect of Mathsci’s behavior is ongoing. I think it’s important for an admin to determine whether anything should be done to prevent him continuing to engage in this same behavior for as long as the arbitration case is still in progress. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Now Hipocrite has begun doing this also: [16]. The link that he posted in this diff contains the name of the college that David.Kane attended, the year that he graduated from it, and a few other personal details that I don’t think David.Kane has ever disclosed here.

According to his user talk David.Kane is currently traveling and has only intermittent internet access, so he can’t deal with these issues himself very easily at the moment. Will you be able to make a decision about this sometime in the near future? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

He's posting evidence at an arbitration case. Evidence means "that which is seen". If the arbs don't think posting it is a violation of policy, why do you think I should? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The arbitrators aren’t going rule on who is and isn’t violating policy for at least another month. I would assume that when they do, they’ll rule that posting this link was a policy violation, but in the meantime I think it’s a problem that this behavior is going unchecked until then. The reason I brought this up with you is because I think it’s necessary for an admin to make a decision about whether this should be allowed to continue for as long as the arbitration case is in progress. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem. From WP:OUTING: If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing. (emphasis mine)

In other words, it seems to me that Mathsci's conduct above is explicitly not covered by policy. If you want a ruling on it, I don't think that I am the right person to make that ruling. This is one of the reasons why we have the Arbitration Comittee (and indeed the above text is cited to an ArbCom ruling). Something you may not be aware of, though, is that ArbCom may make an interim ruling while a case is in progress, in order to remedy an ongoing problem. If you contact one of the clerks, they will be able to provide more definitive guidance on that. I hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Several of the diffs I linked above involve posting or linking to information that the users in question have never disclosed here, particularly this one and this one about David.Kane, and the one about Syrran that Mathsci posted a few years ago. In my own case, I haven’t posted or linked to the information he’s bringing up, but Ferahgo the Assassin and I have linked to our DeviantArt accounts in general, and the information Mathsci has been posting is based on his conclusions from searching through other pages of these accounts (pages which we haven’t linked to) and combining information from multiple pages. Even if you feel like I’m enough of a “borderline case” that it needs to be up to ArbCom to evaluate whether Mathsci violated this policy with regard to me, do you not even feel able to take action about any of the more obvious examples I mentioned involving other users? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything that is posted as evidence in an arbitration proceeding will be looked at by the arbitrators. That is whey they call it Evidence. And no, I'm not going to take action about a diff from 2006. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I indented your comment another notch. I hope you don't mind. Verbal chat 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin abu-oh wait, okay. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I might start the AAS - the Admin Abuse Squadron. We'd go around all day swearing at you smug bastards. _{(do I have to label this a joke? I feel that unfortunately yes I do)}Verbal chat 22:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Baxter Building closed as delete

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baxter_Building

The vote looked tied and a close as no consensus. How would this be taken to deletion review? ----moreno oso (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Step one is for us to discuss on this page whether the closure was in line with deletion policy. If we can't reach agreement, then you should proceed to WP:DRV and follow the instructions there. ETA My position is based essentially on this: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. Those who wanted to keep the article stated as a plain assertion that the subject was notable, but did not demostrate non-trivial coverage by independent sources, which is our test for notability. In other words, those opinions did not refer to policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you and I will arrive at consensus. What's the process? ----moreno oso (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that there was a rough consensus after weighing the arguments against our notability policy. If you cannot agree that there was one, and you feel determined to take this straight to DRV, then please follow the instructions on that page to begin a review. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rough consensus? The most famous building in comic book lore? I will begin reading the instructions. . .----moreno oso (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also review Wikipedia:Notability. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF if you don't think I don't know WP:NBOOKS and Wikipedia:NBOOK#Criteria. 1, 3 and 5 are met. Can I include this conversation too? ----moreno oso (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have assumed throughout and do still assume that you are acting in good faith; indeed, that is why I am providing links to information that you seem to be unaware of. Note that, since the subject of this article is a fictional building, rather than a book, reviewers are unlikely to conclude that WP:NBOOKS should override our general notability guide. As for your question, I agree that it would be appropriate to include a link to this thread in any DRV that you file, since discussion with the deleting admin is a necessary preliminary to filing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it does. The Baxter Building has appeared in all three recent movies, and books. Books is a subcat of this debate. The creators are notable; the series and comic books are notable. While notability is not inherited, this debate should have been closed either as Keep or non-consensus with a recommendation for a Ref improve tag. A good comic book compendium should have refs. In all AGF, are you familar with the Fantastic Four, Marvel Comics, Stan Lee and the Baxter Building? ----moreno oso (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A fictional building is neither a book nor a film, even though it may appear in both. It is, therefore, not appropriate to use WP:NBOOKS or WP:NFILM to judge its notability. My opinion or knowledge of the subject matter is quite irrelevant to the question of notability, which you continue to equate with fame or importance despite what policy says on the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your subject knowledge should be one of the prime considerations. If you don't know the subject, then how can you judge WP:N? ----moreno oso (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

