User talk:John254/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Content dispute

Hi, since you have been such help in the past with providing level headed comments on content issues I wondering if I could trouble you to look at the page on the Wessex_Institute_of_Technology. After looking at other academic pages I decided to expand this one from a stub article to a full one, since I know a lot about this institution, and yet people seem to insist on using the page to launch personal attacks against the institute despite the fact that even if their views are justified none of the other academic information pages are polluted by information on past 'controversy' even though there are far bigger issues. I feel its totally out of place but would greatly appreciate advice from a much more seasoned user of wikipedia such as your self. Regards - --Curuxz 15:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

John, I'd just like to drop a quick note to let you know that I disagree with the removal of the claims regarding WIT. There is more information here, where WIT apparently stated in a letter to the authors that their papers were in fact not reviewed. A bit of searching on Google finds many claims of impropriety relating to review of the ID paper, and 4 Austrian papers. Judging by User:Curuxz edit history, there's a likely COI here. I'm not interested in debating this further, and will accept your judgement, but I would like you to reconsider. Mark Chovain 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you still fail to see the point, its not about weather or not this did or did not happen. As far as they are concerned it was a provisional acceptance based on his position on the committee, they would argue otherwise so no agreement will ever be reached. The only thing that matters is that many academic institution's have had issues which some people feel are controversial, I can list a few if you would like, but they do not appear on their wikipedia pages because thats not what wikipedia is for. Its too close to the Wikipedia:Libel and POV rules to make it worth going on there, the article I wrote is designed for the end users and is simple plain and informative without causing offense. I would like to thank John for taking the time to look into this, you have as usual provided a valuable insight into the rules far beyond my editing knowledge. I only want this page to look as clean as all the other UK University pages. --Curuxz 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:74.200.200.76

Can I ask why you removed the warnings? this person is vandalizing the MGM Grand Detroit and in addition they have now violated the 3RR. If you are an Admin I request that you take appropriate action. 151.198.131.131 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Microlistics

I'll deal with it if I can, but inappropriate usernames go to WP:UAA. Daniel Case 03:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed you made an AIV report on a suspected sockpuppet. If you want to report a sock go here. Thanks! SLSB talk ER 14:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM

I noticed you mentioned me in your request for arbitration. You might also like to look at my block log (the blocks made on me not by me). Viridae ^Talk 05:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AIV

I just changed the template you used to report an IP vandal at WP:AIV from {{userlinks}} to {{ipvandal}}. This gives info to the admins more relevant to an IP. Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 22:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD closures

Please remember to add the Oldafdfull template to article talk pages if you have closed the debate, please see the template for its syntax, regards. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

İQTElif

Thanks for the heads up - I thought I had deleted it, which I had but only once, I needed to delete it again. I thought about a block, but it looks like he recreated the article before the final warning was issued, so it seemed unfair to do so. Carlossuarez46 19:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

re User:Volosian report at WP:AIV

I am removing the above report, without prejudice to further reporting, as the entire Joseph Stalin article looks as if it needs admin intervention. I have noted this at WP:AN/I. I feel Volosians edits were in counter to some severely biased editing of the article (even if they were of themselves bordering on vandalism). If you wish to take the sockpuppetry report to the appropriate place then please do. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaftesbury link

I've just reverted your link addition. John, please - in the interests of fairness, I'd like to see further discussion about this on the talk page. It's a contentious issue and my removing page prot is not an endorsement of this link - Alison ☺ 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that you not remove this link unless you have a specific objection to its inclusion. Per Help:Reverting, reverting a good-faith edit should not be done lightly; at a bare minimum, this would seem to imply that one should not revert a good faith edit when one does not actually disagree with its content, merely for reasons of fairness or process. John254 01:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you John for restoring the link to our town website, I can see why Joe D got upset but it was nothing to do with me I just want our town page to have a link to our community website, maybe now he will give it a rest and realise its one harmless, but relevant, link. Its nice to know there are people willing to stick up for the little guy in the interest of fairness, its very much appreciated. --Curuxz 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CSN

I didn't move your comment as such. I just did a clumsy fix for an edit conflict. You, however, changed the indentation level of my comment, changing who it looked like I was responding to. Please don't do that. Mark Chovain 03:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I would just like to say thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Thanks! ChipChamp ^(t/c) 03:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Pics

There so confusing to put on! there is no upload file button, but Help says there is one, could ya help me?

--MasterChief3 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

blocking

Oh, I didn’t know...shows how much of a newbie I am....but what are the qualifications of becoming a sysop? Are you a sys op? Sorry, I thought Wikipedia was a self policing set up for experienced users but I guess not, Thanks for the info.--Daven200520 18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally, users become sysops after making a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. While there are no formal criteria for adminship, a successful request for adminship generally requires that the candidate has:

(1) at least several thousand edits

(2) some significant participation in the creation of encyclopedic content, the Wikipedia namespace, and RC Patrol

(3) not engaged in recent, significant policy violations or other disruption

(4) avoided recent participation in significant disputes or other controversy with other good-faith users.

