User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 30

DYK for Oliver H. Lowry

Gatoclass (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mimi Macpherson

Can you explain? I'm not entirely sure what's going on with this article, but since you're the one who protected it, I presume you know. There's clearly plenty of sources, so something else must be going on. Silverseren^C 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD, DRV, Reason why it's a redirect and not deleted. NW (Talk) 22:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why the article is salted. Silverseren^C 22:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the subject wants it deleted and it isn't going to be recreated without a very strong overriding consensus? NW (Talk) 22:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that was a common SALT practice. As far as WP:SALT says, it's only done if an article has been recreated multiple times against consensus. Does salting also usually wipe out the history of an article? Silverseren^C 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't usually. I just didn't want someone to recreate it, which would result in me deleting all their hard work, which would make them upset, which makes me sad. (Really! I promise! I'm not that evil!) Right now it isn't salted, it is full-protected. Salted means the page is a redlink and only administrators can create the page. Redirects being full-protected makes the page still show up as a bluelink. That's just semantics though, really. NW (Talk) 22:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re

[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

NW, just to be clear, I am allowed to respond to JJGs comments about the recent occurrences at enforcement on my and admins talkpages? Please respond as ASAP. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are. After the current enforcement actions finish, I expect you to terminate all contact with him though. NW (Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that I can not edit any article that he has edited? or for example take part in any talkpage discussion where he has participated? or edit the same part of an article that he has edited? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Treat it as "don't make major edits to articles he is editing, and don't engage him on talk pages." NW (Talk) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I allowed to discuss changes at the talkpage with other people, about the same content that he previously have edited? Am I allowed to edit things at articles, that he previously have edited? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

[2] Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness

Hi NW, you retracted your comment about User:Supreme Deliciousness on AE, but I believe it was prematurely. The user is now outing Jiujitsuguy, and does not even want to admit it. May I please ask you to note that Jiujitsuguy has never edited under their real name on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh no, I am not "outing" anyone, JJG had published an article at a well known newspaper and several websites about Wikipedia and signed it with his name, it didn't seem as something he didn't want to be revealed, if he didn't want it revealed then why did he publish it in a newspaper and sign it with his name? He never said he didn't want it revealed. Now I know and wont link to it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You still dont get SD. What you did was OUTING plain and simple. I edit under an anonymous name for a reason. If I wanted to edit under my real name, I would have done so. Somehow, you were able to link my real name with my username on wikipedia and then you went a step further by publicizing it to the community. Given the contentious nature of the subject matter, I am now genuinely concerned.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy is 100% correct. It was an outing attempt. The revisions need to be censored. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Jiujitsuguy. JJG has clearly gone to lengths to not link that article with his user account. I have removed all mention of it, and rev deleted any history since it was added. Please consider this your only warning, Using any evidence of this sort at AE is explicitly prohibited by our outing policy. I expect that you will not use any evidence in the future that is not available onwiki, no matter if you link to it or not, without at the very least first consulting with an Arb/admin. NW (Talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason you deleted my message from SD's Talk page, or was it just swept in with the rest of the mess? Would you mind if I restored it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you would be able to see the offending comment if the diff of you posting were not deleted. Sorry, but unfortunately I think it has to stay deleted. NW (Talk) 06:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice exactly where my message was in the sequence. Thanks anyway. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I re added some info here: [3], there is no quote or link, I hope this is okey. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you are not violating outing by posting that, but if you're evidence has been declared out of bounds, then you should not expect that statement to be weighed very heavily. NW (Talk) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Question Hasn't there been outing controversy surrounding SD in the past? He knew very well this is not acceptable. Enigma^msg 20:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "out" anyone, he himself published an article at a big newspaper and several websites where he talked about his edits at Wikipedia and signed his name. This gave me the impression that his name was no issue for him. I linked to the article to show what he previously had said, not to reveal his name. As soon as he told me that he didn't want it revealed, I didn't link to it again. I respect peoples privacy. Previously my ethnicity and nationality was revealed, and I didn't want it revealed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can't even acknowledge that it's outing, there's nothing more here to do. So the guy wrote an article and talked about editing Wikipedia. That makes it OK to go on Wikipedia and say that editor X is <real name X>? There's some kind of disconnect here between what you view as ok and what the general Wikipedia public thinks is ok. You went to great lengths to bury the connection between your current username and your old name, and even got your pretty vile userpage deleted. So you're clearly against outing as it pertains to you. The fact that you're not against outing if it's against someone you disagree with is greatly troubling. Enigma^msg 21:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He now said that he cared about it, but I didn't know this based on him talking about his edits at Wikipedia at a big newspaper and him signing it, so it was unintentional on my part. The way you are saying it, is like an accusation, like I did it on purpose only for one reason to reveal his name, when his name had nothing to do with it, I did not go on Wikipedia and "say that editor X is <real name X>". And btw, he did not only "talk about editing Wikipedia", he talked about his editing of Wikipedia.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In the article you linked to that mentioned his real name, did he also state his WP username in that article? --207.80.151.128 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure; do you have a link to the previous discussion? NW (Talk) 20:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  No, I don't have a link handy. I could be wrong, but I remember this discussion happening before. Enigma^msg 21:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So this discussion has happened already, and SupremeD was involved in that discussion as well. I don't think there's any space to claim he wasn't aware that linking Wikipedia usernames to published articles is wrong. Enigma^msg 21:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are getting it, "he himself published an article at a big newspaper and several websites where he talked about his edits at Wikipedia and signed his name. This gave me the impression that his name was no issue for him."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you can plead ignorance when you involved yourself in the previous discussion where it came up, where Jiujitsuguy said it was an issue for him. You're acting like you have no knowledge of the previous incident. Enigma^msg 21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Where does Jiujitsuguy say his name was an issue for him? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll look this weekend. This OUTing issue also came up in one of the AEs you brought against him. Enigma^msg 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• SD, just accept that you were wrong and move on. I'm trying very hard not to block you, but seriously: just stop talking about all of this. You did a fine job on the Egypt/Lybia protests articles. Go edit those for a while. NW (Talk)

Yes I was wrong, but my wrong doing was unintentional. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care. NW (Talk) 01:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't want any more of this on your talk, but just to close this, I went back and looked at the previous AN/I (where SD sent in this information via e-mail, and thus was obviously aware of the fact that it couldn't be posted on-wiki), and a previous AE which also indicates that he was aware of the issue, and I thus regard the OUTing as not innocent at all. The same can be said for what Nableezy did. Nableezy was certainly aware of the fact that it couldn't be posted on-wiki, and he'd been told this multiple times in the past. Given the Sol Goldstone indef block, I feel strongly that neither SD nor Nableezy should be allowed to get away with this behaviour. Enigma^msg 05:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded at your talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do what you feel is right. I'm fine with staying at what it currently is (that ANI thread should probably be closed though), but if you wish to block, that's your perogative. NW (Talk) 06:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

We need your help @ INT section. please have a look Protests sticky link & Egyptian take over the SSI -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's being handled just fine. NW (Talk) 00:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Troubles case log is out of order

