User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 11

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

Hello, Seraphimblade. I have a question, why exactly did you find it necessary to delete the "Area 11 (Band)" page? The reasons I saw seemed somewhat invalid to me, because if I recall the page said that it failed to explain their importance. You do realize that at one point the article said that they were one of the first gaijin rock bands? And even helped found the genre? I'm not chastising you, or calling you an idiot, I'm just saying, the page was very interesting, and I personally feel that the public has a right to see it.

The Signpost: 25 June 2012[edit]

Clarification request[edit]

I filed a clarification request about the topic ban, however, according to Ed Johnston I should start by asking a clarification from you. So could you please clarify what exactly am I allowed or not allowed to do? --Sander Säde 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Weather" example at WP:TBAN gives a pretty good idea of what a topic ban's scope and prohibitions are. Generally speaking, you may not edit any article or part of an article related to Eastern Europe, broadly construed. The "broadly construed" means that if reasonable people could disagree about whether or not something is related to the topic, it is considered to be related. You also may not discuss the topic on any other page on Wikipedia, except that the ban does not prohibit appealing or requesting clarification on the ban itself (as you're doing here).
I'll give you some examples below of what the topic ban would prohibit. Please note that it's not, and could never be, an exhaustive list, but I hope it helps to clarify scope. You would be disallowed from editing:
  • The article Eastern Europe.
  • Articles on any geographic location or entity (country, city, town, etc.), which is located within Eastern Europe.
  • Any portion of the article on Europe or any other article that deals with Eastern Europe, though you could edit unrelated parts of such articles.
  • Articles on Eastern European political figures or notable persons there.
  • Articles on Eastern European sports teams, organizations, businesses, etc.
As far as discussion, you may not:
  • Participate in discussion on the talk page of any article you'd be prohibited from editing.
  • Participate in noticeboard discussions involving Eastern Europe articles or Eastern Europe in general, except that if you are mentioned explicitly in such a thread regarding behavioral issues and could face a possible sanction because of it, you may tell your side of the story/defend yourself.
  • Maintain on-wiki userspace lists of things you'd like to see done with Eastern Europe articles. If you already have such a list, you may keep it, but may not modify/update it.
  • Suggest or request that other editors make edits to a prohibited article on your behalf.
  • Help with maintenance of Eastern Europe related projects or tasks.
The exception is reversion of obvious vandalism. "Obvious" means that no reasonable person could possibly conclude that the edit was an attempt at a constructive contribution. Replacing the content of an article with "LAWL I HAXXOR U WIKI PAGE!!!!" is an example of such blatant and obvious vandalism, and you could revert that. Poor quality, unreferenced, or highly POV edits are not vandalism.
All that being said, the best thing to do with a topic ban is to stay well away from any questionable areas. If you have to think about it, it's probably closer to the line than you want to get, if not over it. In my experience, dancing very close to the line almost inevitably results in stepping over it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, I didn't get to reply directly to your response to my query. I want to thank you for taking the time to prove a detailed answer which is appreciated. However there is one issue that you did not address, and that is whether AE enforcement sanctions are intended to be preventative or punitive. While it is clear that the sanction against Igny was intended to prevent behaviour proven to be chronic and unmitigated, and UUNC's sanction was to prevent ongoing meatpuppetry (and possibly socking), precisely what is Sander's 3 month topic ban intended to prevent, given that he has already apologised both on an editor's and WP:AE page? In is not like he has some kind of ongoing problem with civility, checking his block log[1] the last sanction received was five years ago back in 2007, so there is no chronic issue here with regard to Sander, nor do I understand why AGK would imply AGF has been exhausted in Sander's case. Particularly when in previous cases AGF was made and uncivil editors who strenuously deny any wrong doing then only offer an apology after sanctions are threatened are let off, while Sander who realised his mistake almost immediately and offers an apology voluntarily is sanctioned. How is that fair and what kind of message does that send? That arguing at length that one committed no wrong doing will get you off while realising your mistake and apologising will get you sanctioned. Is that a good outcome? Sander's behaviour has been problem free for the last five years, there is no reason for you to doubt it will continue to be problem free for the next five years. So I ask that you show some discretion here and reduce Sander's sanction to time served. --Nug (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my previous reply to you addressed that request, and I don't really have anything else to add to it, nor has my thinking on it changed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really address the preventative vs punitive issue or why some people should benefit from AGF and others not, but that's your choice. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for weighing in on that. I thought I had a wonderfully persuasive argument. If Sarek doesn't address this in a productive way, and I am hoping he actually just reverts himself, I think it might be appropriate to simply request that he step down as an admin. This situation was done hastily and without taking into account that the editor didn't realize how the ban was supposed to work. In my book, bullies shouldn't have the ball. If you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it. -- Avanu (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you had the most persuasive argument in the world, admins are forbidden to unilaterally overturn blocks placed under arbitration enforcement provisions. If consensus at AN/I is that the block was wrong, it'll ultimately be lifted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. With that in mind, do you care if I remove the unblock request I added? I don't mind leaving it, I just don't like clutter. -- Avanu (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, declined unblock requests should stay until the block is expired or lifted. After that they can be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?[edit]

Block reviews can be requested by any user, not just the one who was blocked. Arcandam (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they can. But for me personally, except in extreme circumstances, I'll only consider an unblock request that comes from the blocked user, because I want to hear personally from them why they want me to lift their block. I didn't see any such extreme circumstance here, Sceptre seems more than capable of speaking for himself. That being said, even if I were absolutely convinced, I can't unilaterally lift the block, because it's under AE sanctions. Consensus at one of the admins' noticeboards, or permission of ArbCom, is required to reverse such a block. So the point is rather moot. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gazifikator[edit]

Hi. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator. Gazifikator evaded his ban again, and even created an article which he nominated for GA. Thanks. Grandmaster 11:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been dealt with. Sorry for disturbing. Grandmaster 12:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA[edit]

I noticed you did nothing to the links that dont work and have NO RELEVANCE TO AVALON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttress (talk • contribs)

Noting that the user is indeffed for spamming, so nothing else to be done here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012[edit]

Help get rid of notices at top of wiki[edit]

Hi @seraphimblade,

Alright so firstly I'm contacting you in regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omer_Rains. His wiki has several notices on it that we're trying to get rid of, or perhaps instead delete the entire page. The notice that the page may have been copied and pasted, while being valid since the wiki contains information from wwww.senorains.com, I think should be able to be taken down since the website wwww.senorains.com contains a GNU Free Documentation License, which I believe makes the content eligible for Wikipedia.

Also, the notice about not being written from a neutral view point is true, I am Mr. Rains' personal assistant and he requested that I submit this article. Is there any way to submit it for third party review/edit?

I've also been looking at various other government officials Wikipedias--to see if they have come under the same scrutiny as our article has, and they have not, some of them even simply cited "Government Records" as a source which is very broad. All of the information contained within Omer Rains' wikipedia is factual and can be found within the UC Santa Barbara library (http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf496nb36j/). Unfortunately, he was a Senator in the 70's, so there is very limited information available about him online. We are in the process of contacting the Ventura County Free Press (his district newspaper) since they ran many stories about him while he was Senator--but this takes time.

Basically, I don't know what to do about this wiki and its various problems, I'm wondering whether it should perhaps be deleted until better sources, and a third party editor, become available.

Thanks so much for your time and help, Katie--AmatoKE (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 mid-drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 25 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!

Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—May, June, and July 2011—by about 40%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 264 articles so far, to around 2500 articles.

Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, your best copy-editing work of the month will be eligible for fabulous prizes! See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012[edit]

recent AE[edit]

I also think that TC should not have handled JJG's AE. The strong reaction to JJG as opposed to the measly hand-slap at most on DC (a veteran I-P battleground editor) shows clearly how lopsided and disproportional that judgement was. And if JJG did in fact file an oversight about TC as he claims, then TC should have refrained from even testing any conflict of interest. --Shuki (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the terms of Shuki's current ban mean that he or she shouldn't be commenting on an ARBPIA AE case.     ←   ZScarpia   00:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki, I have to agree with ZScarpia, and as such have filed an arbitration enforcement request as detailed on your talk page. Unless AE finds that your topic ban does not prohibit discussion of this matter, I will not discuss it with you further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012[edit]

GOCE July drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Out of 45 people who signed up this drive, 31 have copy-edited at least one article. Lfstevens continues to carry most of the weight, having edited 360 articles and over a quarter of a million words already. Thanks to all who have participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, will be available early in August here.

Progress report: We are once again very close to achieving in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog. Only 35 such articles remain at press time. The total backlog currently sits at under 2400 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We are just two articles away from completing all requests made before July 2012 (both are in progress).

Copy Edit of the Month: Starting in August, you'll be able to submit your best copy-editing work for palaver, praise, and prizes. See here for details. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.[edit]

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectBlue[edit]

I think we have to assume good faith, although it seems to have taken the user some time to take on board what is required. If he/she can't keep away from COI edits, the block can always be restored. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012[edit]

Dragon Keepers AfD[edit]

Hi Seraphimblade

Since fantasy is one of my interests, you can park a copy of the article as a sub-page to my user page. Tag it as a user draft; I'll keep an eye on sources and if it does become notable within the next 6 to 12 months I'll submit it again. Thanks! David_FLXD (Talk) 17:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you can find it at User:David FLXD/Dragon Keepers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! David_FLXD (Talk) 07:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the warn[edit]

Sorry about the warning... Playing Whack-a-mole with this guy and hit warn after your revert. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No troubles at all, I've been known to hit a wrong button or two myself. :) Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA Page Dispute[edit]

The page has been locked with my edit in place. I believe the community would only benefit from you and others being more educated on the topic and PIPA before making edits on SOPA's page that asserts distorted opinion from one person as fact.

71.10.60.130 (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. You'll need to provide reliable sources that back your assertions, but if you have such, it would certainly be beneficial to review them. I've already started a thread on the talk page, please feel free to join in! Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I need to provide reliable sources saying that something is _not_ so? It is your job to prove your point, my argument is that your 'reliable source' that apparently justifies calling SOPA PIPA is just a statement of opinion rather than fact. Perhaps you should reassess who the burden of proof rests on now. VIIMach (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please hold the discussion on the article talk page, not here, so that other editors can weigh in as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

Thanks for posting on Jimbo Wales page. Wuld you clarify something for me? I was planning to start a new user name. I have no doubt that I will edit well because I didi so before. After a few weeks, I am willing to clear up the ban. To do so now is a whole lot of red tape. Are you ok with this plan? I am also willing to check in with you occasionally. With your guidance now, I pledge not to do anything to cause you embarrassment. 8.18.145.160 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not listening. I need to know who you edited as before I can make any type of informed comment. If you won't tell me that, I don't have the information necessary to answer your query, and still decline to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute regarding Renault Espace article[edit]

For several days now I am engaged in a "discussion" or so with ‎Special:Contributions/212.64.167.232, concerning the production of the Renault Espace. He claims that it went out of production, but all sources I've found do not say anything about that. I left messages asking to know where he obtained information in his talk page, and opened a discussion in the article talk page. He continues to ignore me. I requested a third party opinion to avoid WP:EW , but seems unlikely it have much effect. He also tries to make the same change in the Template:Renault, but does not give its sources either. I do not know if he's right or not, but again, I wonder myself where he get his version.

In short, what are the steps I should take to address this problem if I get no response from him? Thanks.Urbanoc (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to cite sources that demonstrate you are correct, and of course be willing to review any sources the opposing editor provides if they state otherwise. If the third opinion does not solve the issue, and you and the other editor cannot come to agreement, post at the dispute resolution noticeboard or file a request for comment. If the other editor disputes the reliability of the source, the reliable sources noticeboard may also be helpful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I will put more sources proving my point and I hope he will present his own instead of just deleting my edits. Urbanoc (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles AE[edit]

Hi there. I was impressed (from my position as March the guilty bastard in, Sergeant-Major defendant) with your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012[edit]

Misplaced comment[edit]

Sorry about the unprofessional edits I made in May. comment added by Iamananonymousindividual123 (talk

We all made some mistakes upon first starting out. The last edit I saw you do was a good one, so if you'd like to do more like that, please do! Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE appeal[edit]

I have left a response, would you mind commenting?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, those who participate at AE watchlist there. If I have anything to add, I will do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012[edit]

FergusM1970 AE decision[edit]

Hi Seraphimblade, I'm contacting yourself, Slp1 and T.Canens as you've commented on the decision at AE on the FergusM1970 case. I got a msg[2] from User:One Night In Hackney (an editor named as a party in the original claims he has not recieved appropriate warning & therefore cannot be sanctioned under WP:TROUBLES. The decision could do with another look anyway--Cailil talk 11:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion: iMDsoft article[edit]

Hi Seraphimblade I did read your G11 section and the G11 policy of Wikipedia, but am still confused as the article was really not promotional imo ! I would love to hear from you what should be done differenlty to avoid deletion in terms of writing. And please dont tell me the article should be neutral, as the article was neutral ;) oh and last but not least why couldnt the deletion be discussed befor going to action? so many question, really sorry, just want to learn to do things right and avoid deleted work ! Best Alinette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinette (talk • contribs) 08:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "leading provider", "flagship family of solutions" (or the godawful "solutions" term in general for that matter), "strong international presence", and many other marketese terms, use of trademark symbols (we don't use those), the "journals" section that essentially was an endorsement list, and so on, made the article read like a glossy marketing brochure. The whole thing read in a very boosterish/advertising tone. Its tone was not anywhere near neutral for the above reason. Sorry if you didn't want to hear that, it's the case anyway. I see the same type of issues at Keter Plastic, which you wrote, as well. Please carefully review our conflict of interest guidelines, as it distinctly looks like you're being paid to write these. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Seraphimblade Thanks for your detailed reply, so i guess its not the content itself but how the content was presented which is an issue (pls correct me if im wrong!). trying to learn and understand. and nope, i wish i got paid for that lol! best alinette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinette (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade I have worked on the iMDsoft article according your tips, and would like to check if its ok before uploading it - should i use the talk page?! are you willing to check it ;) oh and im also trying to adjust the keter article... lets make stuff correct !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinette (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to do it would be to place it on a userspace subpage, such as User:Alinette/IMDSoft. Make sure not to include any nonfree images (such as a nonfree logo) in your userspace draft, since those are only allowed in mainspace after the article is moved there. If you like, you can use something like File:Example.jpg to indicate where the logo (or any other image) would go and how it would be sized, if you'd like to preserve formatting that way. And yes, I'd be happy to give you feedback on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Seraphimblade Ok here we go: User:Alinette/iMDsoft Now about the journal section which was so problematic: i did change the whole context and didnt refer it at all to the company or their products but more to PDMS which is a general system + added external recource links... still problematic? anyway let me know what you think. Regarding pictures, ufff thats an other chapter i havent looked into it yet ;) step by step! THX — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinette (talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you a bit of a start on it, with the lead and initial section. You can take a look at the edit summaries I left for some suggestions/explanations, but let me know if they're unclear. For the journal entries, what I would do is work them into prose paragraphs, using the journals as your references, rather than a bulleted list of studies. Also, remember to wikilink to other articles. Not every word with an article should be wikilinked, but if it seems like something a reader of that article might be reasonably interested in knowing more about (like "electronic health record" in that article), wikilink it to the appropriate article. Finally, you might see in various "insider" material the use of terms like this: "Electronic Health Record (EHR)." We generally prefer to use such as a common noun: "electronic health record". Also, you don't generally want to extend abbreviations between various article sections, since it's entirely possible that a reader could skip sections, or that a previous section could change. As a general rule, if you have to explain what an acronym is, it might be better to use synonyms or spell it out, since your explanation of the acronym could eventually be edited away. Hope that helps, and please feel free to ping me if you need any more help with it! Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade, WOW - Thanks for all you comments and help!!!! I will try make final chanegs according to your suggestions. What would be the next step, creating a page?! Best Alinette