At the moment, I am not a sysop. John254 19:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA link

Have you got something in the works? I was going to request a courtesy blank soon, which would break any links, but if you have something worthwhile in mind, I can hold off on that. - Crockspot 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the span ID added to your RFA in discussions here and here. I contended that the introduction of your off-wiki statements unrelated to Wikipedia at the RFA constituted a personal attack, that your RFA had 86.9% support immediately prior to the introduction of the personal attack, and that the large number of subsequent opposition votes were directly attributable to the personal attack. I further argued that you should have been promoted, as it is highly probable that your request for adminship would have succeeded had the personal attack not been introduced. Most other members of the Wikipedia community strongly disagreed with my assessment. They argued that your off-wiki statements were relevant and acceptable material to present at your RFA. Because of this community sentiment, it is highly improbable that any bureaucrat would overturn the RFA outcome. Filing a request for arbitration over this issue is not recommended, as the Arbitration Committee has previously declined to overturn RFA outcomes when asked to do so, believing such matters to be outside their jurisdiction. There would be no reason, therefore, not to request the courtesy blanking of your RFA, should you wish to do so. I believe that your RFA is part of an unfortunate trend of using personal attacks against RFA candidates that I first observed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rockpocket, where I asked whether RFA's are "going to be debased with the personal attacks and mudslinging that often characterize political campaigns?" If you have any suggestions as to how this trend might be stopped, please let me know. John254 05:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. Jeffrey O. Gustafson's adminship is suspended for a period of 30 days. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion

is that it would allow people to get an RFA to succeed simply by applying reverse psychology and insulting the candidate. >Radiant< 08:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Good job of keeping down the AfD backlog. I think you should become an administrator. Best regards, PeaceNT 05:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Brainwashing 101

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101 (2nd nomination). - Crockspot 05:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice

Trying to cause problems with an RFAr will really help in the development of this encyclopedia. Who are you, even? I'm amazed that I've wronged you so much that you want to try and cause me problems when I can't even recall ever coming across you before. violet/riga (t) 11:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

note

i find myself in somewhat of a distress, please catch my talk page when you have the chance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered

new AN/I here - [1]. please participate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting close rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in metropolitan Detroit

Hi. I think you may have intrepreted the dispute guideline a little broadly. I am certainly not going to ask for a DRV, too wonky, and I think that keep probably is the right outcome, but when we have an article chock full of peacocking and statistics minutia and other editors are trying to work to get it to where it needs to be, but are being reverted by those that feel they WP:OWN it, deletion discussion seems like a fairly logical request. The community was coming down on the side of deleting it, because it was not an encyclopedic article, until the article got substantially improved. I feel you could have found for keep without invoking this principle. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's AFD process is intended to remove articles which have fundamental problems that are not amenable to editorial resolution, or whose content is of no significant use in the creation of an acceptable article. For instance, if an article lacks references to significant coverage of its topic in multiple third party reliable sources and it is reasonably believed that such references cannot be produced, the article may be deleted to enforce the verifiability and notability policies. As an exception, obvious spam articles, even if editorially salvageable, may be deleted in an effort to control advertisements, which are added to Wikipedia at a rate that exceeds our ability to rewrite them. However, the AFD process is not designed as a remedy for concerns over user conduct, even if it is alleged that the conduct is seriously obstructing efforts to bring the articles nominated for deletion into compliance with Wikipedia policy. Why? Simply put, deletion of articles is a highly ineffective remedy for concerns over user conduct, and produces significant collateral damage. The community loses salvageable articles, while the users whose conduct has been questioned may simply move their conduct to other articles. Should we delete those articles as well? Instead, concerns over user conduct should be resolved through the dispute resolution process, or, in severe cases, through a posting on WP:ANI requesting that an uninvolved administrator warn and/or block the offending users. Note that I take no position as to whether any editors involved in Tourism in metropolitan Detroit actually engaged in any problematic conduct; I am merely responding to concerns expressed by other users. John254 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(no need to double post, I watch where I start threads)First, there's no need to explain the fundamentals of the AfD process to me, thanks... I've been around for some time. Second it is true that AfD is not, and should not be, a remedy for user conduct, but I think you completely missed the point I made. The nomination rationale did not mainly focus on user conduct, it mainly focused on the article's unsuitability for the encyclopedia in the form the article was in, with user conduct (WP:OWN issues primarily) being a side factor at best. Your close keep should have instead of citing conduct policy, merely pointed out that the article had been changed enough to be suitable, and that there was a consensus to keep the article at the time of the close. It is my view that your close actually fostered further inappropriate behaviour on the part of at least one user, as they used your close as a justification for their initial bad behaviour when called to task at ANI, so your close rationale acted directly in contravention to the principle it supposedly upheld. Further, your close was more process wonking than really is in general appropriate, in my view. In future, please, wherever possible, focus on the merits of the article itself, however tempting it may be to make points about the rationale advanced for deletion. I think the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case showed us that focusing on the article itself is a better approach than focusing on process or on motivation of the participants. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

