User talk:Mackensen/Archive13

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

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

Thanks[edit]

...for your help with that request. That it is working is shown by this [1] -- he's back to using his still-alive socks to spawn new accounts. Have a happy new year; I appreciate your work here. Antandrus (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cplot, again[edit]

I think this account is a sockpuppet or impersonator of Cplot...The username. User:Abouthere

Userpage vandalism[edit]

Mackensen: I reverted some vandalism to your userpage, but there were a couple of edit conflicts as I was doing so, so could you please doublecheck the userpage and make sure I caught it all and it's as you want it to be. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama restored[edit]

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- nae'blis 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Touché :-) Giano 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cplot collateral damage[edit]

Hi, we seem to be having collateral damage from the Cplot-related 68.30.0.0/16 range block, see Sadler@d50.org (talk · contribs). I was taking it to Dmcdevit (who actually instated the block) but he seems to be away on vacations. The autoblocked user has been getting rather impatient because it was never really explained to him what was going on. Do you think there's anything we can do for him? Would it be safe to lighten the range block again at this point? I realise the Cplot case is a pretty nasty one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go ahead and remove it. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks. Turned it into a soft block again for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

You've got mail (forgot to mention that earlier). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I've read it and passed it on to the proper folks. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

209.244.43.209[edit]

It was suggested on WP:ANI that I bring this to you since Dmcdevit is on break right now. I unblocked 209.244.43.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as per this conversation. The Showster (talk · contribs) was caught behind the autoblock on this one. This stems from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bowser Koopa. However, I want to get input on this. I'm curious if I should reblock the IP address with the indefinite expiration time but make it for anonymous only (and disable account creation). Would this be more appropriate? Or should it just be the outright unblock? My concern is that I've opened us up to a flood of vandalism by completely opening up the IP address. I'm wondering if you feel that the vandalism stemming from this IP address and users on the IP address warrants a soft block with account creation disabled but one which allows currently registered accounts to be used would be more appropriate. Metros232 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, there's certainly wrestling-related vandalism coming from that IP (as of January 6), if that's what you wanted to know. Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you suggest then, restoring the original indefinite block on the IP address? Is it significant enough to warrant that? Metros232 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess I really don't understand why it was lifted in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Showster was stuck behind the autoblock on that IP. Jimbo Wales allowed for The Showster to be unblocked in an attempt of good faith. I was nervous about lifting the block on the IP to allow The Showster to edit again and so I asked Jimbo about it. His response is in this diff, so that's why it was lifted. Metros232 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've restored the block fully. If The Showster wants to contribute, he'll have to find somewhere else to go to edit. Metros232 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,the block is not preventing me from editing, so go ahead and block it if more vandalism came from it.--The Showster 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clowning around on IPs[edit]

Cplot seems more intended on using IPs instead of user accounts to poison the water at the village pump with his diatribes. Also, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot is attracting a few sockpuppets. I've dumped a whole lot of them at RFCU but I dread thinking about the number of socks there might be in the drawer. MER-C 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I can't even face it tonight. It's a mess. Mackensen (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still active with Trivia Cleanup project?[edit]

I was wondering if you were still active with the Trivia Cleanup project. Seeing as how Category:Articles with large trivia sections hasn't gone down much, I figured many people became inactive. I've created a talk page discussion here, asking if people are active or not: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trivia_Cleanup#Who_is_still_active_with_the_project.3F. RobJ1981 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning messages for established users[edit]

While I think I understand what you were saying here ([2]) I'll have to assume good faith that you didn't intend to be as harsh in your reply as it read to me.