Hi NW. It is lucky that Troubles has not been very active lately, but the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations is being extended in two different places. So we have 2010 entries, then 2008, then more 2010 etc. I could make a plan to reorganize this, but need a clerk to agree that it's appropriate. (Maybe Sockpuppetry could be its own ==Top-level== section, for instance). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you create a sandbox mockup for me to take a look at? NW (Talk) 03:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get started on that. A good model is (I think) the Digwuren case, which has subsections by year. The things that would need work are 'Sock-puppetry' and 'Final remedies for AE case.' There was a big Troubles AE case in 2008. The latter decision had a large number of personal sanctions, and there was some talk about creating new remedies. (Haven't figured out yet if any new remedies were created). This is messy. I'll look further. It appears that somebody would have to re-summarize the history of the case, and a clerk might be asked to move some of the older material to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Am I still allowed to add further responses to my statement section here? I wanted to check with someone (so obviously I came to you. :P ) before I added anything else, just in case I wasn't supposed to. Silverseren^C 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm recused from acting as a clerk on this case. I would say no, any further comments should be added to the /Evidence page, but you should ask Tiptoety about that. NW (Talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Silverseren - sorry for jumping in, but I happened to see your question when talking with NW here. Usually the statements aren't edited after the case is opened, but if you have any further thoughts on the case, you're welcome to use the Evidence page, the Workshop (for proposals) or either of those talk pages for further comments. Shell ^babelfish 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing Filemover Proposal

9:30 was an hour and a half ago, and you're not on the IRC. Just a friendly reminder. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to it now. NW (Talk) 04:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. It's here by the way. Thanks a lot. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the closing. Honestly it was a tough call between the two. I think that in another three months or so, if all goes well with the current system, we'll see a proposal for it to be expanded to all autoconfirmed users, and at that point, I don't foresee it not happening. In the mean time this will be of great help to those of us that work in files. Now if you excuse me, I've got an IRC room full of mediawiki developers to bug. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Nuke, are you satisfied with the stability issue you brought up? The article has garnered three "supports" so far and the comments have dwindled down to almost nothing in the past few days. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, stability looks fine now. I was concerned that the one edit war from earlier might be a spark that would lead the entire article to go down in flames, but I'm glad that my pessimism didn't rule the day :) NW (Talk)

AE Unblock - comment location

Hey, would there have been a better place (or time) to comment on the Arb case? Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The comments on the main case talk page are generally reserved for comments made either before and after the case is opened and closed respectively. The best place to comment at this time is probably Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. NW (Talk) 21:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll move them there. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I previously asked you about this, am I allowed to edit things at articles, that JJG previously have edited a couple weeks ago? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The big thing is this—don't get into any edit wars with him, or engagements, or so on. It's a case by case matter, and just use your best judgment to stay clear if at all you feel that you will ever need to speak with him. NW (Talk) 20:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have sent you a mail that I want you to reply to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do so soon. NW (Talk) 23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem abitration: See WikiProject Mathematics talk page

Regarding your question for Hans and for Elen. Please see the Monty Hall problem arbitration, which is being discussed at the WikiProject Mathematics talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note re [4] - Richard Gill is Gill110951 (talk · contribs). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just caught that, thanks. NW (Talk) 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

While on the subject of Monty Hall, couple of things

• What I was trying to say with Glkanter and Nijdam was that their conduct during the case was evidential of the kind of problematic editing they were indulging in.
• Could you keep an eye out on the proposed decision talkpage. I don't mind the mathematicians discussing whether one of the proposals will cause them a problem, but I've just removed a wall of text from Glkanter, attacking Rick Block, from the middle of it.

Thanks--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, what kind of being are you? You have edited the arbitration committee's deliberation without being pinned to the rocks and having your liver eaten by snarks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He's a WP:CLERK Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

:) NW (Talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• @Elen: Sure thing. You might want to inform Doug and X! that the PD is heating up a bit though; they are the official clerks for this case. NW (Talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to undelete

I am preparing to present evidence in the AE sanction arbitration case. In your capacity as clerk, can you please restore the following pages for me?

User:Dreadstar/ND
User:Dreadstar/VT
User:Dreadstar/here
User:Dreadstar/Awards received/Cool award
User:Dreadstar/SSmith
User:Dreadstar/DE

Dreadstar deleted them just before the case was opened. I believe their contents are relevant to the dispute, but I am not an admin and therefore cannot view them. Thanks, Skinwalker (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe they are relevant to the case at hand—most are article drafts or otherwise related to content that Dreadstar has worked on (with the exception of the award). Why do you think they are relevant? NW (Talk) 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I believe they demonstrate a history of editorial involvement in fringe topics, particularly the ND (Natasha Demkina) draft. However, if you say they are not relevant then I will take you at your word. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the first one, none are really related. I placed the secondmost-recent revision of the first one in your list here for the next month. I think it was a merely a draft he wrote to help out with some disputes they had been having on that article. NW (Talk) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help. Skinwalker (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dm DO

I did not see merge proposal at the link you provided. Do I have a blind spot? PPdd (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It was probably archived. It's not really a problem; I don't care too much. NW (Talk) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

They should be merged, but I don't care too much either. PPdd (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You have mail

You have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you see this? Why aren't you replying? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply in due course. I read it, and have been thinking about the matter. NW (Talk) 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi NW, I'm sure you're busy, but I wonder if you could check the permissions-commons list. I have an image that I'd like to get on the Main Page, but I need the OTRS rubber stamp. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have access to this queue. Which image do you need checked? Courcelles 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it in the queue. Verified and marked as such Commonsside. Courcelles 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of Rod's case

Did I miss some sort of discussion somewhere where this was decided? Because, otherwise, this seems like some method to drown out discussion and start it back up when most of the people involved are no longer going to be interested in continuing it. Silverseren^C 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Private discussion among the Committee, but from what I understand, the motivations for the suspension seem to be on the up-and-up. NW (Talk) 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Which means...? Silverseren^C 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't say more unfortunately. But I do believe that the Committee is definitely acting in Rod's best interest here. NW (Talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. :/ Why exactly are you in on these proceedings? Silverseren^C 22:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated, but it's largely because I'm a clerk. NW (Talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. *sighs* Well, I hope this all turns out amiably. Silverseren^C 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Water Tribes listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Water Tribes. Since you had some involvement with the Water Tribes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

JPS

re: [5]: I figured this revert would happen, but before I reinsert the {{indef}} tag, I'd like to ask why you reverted it. are you suggesting that he's not indef blocked, or do you have a reason why the tag should not be placed on his page as it is on every other indef-blocked user's page? thanks. --Ludwigs2 04:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the same concerns. If there is some special reason for why it should not be restored, please explain. Otherwise it should be restored. We do not show special preference or courtesy to some blocked editors and not to others. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NYB's comment above ("My view is that templates of this nature serve little purpose and should be dropped either when the blocked/banned user requests it") basically explains my view: it's not necessary or helpful at this venture and it certainly isn't applied to every blocked user's userpage. I'm certainly not the best writer; perhaps MastCell or Courcelles can put it more eloquently (I have seen them make similar actions in the past). NW (Talk) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, where do you suggest it be brought up for discussion? I don't generally see this same courtesy extended to other people indef-blocked for less serious offenses, and there should be some consistency to the practice so that there's no appearance of bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really an opponent of SA/JPS/etc. - if it were up to me who to indef-block he would not be my first choice by a long shot. SA was actually self-reflective and quite easy to work with if you got to him before he got on his high-horse about something. But frankly some of the things he did were about as bad as I've seen on-project, so special treatment looks a little funny. --Ludwigs2 06:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I too think there should be no difference. I think that all blocked/banned users should have a template on their user page. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Courcelles to comment here. He might be able to help out here. NW (Talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a difference of fundamental philosophy here causing the problems, as Brangifer said above, "They have forfeited all rights to polite treatment". No- totally wrong. You are talking about a user who could have their editing privileges restored at any time, and without tremendous amounts of difficulty. Study the history of the block, and not just the time entered in the duration field; indefinite does not equal infinite in this case by any means. JPS is still entitled to be treated to a standard of decency, his block does not make him any less human, and there is no reason at all to tar someone's real name with that indef block template that serves no function at all. {{Banned}} serves a purpose. {{Sockpuppeteer}} serves a purpose. Both of those provide easy links to community discussions, SPI threads, or serve to keep socks together so that Checkusers can use them in future checks. The indefinite blocked template is little more than a scarlet letter that does nothing that looking at the contributions wouldn't do. Unless someone is actively causing problems or formally banned, there is no reason to tag them if they request the tag be removed, and even less sense to do it to someone who edited under their real name. Courcelles 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Courcelles, and am a little surprised no one has written an essay WP:GRAVEDANCING to address this. I might throw something together on the subject. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Boris - that would be useful, yes; all I'm really interested in is seeing the practice standardized. The problem I'm seeing in this case is that SA is (factually) a sockpuppeteer who is currently indef-blocked. The only difference between him and (say) User:Martinphi (noting that MartinPhi got himself indef-blocked by emulating SA's tactics in their private little war) is that SA has a fan-base on project which is partly due to to a strong editing history outside of the problematic behavior, but partly due to being on the "right" side of the fringe science divide. Differential treatment due to fan-fatuation is ishy: the 'strong editing history' might be a credible reason, the 'being on the "right" side' thing is almost certainly not.