Hi Seraphimblade, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinette (talk • contribs) 07:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once it's fixed up, it'd be ready to move over to mainspace. If you'd like, let me know when you're done editing the other sections, and I'll take a look at it before you do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade took me some time but i finally did the changes - the only think im concerened/not sure about is the use of the word "positiv"... have a look and let me know. best alinette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinette (talk • contribs) 09:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade You never got back to me :( and now worse i send the article again and got declined by an other editor :( buhu comeone - can you please check and let me know - very frustrating!!!! Alinette :_(

JSPWiki Deletion[edit]

Hi! I added few days ago few explanations about why the JSPWiki community would had liked some tolerance and support before being deleted from Wikipedia. The problem with deletion is that everything disappear, discussion included! I will not repeat here the arguments but please understand that if you work hard keeping Wikipedia coherent, there is also people working hard to make a nice open-source software, people who may not be proficient at documenting in Wikipedia. We are in the midst of Apache graduation and this is in a way too much to handle: please understand and put things in a way we can progress and not stumble. If you have precise requests, please do not hesitate to ask, we will make our best. User:Christophe Dupriez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Dupriez (talk • contribs) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Christophe, and welcome to Wikipedia, though I'm sorry it's under somewhat unfortunate circumstances. I know it can be somewhat disheartening to have an article you contributed to deleted; please do know it's an experience many of us have had, myself included. I'd like to explain a little why that happened.
First, please accept my assurance that we do not delete articles due to poor quality of the article, or because we do not believe their editors were working hard enough, and that is certainly not the case here either. It is absolutely nothing against you or any other editor of the article, nor saying you did poor quality work. Nor does it reflect any judgment of the software itself—indeed, if you are undergoing Apache graduation, that certainly indicates a significant level of dedication to writing that software, and the developers and community involved are commended for that. As you might imagine by the fact I've edited here for almost seven years now, I'm certainly a strong proponent of wiki software, and I think a robust ecosystem for it benefits everyone, especially when the software is open source and developers on both sides may freely borrow the best ideas from one another.
The reason the article was deleted is for one reason alone—it does not yet have the required level of coverage in sources independent of it. Unfortunately, no matter how good an article, nor how good its subject, we cannot accept articles that do not meet those requirements. Since the JSPWiki project sounds like it's taking off, I suspect that may change at some point in the future, and JSPWiki might be covered in reasonable depth by multiple reliable sources not affiliated with it, such as reliable tech publications. If that does happen, and I hope it does, we will absolutely have an article on it at that time, but that requirement is critical to us maintaining core principles like neutrality and using published and verifiable material, and ensuring that unverifiable personal knowledge does not become part of the article. In JSPWiki's case, I hold out pretty good hope that in this case, deletion is a "not yet" rather than a "never".
If you would like the text of the deleted article and its talk page, and the history of contributions to the article to satisfy the attribution requirement of the Creative Commons license, please let me know. I would be happy to provide you with them so that the work is not lost to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I have mixed feelings about the deletion of the JSPWiki page itself, I am fairly certain that the deletion of the Talk page for it was a mistake. You cited G8 for this, but G8 says, "This excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere". Morfusmax (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice to delete the talk page of a deleted article, and if I hadn't done it, someone else would've. If you would like a record of the discussion, I'll be happy to place a copy in your userspace, just let me know where you'd like it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to receive somehow a copy of what was there before deletion. What will happen to pages in other languages? What bewilders me: if a term has a general meaning and if a community choose Wikipedia as a place to coin terms and document their meanings, as a place terms definition could be (contradictorily) discussed/edited : the terms themselves have to remain accessible. Here we are loosing even what JSPWiki is and we loose the platform to share and improve. You can certainly put yourself behind rules that newcomers understand or not (they have to fight the same way you climbed in the meritocracy: I am unsure that this is a social progress) but this brings me doubts that Wikipedia is the best public place to document/discuss/settle the meaning of terms (something I am(was?) believing very strongly: [3]).
There is today major questions about WikiMarkup and WYSIWYG editing. JspWiki is at the same turning point than WikiMedia (one has to look at the clash that Confluence experienced with WYSIWYG). We should work together to solve this kind of issues instead of negating the existence of the other! Christophe Dupriez (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You can find the article text at User:Christophe Dupriez/JSPWiki, and the author attribution list to satisfy the CC-BY license on the associated talk page. As to what happens at other language Wikipedias, they all have their internal policies, and we have no control over them. Some of those have looser article inclusion requirements than we do, so an article there may satisfy their requirement and be kept. You are right, though—Wikipedia is not the place to decide what a new term means. We rely solely on what reliable third parties have published about that, and if they disagree, we summarize the debate without taking a side. If JSPWiki gets more sourcing written about it, it's quite possible in the future that an article on it will come back to stay at some point. I hope that happens, but we just don't have enough sourcing to write that article at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will keep it up to the point we can coordinate a "comeback" for JspWiki. Supporting WikiPedia from outside (you can see a Wikipedia Donate link on all the ASKOSI.org wiki pages (published using JSPWiki) and I make my yearly duty for Wikipedia), knowing difficulties exist for attracting new valid contributors and to make evolve the platform, I learned a lot from this very small experience about the limits of the Wiki and the underlying socio-technical network. I have to investigate in the coming months the right place to enter in the debate: what a public encyclopedia should be? I do continue to think that erasing a term for something which exists (as documented by a long lived community in its (Jsp)Wiki and as recognized by Apache) is simply bad. But I will debate about this in the right place and accept the democratic (and not pure meritocratic) rules. We need different level of encyclopedia with documented / transparent / (one level of appeal) processes to go from one level to the next. JSPWiki certainly deserves a record about what its community (and others: contradiction possible) can tell about its aims, history and future. Christophe Dupriez (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brain food just received from WikiResearch: | Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes / Jody Schneider et al. from DERI Christophe Dupriez (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this has been covered pretty extensively by reliable sources, and as a consequence we do have a full article on it: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. You might find it interesting, the paper you cited is as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

I think I already thanked you, but I just wanted to make sure.

Ahem...

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Although you abstained, I appreciate your sentiments and I hope I'll continue to see your name pop up around Wikipedia.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I continue to see yours pop up as well (even if you momentarily confused me by changing it!). And I hope to see your name at RfA again in the future too, if you're still willing to serve in that capacity. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually I would like to become an administrator, but for the time being I'm fine with being a regular editor. I think I'm going to reapply in early 2013 or so. Kurtis (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My appeal[edit]

Thanks to you and the other admins for granting my appeal. I won't abuse it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hi Seraphimblade - your input here would be helpful to the Arbs in this appeal--Cailil talk 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll post some additional detail there once I have time to compile together what I was looking at during the AE discussion. Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012[edit]

GOCE news and September drive invitation[edit]

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:

  • The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best August copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
  • September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit the articles tagged longest ago and to complete all requests placed before the end of August. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top six in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". This drive features a much easier signup process. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor Method Delete[edit]

Hello Seraphimblade, I am trying to repost the O'Connor Method wikipedia page and think I know where I got it wrong. I found articles on making it notable, or reason to post, with articles and news CNN, STRINGS Magazine, another STRINGS Magazine, NYC-Arts, New Yorker Video, New Yorker article. I also understand that listings song listings and content makes it advertising. I will just include quotes, basic description and criticism in the news that I can find. Can I go ahead and try to post again? Thank you. (Fionakz (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012[edit]

WP:AE#Request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

Hi,

I understand that the Troubles-AEs and the related clarifications and amendments prevented you to assess this AE, as you had announced on 11 August [4]. The thread had meanwhile been archived and unarchived at least 4 times. I am a little disappointed that it is possible to get away with sending me a "shithead"-wikimail and such and stalling the resulting AE with a huge wall of text raising outing claims etc.

I have limited time atm and most probably won't be online at all for the next days, and if you go over the report during that time I feel uncomfortable because I don't know how much of the allegations you take serious. I have not responded to all of them because I did not want to make it even more tl;dr, and have basically only responded to the outing and misrepresentation stuff. If you however have further questions, I won't be able to defend myself. How do we proceed now? Skäpperöd (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, any chance you can look at this AE complaint in the next 24 hours or so? There does not seem to be much enthusiasm for investigating it. I threw in one idea and got some responses, hoping for a voluntary agreement. At present only one of the three editors who would have to agree is active. Unless you believe there is enough data to take some action, I am inclined to close this with a 'placeholder' status. Meaning that we take note of the complaint and the various opinions, but we don't issue any sanctions at present. I would give the parties some advice as to how to proceed next. One arbitrator (AGK) commented in the Result section, which suggests to me a possible interest by Arbcom in us doing a substantive evaluation of the complaint. (Conceivably they could have received some email). Hoping you can give some feedback on my idea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I think your suggestion is a good one, since both of the editors are inactive. Maybe we can just suggest that once the editors return, we can take the case back up should either of them request it. If they're not editing, I honestly don't see the point in wading through that mess. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE September activities[edit]

Reminders from the Guild of Copy Editors

A quick reminder of our current events:

  • The August 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight September 14 (UTC).
  • The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight September 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin.
  • The September 2012 Backlog elimination drive is now underway! The event runs until midnight September 30 (UTC). The goal is to copy edit articles with the oldest tags and complete all requests placed before September. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who participates, with special awards given to the top five in the following categories: "Total articles", "Total words", "Total articles over 5,000 words", "Total articles tagged longest ago", and "Longest article". – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

still got a no go :([edit]

Hi Seraphimblade You never got back to me concernign the iMDsoft article :( So after all changes i did suggest the article but got again declined by an other editor - article was declined cause of recources?!  :( buhu comeone - can you please check and let me know - very frustrating!!!! Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/iMDsoft thx in advance Alinette :_( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinette (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alinette, I see your previous message. I've been in the process of moving and also had a great deal going on at my job, so I haven't really been editing here much the past couple of weeks. I should be able to take a look in the next few days, or you could ask someone at editor assistance to give you some feedback if you'd like as well. Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

GOCE mid-drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
  • Participation: Out of 37 people signed up for this drive so far, 19 have copy-edited at least one article, about the same as the last drive. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
  • Progress report: We're almost on track to meet our targets for the drive. Great work, guys. We have reduced our target group of articles—August, September, and October 2011—by about 44%, and the overall backlog has been reduced by 58 articles so far, to around 2600 articles. The biggest difference between this drive and the previous one is a stronger focus on large articles, so total word counts are still comparable.
  • Don't forget about the Copy Edit of the Month contests! Voting for the August contest has been extended through the end of the month. You don't have to make a submission to vote!
>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012[edit]

Allahabad[edit]

Hi,I'm aiming this page for GA.Almost everything is done,but there must be something i'm missing out.Do you mind giving your important suggestion here! Please leave your suggestion here Thank You and kind regards --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 14:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012[edit]


Daniyal Mueenuddin aticle help[edit]

Dear editor/user User:Seraphimblade Hello, I am writing from Pakistan and whilst not a regular editor yet (am considering if i should sign up) I am a retired person and check this fine site regularly and sometimes make checks and constrictive editorial amendments etc. Im sorry to bother you but Im not familiar with processes but I had a bit of a problem with an article on a Pakistani writer Daniyal Mueenuddin, and I have left various notes as to this on the article Talk Page and also notified the original writer/author User:Green Cardamom; however, I am not still satisfied and convinced in my doubts/issues with this article and have requested a peer review but at the same time, someone seems to keep removing my templates on the article? What is proper please? Kindly guide/help thanks 39.54.119.43 (talk)Col Mumtaz Khan —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012[edit]

GOCE September 2012 drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September.

Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote.

– Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

GOCE fall newsletter[edit]

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:

  • The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
  • Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not.
  • NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded.
  • November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.
>>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Just thought I would let you know I linked to your talk page as an example. - jc37 04:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No troubles, but thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012[edit]

Carlang block[edit]

Hello Seraphimblade. I think you may want to read the rest of the section at User talk:Carlang#Blocked. Carlang, did in fact say that he was being paid to edit certain articles (I don't remember which ones he mentioned), so your statement that he has "skirted" the issue isn't completely true. Myself and the blocking admin have been working to reach a probationary agreement with him, so I think it's slightly disruptive to have the unblock request closed during the midst of the discussion. Would you be willing to reconsider your decision? You're welcome to join the discussion and make sure that any concerns you have are well addressed. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari, I don't see anywhere in the unblock request, which is the primary consideration when considering an unblock, where those questions are answered. Actually, I don't see the answer anywhere on the editor's talk page (especially the "by whom" and "for which", which would be the critical piece). Could you please specify where you've seen that answered unambiguously? It's possible I'm missing something. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"For the record I was paid for both the UAssist.Me and EmbroidMe projects." (not in the unblock request, though.) I'll see if I can get him to provide some more comprehensive answers about his paid editing activities. FWIW, he seems relatively harmless compared to most of the PR prostitutes on Wikipedia. I think he can be turned from the dark side with a bit of mentoring. Let me know what you think. Kaldari (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly always hope that's true of anyone, so if you think it's possible I'll defer to your judgment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to take a look at Carlang's latest post at User talk:Carlang#Blocked. He has attempted to give more thorough answers to your questions. Kaldari (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012[edit]

GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
  • Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
  • Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us!
  • The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest was won by Baffle gab1978 for his copy edit of Expulsion of the Acadians. Runner up was Gareth Griffith-Jones for his edit of I Could Fall in Love. Congratulations to both.
  • The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight November 30 (UTC). You don't have to make a submission to vote!
  • November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight November 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin.
  • Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral.
>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012[edit]

Article Deletion[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering why the article 'Craftsuprint' has been deleted? I have read through your page and it says that a reason would be given on the deletion log page, but there isn't one, it just says deleted. I had a lot of input from other users on the talk page and I implemented the advice they gave me and totally changed the whole article. I am unsure why it has been disallowed when this page is deemed ok - Hobbycraft. I am comparing it as it is similar in that it was the first store of its kind as Craftsuprint is, only Craftsuprint is web based rather than a physical store. I would appreciate your thoughts. Lisabagz (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craftsuprint, which is also noted in the deletion log. Please view that discussion for more details on why those arguing for deletion did so. Also please note that other articles existing is never a valid keep reason. In some cases, one subject may have sufficient coverage in independent and reliable sources to remain, and another does not. In other cases, both articles may be unacceptable, but one got noticed and one did not. There was also a concern of ad tone, which was true (flogging the "first of its kind", the logo being noted as a "registered trademark", etc.). Regardless of how awesome it might be, if sources have not covered it extensively, it's an inappropriate subject for an article. Hobbycraft looks to have been reasonably well-covered during an acquisition, but I just can't find much if anything in terms of coverage for Craftsuprint. If that changes in the future, we'll write the article at that time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE November drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed.

Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November.

Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote.

Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

If you had a few minutes[edit]

Hi Seraphimblade, if you had a few minutes could you look at this. I'm not necessarily asking you weigh-in here but I'm just a tad concerned with the way User:JasonMacker is acting. Of course I might be wrong and if so feel free to hit me with the nearest wp:trout--Cailil talk 20:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about trouts, but it looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill content dispute to me, that's getting resolved through an RfC. I didn't see him being particularly abusive or nasty, just advocating his position on the matter. Is there something I missed? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not :) I just felt it was being over-personalized[5] and too legalistic[6]. I'm probably over-reacting. No worries and thanks for the sanity check--Cailil talk 11:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RMCD bot and file move requests[edit]

Just FYI. See [7]. RMCD bot removes colons when it updates the request list. I've notified the botkeeper about the issue, which is not only a problem for non-free images, but also just a bit annoying when navigating the requests. --87.79.111.177 (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully the bot can be adjusted accordingly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

GOCE mid-December newsletter[edit]

End of Year Events from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events:

  • The December 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best December copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC).
  • Voting is in progress for the November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not.
  • From Sunday 16 December to Saturday 22 December, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} from January 2012. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded.
  • January 2013 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2012. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest.

Coodinator election: Nominations are open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January to 30 June 2013. Nominations close on December 15 at 23:59 UTC, after which voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

>>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE case[edit]

Hello talk:Seraphimblade. Please could you take another look at this case with AE [8]. I think two administrators offer curiously draconian treatment of the case. User:Grandmaster who filed the case is characterizing my assessment of his arguments in a discussion as personal attacks. Sprutt (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice[edit]

Mentioned you here NE Ent 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thread on Jimbo's user talk page[edit]

FYI, I contacted the oversight list about the thread - it may be better off oversighted or at least revdel'd per Wikipedia:Child protection ("Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel.") Prioryman (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was about to do that myself, but since you already have I'll avoid flooding them. I would prefer that someone who's officially been given oversight authority make the call on oversight/revdel on a user talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought so too, which is why I kicked it over to them. Prioryman (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, Prioryman is currently subject to an interaction ban with Delicious Carbuncle, currently logged at the editing restrictions page, and this would appear to be a clear-cut violation of that ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipediocracy member, there is an interaction ban, but there was no interaction. I addressed my comments solely to IamMcM and Tarc, without addressing any other individual or responding to anything they had said. Prioryman (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TDA, I don't see Prioryman interacting with DC in this thread, he's interacting with me, which is not prohibited. Also, violations of BLP represent an exemption from interaction bans. I would agree, though, Prioryman, that given the IBAN, it would be preferable if you refrained from commenting in threads started by DC, even if you're not responding directly to him. As for the thread here, that's Prioryman interacting with me to avoid crapflooding the oversight list with duplicate requests, which has not in any way been prohibited. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how trying to sick you on a thread started by DC is not an interaction. He also clearly alluded to DC by saying "these two interventions on Jimbo's user talk page", both references to threads started by DC, and I fail to see how that is not a violation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't "trying to sick (sic) me on a thread started by DC", he contacted me after I had already taken action on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so, to avoid crapflooding the oversight list, as you put it so eloquently. :-) Prioryman (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the thread on Jimbo's page, Prioryman is clearly suggesting that DC should be blocked. That's an interaction ban violation.VolunteerMarek 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I quoted the policy to highlight the fact that this is not something editors should be discussing in project space - as I said in the thread, "This is very thin ice." It was not directed at any individual but was a general warning to all contributors that the discussion should be ended. Prioryman (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the crap dude, you commented there because it was DC, blatantly made note of DC's conduct, and are now expecting to get away with it because you didn't mention his name specifically.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, as you were involved, you may wish to comment here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Violation of interaction ban by Prioryman. Prioryman (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

ChiRunning and Danny Dreyer[edit]

Would you have a problem with me creating Danny Dreyer as a redirect to ChiRunning? (I saw that you were involved with deletion of the former article in 2010.) I am in the process of removing the uncited, promotional-type information in the later article, noticed the red link, and thought that its founder might be a plausible search term. I would actually ask for a lock on the redirect, too, if that is possible. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection at all to using it as a redirect. It does look like it was deleted twice for spam, but the last attempt was over 2 years ago, so I don't see that as enough spamming activity to apply protection. If it becomes a problem again, we can always protect it at that point. Thanks for doing the cleanup on the other one by the way, it looks much in need of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Thanks for the reply! Location (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings![edit]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and to you too! Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy question[edit]

Hello. Here you said that BLP "applies on every page", but I do not believe the real name of the user in question was ever mentioned in posts made by DC, and I do not believe BLP applies to a user name? Is my understanding correct, or I am missing on something? Thanks.71.202.123.14 (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any further comment on this issue. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to direct them to ArbCom. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

Wikiproject notes in articles[edit]

Pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.Moxy (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMF and deliberate defamation of critics[edit]

Regarding your dismissal of "As to the allegation above that WMF would support deliberate defamation of critics, ...", I regret to point out that while an extreme version of this statement, in letter, might be false, a pragmatic reading of it, in spirit, is arguably true. That is, one can get into interpretive disputes over whether something is by "WMF" or is "support" and so on. But, are you familiar with the big Arbcom leaks from a while back? There was quite a bit of documentation there of a social process by which people who sought status in Wikipedia would attack critics, and receive support from people of greater status. I don't want to go into details on-wiki, but the material did show the problem very clearly. Again, I know, the standard response is that this is not "WMF", but actions of individual people. However, I think that response misses the reward structure in which those individual people operate. If WMF gives someone power and influence, and that person engages in deliberate defamation of Wikipedia critics, while it's pretty clear that various WMF people approve even if they don't say it on the record, or at least don't consider it any sort of abuse, then the net effect is that Wikipedia critics are subject to deliberate defamation backed up by WMF power and influence. Arguing whether this functional result fits the words "WMF ... support" is in my view missing the forest for the names of trees. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Seth, certainly you're one of the more vocal critics. I don't particularly care myself—I believe that people have a right, and in some cases even a duty, to criticize if they believe wrongdoing is occurring. To say that all criticism of Wikipedia is unfounded would be nonsense. Any organization that grows as fast and as unexpectedly as Wikipedia has will undoubtedly fuck up in the process, and some criticism of those problems (Siegenthaler, etc.), has been a well-founded call for us to get some problems solved as soon as possible. Some other criticism, however, ranges from half-truth to outright stupidity and cranks pissed off they can't push their theory of perpetual motion here. I don't consider calling the latter stupid in public to be defamation—if you're going to criticize, you better be ready to be criticized in turn. However, such criticism would never belong in an article here, as NPOV and BLP apply to critics just as they would to anyone else. If a critic of Wikipedia becomes notable enough for an article, we still owe them the duty to treat the article on them with absolute neutrality, based upon only what reliable sources have to say. I'm sure there are times we have not lived up to that, but I would enforce NPOV/BLP just as evenly on the page of a critic as I would on the page about Jimbo.
That being said, I'm not really familiar with the incident you cite, and Google is not much help. If you want to email me details, I'll review them, otherwise I can't really comment on something I know nothing about. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I received your email, but that's quite the text wall. I'll try to review it sometime this week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, there's no rush. I suspect we'll both end up with the same position anyway, and on a risk/reward basis I probably shouldn't even try to make these sorts of points. Have a good holiday, whatever deity you have or don't have. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None for me, but the same to you. I do try to evaluate things fairly—there has certainly been unfounded criticism of the project, but there's been well-founded criticism, too, that we've needed to act on. I won't say my judgment there is perfect, any more than anyone's would be, but I do look at concerns brought to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still intending to look at this. No need for a response, just timestamping so the bot doesn't auto-archive it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my comment[edit]

Hello, I made a comment, but got reverted. I am not nocal whatever it is. Could you please re-post my comment? Thanks. 71.202.122.82 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline to reinstate that comment, regardless of whoever you may be, because that ArbCom decision doesn't in any way regulate offsite conduct, so the comment is rather irrelevant. We tried that once, and it was disastrous. If you have evidence of on-wiki misconduct that hasn't already been brought up at the case, please feel free to bring them up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that's NoCal100 (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100 for some of the past SPIs), the same person who opened this. I would be more than happy to substantiate that over email if you would like. In the meantime, is there a reason AE shouldnt be semi-protected? nableezy - 01:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was me who opened this, but I was not nocal then, and I am not nocal now. I reinstated my comment myself. I believe it is very relative. It demonstrates that Bali Ultimate who accuses users of being ignorant is actually quite ignorant himself. 71.202.122.82 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE 2012 Annual Report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors 2012 Annual Report

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2012 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sacromento bee[edit]

I have undone your revert as the criteria for csd was changed which is perfectly acceptable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, you'd be right (for example, if you had a speedy declined as A7, and then later noticed that the article is a copyvio). However, you're trying to have it deleted under A7, which is precisely what the declining admin found did not apply. I agree, so you can consider my removal an explicit decline of the A7, if we must pick at it. The point, though, is that if you have a speedy request declined, it isn't appropriate to keep asking again. Use prod or AfD instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read the csd template, It says it should have been deleted as A& and I added a custom template, I've also brought it to the talk page for csd, if you want to decline that please do so with the actual rationale for keeping as according to whats on the page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

David McConaghie[edit]

I note that you deleted this article on the basis of a proposal made only hours after its creation, since when it has developed substantially, and with only three delete votes to two for retention. The proposer has repeatedly made unsustainable claims that the article breaches one or more Wikipedia BLP rules - it does not. The article deals with an individual who has been extremely influential in Northern Ireland politics and contains nothing defamatory. Everything in it is sourced and accurate. I would like to ask you to reconsider, or at least to give a reasoned explanation. Brocach (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was, indeed, a tough one to close, and I did take time to consider all the arguments presented. Ultimately, what was persuasive was the fact that there were essentially no in-depth sources about the person aside from those related to a single suspected criminal event, and even those were pretty thin. That's a textbook coatrack and one-event instance. The remainder of the sources were either blogs or the like, or did not cover the individual in depth. Are there additional reliable sources that verify his influence in the political sphere and cover him in more depth? If you could show me that, I certainly might be persuaded to reconsider, but not from what was there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the nature of lobbying organisations such as the Caleb Foundation, with which McConaghie was associated, that they try to work behind the scenes. McConaghie was much more than an MP's parliamentary assistant, speechwriter, election agent and office manger: he was a major force in maintaining the link between evangelical protestantism and unionism, especially the DUP.
There is, however, enough in the article to indicate that McConaghie had been a mover and shaker in Northern Ireland politics for many years. References (from mainstream media) are given to his having been press spokesman for the Free Presbyterian Church, and being regarded as a potential successor to Ian Paisley as its leader; to his lobbying on creationist issues from (at least) 1999 to 2012, including the extraordinary outcome at the Giant's Causeway National Trust visitor centre, one of Northern Ireland's main tourist attractions; to his leading role in another evangelical pressure group, the Evangelical Protestant Society; to his lobbying ministers and senior government personnel on a range of issues; to his having been appointed to the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland, a consultative body created under the Good Friday Agreement; to his key role in the 2005 election campaign which unseated the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and caused a major crisis within it; to his role as one of the main representatives of the loyalist marching Orders in talks in that most sensitive of issues, in 2006; and to his appointment by the UK government to a working group on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Every one of these facts is attested by reliable sources cited in the article at the time of its deletion - including major print and broadcast media.
The article does not mention and has never mentioned his alleged involvement in "one event". Sure, some sources mention it, but Wikipedia does not and could not be expected to take responsibility for everything mentioned in every source cited - the source needs only to justify what is actually in the WP piece. Moreover, nothing in any of the sources cited actually defames McConaghie: all merely report the known facts concerning the incident that the article did not mention.
In the light of all that, I ask you to reconsider. There are a large number of articles linking to McConaghie that would be impoverished by the disappearance of this article. Of course the article isn't perfect, but it has only been in existence for a few days, and will most likely improve if and when other editors are able to assist. Brocach (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim, your close was completely correct and this is just the latest step in the campaign of an editor who quite simply refuses to get the point and is continuing to ignore the input of other editors, to the point of disruption. That campaign has included edit warring to repeatedly reinsert info about McConaghie's alleged crime, in clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME and during which time he breached the WP:1RR which applies to articles relating to Unionism in Ireland. With the user refusing to respect WP:BRD, a third opinion was sought and the info was removed. The user was advised to consult WP:BLPN before reinserting it. Opinion there was divided, but was clearly against reinserting mention of the possible crime, with one editor stating that they failed to see what it added to the article and another stating that: "A one sentence mention should be sufficient and there is no reason to mention the accused who probably does not meet BLP for having his own article." Regardless of that advice, Brocach ploughed away anyway, sidestepping that by setting up the McConaghie article. That the article was nominated hours after creation is irrelevant as I had ascertained in the preceding weeks and before nominating that there was not enough to sustain an article and that it would be a breach of WP:ONEEVENT. He claims inaccurately that there were only three in favour of deletion, in fact there were four, counting me as the nominator and effectively a fifth, counting TFD on the BLP noticeboard. He had ample time to expand the article by adding references which showed that the subject met either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN but failed to do so, hardly surprising considering such references don't exist. Instead he spent that time available adding "references" from blogs, non-independent weblinks, primary sources about other people and ones which didn't even mention the subject. He also badgered other editors who had argued for delete, in clear violation of WP:CANVASS, similar to what he is doing here. Despite the emerging consensus to delete, he even nominated for good article status, an arrogant gesture of contempt towards those who had taken the time to give their views both in the deletion discussion and the BLP noticeboard. Since then, other editors have expressed concern over material he has added, but he has ignored them by continuing to revert to readd the material. I'm at a loss here. As an admin, what would you advise doing about an editor who so doggedly does his own thing, ignores outside input and continually edit wars to reinsert material of questionable validity? Valenciano (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already seen the spurious arguments raised by Valenciano - there is nothing new in what appears above and I can only guess at why this editor is so keen to suppress mention of this noteworthy individual. I am only asking you to reassess the "tough" decision that you made, and in doing so I was not and am not breaching the canvassing rule but following precisely the recommended procedure. (Likewise, all I ever asked objectors to do was to revisit the article; it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.) Brocach (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, to Brocach: In this case, the consensus was to delete, and I did not find any flaws in the reasoning provided to do so. It is acceptable to ask someone who argued to delete to revisit the article to see if they changed their mind, but I'd ask you to note that despite the fact that you did that, those arguing to delete did not change their mind. The "improvements" were to sources that either trivially name-dropped the subject, were not reliable, or both. Adding a lot of such sources may look superficially impressive, but doesn't somehow make them acceptable, especially not for the biography of a living person. So, in short: At this time, I am not willing to reconsider and stand behind my decision. You may request a deletion review if you still disagree. As to the below from Valenciano, I would very much remind you that you must follow consensus decisions, even if you disagree with the way they turn out. In the case of BLP, a "no consensus" result leads to exclusion, which is different from most other questions of due weight.
To Valenciano: Sometimes people hold a position that doesn't ultimately end up having consensus behind it. I didn't see any evidence of bad faith from Brocach, and I do try to keep in mind that deletions can upset people, especially if they were contested. I certainly would not do anything against someone for questioning one of my deletions or asking me to explain it more thoroughly, that comes with the job. That being said, politics articles are often contentious, contain a lot of BLP material, and journalism about them is often a lot of sensationalism and very little substance. I'd encourage you both to work together to find appropriate ways to give due weight to truly notable political events and people, without too much focus on the "scandal of the day" that will be forgotten tomorrow. It is difficult to do, and it is something reasonable people can and often do disagree on. Also do keep in mind that 1RR is a sanction only applied to articles having to do with The Troubles, it doesn't apply to every article on Irish politicians. That aside, it's a wise rule to follow anyway, as edit warring never solves anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time, and I'll follow the review procedure. I must just point out, again, that the article studiously avoided what you refer to as "the scandal of the day"! Brocach (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim, thanks for the input. In this case the pattern I saw was that despite the outside input of multiple editors that the material was not notable and questionable on BLP grounds, Brocach repeatedly ignored that input and simply found a new way to reintroduce it. In real life tenacity and perserverence are sometimes good, on Wikipedia, especially in BLP cases, it isn't. Content is decided by making bold edits, then by getting consensus if the bold change is reverted, not by endlessly reverting in the hope that editors who feel less strongly about the material will simply get bored. That's the pattern I see here and I don't think it's acceptable.
That the article did not directly reference that material is not the point as several people have said, it's that the only sources covering McConaghie in depth are about that single event. I do respectfully disagree with your point on the WP:1RR. The exact sanction says: "All articles ..... that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR..... When in doubt, assume it is related." In the case of a Northern Ireland Unionist MP, it is unquestionably related to British Nationalism in relation to Ireland and that 1RR has always been fairly inflexibly interpreted. Anyway, thanks again for assistance here. Valenciano (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my suspicious mind...[edit]