At the risk of sounding stupid (as I explained, I am something of a novice to process, but do quite a bit of vandal reversion, so am keen to learn correct process) I presume that with a disruptive established user, the correct thing to do would be to write specific-to-case messages, rather than dashing off an off-the-peg template, but that this is something more to do with etiquette than a WP policy. --Dweller 12:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct, but etiquette is everything in these cases. See also my response below. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my RFA[edit]

Hi Mackensen, thanks for your comments on my RFA and thanks for taking the time to read my answers to the many questions posed. I appreciate that good editors shouldn't be treated like common vandals, moreover that's why I suggested I'd try to discuss the situation with them before resorting to the use of templates. I have seen on at least one occasion a good, established user going off the rails (for whatever reason) who it became impossible to reason with who was then given the standard test templates before being blocked. I would be interested to hear how you would deal with this situation, if you don't mind giving me a little more of your time. Cheers! Budgiekiller 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen such situations as well, and the use of templates prior to blocking ought to tell you something. For me this isn't a hypothetical question. I've often entered into private correspondence with the user in question, to good effect. You need to approach the question from the perspective of one who wants to defuse the situation. This is very different from counter-vandalism. If a user is going off the rails then there's no need to degrade them prior to blocking because that just makes getting them *back* on the rails all the more difficult. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand, so in these cases, we adopt an WP:IAR kind of approach to giving them final t3/t4 style warnings, keep discussing until the point of no return and then block them? It makes sense, and I understand the use of templates could send an established user further over the edge. I would most certainly be judicious in their use, and would hope that my negotiations would be sufficient. I'm sorry that this point has caused an oppose, but I fully understand your concerns and look forward to bumping into you in the future. Budgiekiller 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, that's not at all what I'm getting it. This has nothing to do with IAR and everything to do with treating other editors with respect and assuming good faith. You should never find yourself threatening a good faith contributor who's going over the edge, you're trying to bring them back from the brink. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point made. I feel that in general all my contributions here are made with respect and good faith to all editors, including vandals who insult me and my family. I would do my best, but then I'm not infallible. Thank you, once again, for your time and interest. Budgiekiller 13:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

Sorry about forgetting to list the reason for editing. Lesson learned. Can you unblock me, please?

Unblock request[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to evaluate H4xx0r (talk · contribs)'s unblock request. Your block-reason was very sparse. Do you mind elaborating further? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tooj117. Most of the interactions this user has had appears to be with other accounts on the same IP. Notice the similarities between that account and Geekler (talk · contribs). OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm looks like the user was building up a walled-garden of sorts. Hmm ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olave Baden-Powell[edit]

Hi. I know you've helped with the title of Robert Baden-Powell's article before, Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell and the explanation at the top of the article itself. I've always wondered that his wife's article is just Olave Baden-Powell. Shouldn't it be "Olave, Lady Baden-Powell]] (which is a redirect now) or something? Could you help with the proper title per wiki rrules and British customs and an bit in the lead of Olave's article? I think the two articles should be titled similarly and I'd like to improve Olave's article. Being an American, I simply don't understand peerage titles. Rlevse 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC), ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator[reply]

  • Well, the full, correct title would be Olave Baden-Powell, Baroness Baden-Powell. The question is whether that's the name she was most commonly known by. It was eventually decided that B-P's title was important enough to be in the article title (especially as there was another Robert Baden-Powell floating around). I'm not convinced that there's anything to gain by moving the article at this point, especially as the intro discusses her full, legal name. Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as you and your Peerage project are okay with it, so am I.Rlevse 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mendoza[edit]

Thanks for reverting. Could you do it once more? The user switched IP and re-reverted. I checked the WHOISes (or should the plural be WHOARE?), definitely the same guy, so I blocked it, but I'm still at 3 reverts. Even though I have a BLP/vandalism defence, it would be annoying if I had to wait for someone to unblock me. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, already done. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it on my watch list. Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

CheckUser procedure questions[edit]

First of all, thanks for your help with the Tooj117 case. Regarding future procedures; it seems that I've misunderstood the instructions at the top of [[3]] (which lead me to believe I should add new suspected socks to the top of that page and simply place the {{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tooj117}} template on the actual checkuser page....so instead, I should just write up a new request under the CU IP section with a reference to the original case? Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were in the right neighborhood, you just needed to add a new section header at the top like Prodego fixed it [4]. Generally you should add at least a brief description of the problem, since the checkuser who answers the new request might be different from the one who answered the first request. Usually, a brief explanation of why you suspect the new accounts, maybe with a couple of diffs, is all you need. Thatcher131 04:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need to move IP's to WP:OP?[edit]

Will I need to move the IP's to WP:OP or can you take a look? Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Enlighter1. One is already blocked. Agathoclea 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks[edit]