To be honest, I always saw those {{indef}} tags as purely informative - notices to any passersby who might be looking for the user that the user is no longer around the project. Otherwise it takes a bit of effort to figure out what's going on. Maybe what we need is a new, gentler template for long-term users who get in trouble, one that says something like "This user is currently barred from editing as a result of administrative procedures." Would that be more functional? --Ludwigs2 17:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's one other difference between JPS and Martinphi, and it's the basis for courtesy-blanking JPS' page (at least as far as I'm concerned). His account is associated directly with his real-life name. In such cases, consistent with the prevailing attitude toward Wikipedia's potential to cause real-life harm, we have typically extended courtesy, even to users who have committed wiki-offenses far more substantial than JPS'. That said, if someone wanted to courtesy-blank or delete Martinphi's userpage, I'd be a bit surprised if anyone objected. Thus, I don't see a case for the sort of pervasive favoritism you're alleging, but that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you haven't (to my knowledge) been on the receiving end of it, which naturally makes it difficult to see (objective psychological fact, that, not a criticism). Give thanks that no one makes a determined effort to portray you as a 'type' in order to keep you in your place - it's not a pleasant feeling.

As far as the the rest, I wasn't aware that JPS was actually his real name - that sounds like a made-up name to me (though I suppose my real name would sound funny to others, too). As I said, it's not a huge issue, I'm mostly interested in consistency. it's not something I'm likely to campaign about either way. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, people portray me as a "type" all the time when they want to invalidate what I have to say. The list of names I've been called on Wikipedia, and the list of conspiracies/cabals I've been accused of being party to, is pretty extensive. I can't say I enjoy it, but I try to not let it bother me, and to not let it define my Wikipedia experience. And people who demand consistency from Wikipedia typically leave here burnt-out, angry, and frustrated. This project doesn't do consistency - it never has, as long as I've been here. I guess it would be nice to have a more consistent system, but there are (at least) two major obstacles. First of all, the haphazard governance of this project is enforced by knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism - any attempt to impose some sort of consistent structure is guaranteed to go down in flames as a power grab. Secondly, the project has been astoundingly successful, by any reasonable metric, with its current approach. One could reasonably argue that the lack of consistency has served the site well thus far. Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

lol - well, all I can say to that is that hindsight is 20/20: had Wikipedia been a failure we wouldn't be here discussing it and the issue would be moot, so I'm not sure that some measure of 'astounding success' could actually have been avoided. but maybe that's needlessly metaphysical. The fact of the matter is, the system does work after its fashion, but the way it works is silly and quarrelsome. The haphazardness and lack of consistency creates a militant core dedicated to defending a set of normative principles that are neither well-defined nor well-understood, and that militancy inevitably smacks into people like me who run afoul of misunderstood and misapplied norms but have the wherewithal to push back. As I've said elsewhere, it's a classic tribal cultural system, and not a particularly advanced tribal culture all things considered.

We can all work with this system, obviously (except for those who get blocked or run from wikipedia in terror), but we could sure do a heck of a lot better if we wanted. But as you say: anyhow... --Ludwigs2 05:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@MastCell: That's frankly a copout, MastCell. Admins like you are the de-facto leaders of this project, and you above all can work towards achieving more consistency by supporting equal treatment for all. I've had my differences with NW, but I very much respect that he applied his template principle equally in this case (he also removed the template from GoRight's user page when he removed it from JPS). That's what we need to see more of: respected admins taking actions to promote fair treatment of editors they might not like or agree with, and also taking action against those they agree with; the administrative equivalent of editing for the opposing POV.

Consider the case of Lar in the recent conflict (which shall not be named). Lar advocated equal treatment of all offenders, and for that he was vilified and openly mocked. Even some admins piled on, and unfortunately, Lar did not always respond well. But what was more striking to me was how few respected admins (like you MC) defended Lar against the onslaught. Lar was doing very good work applying standards equally in that probation, but he was attacked for simply being consistent in his standard. (Did you know, for example, that Lar was one of the toughest admins acting against the side he was ultimately accused of supporting?) Perhaps if more admins like you had supported Lar, particularly in dealing with one problematic editor, it might not have become the mess that it did. ATren (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that I'm a "leader" on this project (which is a dubious premise to begin with), it's because people choose to emulate the example I set. I try not to spend a lot of time lecturing people on how they should behave, because I think modeling good behavior is far more effective. To the extent that Lar failed with climate change, it's because he took to berating people to live up to a standard that he clearly wasn't willing to hold himself to. His credibility suffered from his own recurring inability to set a good example, much more than from a lack of support from his fellow admins (although, at least in my case, the former contributed to the latter). MastCell ^Talk 03:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So in the spirit of equal treatment, do you think there were any other personalities in that conflict who "took to berating people to live up to a standard that (they) clearly weren't willing to hold (themselves) to"? Why were admins piling onto the RFC against Lar for his sometimes aggressive tone, even as they largely ignored (or even defended) the other aggressive, belittling personality in that conflict? I don't have a problem with you criticizing Lar for his attitude; my problem is the deafening silence when certain others engage in the same tactics. ATren (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lar was (a part of) the problem. Meanwhile, you have nothing to do but attack SA William M. Connolley (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WMC: the fact of the matter is that everyone involved is part of the problem, but only some people get called to task for it, and that exacerbates the problem. For instance, I've had the following type of exchange scores of times:

• Some editor calls me a fringe advocate (or some other derogatory term) and suggests I should be sanctioned, just because
• I tell them that they are making accusations and threats without any basis in reason
• Some other editor or admin warns me about civility and ignores the first editor