By looking at what other people have written about it. Obviously. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you used, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, what is the bottom line policy stated and which side made it? I'll give you a hint: it's WP:IAR. See who the editor was that knew there was no consensus and that rough consensus did not apply. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and file a DRV based on IAR if that's your belief. But be prepared to demonstrate objectively that Wikipedia would be improved by this article's inclusion, despite the lack of independent sources giving us anything to say on the subject. If you can't do so, then IAR should not be invoked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I too find this AfD close highly questionable. In particular your assement of the added sources seems unduely harsh. I urge you to reconsider. If you do not, then yes, this will go to deletion review. Artw (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at the sources Artw added prior to the deletion, I find your closure less supportable than I would have imagined. Would you consent to undelete the deleted revisions (effectively making the close a redirect) so non-administrators can weigh in? Alternatively, can you provide some sort of idea what additional source(s) you'd want to see in order to reconsider your close? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, in the past 20 minutes or so, I've been able to come up with three more:

  • Fictional location is represented at an Orlando amusement park.
  • [www.skyride.com/doc/high/walking.pdf Included among fictional locations depicted in a for-profit “virtual tour” enterprise], skyride.com
  • See page 78-81 (76-79 by page numbers) for an independent (TSR was a licensee from Marvel, though) RPG description.

  The reason those weren't initially included was because the sentiment and sourcing was such that it didn't seem like adding more info would be necessary to "prove" what the other !voters had been saying all along: that it was a notable fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If this were an AfD discussion, and I was asked to comment on those sources, I'd say that the first two were utterly trivial mentions and the third is a primary source (via licensing). But the AfD discussion closed. Those who wanted to keep the article said the subject was notable, but didn't actually demonstrate notability - in fact many of them seemed to confuse notability with "fame" or "importance". In contrast, those who wanted to delete the article seemed very clear that their problem was the lack of multiple independent sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject, which is our basic test for notability, which is our essential inclusion criterion, which is what I based my closure upon, in keeping with our deletion policy.

The sort of source I would like to see is something genuinely independent writing about the building - talking about its history, its architecture, its appeal, its effect on fans, anything about the subject itself - rather than listing it, mentioning it in passing, or saying who went there and what happened there. In the absence of that sort of information, we cannot write an encyclopaedic article about the building. The best we can do is List of mentions of The Baxter Building in popular media. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're asserting a licensed derivative work in another medium as a primary source with respect to the source material (the comic book) and not just the work's own genre (superhero role-playing game)?

I take it you have no objection to me userifying the article and improving it? I'll probably do so later today. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If TSR gets a license from Marvel to write an RPG, their material is no more independent than the movie produced under license by Fox, or the video game produced under license by Probe. As for userfying the article to improve it add references, of course I have no problem with that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that view of "independence" reflects community consensus? I'm of the opinion that it does not. At any rate, User:Jclemens/Baxter Building has been substantially improved, remedying your objections in the close. Do you object to it being replaced in mainspace? Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the article. I'll take a look at it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

After a brief reading, I really wish that there were more sources like this. I would guess that you could probably get away with restoring the article, by which I mean that I wouldn't personally consider it be an obvious WP:CSD#G4 candidate. One problem that stood out with the current version is that I think the sentence The Baxter Building was the first superhero lair to be well known to the general public needs to be clarified. Does this mean that previously all superhero lairs' locations were a secret from the in universe public, or that the Baxter Building is the earliest example of a superhero lair gaining widespread recognition from the real world public? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. I will clarify that statement and see if I can add a bit more support for that, too. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed the snowstorm, I see. Thanks for the heads-up anyway. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, and SPAM

What's wrong with the link? It's been there for a year, why is it now all of the sudden spam? Please explain how this wikipedia stuff works, it's a valid link to that topic. Please reply. Should it be it's own topic with a related link to Jump the Shark? Here's a link to the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_the_shark --Kb3777 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the link: It is a self-proclaimed successor to Jump The Shark, but apparently no independent source thinks that fact is worth writing about. As the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says, all content should be verifiable. And if you can't prove that this site really is a successor, then why mention it in a Wikipedia article? One result of providing external links is to get free publicity and to drive visitors to a website. The website in question features ads and presumably whoever runs it wants as many visitors as possible. Because so many people try to use Wikipedia as a source of free advertising, we have an anti-spam project Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to address this problem.
• It's been there for a year. So has a lot of vandalism, probably, in articles that don't often get looked at. That doesn't change what it is, or whether it should be here.
• How this wikipedia stuff works: Wikipedia:external links sets out a good deal of information about when external links are and are not appropriate. If we can't agree on whether this is an appropriate link, then the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution guidelines may be able to offer some advice about how best to answer the question of whether it should be included.
  Hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed please remove all references to bonethefish and block the URL. Thanks. I thought it was a useful inclusion as an external link as it does have some of the old jumptheshark content and is relevant to that topic, but I guess I'm not well versed on what's appropriate as an external link. I figured if thousands of people who read the jump the shark article over the past year thought it was okay by consensus it made sense. I stand corrected. --Kb3777 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI notification