I'm done for a good while, if you want to tear into what I put up. F.F.McGurk 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Sorry for taking so long to reply. Thanks for unblocking me. Hope our paths cross again in the future. Until then, thanks a lot and happy editing! SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama nominated for deletion[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Slowking Man 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I m sorry I did not understand what u wrote in usercheck of Babbarshair page, can u pls explain phippi46 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stralia[edit]

[5] Hi, I find the above diff suspicious, as Wikimajesty has not been blocked. I thought it might be appropriate to bring it to your attention that a checkuser might be appropriate for Wikimajesty, as the circumstances suggest he is yet another sockpuppet of American Brit. Thanks. --Majorly 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Declined checkuser[edit]

That's fine of course but please could you tell me if it was procedural (like I didn't present the 6RRs properly) or on a point of principle, just so I know for the future? I was advised by someone [6] to pursue this route on the sockpuppet farm but perhaps there is a better way? --BozMo talk 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checkuser is often declined for obvious cases like this one. If you're concerned about identifying an underlying account then that may be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, and I really appreciate the quick response but what do I do? I posted at AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Bharatanatyam and the only response was to send me to checkuser, even though I said I couldn't see a puppermaster just new socks every day. Checkuser says no so next I should...? Thanks again for any advice --BozMo talk 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrmm. Well, if the noticeboard is dodging it I might have to do something. Let me take a second look. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and the fix. --BozMo talk 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you declined, then reconsidered Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar. I've spent a number of hours going over this one. If it helps, take a look at User:A. B./Sandbox2. I've worked my way through the list (from the heaviest editors of Bharatanatyam on downwards as far as User:67.191.164.199). I believe the crew I think of as the Medha Hari spammers (they link to in.geocities.com/medhahari) are all fairly low volume #'s -- the only Medha Hari spammer candidate i've hit so far is User:Santap. I did find a couple of Kalakendra spammers User:61.247.253.102, User:Sudhakar ks. That's as far as I got; I was looking at Santap when I saw the change here:
You may want to take a look at these:
You may also want to skim:
Finally, here are edit histories, however much of it has been "pre-digested" on my user subpage:
I hope this is useful. --A. B. (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite blocks[edit]

Since 84.172.86.125 (p54AC567D.dip.t-dialin.net) is a dynamic dial-up IP, isn't an indefinite block likely to cause collateral damage at some point in the future? --Delirium 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably. For the moment, it's a necessary evil. Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's "for the moment", what's wrong with, say, a 1-year block, rather than an indefinite one? I thought that was normal Wikipedia blocking policy? Even the arbcom doesn't issue indefinite blocks. --Delirium 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not willing to discuss this further in public. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that's the case, I will bring it up on AN/I. There is no acceptable reason for banning a dynamic IP indefinitely---in the extremely unlikely event that the same person is still using it a full year from now, it's a trivial matter to renew the block for a second year at that time, thereby avoiding reckless banning of other users. --Delirium 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indefinite is just that--indefinite. For the moment it needs to be blocked until it's decided to unblock. Go ahead and raise the matter on ANI if you feel you must, but I think we'd all be better served if you dropped me a quick email instead. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In that case, could you at least put a useful message so someone caught in an accidental blocking doesn't receive the useless explanation, "do not pass go, do not collect $200?" --Delirium 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Forgive me, I was being vague on purpose. It wasn't the best choice but my initial choice wasn't printable. Mackensen (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser[edit]

Why have you declined requests for checkuser for Max rspct? What else can be done instead of a checkuser? -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the Foundation's privacy policy I cannot "out" an IP address under regular circumstances. This looks like simple 3RR evasion and should be dealt with accordingly. If it's obviously him just block the IP as though it was him. Mackensen (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but I'm not an admin, so I can't block the IP. What do you suggest, should I just report this on WP:AN3? -- Vision Thing -- 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Edit Summary[edit]

I've sent over some tissues for the Manual of Style... :-) Just H 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Prob. Question on something else[edit]

My cache didn't load or something and I was booted out of my screename into a plain old IP, which was "soft blocked". My IP here is 64.241.37.140, it's a coffee shop in Nashua, New Hampshire(I live just over the border and come over for the lower taxes). I guess maybe somebody else vandalized from the other side of the room or something. I'll keep an eye out for them and let you know if I see them, this is my hangout, i'm here often. Just H 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-P as Baronet and Baron[edit]