I don't know anything about Lar and this 'recent conflict', but I'll eat my hat if it's not some variation on the same differential treatment. To put this very bluntly, you can't have a system in which one side is held to a standard of maturity while the other side is allowed to be spoiled and childish. Or rather, you can have such a system, but it will produce a continuous stream of conflict and hostility. As my grandmother used to say, don't hold someone else up to a mirror if you're not willing to look in it yourself; we shouldn't as a project indulge that sort of bias systematically. --Ludwigs2 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For some people the bottom line is content, rather than the social aspects of the site. Draw from this statement what you will. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is content for both of us, Boris. The difference is that you don't have to wear a flak jacket when you edit. It's easy to see a bus as just another form of transportation when you're not the one being told to sit in the back (pardon the hyperbole). --Ludwigs2 04:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Equating disdain for bullshit to racial prejudice goes beyond hyperbole into the realm of the truly offensive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SBHB, the abusive, vulgar, grossly-insulting behavior I see by some of the editors in Wikipedia who claim to be real-life scientists (and I'm not including you in this), may not be as bad as racial persecution, but it shares some of the same characteristics, including insecurity and authoritarianism. Cla68 (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That you and Ludwigs2 could trivialize the experiences of American blacks and other minorities by such a comparison is utterly reprehensible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the civil rights analogy, that's way over the top, but everything else Ludwigs said is spot on. Boris, you don't seem to realize that it's about content for us too, and we believe that the content ultimately suffers when admins make decisions based on sympathy to a POV rather than conduct alone. Perhaps we need an essay "administrating for the opponent" to match WP:ENEMY on the admin side. ATren (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: Bingo. ATren (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand Courcelle's point, but still have concerns. We need consistency, and also the information that a template provides. One often sees messages left on talk pages for banned/blocked editors because others don't know they aren't around. We need consistency and milder templates that are informative without being insulting. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

<retracted>

Personally, I only ever apply the sockpuppet template, as I do not find the others useful to me in any adminly or editorial capacity. Particularly in the case of a long term contributor, I do not think that it serves the community to encourage bad blood with a former editor, doubly so one who might come back to us at some point. On that note, may I point out that it has been quite some time since NuclearWarfare commented here? A centralized discussion on the merits and usage of these templates might be a better venue for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is too important to hide here and it needs community input. It should be subject to a policy/guideline decision. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, remember, there are sometimes real life consequences for our online behavior as we are, heaven forbid, sometimes held accountable for our actions. If an account is indef blocked for violating Wikipedia's rules, then it needs to say so on the account's page. If the current wording in the indef block template is too harsh, then soften it a little. If the account is using someone's real name and the banned person is concerned about it, then delete the account. It can be recreated if the individual is ever allowed again the privilege of participating in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please blank GoRight's user page

You have recently courtesy blanked Joshu Schroeder/ScienceApologist's user page. For consistency's sake, could you please do the same for GoRight? I see no reason why one indef-banned confirmed sock should get a courtesy blanking, while another gets the banned template. Whatever you feel about GoRight, he was certainly no worse than SA, who had a long history of blocks and conflict rising all the way up to arbcom. There is no good reason other than ideological preference that GoRight should get templates while SA's page is blanked. ATren (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

SA was blocked indefinitely, not banned. GoRight was community banned. It seems like semantics, but there has been drama over removing banned user templates, while I have rarely if ever seen that same drama over blocks. Maybe you could confirm with someone like Newyorkbrad that it would be OK to do so? If so, I would be very willing to courtesy blank GoRight's user pages. NW (Talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but Ottava was blocked by arbcom, not the community; SA was blocked via arbcom sanctions. Seems like SA is more like Ottava than GoRight. But then, GoRight doesn't have ideological correctness on his side, and that's all that matters here. ATren (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A ArbCom ban is functionally the same as a Community ban. ScienceApologist's indefinite block was not Arbitration enforcement (that's not allowed by discretionary sanctions) but rather a block by an administrator who happened to be a checkuser. I don't think it really matters all that much; as long as there is a request by the party in question, I would be inclined to courtesy blank the page, but I do want to be sure. I have left a note with Brad here; hopefully he can clarify the matter. NW (Talk) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ATren, why are you badgering NW over this? Just go and ask another admin, preferably one you've never heard of so they can be a neutral arbiter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. My view is that templates of this nature serve little purpose and should be dropped either when the blocked/banned user requests it (and has stopped the behavior that has led to the block or ban), or when a reasonable time has elapsed with no further problems. However, I am not sure that my personal views on this subject have always gained consensus in discussions of these types of situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. A blocked/banned user's behavior (because they aren't editing) can't "stop" and "no further problems" can't be judged. I think all blocked/banned editors should be treated the same. They have forfeited all rights to polite treatment and a template describing their status should be placed on all their user pages. None should get preferential treatment. That's just plain wrong. Once their block or ban has expired things get back to normal, but not before then. -- Brangifer (talk)

@ATren: I blanked GoRight's userpage. NW (Talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you NW. ATren (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan

That didn't work at all. As soon as protection expired, it was reverted by an anon IP, and then the usual suspects. There is no sincere discussion in Talk. The version being reverted isn't what was presented in Talk. Mindbunny (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What didn't work? The vote? The ANI? The various noticeboards where it has all come down against you? Why bother when you have an administrator willing to step over the process? V7-sport (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as most editors know, is not a democracy, just because you or other editors can rally some troops does not mean you are right. Wikipedia is not yours or his and comments like "where it has all come down against you", portray a very low level of discourse. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Action need

A very distracting tactic is being used on this page and in the actual proceedings. Please warn Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 that bringing me into the discussion will not be allowed to disrupt the proceedings. It's a dirty distraction tactic. I am not part of this case. The comments they have already made should be removed or refactored. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Another undeletion request

Pursuant to my last request,[6] could you provide me with the text Dreadstar deleted from ScienceApologist on 13-July-2010? That's the mainspace article, not SA's userpage. Thanks, Skinwalker (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Dreadstar#Request for explanation. NW (Talk) 22:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeeesh. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. In the meantime, I've posted my evidence.[7] I'll check back to see if any of the deleted material gets released. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

I sent an email to the ArbCom Clerks list some weeks ago, I was wondering if it came through or if it's still in the moderation queue. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:21pm • 08:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on this one by email in a day or two's time, if that's all right with you? NW (Talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine :) —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:20pm • 07:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rich Manley

You have just declined a speedy deleted article Rich Manley the same article was previously speedy deleted and also declined for creation here [8] I can't see what has changed in the meantime? Kind regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 08:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It makes a claim to significance (a lower standard than notability) with the Knight and Day reference. Therefore, WP:CSD#G4 does apply, which I had not noticed before. Deleted. NW (Talk) 16:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