At this AFD, the "the rationale advanced for deletion" had an important relationship to "the merits of the article itself". Particularly, since it was effectively conceded even by the user who nominated the article for deletion that the article had no fundamental, uncorrectable problems, and that he nominated it for deletion only because his attempts to remedy problems he believed existed in the article were reverted (see, for example [2] ) it is reasonable to conclude that, indeed, the article didn't have any fundamental problems not amenable to editorial resolution that would merit deletion. Consequently, the article should never have been listed at AFD. Perceived problems such as "considerable resistance to changing the article substantially on the part of some involved editors" [3] should have been handled through the dispute resolution process and/or a posting to WP:ANI regarding user conduct, if appropriate. (I take no position as to whether a posting to WP:ANI actually would have been appropriate, or whether any editing at Tourism in metropolitan Detroit would or would not be subject to immediate sanction.) John254 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, closing the AFD as keep by "merely point[ing] out that the article had been changed enough to be suitable, and that there was a consensus to keep the article at the time of the close" would have provided an open invitation to renominate the article for deletion, if, as a result of future edits, the article was again deemed to be "chock full of peacocking and statistics minutia". Such an nomination, of course, would not be an appropriate use of the AFD process. John254 20:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because I think your close has vindicated some bad behaviour and is likely to encourage a particular user to continue that pattern, as he feels your close vindicates his position. (and that you "take no position" on what went on there is not really good... you SHOULD take a position and advise users they are misbehaving, when you see it) It's not corrosive enough to warrant much further action in and of itself but it's a disturbing trend. You're not an admin at this time so perhaps my perspective is different than yours, and my tolerance for process wonking is lower than it was when I started here. I'd take this to DRV but that would make the wonkery even worse. What really matters here is product, not process. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a user blames me for his own conduct does not imply that I am actually responsible for it. Had this user given a reasonable interpretation to my closure of the AFD discussion, he would have treated it as a vindication of his behavior with regard to Tourism in metropolitan Detroit only insofar as it endorsed his decision to oppose the complete deletion of the page (though not his manner of opposition), and no further. If a user insists on making an unreasonable interpretation of my AFD closure, construing it as an endorsement of his content edits on the article in question, it is his responsibility, not mine. I took no position with regard to the propriety of the content edits on this article because I did not believe that I could judge the situation fairly or judiciously at the time. With regard to the suggestion that my AFD closure reflected "process wonking", I note that I did not insist on the proper use of the AFD process for its own sake, but rather to avoid a substantively bad outcome, namely, the unjustified deletion of a salvageable article. John254 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent explanation of your AfD closure

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident was, of course, the right interpretation of policy. More impressive was your explanation. You gave a very good explanation of why WP:NOT NEWS is not usually a valid reason for deletion, WP:BLP cases being the exception. Best, Johntex\^talk 19:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. John254 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

John, can I know who the sock-puppet is? I submitted a Code A checkuser, but if you already know, that would be great to know. It was because of him that I was blocked less than two weeks ago. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who is responsible for operating the User:Heavy Brother account, though it is probably a user involved in a content dispute with you. Checkuser action will likely be needed to resolve the issue. John254 03:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I add to the report those who I have had disputes with before? They seem centered on the []Ronald Reagan page]], and that would mean only two users.

As for the 3RR report currently in place, I would like to point out that I was reverting NPA on User:Operation_Spooner's User page, which is supposed to be allowable under WP:RPA. This was actually rejected after lengthy discussion a week ago, and I am at fault for not watchlisting the page and keeping up to date. When I discovered the reversal of RPA, I reverted my edits on OperationSpooner's page.

It was absolutely not my intention to either edit-war or vandalize another's page. I felt attacked by an editor who had been counseled by no less than three admins simultaneously as to the nature of using his user page to post personal attacks (the ones I removed, citing NPA) only two weeks ago. I tried to contact the trio a week ago; out of the three, two are on wiki-break and the third hadn't returned a message left a week earlier.In retrospect, I should have posted the matter on AN/I.

It is notable that the reporting editor is curtrently sitting on a 31 hour block for edit-warring in another page. His reporting of me is the direct result of his presence on Operation Spooner's page.

I admit that I tend to lose my cool with editors personally attacking me, and I guess I have to learn how to disengage and take the matter to more neutral folk to resolve. I will certainly be more on guard in the furute against such attacks, and act more appropriately. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I have spoken with the user in question and removed the block. They are aware of the implications of WP:SOCK on their editing and know that if I see it again, it will be an indef block on both their accounts. They were unaware of the policy, and it's within my prerogative to give users an appeal. Thanks for your work on this one. - Philippe | Talk 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)