Hi Serpahimblade. I'm currently clearing away a few unblock requests at UTRS and I've run across a couple of things that just piqued my attention slightly... A user who was purportedly blocked by you, User:Anisky, does not appear to be under any block at present (nor has he been blocked in the past), but the unblock request he posted was remarkably similar to that of User:Arishe, who did get a (well-deserved) block from you. I just wondered if you'd had any dealings with Anisky (he has no contribution history, so I'm guessing not); if you can't shed any light on the subject, I may as well file an SPI. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never run across Anisky, but if it was similar to Arishe, my guess would be that (s)he switched over to the Anisky account while the autoblock on Arishe was still active. Since I'm already apparently the worst person around here, I'd have to say it's likely they're operated by the same person. A checkuser might be useful to see if there are any more sleeper socks, but that's up to the checkuser if you want to make the request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions show that it's clearly the same guy, no SPI needed. Blockhammer descends... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and straight to the same behavior. Good eye. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar?[edit]

DO you know the template for AFD's that states it's not based on votes? Can't seem to find it Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{Not a ballot}} is probably the one you're looking for? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban[edit]

This is completely uncalled for, as I have already agreed to a voluntary abstention. The sole purpose of a ban is to stop activity, which I have already agreed to stop, so the ban is completely unnecessary, and simply generates more discussion, instead of less. I ask you to please reconsider. Apteva (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were already voluntarily prepared to stop, then it doesn't matter if the ban is there or not. Consensus was, however, that the voluntary agreement was insufficient. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, though I would expect you to recognize the absurdity of that, and besides there were those who expressed a strong opposition to a ban. FYI, please close the entire thread, not just a subsection. There was an entire section opposing a ban that is still open. The thread that needs to be read in its entirety is WP:AN#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please. Apteva (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not. If you were prepared to leave the area in any case, what would it matter if you're required to do what you were going to do anyway?
Regardless, the consensus was clear here, and as an admin, my role is to interpret and enforce the consensus of the community. I personally couldn't care less what type of dash gets used where, so please don't think this is some personal disagreement with you. I would encourage you to carefully review why the community came to the conclusion that a restriction was necessary, so that you can avoid repeating the same type of behavior elsewhere, and appeal to have your sanctions lifted once some time has passed and you can demonstrate that the problem will not occur again. I would generally recommend waiting at least six months, appeals with any less than that tend to be declined. I also decline to close the other sections, as it appears there is ongoing discussion there of other matters. I would strongly encourage you, however, to retire from that entire thread at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like a second opinion. How do I get one, ARBCOM? Apteva (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, community sanctions may be appealed to ArbCom. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Apteva (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I do that, I would like to call your attention to banning policy "via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute". The votes of Noetica, Neotarf, ErikHaugen, JHunterJ, SMcCandlish, Mike Cline, Dicklyon, and probably Wikid77 all need to be struck as being involved in the underlying dispute. This leaves us with only 11 support and 4 opposed to a topic ban, hardly what I would call a consensus. I would actually strike John as their vote was simply "per SMcCandlish" but whether they are struck or not is immaterial. Wikid77 simply agrees with the punctuation that I have proposed, and is not involved in the issue of "disruption". Apteva (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva, I made very clear in my closing rationale that I considered both the prior RfC and the immediate discussion as to whether you had exhausted the community's patience, and found a consensus that you very clearly had. And yes, I am well aware of what the banning policy says, and feel my decision was well within it, and a reflection of consensus, and do not intend to reverse it. If you still don't agree, you may ask ArbCom to review it, as is your right. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a clarification, my understanding of "discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to" means anywhere, other than userspace, or is userspace included as well? And considering that much of my work is RCP, RM and solar articles, there is no restriction on any RMs that do not concern punctuation, or bringing up anything else at MOS, though that is not something that is likely to happen anyway. In 10,000 edits I think I have done one or two at MOS prior to recently, so it is pretty unlikely that anything will come up. Apteva (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing the matter up in userspace, such as contacting another user on their talk regarding it or creating lists of things you'd like to see changed in your userspace, is conduct prohibited by a topic ban. It means you're to stay away from the matter entirely. However, if you're working on a userspace draft, and alter your own dash usage on it due to a typo or the like, I wouldn't see that as problematic. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was only talking about my userspace, I guess I should have been more clear. I have to admit that has to take the record for one of the oddest topic bans ever. But no problem with non punctuation everywhere? [I just want to be clear before I get back to helping out at RM. Most of those do not involve punctuation, though so I do not anticipate any issue.] Apteva (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the more unusual I've seen. And yes, that's correct, there are no other restrictions than the one stated. I'll strongly advise (as my own advice, not as part of the sanction) that you might want to steer clear of the MOS altogether for a while, but there was not any consensus in the discussion to impose a ban of that nature. There is similarly no problem with you participating in non-punctuation based RM requests. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other topic-ban details: Hi, User:Wikid77 here. As you might know, I, User:LittleBenW, and User:Enric_Naval have also been threatened with dash/hyphen topic bans, or site-bans, plus numerous insults or false claims by many of the involved editors. So, upon reading wp:Banning_policy, I see that a topic-ban could be appealed, later, back again at wp:AN. As the closing admin, would use wish to be notified of a ban appeal (in 6 months) or don't care? Also, could I start the appeal of another user's ban (as nominator), or should they themselves? Thanks. No hurry on answers. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer your questions, in order: I would appreciate notice of such an appeal. I like to think I'm relatively fair minded, and if the editor who was banned has since made constructive contributions and not caused disruption in other areas of the project, I'd actually be likely to support another chance. Regardless, if the discussion involved an appeal of sanctions I imposed, it would of course be improper for me to close it rather than comment on it, and I would not do so. To your second question, theoretically anyone can file such an appeal, but if the editor in question is not banned from editing entirely, a legitimate question would be why (s)he did not file such an appeal on their own, as properly filing an appeal of a ban is never considered a violation of the ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Evans[edit]

Hi Serpahimblad, I spent HOURS creating that Brian Evans page. Could you not have had the decency to tell me what needed to be changed before you just deleted the entire page like the asshole you apparently are.

Croonerman (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were two reasons for the deletion. The first is that the article is written in a very promotional tone, rather than a neutral one. I think there actually might be a viable article to be written here, and there may well be sufficient sources to support it, but at this point it would be better to start over from a stub. The text as written would have required an extensive amount of rework to become neutral.
The second and very significant problem is that the article contained quite a bit of negative and unverified material, which is strictly forbidden under our policy on the biography of a living person. Any negative information about a living person must be given due weight and be referenced to sources of the highest quality. That is not a standard there's any wiggle room whatsoever on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you deleted Brian Evans (singer) only yesterday but it was recreated today - same author, same sort of content. Is now up for CSD again. Thoughts? Stalwart111 22:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the admin who rejected the speedy delete of the Bousquet article, which is now at AfD. The Evans article is not the same as it was when you deleted it; the recreated version was much, much shorter. However, the editor is too disruptive to ignore, and I've indefinitely blocked him, partly for the persistent promotional editing (not just creating articles but sprinkling references in other articles), partly for the personal attack on you above (even if it didn't bother you), partly for copyright violations (I just requested a speedy delete of the Evans picture in the article at Commons, and it has been deleted), and in very small part for the removal of speedy delete tags. Strangely enough, though, I considered leaving the Evans article in as it wasn't as dreadful as what you deleted (often shorter is better). Also, FisherQueen's comments (now "gone" because of the deleted talk page) were reasonable. But my ultimate decision was to delete it again per G11, although I noted it was a "borderline call".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was definitely a borderline call. Quite realistically, if the article I deleted hadn't had all the BLP violations in it, I may have just stubbed it. Like I said, I do think there are viable articles to be written here, once I took a look. If the BLP problems had been the only issues, they could've just been removed, but that would've essentially left a G11 hagiography, so that was essentially the determining factor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, by the way, I don't worry too much if someone calls me an asshole, especially since I try to keep in mind sometimes upsetting people comes with the job. I've been called far worse than that, both due to my work here and elsewhere. But regardless, thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "thoughts" in spades from everyone - much appreciated. Thank you both for your comments. I understand the move to delete it again. Though I probably wasn't clear, I was also trying to query the whole CSD-of-the-same-article-twice part. But I suppose if it was recreated that doesn't apply? Anyway, I would have been happy to take it to AFD but I think speedy deletion was a better option if available. Cheers, Stalwart111 03:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came back on-wiki to add a few comments (I did see your post at Croonerman's talk page, Seraphimblade). First, I have no problem if anyone wants to restore the Evans article, regardless of what happens with Croonerman's block. Second, my block was based on an accumulation of problems, the net result being my view that Croonerman will not be an asset to the project. Whether you are offended by being called an asshole is largely irrelevant. It wouldn't bother me personally, either. However, sanctioning someone for making a personal attack should be based on the perspective of the attacker. It wasn't as much the word "asshole" as the belligerence. In his unblock request, Croonerman argues he is new to Wikipedia. You can screw up formatting, sourcing, and a lot of other things because you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but attacking people should be intuitively unacceptable behavior (if anything, Wikipedia is remarkably lenient when it comes to such things). Which leads to my final point, the copyright violation, which you didn't address on Croonerman's talk page. Again, this wasn't conduct based on unfamiliarity with our policy. This is Croonerman stealing a copyrighted image and claiming it as his own work. Overall, this is not the kind of misconduct that would normally lead to growth. Almost always, I find when we give these kinds of editors second chances, we are simply delaying the inevitable. All that said, I could be wrong, and if an uninvolved admin thinks he should be unblocked, as long as they're aware of all this, I would have no objection. I'm now going to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't take any of the above as a thought that your block was not well-founded. Quite the opposite, I think it was necessary, and I'd very much like to hear more from Croonerman before considering an unblock. I do also realize, though, that many other sites don't do much with copyrighted images, and if the subject is indeed his cousin as he states, he may have received a verbal authorization to use the images "on Wikipedia", without knowledge that we (or Commons) can't accept that. I generally err on the side of giving new editors some rope, and whether they use it to pull themselves up from the precipice or hang themselves for good is up to them. But I've seen enough pull themselves up and become productive that I think it's worthwhile to at least try, and if they prove to be totally uncooperative, then at least we know we did what we could. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have unblocked. I feel that the above discussion is close to a consensus that giving a second chance is worth considering. At least one other admin (Yunshui) has also indicated a willingness to consider unblocking, and I agree 100% with Seraphimblade about "generally err[ing] on the side of giving new editors some rope". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have new problems on the Croonerman front. If you recall, Croonerman stated that he was not Evans, but was a cousin of Evans. I never believed that and still don't, but that's no matter. Now, though, he says that was a lie. He's not Evans, he's not Evans's cousin, he's just a fan. See here. He also says he's "giving up" on Wikipedia (passive-aggressive behavior), but, of course, he isn't. Meanwhile, User:71.232.51.112, who recently blanked this page, has chimed in, both in the article and in the article talk page. My assumption is that Croonerman and the IP are the same. I'd recommend indeffing Croonerman again based on his post-unblock conduct, but I'm not going to take any action without a consensus, given the history. Probably should block 71. as well, but that depends on whether they continue to edit or not; we could always semi-protect the Evans article. I'll let Hell In A Bucket know about this discussion as he's very familiar with all this as Croonerman's mentor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think we have some borderline issues here. I'd like to assume good faith but that's been pretty stretched with the issue. I had at several times mentioned on his talkpage about close connections and COI with no disagreements at all in any of the responses. I popped the COI tag on the article, due to his admission of Brian being part of his family, then there is the denial of any connection whatsoever. Now a username by itself isn't a surefire sign that he is Evans or even that his additions in other areas are not worthy, however popping in with the IP which I note has only edited at Havershill, vandalized here and only other contribs is at Brian Evans makes me worry either A. we have a meatpuppet or B. we have a clumsy attempt at socking. At the very least I'm thinking we shouldn't allow contributions to the Evans article, other big band things are fine but I think that there is too much partisan pushing, especially for Helen B which I'm thinking is more a cause page. This could just be a fan....but the reversal on statements already made make me leery. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding this to the mix, [[9]] says all the photos uploaded were taken by Croonerman and owned by him. There is some serious issues here, we do not know who the copyright holder is, it is obviously that Croonerman has more of an association then he is willing to admit at this point. I agree with the deletion of the pictures and I am more comfortable with agreeing to Bbb23's suggestion as the water is too deep at this point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there have been ongoing discussions at Commons, in which I've taken a part. Some of the copyright vios are blatant. Others relate to the family pictures, which, of course, now begs the question will the real Croonerman please stand up?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well this is very disappointing. As far as disclosure of who the editor actually is, we don't require that in the first place, so that I'm not as concerned about. Dishonesty about copyright status, though, is something I've got a lot of difficulty coming to terms with, whether it's on Commons or here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGF only goes so far; IP socking and clear inability/refusal to understand copyright (plus mendacious behaviour generally) all beg for a reinstatement of the block. Incidentally, props to HellInABucket for all the hard work and patience; that didn't look easy. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require that but when they have self disclosure then backtracks is what bothers me, coupled with the copyright concerns there is the potential legal liabilities involved with this too and makes keeping a NPOV a much more difficult thing to accomplish. I have difficulties understanding those types of things, I myself am going to recuse myself from further work on the article as I am not the best suited to deal with issues like dishonesty. I can deal with ignorance of policy but when I don't know what I'm dealing with or what the truth is I don't feel like I would be the best option. I think ultimately the article will be kept in the long run but for the short term not the best place for me either. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, while I've been significantly involved and would not be comfortable blocking myself, I would also not argue with a reinstatement of the block. If there's anything we should be able to count on from our colleagues on this project, it should be that they are speaking to us honestly, even when such honesty may not go towards what they want to happen. That doesn't appear to be the case here, and I agree that AGF only goes so far in the face of evidence otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I unblocked to give a second chance. The user has managed to avoid, in my opinion, repeating quite the kind of things that led to the block. Nevertheless, there are several problems. I am particularly struck by the responses to Hell In A Bucket, who has really put a good deal of effort into trying to help Croonerman. At first, Croonerman seemed grateful. However, when things didn't go the way Croonerman would have liked, he became distinctly ungrateful. He seems unable to see that his issues were not with Hell In A Bucket, but rather with Wikipedia's standards. He also seems to have considerable difficulty with the concept of friendly disagreement: there is something of an "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude. Then there is the dishonesty issue. He has admitted that he has lied to us, and unfortunately there seems to me to be good evidence that he is still lying. In fact, there is no doubt whatsoever that he is either lying on English Wikipedia or lying on Wikimedia Commons, since on Commons he claims to be a person with a close connection to people with whom he now says on English Wikipedia he has no connection to. There is also evidence that the person he claims to be on Commons is probably the person who took photographs that Croonerman claims to have created. There is also other evidence that he is lying and lying again and again, but I have better things to do with my time than to give a full account of all the evidence. It seems abundantly clear that he does, in fact, have connections with those people, as he first admitted on English Wikipedia, and he only started denying it when he realised that having a personal connection with the subject you write about is considered a disadvantage for conflict of interest reasons. My conclusion is that we have an editor who, as stated in the original block log reason, is here for the purpose of using Wikipedia for promotion; who, rather than fit in with Wikipedia policies, lies to try to cover up what he is doing; who becomes aggressive towards other editors who he perceives as standing in his way. Add to that other issues, such as vandalism (blanking this talk page) via an IP sock, and my conclusion is that he has accepted the rope that I offered him when I unblocked him, and hanged himself with it. I have therefore reinstated the block. (Finally, just in case anyone might take assuming good faith to such unreasonable lengths as to doubt whether the disruptive IP editor really was him, I will mention that as soon as I blocked the account, an autoblock hit the IP.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both your reasoning and your decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. James, you went all out to give the editor a chance. Hell In A Bucket, I echo the sentiments of others in thanking you for your hard work and insight.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone I appreciate that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly certain we have a socking issue with this. User talk:301bNYC first edited by same Ip that vandalized here then replaced with a brand new user signature. Same style of writing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