So I'll be waiting on that summary then. NW (Talk) 17:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Enough said. Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Ok, now I'm formally requesting that I be allowed to enter the R&I mediation and associated material into evidence. It (and Mathsci's behavior there) are prime examples of the kind of anti-fringe problem that I'm trying to discuss, and I see no reason why I should be prevented from doing so just because Mathsci is hypersensitive to every little thing that I say. If he wants to get into this (as he obviously does, from his strong responses to my off-hand comments) let's get into it properly. --Ludwigs2 18:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Could you prepare a draft or an outline of one in your userspace? NW (Talk) 19:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah, but it's a bit of work - as I said, there will probably be over a hundred diffs - so I may not be able to give it the attention it needs until late tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC) P.s. and sorry, I suspect being caught in the center of this sucks for you. a lot of wiki-karma flying around the room... --Ludwigs2 00:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Hi NuclearWarfare. I have informed ArbCom about Ludwigs2's request, which personally I think is highly unlikely to be approved. In the current circumstances, it might be advisable for Ludwigs2 to wait for authorisation from ArbCom before proceeding to enlarge the case in this unforeseen way. If Ludwigs2 feels he might have been misrepresented by my email, which contained his first message above and the message filled with obscenities that he left on the workshop page, he can of course email ArbCom directly. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC) FYI: I have no interest in enlarging the case, since I would only be using the R&I material as an example of an ongoing problem, and would not ask for or expect any action to be taken with regard to such old material. I mean, please, I do have common sense... and once again, sorry. --Ludwigs2 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC) If it's 100+ diffs of material, it might be better worth your time to either pick another case study or make a quick summary of what you plan to say instead. NW (Talk) 01:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (ec) If this is a general phenomenon, for which this is just one example, you should have no problem at all in finding another example wholly unrelated to WP:ARBR&I and me in particular. Presumably you know of many examples on wikipedia, including ones that are directly related to pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Any case study I pick is going to get me in trouble with someone (unless I go outside of my immediate experience and deal with something like Cold Fusion or Global Warming), and the advantage of the R&I debacle is that it was clear, intense, familiar, and had a number of editors displaying both good and bad behavior. maybe you're right about the summary though - I'm busy writing something at the moment, but I may be able to whip that out in one of my frequent breaks. And Mathsci: considering the way you treat me as a general rule, I am just not all that inclined to go out of my way to do you favors. I'm not going to go out of my way to shaft you, either, but you squandered any good will I had towards you a loooong time ago. You were not party to this case but you decided to stick your nose in it anyway, even knowing the history you and I have. That was your choice; don't blame me if it has ramifications. --Ludwigs2 02:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2, it is extremely inadvisable to conduct yourself in this way during an ArbCom case. Please try to be more careful in the future. Refactoring the above would be one way to start. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Mathsci, ask yourself a question: have you ever known that tactic to work with me? You must have issued me 50 or 60 such supercilious warnings in the time we've known each other; all they've ever managed to do is make me angry, and (not to steal Bruce Banner's thunder) no one likes me when I get angry. I tend to lash out in dreadfully brutal, pointed and thoroughly mean ways. I would suggest to you (and I think NW will back me up on this), that you never ever issue me a warning, caution, or advisory again, and that if you have trouble with my behavior you ask an admin to issue me a proper warning instead. that will be a far more effective practice, all told. I don't expect this - you are far too emotionally attached to this supercilious nonsense to ever give it up - but I am asking you to try anyway. Otherwise our relationship is just a ticking time bomb, dependent entirely on how long I'm able to put up with it before I lose my temper. Is that what you want? --Ludwigs2 15:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand why you wrote any of the above. If you lose your temper while editing wikipedia you should probably just switch your computer off and/or go on a short wikibreak. For the moment I am assuming that until further notice from members of ArbCom or possibly a clerk you will not mention me or WP:ARBR&I on the ArbCom case pages. That was my main concern here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC) oops re this: sorry, for some reason I thought I was on the workshop page when I posted that. won't happen again. --Ludwigs2 04:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC) That's fine. NW (Talk) 04:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

summary is at User:Ludwigs2/AE evidence. sorry for the delay, but I took yesterday off so as not to chew someone(s) out for intractable stupidity. I may tweak it a bit, and I'll leave a placeholder for it in my evidence (which I am going to revise a bit right now) so please review it ASAP. thanks --Ludwigs2 21:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the draft, to be honest. However, the clerks have been discussing a related matter; I'll bring it up for wider review. Please excuse the delay. I'll try to get back to you as quickly as I can. NW (Talk) 23:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of it either (it came out much more anti-Mathsci than I'd intended, mostly because I'm still super-POed at Wikipedia editors in general). I'm open to revisions to the current material, and I will make some effort to supplement it so that it's a little more balanced in the meantime (after I hit the gym and sweat out some of my desire to bite people's heads off). Let me know what the verdict it. --Ludwigs2 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice from posters on the list is: show it to one or both of the drafting arbitrators but don't add it to the evidence page without their say-so. NW (Talk) 05:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

Hi NW, please note some minor edits ([9], [10]) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem. Paul August ☎ 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the vote count in FoF #9. I wasn't sure if it was really necessary to keep the headers for FoF 6, considering how similar the proposals were, but I'll defer to you on that one. NW (Talk) 23:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic history of the Jews

Hi NW. In reply to your question on my talk page, the sentence was present when the article was created in mainspace two days ago [11]. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Block for Edit Warring

I have blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring on Sarah Palin. I have warned you multiple times against edit warring without discussing the matter on the talk page.[12] I see no indication that you have changed your behavior. Instructions on how to appeal this block, should you wish to do so, can be found at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. NW (Talk) 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring, and wasn't even the first to revert one time. I didn't revert two times, much less three times, even in response to someone else. I'm sure you must have some honest intention that I just don't quite realize yet. Have a good day.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if I didn't discuss one zillion and one times instead of a zillion, sorry. If you think that Palin's statements about death panels are not very well-documented, well-known and very relevant to many statements made by Palin over a period of years, you are mistaken.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

---

However one feels about it, one would have to have been hiding under a rock for the past few years to pretend that Palin nothing to do with death panels, or that she had almost nothing to do with death panels, or to pretend that the complications with this story are not as well-known and well-documented as they are.

For many months the endless mass-deleting consensus was that Palin never said a single word about death panels. Now the consensus allows that she might, perhaps, have said two words about this, but no more.

In other words, there is a large gap between “consensus” and honesty. What’s massively well documented by many sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia is not documented, what’s well-known according to opinion polls is unheard of, and what’s relevant in that it reflects many things Palin said over a period of years has nothing to do with Palin. Either this, or Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion all mean the opposite of what they say. What’s tiny is always “overwhelming.”

One editor said there should be “no cherry-picking”, and then replaced the rest with his opinion that Ezekiel Emanuel really IS running a death panel as his interpretation of “the truth”, and mass deleted the rest. Most reliable sources tell a very different story.

A dishonest consensus indicates merely that the number of less than honest editors is large, which does not make for a very good encyclopedia article. Ten liars are not ten times as honest as one liar.

Nuclear Warfare blocked me for “edit-warring” for not two, much less three reverts, and even though I was not the first to revert even one time. I guess this lie must mean a lot to the “consensus” of pathological, repetitive, persistent, extreme, year after year liars.

Horologiun said that “excluding information is not the same as dishonesty” even if the exclusion is very, very selective and dishonest, and contradicts all Wikipedia guidelines for inclusions. If this is true, the death panel “selective and misleading” lie was not the “Lie of the Year,” and Mark Twain was mistaken when he thought he knew a thing or two about lies, including the silent lie (“one of the most majestic lies that the civilizations make it their sacred and anxious care to guard and watch and propagate.”)

Could I never again hear that repeating all the details about these lies merely a gazillion times instead on one gazillion and one means that I didn’t discuss all the reasons why well enough. The persistent message from the “consensus” is: The more liars the better. The bigger the lies, the better, The more extreme and repetitive the lies the better. If all the very well documented and well known reasons why lies are lies get mentioned only one gazillion times instead of one gazillion and one, it’s because honest people don’t explain well enough. If liars NEVER explain why they keep mass deleting the most well-referenced, well-known, relevant to Palin information, it’s because pathological lying is so wonderful.

Which might be the single biggest issue we disagree about.

Nuclear Warfare's statement "I have warned you multiple times against edit warring without discussing the matter on the talk page. I see no indication that you have changed your behavior" IS AS BIG A LIE AS ANY.

One obvious clue as to all the reliable references for the above are all the references that mass-deleting liars keep deleting year after year. It's not as if they have no way of knowing how dishonest they are.Jimmuldrow (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, calling everyone on the talk page liars isn't exactly helping your case... NW (Talk) 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It also wasn't "helping my case" to be polite to pathological liars up till now.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of Noleander

Hi NuclearWarfare

So far as I can see, the discussion at WP:ANI on your block of Noleander has no support for retaining the block, and 11 specific calls for it to be lifted.