Hello Mac, in the article Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, you have removed Sir from the formal name of B-P, with the edit comment that 'sir' should not be included when the holder is a peer. Do you have a reference for that? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fixing sock puppeteering by more of the same[edit]

Hello Mackensen. BenAveling has proposed that the abusive editor behind the Revolver Ocelot/Guardian Tiger accounts move to using yet another sock. That seems a bit too easy to me, as it removes the permitted aspect of the behavior but does not address the offensive aspect (harassment and stalking). Could you take a look at the new development on ANI, here? See also this and this. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 07:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Never mind, Dmcdevit already took care of it. Sorry to bother you. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hi there I have seen the request being denied. I accept it, I just want to know where should then appeal in case if this is a POV issue ? regards phippi46 11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Checkuser[edit]

Thanks for the quick response/action. It seems Nintendude has modified his username selection practices away from Metro Detroit/his highschool related naming conventions. I was going to add him to Wikipedia:Long term abuse but decided it against it because WP:DENY; I think he's an attention seeker and besides, if I document how easy it is to spot him it might encourage him to change more than just his username practices.--Isotope23 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamazoo again[edit]

Time for a two-month block? Same IP as before...--chris.lawson 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The one you just blocked today is actually a Pfizer IP address. I'm sure his boss would love to know what he's doing on company time.--chris.lawson 21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I don't want to make trouble for Pfizer (not going to slit my own throat here). Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic[edit]

Could you take a look at this article? I would like an outside opinion on User:DeanHinnen. Hinnen is the last name BryanFromPalestine uses in his e-mails, and this user is following his edits. But the last time I thought I saw a clear cut puppet.... Yea... Prodego talk 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Now if this was Jimbo, I am going to hold you personally responsible ;-). I have an IP from the e-mails he sent me, do you think I should block that as well? You ran a checkuser on him, did he ever use a 76. IP to edit, or e-mail only? You probably can't answer that, but what the heck ;-) Prodego talk 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead an drop me an email with the IP, if you like (you're right, I won't answer that). Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pesky rules! (See commented out message) I sent you an e-mail anyway lest it help you. Prodego talk 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikipedia Day![edit]

Happy Wikipedia Day!

On January 15, 2007, Wikipedia turned six-years-old. According to statistics, Wikipedia has around 1,500,000 articles and Wikipedians have made 104,000,000 edits. The millionth article was Jordanhill railway station, created on March 2, 2006.

Wikipedia has moved from an Alexa rank of 20 to a rank of 12 having already briefly visited rank 8 (current rank). Happy editing!

—S.D. ¿п? 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmm, how come I never get random stuff like this? Guess I'm not on the right lists. --Cyde Weys 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a Wyrm[edit]

Geogre and Bishzilla (shown in human form) discuss how to dispose of the stinking carcasses. Blue skies and sunshine return to Wikipedia, while the Featured Article crowd cheers madly.

I appreciate the patience that you've shown in the recent thread at the Administrator's Notice Board. Despite mostly agreeing with the concept (if not the vitriol) of the side that is cast as "opposing" you, I value your commentary. Thus I present you with the "brenneman Wyrm award," showing your severed head and scaled tongue, sadly not forked. I'd note only that most recent accounts afford you with great wisdom, if questionable beauty.

I look forward to a reasonable outcome to this that will be despised equally by all sides, and to your continued tolerance of those with whom you disagree.

brenneman 00:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I accept this award with great pleasure. Your kindness is much appreciated. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deferrance of RFCU case[edit]

Per Essjay's request, you are hereby notified that a case, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis, has been deferred to you. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work[edit]

Keep the excellent work up with your {{checkuserblock}}s - you've caught loads of sockpuppetmasters before they could get as bad as the most notorious vandals on Wikipedia. --SunStar Nettalk 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also made {{checkuserblock}} slightly better-looking (in my opinion): feel free to revert if you think I made a mistake. --SunStar Nettalk 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


deletion of "Clc bio"[edit]