Clarification[edit]

Obviously the ban only applies to the use of that particular form of punctuation, and does not apply to using templates that include that particular punctuation or references that use that punctuation or even using that punctuation in a title or an article, just not asking for a change in the use of punctuation, and calling it the letters k and q, it is okay to use the letter k but not okay to change k's to q's, other than for example correcting broken links in references. As written the words use of only applies to a discussion of how k and q are used, but not a prohibition on using those characters, but does extend to not recommending or making corrections on how k and q are used. Otherwise it is pretty bizarre to try to write articles without using k's and q's. Is this a correct interpretation? Apteva (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but if you're asking whether you're permitted to use dashes/hyphens in new content you're adding or the title of a new article, the answer is yes, you are. The ban covers only modifying them if they're already there, or discussing their usage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I was asking. I have already found multiple, noncontroversial changes that I would otherwise have made, and modifying them is beyond what was asked for (other than in titles) – not discussing the issue, nothing was asked about not using them. I would suggest replacing the words "or similar types of punctuation" with "in titles". That is the only issue that was involved, not use in articles. Apteva (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I have no intention of reversing or modifying the decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation, and further clarification needed[edit]

See WP:AN#Post-close_notice about Apteva's behavior that skirts the topic ban; if the statement of the ban could be clarified to better represent what the community consensus supported, we should be able to get Apteva to stop this. Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at WP:AN, but to summarize, I believe that continuing the dispute which led to the ban is a clear and obvious violation of the ban, and that no extension of it is necessary to cover it. Apteva was topic-banned from participating in that area altogether, gaming it by "I didn't technically mention dashes in this particular post!" is not acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to belief the subject of the topic ban is not of interest to me. What is of interest is the creation of guidelines and policies that make sense. It was for that reason only that I proposed the amendment, and had nothing to do with the subject of the topic ban. Apteva (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was also this edit, on a discussion of MOS punctuation styling that took place on the WT:TITLE page. —Neotarf (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for an extenstion, just a clear rewording to include more of the phrasing that the community endorsed, since Apteva seems to think it's not covered. Discussion link was changed. Now at [10]. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated that I believe it's at very least gaming of the topic ban, and I think it does breach the prohibited conduct, as Apteva's assertions regarding the MOS and titles have historically been in relation to dashes. However, any report of a suspected violation needs to be brought to ANI. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done that. I forgot to notify Apteva; will do so now. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note on yet another violation: Wikipedia:AN#Another_violation. How is the best way to get a admin's attention there? When I followed your advice and posted at AN/I, I got accused of forum shopping, since the AN discussion was happening, too. Dicklyon (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Repeal of hyphen ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Apteva (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration declined[edit]

This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

A7 Criteria Expansion[edit]

A7 has now been expanded to include organized events per a talkpage discussion on csd. I'm only posting this due to the prior conversation we had regarding this issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear it, and thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive.

The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't[edit]

The thought to ask AC to clarify the RF case/sanction again is, at first blush, thoughtful and reasonable. However, in practice I think it's a bad idea. As I just noted on AE noticeboard discussion indicates they've never really agreed on what the heck it means. They've just processed two requests, one passed vacate motion on a sort of technicality but more based on it just doesn't matter. The more recent was declined with prejudice amendment request. At this point, a couple months break for everybody will do more good for Wikipedia as a whole than dragging AC back into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)

Believe me, I'm not enthusiastic about the idea either. Nor, I would suspect, is ArbCom. However, given the disagreement on the nature of the sanctions present, what else would you suggest? Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's that much disagreement on what the sanction says, it's just editors can't or don't want to believe they mean what they say. NE Ent 16:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I share your interpretation of the discussion, but I'll take your advice under consideration. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

Topic ban you closed is being discussed at WP:AN[edit]

Hi Seraphimblade. Just a courtesy note to inform you that you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Continuing topic ban violations by Apteva. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on RfA[edit]

I don't think the current RfC will work without a third closer who can at least manage to sign up before the deadline ... and obviously, we don't have that. How would you feel about canceling the current RfC and launching a new normal-rules RfC on the subject of "What do we do about RfA"? That is, the closers would say nothing until the end, and it will be up to the participants to structure it as they like. If we don't get another closer today, I'd be comfortable asking the voters now if they have any objection to you two as closers ... or to me as a closer, but if either of you guys have a problem with that (I'm pointing Basalisk here now), please tell me. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds like the best way forward at this point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I offered at AN to help close. I disagree, though. This RfC has been the only thing that has actually worked; to backtrack now would sacrifice that progress. I'm sure we can rustle up a third closer somewhere. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with not closing if you like, but regarding the format: my concern, Ed, is that we had a complete lack of interest from potential closers at WT:RFA and WP:AN. (Basalisk and Seraphimblade both offered when I made my original proposal, to pick the closers ahead of time and not structure the RfC.) If we had had little interest, I would be concerned; no interest suggests that people had a problem with this format, and I have to agree that it was a new and strange format ... they may not be excited about the precedent. Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree—I don't think anyone likes to close RfCs. That's why we have a perpetual list of things to be closed at AN. It may just be that no one wants to get involved with the topic, or a whole host of different reasons. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, up to you guys. I'll remove my comment at the top of the hatted RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ed17, if you're willing to go on with it from here, I'm alright with going through the first broad-brush round. I was a bit leery of having one individual make the call on something this broad, but I don't see us coming to a deadlock on any of the initial discussion. I do want to give Basalisk a bit of time to respond first though, if that'd be alright? (I also think on the final round we absolutely need an odd number to avoid any possibility of a tie.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, Seraphim. I'm going to go read through the rest of the RfC now; I assume that we'll discuss our thoughts on it through email? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, sent you an email so you'll have my address. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion re: the exclusion of the National Women's Soccer League on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and provide your feedback? Discussion is available here. I'm seeking some impartial feedback from an administrator. There is a little bit of additional discussion on my Talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HMLarson, and sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner. The RfA RfC (say that 10 times!) has taken up essentially all the editing time I had over the past few days. That being said, I'm not particularly familiar with soccer leagues or their designations, but I'll try to get a look at the discussion and see if I have any advice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

Could please help?[edit]

Would it be possible for you to help me? Could you confirm whether or not the word whitening is being mentioned in this cite – Abstract - http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940 Fully readable - http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jmuniz/schwartzman2007.pdf

The reason why I ask is because someone seems to be claiming that the whitening ideology other wise known as whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento both mean whitening) is not being mentioned in this sage publication.

I made a small edit to a page a few weeks ago and I noticed that an entire section was removed from multiple different pages based on a claim that the citations did not mention a certain word. The words in question were the whitening ideology other wise known as whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento. I did not wish to comment right away because some of the citations were only abstracts and therefore not full readable while others were links to book sales. Due to the fact many of the citations were unreadable I had to take a few weeks to find readable versions. I also wanted to take time to research the subject of whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento before I commented on the subject.

After taking a few days to research the subject I decided to point out that this word (whitening/blanqueamiento/branqueamento) was in fact mentioned more than 40 times in one citation alone. Having looked from the editing history the first, original and only citation that the section (Blanqueamiento (whitening) racial classification) was originally based on was this sage publication - http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940. A large section of what is written in the section (Blanqueamiento (whitening) racial classification)) is clearly supported by this sage publication.- http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940. Later other citations were added.

As I said before the word that was claimed that was not being mentioned was the whitening ideology otherwise know as whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento mean whitening). The title of the sage publication was called- does money whiten and whitening is clearly visible in the abstract. I really do not understand how different editors appear to have read the title does money whiten, see whitening clearly mentioned in the abstract, see clear reference to the whitening ideology, see whitening mentioned more than 40 times and than both come to the same false conclusion that whitening/blanqueamiento/branqueamento is not being mentioned in this sage publication –http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940

I pointed out that whitening was being mentioned more than 40 times in the sage publication and the response I got from the editor (who previously claimed whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento was not being mentioned) was rather odd. I was told that the editor did not wish to comment at the moment as to whether or not whitening was being mentioned. I don’t understand how someone can remove an entire section from a page based on a claim that whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento was not being mentioned and than say they do not wish to comment on whether this word is being mentioned or not. Is it just me or does it seem odd?

It has been more than a month since I was told by this particular editor that he/she did not wish to comment as to whether or not whitening was being mentioned and still he/she is yet to comment. The reason why I am asking whether or not you can confirm that the whitening ideology otherwise known as whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento is being mentioned in the sage publication is because the editor who seems to be claiming that whitening is not being mentioned has still yet to comment, more than a month later and he/she has failed to comment. If you are unable to help could you direct me to someone who can? Thanks in advance. --CR.ROWAN (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From reading through the discussions, it looks like the dispute is not about what the source says, but whether it's reliable for the claims it makes. For medical topics, there are higher standards of reliability. I see you've taken the discussion to the reliable source noticeboard, which is certainly what I would have advised you to do if you'd not already done so. The editors there are highly experienced with our guidelines on source reliability, and will be able to give you good advice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

GOCE February 2013 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter

We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive.

The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

GOCE news: February 2013[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up

Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locking Policy[edit]

Too many people burn too many hours trying to change the rules.
Too many people burn too many hours trying to maintain the rules.
How many arbcom cases could be burned if no rules were? I'VE GOT IT! Make the rules invisible one day each month. Let's say the thirteenth. Any admin caught enforcing anything with a block on that day gets desysoped. Any user caught contributing to the rules on the thirteenth gets auto-blocked or site-banned for three days. One day a month, three rules: No manual enforcement operations. No rule contributions. No announcement. You find out when you get caught trying to govern. It's like when someone gets 30.5 in 31: Everybody pays.
75.152.113.13 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the desysopping rather harsh, especially if it was just because of a block on one day? The vandals would run amok that day. ZappaOMati 23:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.113.13 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking iz just az harsh az desysopping. Vandals are curbed just fine with regyuhlr yuuzerz on chat.
Discarded Acronyms: Wake On Packet: WOP.
Except admins work hard to earn their mops, unlike vandalizing, which requires almost no effort. Besides, it's the vandals' fault for vandalizing in the first place. ZappaOMati 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.113.13 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent vandals? Maybe it wuz a blok that created the vandal. A big ex-spook sez that America's foreign policy created al-qaeda. One vandalizm might be a joke.
Call a chicken place and ask "Do you have extra crispy breasts?". Besides, I am talking about policy payjez disappearing and becoming non-targets. To do productive work, you must forget about all of the rules, and concentrate on what iz true. If the rules disappear four times a month, so much the better. Maybe it should be the other way around. Maybe rules should only appear four dayz a munth.
How do I assimilate thee? Let me count the ways.
--Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861)
How could a block create the vandal? Is the vandal trying to get blocked? Are we in Soviet Russia now? Just because an ex-CIA agent says that the US's policy created Al-Qaeda does not mean that the group was created by it. Speaking of chicken places, I happened to order extra crispy breasts directly as stated. No, no one flashed me by the way. Anyway... WP:IAR? worth a read for you? ZappaOMati 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.113.13 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many people hav written versions of ignoring all rules. An ex-president sed "My policy is to have no policy". Seven days of policy a munth seems like a majik number, because nobody would expect it weekly.
A cat in heat has elevated whore moan levels.
First, please do consider using a spellchecker. I know we have many editors for whom English is not their first language, so I'm not knocking you at all, but it's very jarring to read and makes it harder to get your point. :) That being said, we already have a policy that states that our policies and guidelines are not firm rules, and if in a given scenario they're harmful rather than helpful, they can be bent, broken, or ignored. But they're policies and guidelines because we've found that in most cases, they are helpful, like "Don't deliberately make unconstructive changes", "Write neutrally", "Stick to the sources, don't editorialize", and "Those who persistently disrupt the community may be asked (or required) to leave it". I don't see any reason to throw those out the window, for a day or otherwise. They've served us very well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
75.152.113.13 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"See", "Jee", "Kyuu", and "eks" are redundant naymz for letterz. My spelling errors are intentional. I do not believe in palatal jeez, nor voyst essez. Thoze are ancient errors, and I correct them at random points, so that you can read me at all. ... The point of locking policy iz not to throw any policy out. The point iz to make several days in a munth (about 23) when polisy diskushun iz klohzd, eksept on talk payjez. Policy jenerally isn't really open for discussion, anyway, and many an unwary editor haz been blocked for trying to make chaynjez to it, without realizing that only about five people are watching, and the one who agreez with chaynjez wiL not openly agree -- about 150,000 people away from consensus.
Shakespeare of Borg: Prepare to be, or not to be.