Just a note about you telling user:Yopie of a pending ANI thread, however he was notified previously, and he deleted the notification in this edit [17]. Hobartimus (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well. Thanks for the info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles MOS entry

Hi, I have put forward a proposal that might address the concerns you expressed at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Manual of Style. Many thanks, --RA (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User name

Hi, this is a friendly notice that you have been listed as having a user name violation per WP:CORPNAME, at [18].--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And removed, since that is not the correct forum to raise that concern. TNXMan 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have listed at the proper place now i believe. [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps_comb (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the heads-up. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know that I truly have no hard feelings toward you. As you seem pretty level headed and neutral. I just thought we all needed to follow the wiki-law to the letter. Be well.--Duchamps_comb MFA 02:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I really appreciate it. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin incident board reply

I've replied to your comment on WP:ANI. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to inform me here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wyvern - back to his old ways right after the block

See [20]. Doing this right after a block is not good. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, not quite a SPA now, he's widened his interest, see this diff [21]l, changing Stormfront's description as a white nationalist website to describe it as a 'white rights advocacy' site and deleting other bits he didn't like. Nice. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's almost blockworthy in itself, but my personal feeling is to just leave a warning for now. At least there's a chance that they will read and learn about our policies. As for the content issue, I'll drop a line to the other editors and make sure they haven't been driven away. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am quite concerned that he will drive other editors away with his "my way or the highway" attitude. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Could either of you stop by the article and lend a hand? Wyvren is making edits all over the place, and I'm at my wit's end as to what to do. His last edit added a reference to an NYTimes article, but the ref doesn't support the text. And this is the third time he's tried to find a reference. I could always post on ANI again if you think it's necessary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, s/he just made this edit just undid all sorts of text, but was marked as minor and with an edit summary that doesn't match. I'm not going to violate 3RR here, but this is getting ridiculous.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just opened another thread at ANI about this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is just a coincidence that last week this Ebay user began selling the exact crest badge Wyvren started adding into the article last week [22]. "master_baphomet" is the Stormfront username of Steven L. Akins.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin 2over0 has blocked Wyvren a second time. Hopefully the message gets across this time. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:David K Brown and MuseumPlanet links

Some low level editors have accused me of spaming because I posted links to narrated slide tours on MuseumPlanet.com. One accused me of being the owner of the that site becasue we have the same name. Not true Not true. I thought adding these slide tours would enhance wikipedia because of he pictures and often extensive editorial. Where did I go wrong. Some of the editors frankly remind me of angry school crossing guards. David K Brown David K Brown (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David K Brown (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll find threads concerning this editor's probable-COI spam-linking here, here, here, here and here. Beyond My Ken (college sophomore, junior high school teacher, arrogant school crossing guard and low-level editor, per DKB) (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In the course of these various conversations, four editors (myself included) have told David K Brown that he should stop posting the links. Along the way he's been pointed to WP:COI, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:NPA. He has indeed stopped, but he's continued to kvetch about it, and shows no particular willingness to understand the policies that have been explained to him. Personally, I have great difficulty believing that "David Brown" creates the MeseumPlanet website and then "David K Brown" (a "travel writer") posts multiple links to the site on Wikipedia is just a coincidence, but others may disagree. In any event, whether he has a COI or not, he's spamming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

m.i.a.

Hi there! I've had a go at revamping the M.I.A. article with several new sections. Still in the process. Please give your opinion on the M.I.A. article under "Politics" section regarding User:Exander's insistence on it being kept. He's perfectly content with the new sections, but wants it all repeated in a section with the title "politics" and I don't understand why. Thank You.Lifebonzza (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Again?

I've been approached offline about the possibility of running for adminship again. You were one of the opposers last time. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not sure how I'd vote. I'm certainly less inclined to think you're not ready than last time. However, I suspect you'll run into substantial opposition again. ANI is inherently high drama and almost any contribution there can entail future RfA opposes, it seems, even though I think your recent contributions have been far better than your older ones, which I may or may not have characterised as being of a "court jester" nature at your last RfA. Memory fails me; apologies. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

hi!

hi. seen me? click my userlink.Dannymilliren--Dannymilliren (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

N.B.: I apologize if you have received any duplicate e-mail messages pursuant to this notification; this may have been due to technical difficulties on the Toolserver. Thanks, — madman 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)