Hi Mackensen,

you deleted the article "CLC bio" using the "proposed deletion procedure" on 6th of December 2006. I'd like to ask you to undelete this lemma. Please let me know if this in not the right procedure to ask for undeletion.

thanks in advance Rewireable 14:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mendoza[edit]

Here is the disputed sentence:

A former member of the Conservative Party, he has served as a councillor for the party on Adur District Council near Brighton. [7] [8]

Can you please give me one good reason why this sourced material should not be included in the article? User:Samuel Blanning has locked the discussion page and has deleted a valid question that I put to him. 195.92.67.75 17:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can, but it's the same reason that Sam Blanning and Doc glasgow are giving you. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I lost my cool with them. Who wouldn't if some well-sourced information was being censored. 195.92.67.75 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This information is from verifiable sources and should be included. Mendoza has strong political opinions, and his past political activities are therefore relevant. 195.92.67.75 18:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I caught you online[edit]

Can you review the block situation at 208.54.95.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's apparently a T-mobile hotspot, and Dmcdevit blocked it, but someone just converted it to a soft block without waiting for an answer (see User talk:Dmcdevit. My recollection is the T-mobile hotspot business was one of cplot's tricks, but maybe I am conflating two different situations. Thatcher131 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's a favored Cplot location, but we're incurring real collateral damage there. I'm cool with a soft-block. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

advice request - Borderline RFCU[edit]

I have come to find out that User:Jefferson Anderson, User:999, User:Hanuman Das, User:Mattisse, and User:Ekajati have all been involved in an ArbCom case re: Starwood Festival and User:Rosencomet. They all seem to be following each other around WP, voting on the same things, such as the last Jahbulon AfD (which is what brings me here). We ended up with no consensus on the first two votes, and a keep on the 3rd. I don't want to put it up for DR, because it's half-decent now, but I'm concerned about this trend, because 4 or 5 votes will swing an AfD in some cases. Would it be phishing to ask for an RFCU, or has ArbCom done one? MSJapan 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine[edit]

Just letting you know that Essjay's deferred this case to you. Luna Santin 09:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Holland AfD[edit]

AfD Nomination: Constance Holland[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Constance Holland, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constance Holland. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --DGG 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC) DGG 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser block unblock review needed[edit]

Since Dmcdevit has indicated on an ArbCom page that he's away for an unspecified length of time, could you please take a look at this and either unblock or decline the unblock. The user is requesting unblocking but there's a checkuser block note on the page so I'm deferring to Dmcdevit or, in his absence, to you or your designee. Newyorkbrad 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not really here either, but I'll take a quick look. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe there should be a central place to bring these type of requests? Newyorkbrad 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC admin[edit]

Is there a way of reconciling what you promised regarding discussion of Giano on the IRC admin channel and what Bishonen contends here? [9] --Mcginnly | Natter 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there is. I promised that Chanops would be more vigilant, and indeed we are. That being said, we're not there all the time–and neither is Bishonen, or she would have witnessed a showdown between three Chanops and another user over this very issue of civility and politeness in discourse. I'm reviewing the discussion she's referring to now; I was not active in the channel because at that very moment I was recovering from a root canal. I have my logs in front of me, so let me recap.
  • There is a note in the topic to the effect that discussion of Giano is banned. This raised an inquiry from one user as to whether Giano himself was banned from the channel. This occasioned a warning from a chanop, and discussion switched to the old, somewhat unfruitful topic of non-admin access to the channel (if someone would only take my up on my proposal to rename it #wikipedia-en-functionaries I think we'd all be better off). Discussion then moved to whether Bishonen was kicked for posting logs. Note that Bishonen herself raised this matter. If I had been active at the time I would have politely asked her to not raise the matter, but as I've noted above I was (and remain, somewhat) indisposed. After a different user made this suggestion to Bishonen (not in the tone I would have used, but certainly not impolite), Bishonen left the channel.
  • The discussion in question was short, and quickly redirected by an active chanop. It pertained to Giano but did not actually involve any discussion of him, save the correct assertion that he is not an administrator. I would appreciate Bishonen verifying that I have discussed the proper event, and would appreciate any corrective that she might have to my narrative. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou - my sympathies for your toothache. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack, those are the events I had in mind. I don't mean to quarrel with your reading, but I have my own. The discussion of whether it was bad to "say the G word" (=Giano), or bad to censor the saying of it, wasn't what I'd call short, nor "quickly redirected by an active chanop". It lasted for 27 minutes before Dmcdevit-- at the time "Dmcsleep" :-) --woke up and took issue with it, and after that for another ten minutes or so. I want to be absolutely clear that I don't begrudge the chanops dentistry, or sleep! They can't indeed always be there, and neither can I. (In fact, as I said, I've just come to the conclusion that there's little point in my being there at all.) The ten minutes after Dmcdevit joined in focused on a user's resentment at being threatened with a kickban by Dmcdevit for putting Giano in the topic. Actually, as was quickly made clear, this was a complete misunderstanding, but the user continued to grumble at being, putatively, rudely spoken to. This umbrage was what made me point to the rather different occasion when I was myself kickbanned from the channel, with no previous warning, no reason, and, to this day, no explanation. I suppose it's a matter of taste whether you'd call that context "Bishonen herself raised this matter". These were my words (with the user's name removed):