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

Haven't heard from you ...[edit]

I'm just confirming that the last time I got a reply from you about the RfC we're closing was Feb 23, which was also the last day you edited. I know you're slammed with work; I hope everything is okay. Ed and I will be posting a closing statement soon, and of course you're welcome to participate, or do your own. Take care. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE mid-March 2013 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive.

The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

GOCE April 2013 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our March backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

Interac_(Japan) Editor Request[edit]

Would you mind giving my editor request a look?Taurus669 (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Taurus669 (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC) URL is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Interac_.28Japan.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Taurus669 (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

GOCE April 2013 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter

We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive.

The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva again[edit]

I have mentioned your topic ban against Apteva, and the enforcement difficulty caused by what it's missing, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dicklyon. Your comments there could be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade. I am currently considering extending Apteva's topic ban to include advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles per Dicklyon's request at the AE request referred to above. I note that you omitted this phrase in your original ban, but have described some of Apteva's later actions regarding this issue to be effective ban violations nonetheless. It seems to me that adding the omitted clause would have the effect of clarifying the scope of the ban and thus hopefully avoid possible future disputes, but I thought it would be appropriate to consult you first over the matter, as I would be reluctant to modify your original ban unilaterally. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

GOCE May drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our May backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

GOCE June/July 2013 events[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive.

The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

GOCE July 2013 news report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
  • Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
  • Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wingard[edit]

Back AGAIN! User:Mimmi75. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins has blocked them. Also note that obvious block-evading socks can be reported to the vandal noticeboard, and you'll probably get a faster response that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUN Area Technical Institute[edit]

User:coffee_ninja12. Not contesting the hasty judgement of my new page that was speedily deleted, however I spent several days pouring through years of history of our school in old newspaper clippings and school board notes. I had originally scanned and cited all of those documents, but was told explicitly by our director not to make them available online. Many other schools/school districts have a Wikipedia page not unlike the one that I posted. Can you give me a few pointers as to what was wrong with my submission? —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

coffee_ninja12: The page in question (SUN Area Technical Institute) was deleted because it was promotional. The entire article read like a college brochure, complete with a list of programs and even a laundry list of certifications. If another organization has an article like that, that's not acceptable either, but I don't know which one you're referring to.
Another issue here is that the bulk of references should be secondary sources, that is, sources written by someone not affiliated with or having an interest in the organization. In this article, the "references" were exclusively from the college's own material. An article is not a brochure or press release, and is to be neutral. One of the ways in which we do that is to make sure to mainly use references from people that don't have an interest in the article's subject. If the subject has little or no third-party material from reliable sources written about it, it is not notable and as such not suitable for an article at all.
I'd also note that it's very difficult to write neutrally and avoid personal knowledge when writing about a subject you're closely affiliated with. (That's nothing against you—I avoid writing about any subject I'm very close to, because I know I couldn't do it!). What you may want to do is prepare a draft in your userspace, and then have another editor look over it for proper sourcing, unreferenced claims, and tone.
Finally, while it is absolutely not required that references be available online (and your director is probably wise in telling you not to do that, it would likely violate copyright), we do need to know where material came from. Our guidelines on citing sources may be helpful, and include instructions for citing sources which are not available online.
Let me know if you have any questions on that. If I'm not around, you can also ask any questions you might have here, and someone will give you some advice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Seraphimblade, thanks so much for the feedback. I will prepare a new draft using the recommendations you provided and submit it to be checked by someone else. Regarding the list of our program offerings, YTI Career Institute for example does list all of their programs. If I provided a list and eliminated the program descriptions, certification/credit info, and the reference to the program's website, do you think that would be considered acceptable? Coffee ninja12 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of PAX Programs/ How to reinstate page?[edit]

This is my first day using Wikipedia and I didn't realize my post was "live" yet. So sorry for the mistake. I am not advertising PAX Programs but have taken classes. I see how some of the content could have been construed as advertising especially since I posted the classes. I just wanted to get the word out on an interesting organization that has been around for 20 years. (I hadn't had time to quote how Dennis Prager and Alanis Morrisette have verified this content is valid.) (I'm a little green.)

Could you advise me on what I would need to do to put the page back up? I will also read up on rules/regulations so I understand the Wiki processes better.

Thank you,

PAXQueen (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PAXQueen: Bunch of problems. One is that the article was both editorializing and offtopic, which appeared aimed at "creating need" (in marketese) for the organization. One example:
"Without a doubt, the past fifty years have yielded important advantages in terms of opportunities and choices for women in many arenas. A result of our cultural change is an expectation that men and women are not only equal, but the same. Most women expect men to demonstrate traditionally feminine qualities, while women have adopted many masculine ways of being, thinking and acting.
These new expectations and behaviors cause conflict and confusion in all types of relationships. Women want men to be sensitive and emotional while remaining ambitious and protective. On the other hand, many successful, self-sufficient, independent women have been dismayed to discover - and even more reluctant to admit - that they would actually enjoy a good, strong, dependable man. These conflicting desires and expectations have led to the confusion, disappointment and frustration that many men and women have about each other. Longing for peace and satisfaction herself, Alison Armstrong wondered if there was an alternative for all relationships between men and women.
Through study and real-world application since 1991, Alison Armstrong developed a new way of relating to men from a profound understanding of the fundamental differences between men and women. Over two decades, workshop graduates have proven that men and women can be partners instead of adversaries. By expecting our differences and working with them, we can indeed learn to trust each other, support each other and achieve satisfying relationships."
That reads like a brochure. Not at all acceptable. An article about an organization is there to provide encyclopedic overview of the organization, not to spend a whole section asserting how very necessary what it does is.
"PAX's flagship program, Celebrating Men, Satisfying Women® is a weekend educational workshop for women, which transforms the way they relate to men. It facilitates the reconciliation many women are seeking with men and outlines the skills necessary for women to realize powerful, satisfying relationships with all of the men in their lives."
Zero information about what that actually is, just more glossy-brochure marketese ("flagship", etc.). Also, we don't allow the use of trademark symbols in articles, as they are not required for trademark protection but are often a hallmark of marketing.
"The company is so beloved that volunteers outnumber employees 50 to 1."
Included as an example of the blatantly promotional tone. That fact may be true, but presenting it in that way is pure puffery.
Rather than worrying about "putting the page back up", let's start by seeing if that should happen at all. Has this organization been written about extensively by third-party reliable sources, as is required by our notability guidelines? If it has not, it is not a suitable subject for an article at all. If it has, use and cite those sources and write about what they wrote about, avoiding editorials, puffery, and personal knowledge (while your personal knowledge may be correct, it cannot be verified).
Let me know if you have any questions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help (especially the last paragraph). This organization has been written about and spoken about (on radio and television) by reliable third party sources. (I'll collect the sources, rewrite and repost.) I really appreciate your taking the time to explain. It makes perfect sense because of the verification issue. PAXQueen (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

Seeking an Unblock[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Seraphimblade, I'm posting here to ask you to have a look at my case and consider unblocking. Why you? You are shown in in the Eguor administrators category that says "Eguor administrators promise to offer a fair hearing to editors who present a well-documented case that they've been mishandled in some way." As well, I checked your contributions to make sure you were active. No other reason. I'm posting via IP right now but my account is "Colton Cosmic." I have to post via IP because I've no other way to appeal my block. I was falsely blocked for socking more than a year ago. No evidence was ever presented. I was an happy content editor for years and was totally unprepared for the "administrative world" that confronted me after my block. I didn't know how to smoothly go about responding to a block. To me it was a bunch of people I never even heard of ganging up on me. To them, I guess it may have seemed I was "copping an attitude," but frankly I was insulted to be accused of socking. I am not going to throw a lot of details at you here right now, but if you choose to examine my case (which I think you should if you're an Eguor admin) you can unblock me merely from my talkpage and ask me there, or you might be able to email me. Lastly, don't believe what people at my page say about me without considering the evidence. I am blocked for socking but have never socked, on that you may rely. A single link to introduce you to me would be my first edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colton_Cosmic&oldid=477070007). Anyhow thanks for reading and I hope you can help. This is Colton Cosmic.

Hi Seraphimblade. You declined my block appeal but you did not hear me out, as Eguor admins are obliged to. If you go back and look you will see why these supposed "avenues of appeal" are closed to me. As well, I regard your calling of me a "sock" as clear imputation of dishonesty. It is falsehood. Do not publicly relate a falsehood about me again. A clearly-identified IP edit is not a sock. You may wheedle as to whatever has been stuffed in WP:SOCK policy but you may not redefine the English language. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.29.156 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:DENY is an essay, Lukeno94. You're only supposed to block on policy, unless you're an administrator with no standards. You two look at my case, indef. blocked no warning/no discussion/no evidence/no truth last May, point me to WP:BASC where my blocker sits and refuses to recuse, not to mention dismisses more than 9 of 10 appeals (literally), and more info here[11], tell me this is all fine with you and you're proud to be a part of this system? I say you're discrediting the project. Seraphim, you're no Eguor admin, and your attack on my integrity entitles me to come back at you: you know I never claimed I didn't block evade, but I did say that anyone calls me sock is a liar[12]. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.243.61 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an admin, I didn't block you, nor did I claim to have done so. Your block evasion is ridiculous, and the block of your previous IP should inform you that your contributions are not welcome here. You ARE using sockpuppets, regardless of the fact that you're admitting that they are you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is just knitpicking grammar- but, it wouldn't be sockpuppetry if (s)he is saying they are the IP. There is no intention to deceive or !vote numerous times or evade the 3RR... I'm not getting into if it is block evasion, what I'm saying is it isn't sockpuppetry.Camelbinky (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Socking is generally considered to be any non-permissible use of an alternate account or anonymous editing. That would include block evasion, but you could call it that for clarity if you prefer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I read the above conversation correctly, Colton claims that his editing as this IP has been only to contact you (Seraphimblade) of this situation. If Colton's only editing as an IP is to seek legitimate help in an unblock, then it would not fall under block evasion and therefore not sockpuppetry. WP:Sock puppetry is quite clear it is about deception and motive behind the editing. Without bad faith motives there cant be sock puppetry in this case (if information provided by Colton is truthful about only using this IP to contact you; I have not researched further).Camelbinky (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is "legitimate". When one is blocked, it is permissible to request an unblock in several different ways, but editing through an IP is not one of them. The most common is use of {{unblock}} on one's talk page. If talk page access is revoked, or it is preferred not to use that method, one may also contact UTRS or BASC. In this case, the editor in question contacted BASC, who agreed to consider an unblock but required certain conditions, which the blocked editor found unacceptable and was not willing to fulfill. That being the case, that editor is not allowed to edit here, including to use IP editing to admin shop. (S)he has the option of changing his or her mind and fulfilling the required conditions, or of discontinuing participation here. A block means that the editor is not permitted to edit here, not just the particular account or IP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, okay I see you did have a bit of a look at my case, thank you for that. BASC's action last year with regards to me was actually Silktork acting on his own while framing his words "Arbcom has carefully considered..." He said I must turn over (to the mailing list) my previous account. I said no, my online privacy concerns like I said, and WP:CLEANSTART specifically says I *don't* have to do that. Much, much later he revealed that he was actually chasing what I've termed "Mr. X," he said secret evidence made him believe me some mysterious sanctioned user. There was no policy to Silktork's "who were you" demand at the time but, a week or so after my appeal was declined, text was added to WP:BASC saying that all who appeal must provide any accounts they had in the last two years, as I call it "the Colton Cosmic rule."
It's not exactly like you said above. Silktork's "BASC" denial of my appeal did not convert it to an "Arbcom block," and an arb told me that. He also said "BASC and Arbcom do not have a monopoly on block appeals." You criticize me for "admin shopping," but I think that part of my actions is legitimate. I do not spam admins, I plead my case to any I contact one at a time and with unique text, hoping that that someone will finally see the great unfairness. Nihonjoe did, but was hauled in ten minutes to WP:ANI, which is the true "admin shopping" forum. You bring your target there, thirty block-loving admins read the complaint, and the lowest common denominator is going to use his tools.
As to the terms "sock" and "sockpuppet" everybody knows they require an element of deception[13][14][15]. It's not "any impermissible use" like you said. As well "sock" is constantly used as pejorative and personal attack on Wikipedia. Like "troll" which is the other thing people are calling me now. Thank you Camelblinky for discussing this matter on my behalf. Seraphim and Camelblinky, I am happy to discuss policy with you. I've really read a lot of this stuff. One last subtlety I'd point out is that WP:EVADE does *not* mandate one revert a block evader, it makes it a matter of discretion. For example, what Scott Martin did at Village Pump recently was restore a conversation with my comments because he thought it had merit. Colton Cosmic 11:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said what I had to say on this matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

User:GuysGirls/sandbox[edit]

Hi Seraphimblade,

I want to let you know my reasoning for nominating User:GuysGirls/sandbox for speedy deletion. The user name GuysGirls is a promotional user name because it is too close to America's Next Top Model: Guys & Girls, which was copied into the user's sandbox and slightly modified in a way that I believe is a hoax (Google searches for "Modelesque, Cycle 13" turn up nothing) but I didn't check off G3 because I was not 100% sure. However, the user is using a promotional user name and purporting to promote an existent (or more likely non-existent) show.I am One of Many (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am One of Many I believe you might be right about the hoaxing, and am going to check more thoroughly into that. Since it's not quite a blatant enough issue for G3, a concern like that is probably best brought up by taking the main article to AfD, where a complex rationale is possible and several editors can examine the incident. Speedy deletes are evaluated on pretty narrow criteria, AfD allows a lot more flexibility. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I am One of Many (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what's going on there. They could just be using an existing article as a template for what they want to do, I've seen newer editors do that before. As to the spamming angle, the draft itself isn't blatantly promotional, and especially on stuff like TV shows, it's sometimes awfully hard to tell a fan from a shill, and certainly it wouldn't be our first editor with a name inspired by TV. I'll keep a watch on the page, but I don't see any major need to do anything with it unless they try to pull something. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check[edit]