I'm sure you made the block in good faith, but since there is no support for your action, please can you lift it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just lifted it and posted to ANI, as a matter of fact. NW (Talk) 20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we crossed in the post. But thanks for lifting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• According to Noleander on his talk page, he's still blocked. Is the autoblock still active? Silverseren^C 04:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope.[13] Risker (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It was already removed by someone else before you checked. Silverseren^C 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Logarithm history

this is to remind you that you wanted to check Euler's contributions to the history of logarithms. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was flipping through Maor's book before going to bed last night, and you were right, there isn't too much about Euler and logarithms. The index says page 156 has "definition of logarithm" and "Euler, Leonhard (1707-1783)" together, but the only things I can find on that page are: $\ln {x}=\lim _{n\to \infty }n(x^{\tfrac {1}{n}}-1)$ and "In a letter written in 1731 the number e appeared again in connection with a certain differential equation; Euler defines it as "that number whose hyperbolic logarithm is = 1." So I guess I'm not going to be much help, unless I take the time to look over more books on the matter later. NW (Talk) 16:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan and The Daily Mail

[14] I don't agree with you that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for information of that nature in the Lara Logan article. Major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines, no matter what the topic is, and that includes science and medical articles. If the details of the attack on Ms Logan are omitted, and that's fine, it should be for different reasons than whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source or not. BLP and other guidelines or policies are valid reasons for excluding that material. It's just that I get exasperated seeing editors argue that major newspapers or major broadcast media sources are not valid sources. We've got to stop that nonsense. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, sometime you should actually read Wikipedia's policies on sourcing instead of going by what you imagine them to be. For example, at WP:IRS you will find statements such as "Being known as a mainstream news source does not automatically make said source reliable," which directly negates your statement "Major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines, no matter what the topic is." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

SBHB, you're taking that quote out of context. The purpose of that paragraph is to explain that some news sources are openly and/or admittedly biased or inaccurate. Of course, sources like that may have problems. The intro paragraph for the section states clearly, "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable." Remember, for example, that editors have repeatedly asked at the reliable sources noticeboard if Fox News is considered a reliable source because it is openly partisan. The answer from the regulars there is "Yes, it meets WP's policies as a reliable source." Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you truly not see the difference between "generally considered to be reliable" (what the guideline says) and "indisputably classified as reliable" (what you say)? The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Major newspapers with circulations as large as The Daily Mail? I don't have a problem using the word indisputable with regard to sources like that meeting that sentence "generally considered to be reliable." Cla68 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The National Enquirer has a circulation that is a third of the size of The Daily Mail's. I hope you don't consider that to be a reliable source too. NW (Talk) 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the largest circulation newspaper in the UK is The Sun. Following Cla68's standards its reliability is greatest of all, "no matter what the topic is." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Caution: citing the Daily Mail can probably give you cancer, or perhaps not (late caveat) Their stories may not be consistent, but if using social networking sites such as Facebook could raise your risk of cancer, what does that say about WP talk pages???? . . dave souza, talk 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The snippet of WP:IRS quoted by Boris cautions against equating a newspaper's circulation or popularity with its reliability. I think that the Daily Mail is basically exhibit A of this phenomenon - that is, a large, high-circulation publication with a poor reputation for accuracy and objectivity. MastCell ^Talk 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to pile on, but I'm afraid that I have to agree. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read, the Daily Mail's reputation is not at all in the same league as the National Enquirer, which certainly does have a poor reputation, in spite of being the source which derailed Edward's presidential campaign. That paragraph in the policy appears to be directed at papers like the National Enquirer, not the Daily Mail. Here in Japan, tabloid papers often are the first to break stories on corruption in the government or industry, because they aren't under the same pressure as the mainstream newspapers not to offend government officials or their advertisers. If the source is controversial to some, and it appears that a few of you personally don't like the Daily Mail, then we attribute it and allow the reader to make up their minds on the veracity of the info, we don't presume to do it for them. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Previously you said "Major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines." But now you're saying that at least one large-circulation newspaper (the National Enquirer) is not. What caused you to change from blanket acceptance of major newspapers as "indisputably" reliable? I'm glad to see you adopting a more nuanced approach, but am curious as to the reasons for the volte-face. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would include the National Enquirer in the definition of "major newspapers". I think the National Enquirer should send some of their senior reporters to Japan to observe how a tabloid should really be run, but I'm sure they probably feel that their current model of operation is fine for them as long as they keep selling enough copies to pay for the judgements they lose in libel court cases. Cla68 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The National Enquirer breaks news too, as with Gary Hart and his dalliances. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

... and, of course, the Daily Mail is notorious for losing libel suits, most recently when they claimed that a Tamil hunger striker had been caught by the Metropolitan Police secretly sustaining himself with McDonald's hamburgers. The claim was, apparently, completely false, although it succeeded in turning the public against the hunger striker until the truth was able to struggle its way out. One can only speculate as to whether it was a mere failure to perform the most basic fact-checking before publishing an inflammatory allegation, or a more intentional fabrication, but either way I think this is the sort of thing that should raise WP:IRS red flags. MastCell ^Talk 15:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

... interesting link, for those cautious about the Graun, Auntie also covered the story and The Sun was suitably contrite. Now, if Freddie Starr ate my hamster is more to your taste..... dave souza, talk 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Those Brits...

Why don't they know how to spell properly? :)

Thanks for the fix. NW (Talk) 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, no problem. This particular convention always seems jarring to me too.  :) —David Levy 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think this needs airing

Originally posted on User talk:WJBscribe, with the section title "Get my position straight before you attack it"

I'd appreciate, next time, that you discuss things with me before you misconstrue my position. That I have expressed no small amount of frustration and a few choice words for the vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread is unrelated to the merit of the desysop. If you had taken the time to actually read what I'v been saying — or took a moment of your time to check on the facts — you would have known that I came down hard on that thread because it had nothing to do with the merits of the desysop and everything to do with process wonkery. — Coren ^(talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You should read some of what you've been posting lately and think about how it looks to a detached third party. You sound extremely angry and tense. If that's the case, take a step back - "vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread" is a ridiculous comment and unworthy of you. A number of well respected contributors expressed their concerns about a decision. Instead of calmly engaging in the discussion, you fanned the flame. Your posts stand out in that thread as having added a lot more heat than light and yet you are the one to archive it "with extreme prejudice"?
Your hostility here only reinforces my concern that you (and maybe some of your colleagues) have taken very entrenched views on this matter. Please think about recusing - let cooler heads deal with this. I post infrequently these days, maybe you should give some thought to why I thought your comments sufficiently worrying that I wanted to speak up. WJBscribe (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that I am furious, but you're entirely mistaken if you think that this in any way related to the original decision or that any part of that animosity is directed at Rod.

I'm entirely willing to extend a vast amount of agf your way — I'm pretty damn sure that you did this infrequent post because you are, somehow, convinced that Rod got a raw deal. I can guarantee that out of all the "concerns" expressed about the decision on the AC/N thread, maybe one in ten actually cared one whit about Rod at all. Of those, maybe one or two actually had enough information about the actual situation to make a mistaken guess about the rest.

We did everything we could to prevent Rod from being drawn into more crap then he could handle, but there is only so much we can do to protect someone when the mob pounces on the opportunity to sacrifice them on the public square for a shot at the Evul Arbcomz. Rod is getting a raw deal: he's being used by the community as a weapon against the committee, and he's going to end up being the only one paying the price for the "community"'s desire for blood. — Coren ^(talk) 12:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Community's desire for blood Coren? Could you tell me exactly how much of that I, or Heim, or Sandstein, or Prodego, or TenOfAllTrades, or John, or WJBscribe have for the Arbitration Committee? Last I checked, we were all administrators in good standing, I am for now still an ArbCom clerk, and many of us voted for you last election. If you can't tell the difference between concern that the Arbitration Committee might be overreaching its powers and being out for blood and using someone as a weapon, then you have certainly lost perspective. NW (Talk) 14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem isn't it? I actually know the fact underlying this case, I know why the decision was taken, and why it was taken off-wiki. I know that the only one who will suffer from this case having been made public is Rod. There will be nothing gained from the public case, that couldn't have been done with a rational discussion of whichever failings of process there might have been in a manner unconnected to Rod — quite the opposite: the specific issue will obscure and confuse any wider point that might have been made about how the committee should go about in the future in such cases.