[07-01-20 21.02] <bishonen> [-] that's why i said the channel is "theoretically" for admins. there are non-admins who have ops in here. and who kick people for a lot less than saying any particular word. In fact for nothing. are you not aware of these things?

The "discussion" of my kickban lasted for all of one minute. It consisted of my words quoted above, an acknowledgement by the person I was speaking to that that sounded a lot worse than his own experience--in fact that a channel where such things happened was "kind of a sucky place"--a question from another user whether I had been banned for the mistaken perception that i had posted logs, which I never had time to reply to and in fact don't know the answer to (recollect that I can't tell what happens in a channel that I'm locked out of, nor have I been vouchsafed an explanation of the ban). Anyway, I was cut short by the remark you mention from as you say "a different user" that I ought not to speak of the matter--not "cover this ground again". Minutes aren't everything, but I think my brief interchange was supremely unimportant, especially in relation to the 38-minute "G-word" discussion. The whole thing is boring, in fact...but since you ask me to add to your narrative if I think it gives the wrong impression, I'll just add two things. Firstly, the "different user" who shut me up was an arbitrator. Much has been made of the supposed healthful effect of the increased presence of arbs in the channel, but this one didn't shut up anybody other than me. The G word apparently didn't offend him/her the way my attempt to clear up the mystery of my kickban did. And secondly, I don't think you do justice to the insinuations made during the G-word discussion. I would never say that "It pertained to Giano but did not actually involve any discussion of him, save the correct assertion that he is not an administrator.". I would like to, but must not, quote the remarks I mean. I t's a little frustrating. I ask you to read again. Maybe your characterisation of it as all " correct assertion" was the teeth speaking? (Try some codeine?) Bishonen | talk 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Those teeth speak louder than anyone can possibly imagine. Thankfully I indeed have my codeine now and can look forward to a good night's sleep. I'll review again once I feel up to it. Thanks for your response, Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a chance to add "Irpen" and "Ghirlandajo" to the list of users that IRC admins are not allowed to discuss? If you need to know why, please review the logs you received at the ArbCom list. I hope you will find the reason convincing. Thank you, --Irpen 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick note to that effect: "Giano" is considered a short, useful byword for the entire affair. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it a "No" to the request I made? --Irpen 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your question can't be answered in that fashion. What I'm telling you is that a list would be inappropriate because such discussion in general is inappropriate. Therefore, there isn't a list, but if there was an explicit list, you would be on it. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Could you then tell me what is the current message the users see when they log in. Something like: "Public logging prohibited, disscussion of .... prohibited, etc." Or is it a secret too? --Irpen 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure.