Hi Seraphimblade. Could you sanity check me on the matter of reporting User:Memills to Bbb23 (an uninvolved sysop patrolling the Men's rights movement community probation). This topic is controversial in that it has a big internet presence but not much support in the 3rd party reliable sources. This frustrates ppl who seem to have sympathies for the subject. Memills who is an Evoluntionary Psychology expert (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive795#Spam_attack_on_Evolutionary_psychology) has been active in this area and has making claims about censorship of the topic. After a long spell of ABF by Memills (from July 14 to yesterday) I made a report about edits to Talk Men's rights movement, his talk page and other pages. This is my report[16]. This is Memills's block log[17] and 5 his previous sanctions in the area are listed here.
User:Obiwankenobi[18] and User:Badmintonhist[19][20] have attacked the imposing admin Bbb23 a number of times for warning Memills, and Memills himself is continuing to cast aspersions about cabals (using the term multiple editor ownership) rather than reflect on how contra policy and off topic his posts have been[21]. And it seems that he has canvassed them to support his claims, for example this[22] is his request to Obi-Wan for support and to badmintonhist[23].
It's worth noting that this topic has a long history of agitation for action to "correct" wikipedia's pages from off-wiki (I can send links if necessary by email as they're from black listed websites). And I have real concerns that this needs RFAR but could you sanity check my action here, when you get a chance?--Cailil talk 11:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Bbb23 is familiar with the case and uninvolved, I certainly don't think you did the wrong thing by reporting it, and one would hope after that many blocks Memills had learned to moderate the tone and work more constructively. Somehow, there's always an evil cabal whenever the decision goes against someone, even when they well deserved it. This editor is essentially accusing Bbb23 of misusing administrative authority to slant the article, and making an accusation of significant misconduct without corresponding evidence is inherently disruptive. So in short, no, I don't think you did anything wrong by reporting it. (S)he looks like a POV pusher to me from the edits cited, and that needs to be dealt with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Seraphimblade--Cailil talk 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have a follow up for this Seraphimblade. Memills was topic banned by Bbb23 and has made a series of allegations about him (of bias and censorship). He's been doing so in conversation with one of the two users above that he canvassed, User:Badmintonhist (see Memills's talk page here and here, as well as here on the article talk page). I butted in quite calmly and neutrally as did Kevin Gorman later[24][25], explaining to them both that this was a bad idea, that Memills could raise the issue with Bbb23 in a neutral way directly or at ANi. I also advised him to stop alleging misconduct without evidence, and generally casting aspersions about others[26]. The links above in my first post to you show the history of that (in the last month, there's more that goes back to this time in 2012 if you want I can provide diffs). He has continued his allegations against Bbb23 and made quite a curious insinuation that I abuse my sysop privileges by commenting on his page[27]. Men's rights is one of the are areas I've been involved with since before becoming a sysop I have never used the tools there (I've brought everything to uninvolved sysops, as I am now).
I wont say that I'm not one to stand on ceremony but I do take such allegations very seriously. Especially in an area under probation. I gave Memills the opportunity to retract[28], but he has refused and denied that any aspersion was cast and repeated the insinuation that a) I am a POV editor and b) that I have acted improperly as an admin[29].
If you could, would you mind having a look? As a quick addendum I would point out that Memills is throwing around an allegation of "multiple editor ownership" while pushing his own POV on the page. He has been restricted twice and blocked twice for such behaviour in the last ten months. He was also warned clearly by Bb23 that the MRM probation appplies to all pages "including user talk pages" earlier this month before being topic banned[30]. Even after all of this has Memills is still behaving like this--Cailil talk 12:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note an issue of possible canvassing of other users by Memills (apart from Badmintonhist and Obiwankenobi). He has contacted User::William Jockusch[31] and User:CSDarrow[32] vis-a-vis complaining about Bbb23. CSDarrow made an allegation against MastCell that they were involved after being blocked, this June (see here). You can also see that weeks after being topic banned by Bbb23 William Jockush suddenly appears to complain to Bbb23 just as Memills is[33][34][35][36]. Is it just me or is there a pattern emerging here?--Cailil talk 13:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not good. I'm going to take a closer look at the situation, but it looks thus far like shit stirring from someone clearly told to stay away. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this please[edit]

The above IP user has inserted grossly-undue weight and primary-sourced court records information into the above biography, which violates both policy and common sense. There is already more than enough information about the incident in his biography and anything more belongs in the article about the Senate race itself. [[WP:BLPPRIMARY|Policy strictly prohibits the use of court records as a primary source for biographical articles.]

I don't need the article locked right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.96.120 (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific about exactly what you believe the problem to be, i.e. a diff or a specific source you don't believe to be reliable or acceptable? Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our July backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE[edit]

I have responded to your comment there and would like your input. (Just letting you know!) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Penwhale: Responded there, thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Dear Seraphimblade,
Lecen already made a request for an interaction ban (it's right below yours). I am currently writing a response to Lecen's request. Perhaps you can move your request to a "statement" below Lecen's request?
Sorry for the confusion, but thank you for helping out in the case. I also think that the interaction ban is necessary. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that in the text wall the first read-through. I withdrew my request as redundant. I did make a statement regarding the consensus at AE in Lecen's request to ensure the arbitrators are aware of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the text wall hides many things. Regardless, thank you Seraphimblade. I will provide a link to the AE request in my statement (to show that other also support the interaction ban). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

Deletion[edit]

Hi, you mentioned to me once about one sentence articles and how bad they are. So, today I have nominated one of such for deletion. See, it have one sentence and a see also which doesn't make it even a stub article. Furthermore, it have no references either.

Feel free to give me a ping, if you think this articles meets the A3 deletion criteria that I imposed.--Mishae (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae: If I had done it myself I'd probably have used A7, but A3 wasn't far from it either. In any case, it certainly was eligible for speedy deletion, so a good call on your part. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I am getting a hang of it. Can you see if this one is right?:
Or there are different criteria for templates? It does however have a worthless link, which no template should have. I nominated it with A7 and G3, I think I am right with both. Your thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mishae: For templates, there are a couple of template specific speedy deletion criteria, which are the ones starting with "T". Also, the "G" (general) criteria apply to any page on the project, regardless of type. The "A" criteria apply only to mainspace articles. I do not see any speedy deletion categories that would apply to that template, so it would have to go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Templates are not complete things in themselves, but are designed to make repeatedly-used pieces of text usable in an easier way than copying and pasting, so there are many templates which consist of very little text or perhaps only of a link. In many cases, that's perfectly appropriate. In this case, though, it doesn't seem to see very wide use, and excessive templating does obfuscate an article's code. It may be that this one is not needed, but it can't be speedied. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I removed the deletion nomination and posted it onto Templates for discussion in the review section (check if its a right place). I also rewrote David Rhys Williams article expanded it to Start and it turns out that he is notable (have at least one award). :)--Mishae (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BugScore AfD[edit]

Hello - this is your statement regarding the deletion of the article on Bugscore: "Contested prod. This article's sourcing at first looks impressive, but consists of anonymous "stories" which consist of essentially blog entries and self-published material. There are no reliable sources present, let alone anything by any named author, and upon searching, I can't find any. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)"

Response: As advised by you, we can remove all blog mentions or articles that make it seem it is self-published, however it is not accurate to say "there are no reliable sources present". Bugscore has been featured in Ventureburn which is a major South African tech blog, Yahoo (South Africa), Magna (a major Indian online publication), Future Intelligence UK (a UK tech publication). We have provided links to the stories. Furthermore, we don't understand why a reputable tech blog in Asia featuring us is considered "self-publication". But either way, we do have reliable, independent sources and would like for you to not require that the Bugscore article be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.173.48 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there is one story in the "Ventureburn" which is by a named author. Looking at Ventureburn's submission policy, they accept articles from the general public. They do exercise some editorial control, but I'm unsure how much, and it looks like they will accept articles from those affiliated with the subjects. That does raise questions of reliability, but it's possible they could pass. Even if so, though, the Yahoo "article" is just a pointer back to the Ventureburn piece, and the other two you mentioned are anonymous. Even if we accept the Ventureburn article as reliable and independent, that's just one, and the others either point back to it or are anonymous, which is an almost automatic indicator it's not reliable. One source (and that one marginal) isn't enough to sustain an article, so I will stand by my nomination, but you're welcome to participate in the discussion if you disagree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the September drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

Userfy request[edit]

For Hexchat and its Talk under my User page. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see User:Lexein/HexChat. When you're done with it, please let me know, or else place {{db-u1}} at the top of the page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll tag it in progress, because I strongly feel RS verification is imminent, within the year, and that userspace is a viable incubation area, especially if I NOINDEX it. --Lexein (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute - it's much more usual to bring along the actual edit history, and the actual Talk page, and its history, when userfying. That then brings along the history when it goes back to article space later. Can this be done? Please? Thanks. If you'd rather not, would you mind if I requested another admin do it? --Lexein (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid so. It's possible another editor might want to userfy it for another reason as well. The only way to bring the actual edit history, etc., would be to undelete and move the article, which screws up the logs and makes the history hard to find if anyone else needs it. If it does turn out a move back to mainspace is warranted, I'd be happy to help you do a history merge of the old and new revisions, it's a very simple process in cases like these.
As to the talk page, the only content on it was two objections to a speedy deletion request. I'd be happy to put those on your talk subpage if you'd like them? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

1RR and IP edits[edit]

Thank you for closing WP:AE#Parishan. You mentioned the issue of reverting IP editors. There's a subtlety about 1RRs that User:Bbb23 might have been referring to in his comment. In both WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction and Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Final remedies for AE case there is a 1RR restriction which does not count reverting of IP editors when judging if the limit has been breached. This was ratified by the committee in 2012. I don't believe that the ARBAA2 1RRs have the same feature. Just now when I looked in the AA2 case it wasn't easy to tell which articles have been placed under 1RR, or if there were any special terms. Probably that question about AA2 should be researched by somebody in their copious spare time. But I still agree with your summary because there is no obvious exemption for reverting IPs mentioned in AA2. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Ed said, although I'm not sure that anyone ever has "copious spare time". :-) I too agree with your summary and closure - thanks for taking care of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If either of you know where this mythical "spare time" beast might be found, please do point me in its direction. I've been hunting for it for some time. :) That aside, I believe you're correct in that the AA area doesn't contain such an exclusion, and none of the amendments I could find to it said otherwise. If you do run across something making that exception global or applicable to AA2, though, let me know—that area has been extremely busy ever since it started up, and I don't think anyone knows everything that's happened in it. So I certainly could be wrong there, just couldn't find anything saying IPs were excluded. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

Request for input[edit]

I think you took part in the earlier discussion Sandstein linked to in the earlier arbitration enforcement matter currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SightWatcher, so I'm guessing your input would be welcome in the current related discussion as well. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute[edit]

Dear Seraphimblade.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need your second opinion[edit]

I believe that this article should be speedily deleted, even though it does have a Russian language source which is used as an external link. The reason is, look how weakly it is written. Thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a geographical feature on the moon named after one is, I think, an assertion of notability. Keep in mind that the bar for an "assertion", for A7 purposes, is quite low, and doesn't mean the subject is notable, just means there's something there to indicate possibly so. So I agree with DGG. Regardless, though, speedy deletion is for noncontroversial deletions, and the fact that an admin has already declined to speedy disqualifies this from being eligible. However, one reference (and that written by the subject's family, therefore not qualifying as independent or reliable) does not establish actual notability, so you may wish to consider a proposed deletion or, if someone challenges that, an articles for deletion filing. Of course, if good sourcing does exist, improvement is always superior to deletion. Check for good reference material first, and if you can't find it to exist, noting that you've searched and failed to find it makes your deletion nomination stronger. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a tip what about this one? Lynn Wilder--Mishae (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mishae: Same thing there. The article asserts that she's somewhat well known, and even does contain some source material about her, so for purposes of speedy deletion, the article asserts notability and could not be speedied. Again, though, an assertion of notability for purposes of avoiding A7 isn't the same as actually establishing notability. It just means if the article still needs to be deleted, we need to give that a little more thought first by discussing it at AfD. In this case, though, I do see a full article specifically about her from the Christian Post. Given that, it's quite possible that if you were to take a look, you'll find additional sourcing to use, and deletion wouldn't be necessary at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. By the time you replied to me I already seen the article. Looks good.--Mishae (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

Chuba Akpom[edit]

Hi. From your edit to Chuba Akpom: "Requires significant sourcing to -demonstrate- notability, though, and what's here is trivial coverage, so tagged accordingly". I'm a little confused. He passes WP:NFOOTY because he's appeared in a fully professional league, and there's a citation in the article to demonstrate that. What are you actually asking for? More sources that say the same thing? Thanks. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of confusion over those, unfortunately, especially with the proliferation of subguidelines. To be notable, a subject must have been, well, extensively noted—have received extensive coverage in reliable and unrelated secondary sources. Passing a subguideline is a sufficient assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion, but it's not actually demonstrating notability. Only the source coverage does that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I understand in principle. In practice though, does this mean extensive coverage of the article subject (the player) in any sense, or specifically of his senior professional appearances? And what constitutes "extensive"? Is it more about number of articles or variety of prominent sources, and how much of either does an article about a young footballer require? Sorry if these questions are answered somewhere on the site - in all honesty, it would take me a while to find those answers. Clicriffhard (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no one answer, certainly. And to make matters even more interesting, in this particular area, practice is often divergent from principle. We had a similar situation with fiction articles a while back—articles on pretty much every "major character" of every work of fiction out there, most covered very little or at all outside the fictional work itself. Eventually that got cleaned up, but in areas with a lot of fan participation, that can be...difficult, to say the least. After that, tackling the sports issue would similarly be pretty difficult, and it may be a while before anyone is willing to take that on.
What we really should be looking for, especially for biographical articles, is sufficient sourcing to write a full biography of the person. Of course that will hinge largely around their sports career in most cases for athletes, but if all we can say is "X played for Y at Z time", that's a bit thin.
If that raises more questions than answers, let me know and I'll try to clarify. Notability questions are notoriously complex in some cases, and we're still a long way from resolving a lot of them. This is one of those rather unsettled areas. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very helpful. What I think I'll do is try to pull together a biographical section and then leave you a message to see if you have any comments. There is actually quite a lot of coverage of Akpom around, so I think it should be feasible. Does that sound reasonable to you? I'm a bit busy tonight, but I'll try to do it in the next few days. Clicriffhard (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly understand the busy part (all too well recently). I'll be happy to take a look when you can get to it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update: somebody beat me to it and made numerous alterations to the article. However I'm not sure that they're all improvements; s/he has added some information and sources, but also removed quite a few citations for reasons that aren't clear to me. I don't want to re-add them if there might have been sound reasons for the amendments, so would you mind having a glance and letting me know your opinion? Sorry to lean on you, but clearly you know your way around the site better than I do, and I fully intend to familiarise myself better with the consensus about this sort of content when I get the chance. Clicriffhard (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the edits as problematic, and I think the reference removals may have been inadvertent, I can't see why the cited sources would have been at issue. If you wanted to add them back, I certainly don't see anything wrong with doing so. Unfortunately, it just continues the same issue—most of those sources are either interested ones (the team's page) or are very trivial name drops, i.e., the "TheFA" sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't under any illusions that those edits had resolved the issue around notability; just wanted to check that that editor wasn't removing the citations for policy reasons that I didn't know about. I've replaced the citations and your notability notice and I'll have a look for some secondary sources shortly. Thanks again, and sorry for taking up your time. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be sorry at all, happy to help. Let me know if you need anything else with it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