How else am I supposed to interpret this? We've unanimously been trying to tell you that Rod — and only Rod — will be harmed by exposing this. And yet, despite our repeated warnings and invitation to continue the discussion about the general process elsewhere and in another context, some people insisted that Rod should be hung out to dry in order to — I don't know — "expose Arbcom"? Punish it?

If that's not it, then please explain it to me; because right now it looks like either you (collectively) don't care one bit about Rod if it means scoring some points against the committee; or that you honestly believe that all 18 of us are lying bastards. — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

---

I've taken the time to copy this here since you (understandably) don't necessarily follow a conversation on someone else's talk page and it's better to not clutter someone else's talk page. My question above is sincere, and I really want to hear what you need to say on the subject. For what it's worth, the situation has obviously (and predictably) deteriorated since, and in retrospect it now seems that no amount of discretion could have avoided it. But surely you can understand how things might look from this side of the screen? — Coren ^(talk) 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I somehow missed your reply on my watchlist. My bad.

Let's look at how this appeared from Rod's end, shall we? He received an email from Roger Davies asking him to contact the Committee. He responded and got no real response, besides another note from Elen of the Roads asking if he received Roger's email. He responded to that too, saying that he had not received any specifics from Rod and as such, could not really respond to anything yet. Roger finally emailed him again and (summarizing) said the following: You're a good contributor. However, we have identified four issues of concern with you. Therefore, we have collectively decided to desysop you. If you want, you can voluntarily resign (under a cloud), but otherwise, please refrain from using your tools until we actually get around to going to m:SRP. Actually, at this point I think it would be important to quote from Roger's decision: "I'm sorry to say that we've now reached a point where the clear consensus is for you to be desysopped by motion and perhaps also subject to an interaction restriction with Malleus Fatuorum. However, the Committee is mindful of your long and dedicated service and has no intention of acting publicly in this matter unless it has no other alternative. A dignified and low-profile solution might be for you to resign your sysop bit voluntarily, with a note explaining that if you ever wish the tools to be returned you will do so via a fresh RfA." Nothing here indicates that this desyopping would be a temporary interim action pending full public review, as the ArbCom has tried to make it seem after-the-fact.

Now, do I think that Rod's actions were perfect? Of course not. Do I think that he should have at least had the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations? Of course. In fact, immediately upon receiving that email, he replied to each of the four points that Roger cited against him. Of them, my analysis of the email would say that he would not really have been able to refute #1, but #2-4 were perfectly refuted, either because of lack of evidence cited or because they were simply wrong on your part. #1, edit warring over Clown, at the very maximum for any editor would have led to an interaction ban. The whole idea of punishment fitting the "crime" seems to have been ignored here.

Now, that all addresses the facts of the underlying case. I mentioned Orangemarlin twice at WT:ACN, but I'm not sure if I made the connection clear enough. So let me go back and explain what I meant. From what I recall in the Orangemarlin "case", the Committee had investigated a number of issues about a particular editor. After their deliberations, they decided that the editor was not at fault, but Orangemarlin was, and he was summarily banned. A very real part of the problem was that ArbCom believed it had the power to summarily ban someone without even the pretense of allowing that editor to defend himself. I'm sure that you would agree that a ban and a desysop are both serious sanctions. I really cannot understand what has changed that would make the Committee think that something like this would be acceptable.

Now, you want The Community™ to discuss the overreach issue with a matter unconnected to Rodhullandemu? I'm sorry, but how exactly do you propose we do that? I'm sorry to have to make this analogy, but if the ACLU thinks that murderers such as this guy doesn't just deserve to get the death penalty, it doesn't just lobby Congress to try to remove capital punishment, but it also takes the individual case to the Supreme Court. I'm sorry for the hyperbole, but it was the only real analogy I could think of.

Do I think Rod would be hurt by a public exposure of your evidence? No. Do you know why? Because Jclemens said this: "A slight correction: to reinforce what I said above, what was considered off-wiki leading to the de-sysop decision doesn't include any evidence not already present on-wiki. Any interested editor has access to all the evidence considered by ArbCom in private deliberation which informed the decision to de-sysop." So if all the evidence is public anyway, the harm it would have done by collating it all is outweighed by the harm you have done by chasing off a hard-working administrator as well the harm you collectively have done to the Committee's public support.

Your question is do I understand how things look from your side of the screen? Yes. I accept that you and the rest of the Arbitrators were trying to act in the Community's best interest. But you have to understand how it looks from my perspective: "secret trials, protestations of "secret evidence" (soon contradicted by those same speakers), paternalist insistence that its "for your own good" despite your disagreement, etc" (Nathan). And to be honest, half of me thinks now that if I piss off people with the wrong friends, am I the next to be summarily desysopped without so much as a warning? NW (Talk) 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I expected, your position is very much consistent but based on partial information. For instance, you are seemingly quoting from forwarded email but obviously lack some context. Also, you are correct that the evidence to justify a desysop is public, but the reason to handle the matter discreetly was not — and it remains valid even with Rod having demanded a public case and will have to remain private even if it means that ArbCom needs to take the lumps on its reputation because much of the concerns we sought to address were in fact based on willful deception.

The committee will, of course, never publish email that was not agreed in advance could eventually be made public — to do so would destroy the inviolate expectation of privacy — but have you not wondered why Rod himself has not done so in a place where arbitrators could see and comment on whether what he published was accurate or complete?

Yeah, we've been had. We've been manipulated into a situation where we either act like bastards or look like bastards. We'll take the lumps, as usual, but you can't fault me for being more than a little frustrated at the situation. We're in a loose-loose situation, and the very people who are willing to crucify us for being so unfair are extending absolutely no good faith towards the actions of fifteen independent arbitrators, and it occurs to absolutely nobody that perhaps — just perhaps — we did the best that could be done under the circumstances and are neither evil nor incompetent? — Coren ^(talk) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the paternalistic attitude that invited the criticism in the first place: "Something is wrong with Rodhullandemu, we know what's best for him, and we aren't going to change our mind no matter what anyone says, even Rod himself."

Am I willing to extend good faith to the Arbitration Committee? Sometimes. You would notice that I didn't say anything in the David Gerard de-functionary-ing situation, because I knew you were working with him. But when you try to do your own thing without even the input of the editor involved? Sorry, but no. You have proven yourself to be incapable of trust in those situations in the past, and I don't see why that should miraculously change now.