Mail[edit]

Hello, Seraphimblade. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John C. Oakley[edit]

I think this guy is hardly notable, I put a deletion tag on the article.--Mishae (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you already got an answer on it. Remember that A7 requires that the article not even have a credible assertion of possible notability. That's a much lower bar than actually being notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

Doncram[edit]

It seems none of the admins noticed my suggestion, but I think an indefinite NRHP topic ban is woefully inappropriate and excessive under the circumstances. The only real reason cited for the topic ban was the edit-warring over classification of articles and I noted that simply barring him from changing or adding such classifications would resolve that problem sufficiently. His contributions on the NRHP topic have been highly productive and there have been no compelling concerns raised about his content work in that area since the arbitration case. Please, consider changing it to the lighter alternative I suggested.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read and consider your statement. While I appreciate your effort to come up with a less restrictive alternative, many editors brought forth instances of Doncram behaving disruptively in ways other than the article classifications. So while the classifications were what immediately precipitated the AE request, they were not the only problem, and a narrow ban on article classifications would not stop the other types of behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would like to state my support for User:Doncram. He has been invaluable in the past on NRHPs and other geography and community articles in the Capital District, the place where I tend to spend the majority of my time with vandalism patrol. He has butted heads with a some editors, and I do know there is one editor who has, more than any other, tended to push his buttons and oppose anything he has tried to do. Doncram has always edited with good faith and in the vein of wanting to truly improve Wikipedia. An indefinite topic ban will not only hurt Wikipedia in the short and long term, it will allow those he has attempted to reign in to be allowed to do things that otherwise should not be, or at least those things should have a voice saying "no, think about". Yes, civility issues in doing so are a concern, but if we lose a dissenting voice, then that is terrible.Camelbinky (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly understand that Doncram's editing has not been uniformly bad. Editors who are constantly troublesome with very little redeeming quality don't generally wind up at ArbCom; they get summarily indeffed and no one cares enough to argue, or they're formally banned by the community with little fuss. The toughest questions are always when we have an editor who is doing good work but is also causing significant disruption. In Doncram's case, it was disruption enough to land at ArbCom and get the probation imposed. Since then, Doncram has been warned twice for inappropriate behavior, the last time specifically for personalizing disputes. At this point, I believe the best solution for everyone is that Doncram disengage from the area for some time. "Indefinite" doesn't mean forever, and hopefully at some point, Doncram will be able to return to that area without the friction that's there now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Seraphimblade,
I was looking at this decision and while I have no opinion about the result, I am always interested in the process. I checked and you are neither on the ARBCOM nor an ARBCOM clerk so can any Admin close an request for enforcement?
Just trying to understand how this place works. Thanks for any information you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz: Yes. Arbitration enforcement is for cases where the ArbCom has already closed a case, and has delegated further enforcement to administrators, normally under discretionary sanctions. Any administrator may apply such sanctions where the ArbCom has authorized them; an AE filing isn't even a requirement, it's just a way to bring potential problems to the attention of admins. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Seraphimblade, this is exactly what I was wondering about. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random passing virtual hug[edit]

I read what you said on that proposal, and I'll just say that it made me very happy. Really, thank you for being lovely in so many ways. -— Isarra ༆ 18:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, and backatya. :) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AE[edit]

Hello Seraphimblade: I'd like to move beyond the Arbitration Enforcement and wondered if to begin with, would you reconsider your judgement on my case? Thanks for considering my suggestion.(olive (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

@Littleolive oil:: I would consider what you have to say, but I would need to know what you're requesting I change it to and why. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busy off Wiki so its taken a while to get back to you. Apologies for the delay. I also wanted to give myself space and time to look at this AE again. Even with time, I still don't see reason for or understand a discretionary sanction, although I feel I made a couple of comments that indicated frustration. You did mention tendentious editing, but I walked away form every thread leaving the discussions even when I knew to do so would leave wrong content in an article. I'm afraid I don't know what "I didn't hear". If your comment was about the deletion of sourced content, the standard was set for all editors on the TM articles (below) when I moved one source and content to the talk page because I initially didn't see that the content was supported in the source.

From Will Beback:

Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational."

Deletions like this are disruptive and harmful to the content. Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement. Will Beback talk 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


If this is not the standard, I have no problem with that, but the standard has to be consistent for all editors. Maybe this is something the arbs should clarify.
At any rate, I wonder if you would consider taking another look at this AE, and lifting the sanction.Thanks for your consideration.(olive (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Ultimately, the ArbCom can't make policy, only enforce it. Only the community can make policy. The Arbs make their "principles" section to clarify their understanding of how policy stands at the time of the case and which policies are relevant to the case, but not to actually set it. That being said, being properly sourced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for material to be included in an article. Material must also be relevant, neutral, and given proper weight, for a few other requirements. In this case, the removal was not "peremptory", but was instead clearly based upon objections for reasons other than being unreferenced, and the removing editor was willing to provide those reasons. To then continue to focus on the material being referenced, rather than directly address the objections that were actually raised to it, is a type of I didn't hear that. Does that make things a bit clearer? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reply, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you clarify what you are referring to here,"To then continue to focus on the material being referenced, rather than directly address the objections that were actually raised to it, ...(olive (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Let me give you a more general overview of the problems. As to your specific question, note that the ArbCom principle refers to peremptory removal of sourced material, which would generally indicate that the removing editor is unwilling to discuss the removal either beforehand or upon request. It is not an edict that "Thou shalt never remove a line having a source", which seems to be the attempt at use here: [37]. In this case, two editors above had clearly indicated why they believed removal justified, and that had nothing to do with the material being unreferenced. I'm not saying they were right, mind you, only that they had articulated a reason unrelated to the material having or not having references. At that point, if you disagree with their decision, the correct way forward would be to engage that objection directly, rather than referring to an arbitration principle that's at that point largely irrelevant. If you think they made the wrong call, just address their argument and directly state why you don't agree with it. What you're doing there raises significant concern of refusing to acknowledge what's actually said.
This also goes back to the concerns of casting aspersions. Here are some examples of what I mean by that:
  • Here was a veiled reference to BLP violations and also a reference to another editor as "unconscionable" by you ([38]). Accusation of a BLP violation is serious, and I took a careful look at this article and its edits to check for them during the enforcement case upon seeing that, but could not find any. I noticed that as far as I can see, this was never brought to the BLP noticeboard, or in any other way was the BLP violation you claimed to see addressed. This is concerning, as one would hope if you really did believe a BLP violation to be occurring, you would have at least asked for some more eyes on it. If you knew it wasn't a BLP violation but threw that out there anyway, you were accusing another editor of a serious policy violation without cause.
  • Here, you accuse IRWolfie of "threatening" when he made this edit [39]. There's no threat there. IRWolfie explains the reasoning behind why an edit was reverted quite calmly, as part of the normal BRD process, and offers to solicit more input if the other editor does not agree with that reasoning. The veiled threat is actually yours ("You are skating on the thinnest of ice.") [40].
  • Here, in the midst of a discussion with IRWolfie, where IRWolfie has clearly laid out the reasoning behind his editing, you claim that IRWolfie is refusing to discuss the matter: [41]. That is probably the best example of "I didn't hear you" that I could give here, but it's certainly a clear example of it.
When I reviewed what IRWolfie presented at the AE request, I saw a clear pattern where you would refuse to engage or even acknowledge what was actually said, and instead would respond by slinging an accusation of wrongdoing or a veiled threat of sanctions. This is not appropriate conduct or conducive to a calm discussion of what article content should be. I hope the examples clarify what the problems are? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 

  • While I don't agree with the way in which you have characterized those talk page discussions, I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. Meantime, I will consider my other options. Thank you.(olive (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

 

Articles for deletion[edit]

Can you make sure that this article get deleted? It have no references for almost 8 years, and it have only one external link. I'm more then sure that this article is a G11 violation.--Mishae (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've tagged them as such, and they'll get checked (I see one already has been deleted, and one is awaiting evaluation). When you speedy tag an article, they go into a queue that admins go through to evaluate. You don't have to directly let someone know, we'll see it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I letting you know in case if you will be one of the admins to review it (although I don't know if you are).--Mishae (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon enforcement[edit]

As I read Sandstein's most recent comment to that page, prior to yours, I don't think it's the case that he sees the appeal as non-actionable. He remarks "we can process it as an appeal." Perhaps you did not read that the same way, but I think a close based on standing, etc. would at least have opposition, though it may represent a majority opinion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

Disruptive editing[edit]

You know very well that the first step before taking an editor to a noticeboard is to have a discussion with them. Just because you dislike somebody does not give you a free pass to skip that step. It is also wrong to accuse people without evidence. Your ban proposal is thin on diffs, and heavy on rhetoric. Would you please stop and have a think about this before proceeding? Jehochman Talk 01:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was already discussed with them in several venues, see the diffs I provided for exactly where that happened. They indicated clearly there that they have that position and do not intend to change it. The requirement is that discussion be had with them, not that I personally start another one when they've made it clear their position won't change. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't address your second point. I guess I'm not sure how it's "thin on evidence" when it contains several references to the editor in question's own words, explicitly stating they'll treat one of our guidelines with disregard and contempt. I provided diffs to those statements. Having made those statements, and presumably engaging in the behavior they clearly admit to, is exactly the problematic behavior I'm seeking resolution for. What else exactly do you want? Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI is a guideline, much disputed, not a policy. You cannot ban someone for COI alone. It may be considered an aggravating factor if they are violating content policies. You provided no evidence whatsoever that any content policy was violated. You provided no evidence of sock puppetry either. Jehochman Talk 12:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, unilaterally, can't ban anyone at all. I can block them on my own authority in clear cases, like repeat vandalism or clear sockpuppetry, but that's not a ban. However, I can bring disruptive behavior to the attention of the wider community. If there is community consensus that this behavior is unacceptable and a ban is warranted, the community as a whole most certainly does have the authority to do that, for any reason whatsoever. And "guideline" doesn't mean "ignore it at will", it means "You should be doing this in almost all cases." If someone announced that they, for example, intended to ignore the notability guideline and create a bunch of inappropriate articles, they may be blocked or banned as a preventative measure, because they've stated they intend to disregard that guideline and act in a way we've stated is inappropriate. If this editor thinks the guideline is wrong, they have every right to visit VPP or the COI talk page and argue in favor of changing or removing it. They don't get to just unilaterally ignore it, though, that's point making. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tonyukuk_Monument_in_Old_Turkic_Alphabet.jpg[edit]

Dear admin Seraphimblade, I have been uploading this image on the title 2-3 times

each time it gets nominated for deletion based on false Copyright issues by this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerevanci

I kept telling him this is my own work and do not delete it, he keeps deleting it.. then I noticed he is Armenian which led me to believe he has bias on this topic due to history.

here is my proof of raw image, that image is mine, please do not keep deleting it.. http://orhunyazitlari.appspot.com/media/tonyukuk5.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tonyukuk_Monument_in_Old_Turkic_Alphabet.jpg

turkiclang (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urməvi and User:HistoryofIran[edit]

Could you issue notifications for AA2 for both User:Urməvi and User:HistoryofIran. Their edit-warring has now spilled over to a second article.[42][43] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and definitely needed. Thanks for bringing it up, hopefully that will settle things down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of User:Ismet11?[edit]

Would User:Bilge88[44][45] appear to be a sockpuppet of User:Ismet11 to you? Or am I hearing quacking noises because the Baltimore Ravens could not beat the lousy Green Bay Packers? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this IP[46], is also Ismet11. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Sandstein referred you to WP:SPI, and would echo that. I don't really have time to check on it personally, but someone there will. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#"Reverse AFD"[edit]

I wish I'd seen this as I was took action on the article itself. I do believe that changing an article to a redirect and not merging any of the content is side-stepping our AfD process. See my comments at Talk:Islamophobic incidents. And if it does end up as a merge, which it might well, and no content is merged, what do you think the next step should be, if any? Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do a merge, so long as the history stays intact, which in cases of redirection it does. Unless someone objects to merging the material, I'd say just go ahead and merge whatever you think is appropriate to the redirect target. The intact history allows for the attribution requirement to be fulfilled. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, thanks. The editor who proposed it has been blocked indefinitely now. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question.[edit]

Well, according to this [47], i have to try to discuss it with him on his talk page, but i don't really see there is anything to discuss. I already tried to explain it to him on the history page that he had no sources for it, but then he suddenly began saying things that didn't even made sense (Azerbaijanis are not persians!).

Do you think i should try again but this time on his talk page? i don't think i will get any answer from him but i could try. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page would generally be best, but you can drop a note on his user talk to let him know you're interested in discussing it there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will try, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urməvi[edit]

Having just been reverted by Urməvi (talk · contribs) when I tried to make sure an article showed both sides of an issue, I noticed your editing restriction. I see a number of reverts since then and no talk page discussion. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the October blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 07:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 16:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just letting you know this matter is now being discussed at Wikipedia:AN#Ban_Appeal_of_AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AE appeal[edit]

I've appealed the Littleolive oil AE here[48](olive (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thank You![edit]

Thank you so much. I understand that editing BLP is tricky and can be hurtful to the person. I will never ever even bother to edit BLP's. I will stick to snakes and that is it. Again, thank you and I appreciate the unblock. --DendroNaja (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Awesome[edit]

Barnstar of Awesome
You are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Awesome for your amazing work alpha-testing The Wikipedia Adventure. Over 180 bugs were identified and 143 of them have been fixed already! (The rest are catalogued as known bugs).

You. Are. Awesome. Check out your name in the game credits here: WP:TWA/About.


Thank you again :) --User:Ocaasi 17:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


How you can help even more!
(and for which there may or may not be a super secret second extreme helper barnstar)
  • Start over fresh with a new account: Like User:OcaasiTWA17 (these are legitimate alternate testing accounts and are not considered sockpuppets)
  • Finish the game: Give some attention to missions 5-7 (which have been tested much less)
  • Try a different browser: If you used Safari, try Firefox (or Chrome, Internet Explorer, Opera...)
  • Show the game to a friend or family member to see how they like it and if they get stuck anywhere

Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 14:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade/archive_11&oldid=1168308053"