You say that I obviously lack some context. That's fair, I only expected that. But what else do you want me to do? Did you even tell Rodhullandemu the real reason why he was being desysopped? Because right now, it really seems like you didn't. NW (Talk) 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We're just going 'round in circles, and it's evident that nothing can be said that can convince you that you might not have an accurate picture of the situation. Rather than argue endlessly, we should just end this now with no hard feelings. — Coren ^(talk) 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Coren, I know I don't have a fully accurate picture of things. Could you answer those questions in my last paragraph? NW (Talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuke, hopefully the pertinent questions will be addressed in the case; a couple of arbs are compiling a timeline that should hopefully make the timeframe a lot clearer. We didn't desysop Rod for any secret reason, and Level II procedures weren't a fig leaf applied ex post facto; using those procedures was discussed before Rod was contacted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

David, that's good to hear. The email from Roger Davies to Rodhullandemu, which admittedly does state that he is speaking on his own behalf but is written in such a way to as if he is speaking on the behalf of the Committee, makes no mention of such a thing, and neither does the originally passed motion. NW (Talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we've all realized that we didn't word the initial motion correctly and someone even pointed out that the Level II procedure itself uses "temporary" instead of "indefinite" which we use everywhere else on Wikipedia, so I think it's clear that we suck at copyediting. I'm not sure what you mean here by the "real" reason and that kind of concerns me - after being made aware of the problem, we reviewed Rod's contributions and had concerns, Elen's put together specific diffs which are now posted on the case and even Roger's email gave Rod a summary of those items. If you've been told there's some other reason behind it, you've been misinformed. Shell ^babelfish 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If Roger's concerns were a full summary of what the Committee believed the whole problem is, that would be one thing. But I have read it, and I simply cannot believe that was the case. Half of the concerns you laid out were easily refutable. I simply cannot believe that such a thing is all it would take to get someone desysopped permanently. By that same logic that The Committee used in that email, I could probably get MastCell banned for POV pushing in medical articles combined with "obvious" bias in his administrative actions. NW (Talk) 17:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - have you had a moment to look over the evidence that was posted? Personally, bias had nothing to do with my feelings on the situation. Everyone is entitled to get frustrated or have a bad day, but really, I've got a hard time understanding using the block log to insult the size of someone's genitals or ethnicity. Instead of going on the email summary, which may or may not be the whole exchange, take a look at the diffs Elen put up and see if you still completely disagree. Shell ^babelfish 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant to say about bias: if I were allowed to desysop someone with the level of evidence that was presented in the email to Rod, I could desysop an administrator like MastCell for (1) POV pushing and (2) bias.

Elen's evidence, I admit, is fairly convincing. Yet three things about it bother me: (1) I fail to see what the necessity to do things privately was, or the urgency to do things so quickly that Rod was not even given a chance to respond to the accusations before him. A WP:RFC/U, often a prerequisite in cases like this, was not opened. Indeed, I seem to remember a case where ArbCom referred the editor to RFC/U with the understanding that they would be desysopped if problems arose after that. (2) "Examine all parties" seems to have been tossed out the window here. Why? (3) I could easily think of 3-4 editors who speak in much the same tone as Rod and have simply not gotten the message after these long years. I'm sure you can think of whom I am referring to. Why go after Rod and not them? NW (Talk) 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing that might not have been well articulated here is that handling it privately was meant to be a courtesy, not secrecy. To use a real world analogy, if you screwed up at work, someone like your boss or HR might pull you into their office and offer you the chance to resign. It's something we'd do for any volunteer. We're all human beings here - we make mistakes, things in our life affect us and sometimes we just get burnt out dealing with the constant issues on the project. Nobody deserves to have their dirty laundry waved around in public and be subject to the drama that seems to come with it if there's another way to handle the issue.

You've suggested a few times that there was no chance to respond and all I can say is those comments suggest you don't have all of the emails related to this discussion. As for reviewing all parties, that wasn't the issue that was brought to our attention and if there are more things that need to be dealt with, those avenues are still open. I agree that there are other editors whose comments have no place on Wikipedia and personally feel that it shouldn't be tolerated; unfortunately the community has persistently been divided about whether or not that situation even needs addressing. Shell ^babelfish 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that analogy is poor. A more proper one would be more that if you were a manager of a team in an organization and one day, a couple of Vice-Presidents stopped by to say "You're going to be publicly fired next week because of WXYZ; you can resign now if you want" and then left. But maybe I'm not fully aware of all the emails. I think I was, but I really don't think so.

"that wasn't the issue that was brought to our attention and if there are more things that need to be dealt with" – Nothing was "brought to your attention" at all. The Committee chose to review this situation of its own volition and could have let the scope be anything it wanted. Elephant in the room: Why was Malleus' conduct not reviewed? NW (Talk) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm..again, I'd have to say if that's what analogy you think fits, it's really unlikely you've got the full sequence of emails and all of their contents. I really don't know what else to say about that, other than my analogy was the (or at least my) intention here and I believe the emails (in full) support that. I really wish I had a better answer than "well, take my word for it", but maybe it's possible to consider that one person who has all the emails might understandably be unhappy with the situation and may be legitimately explaining the way he feels about what happened.

I think if you look at the ANI where I believe an arbiter was involved, we were asked to review Rod's conduct and that wasn't the only request made. We've not been brought anything that I know of about Malleus, other than in Rod's response, though I do think that some of Elen's evidence mentions that Malleus' comments or responses were just as inappropriate when the two interacted. Whether or not that will translate to anything during the case, I don't know. I don't think it's been brought up yet, but I can't imagine presenting evidence relating to those interactions would be an issue, though from what you're saying it might be best to look at Malleus' behavior separately, since you seem to be referring to more than just his discussions with Rod. Shell ^babelfish 19:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think this section needs to be linked to in the Evidence page, as there is information and discussion here that people need to see. And while it is rather old now, as a response to what Coren was saying at the beginning of this section, it seems to me that Rod is just as willing as anyone else to air this issue and doesn't seem to have any problem with there being a public case. Silverseren^C 20:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do. NW (Talk) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Making me do all the work. :P I suppose it was my idea. Fine, i'll go do it. Silverseren^C 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Silver seren, what I'm gathering from your comments is that you are more interested in reviewing the processes and procedures used by the Committee in coming to a decision to remove administrative privileges (as opposed to reaching a conclusion on the basic question as to whether administrative privileges should be removed in the first place). While a discussion about the process and procedure used here - and how to approach similar situations in the future - would be useful, I don't think that it is really within the scope of the Rodhullandemu case, and trying to shoehorn that discussion into the case would probably be distracting and detrimental to a proper examination of either. –xeno^talk 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't believe that this case should have anything to do with Arbcom, which has shoehorned its way into control over what should happen to Rod, which has ultimately led to his retirement. This was never formally presented to Arbcom and is a situation that should have been dealt with by the community (and was being dealt with anyways, from what i've seen). If it was the community's decision to only create an interaction ban between Rod and Malleus, then that is the community's decision and Arbcom should not try to usurp that by utilizing procedures in a manner that they were never intended to be used. Especially when it seems that, to reverse Coren's analogy from the beginning of this section, Arbcom is the one that is out for blood by only targeting Rod and completely ignoring Malleus' actions in this situation that was just as bad, if not worse. Silverseren^C 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, a core duty of the Arbitration Committee is to "authorize expedient removal of [advanced] permissions" in order to prevent harm to the project; this is something the community cannot do, for obvious reasons. –xeno^talk 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Considering that this is the first time that Level II Permissions have been used and the subsequent reaction by the communityThe Community™, I think that says more than enough about said permissions. Silverseren^C 21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm not so sure I would use the monolithic term "the community" - unless you truly believe that those commenting at WT:ACN and WP:A/R/C are a representative sample... In any case, this is something that will no doubt come up when the new Arbitration Policy is going through ratification. –xeno^talk 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
                • Fixed. Come on now, Xeno. If more than five uninvolved senior administrators take major issue with your decision, it's fair to at least say that there is major dissent. NW (Talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
                  • Are they taking issue with the decision, or the process? (I've already committed to examining the process with an eye to improving the handling of similar situations) And, even if they have an issue with the decision and/or the process, does that mean they have an issue with the Arbitration Committee's overall role in removing advanced privileges? In any case, these are questions that can't be adequately answered on your talk page, and please accept my apologies for taking up a seat here =). –xeno^talk 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I have already drafted the evidence section and I am going to submit it now. Silverseren^C 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)