            ">Discussion< of Giano is >banned<. Please do not release logs, but be aware that public leaks occur. Use discretion in discussing behavior of others. | WP:AE, CAT:NS, CAT:NL, CAT:ABL, and CAT:ORFU are under-watched. WP:AFD/OLD is severely BACKLOGGED, please help | Vandalfighter: http://hekla.rave.org/vf/35/vf-beren.jar"

            It is understood, as I've indicated above, that "Giano" means Giano and associated editors and disputes. I regret having to use his name specifically but I think most would agree that he has been the focal point of this dispute. I'm always open to alternatives. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "Discussion of the Giano matter, broadly interpreted , is banned." Thatcher131 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that is a very bad habit, I must say. After all, Bishonen's "rude" talk alluded to above wasn't about Giano. It was about her being kickbanned mysteriously. That's a separate issue from anything that occurred with Giano, but it's the same issue in terms of "people on that IRC channel whose behavior cannot be examined." It's the same offense from my point of view, but it's not the same matter in any sense. For me, the central offense is that the channel is used by people to behave in ways that are unacceptable socially as well as in flagrant disregard of Wikipedia's practices and policies, and yet there is no recourse to the aggrieved. The aggrieved cannot submit the evidence, cannot gain sanctions, and cannot prevent future bad acts. For those reasons, Wikipedia doesn't need to link to those IRC channels where such is the case. If no one may alter the composition of the group without James Forrester's permission, and if David Gerrard is right that James won't care what the arguments are, then it really is a private MySpace page in disguise, and Wikipedia is not in the habit of linking to such sites. Geogre 12:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geogre, I agree with you that such behavior wasn't acceptable. I've taken steps to stop all such behavior. In addition, I considered it useful to eliminate discussion of past events because they would easily lead to the same problems. Bishonen is correct; an arbitrator asked her not to bring the matter up. She was not, however, threatened with banning in any way; she left of her own accord. I have worked to restore the official (beneficial) uses of the channel. If I may, I did not consider the re-opening of old wounds a good idea, especially as the offending party, Greg, was not in the channel at the time. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current edits on the notice board can no longer be ignored by any editor, once and for all Oh Mackensen, how much more of all this do you think peole are going to beleive. Is any editor's true identity safe in that bloody channel? Yes or No? Giano 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you think I'm a liar then nothing I can possibly do will change your mind. Did you ever stop to consider that I have been truthful and forthright throughout? Has it ever crossed you mind? Will you ever respond to my query about Donald Crawford's degree of relation to Sir Charles Dilke? Mackensen (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser issues[edit]

Could you do me a favor? Since you have a checkuser privilege, you have access to the checkuser log. Could you look there and tell me whether Giano, Ghirla or myself where ever checkusered and by who? Since none of us ever used any socks or were ever accused in that, the presence of our names in the checkuser log would hopefully shed some illuminating light. I would be also very interested to know this for personal reasons. Thanks, --Irpen 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is my understanding of policy that I'm not allowed to do this. Let me tell you, though, that I agree such a check would be out of bounds and uncalled for. Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me out to a policy clause that prevents me from knowing who ran a checkuser on me and on what pretense. --Irpen 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me clarify. I'm allowed to tell you if you've been checked, but I would prefer to do so privately. I cannot disclose information to you regarding Giano, Ghirla, or anyone else. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is the link to my email. Please tell me privately who and when checkusered me but I don't see why you can't tell it to me here. But thanks anyway. --Irpen 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify that I've done this, this one time, to clear up a matter of some controversy. I will not make a habit of it and users shouldn't think they can email checkusers asking if they've been checked. The log is private for a reason. I regret that I ever had to in the first place but it would be my hope that, having answered the question, we can move on. Mackensen (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was certainly checkusered very recently by David Gerard, or is that to be denied?, it seems to me you are all at it every 5 minutes? =Giano 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Can we all know why was Giano checkusered if this was truly the case? --Irpen 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I can answer that, apparently I was a potential risk to the project! They invent anything to get themselves off the hook Giano 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what was Giano a risk for the project? IMO, the violation of the official WM privacy policy by those who are entrusted with the checkuser access to uphold it is indeed a very great risk to the project. Am I wrong? --Irpen 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or the abusive use of sockpuppets. Or, in some cases, a stated intent to disrupt the project. No, you've been polite under the circumstances. Moreso than others anyway. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the sockpuppetry threat have to do with checkusering Giano? If DG indeed checkusered him, I consider it a very serious matter and I would like to see it acted upon with DG being strongly cautioned if he is to retain the CU privilege. I do not know if this was the case. I am talking based on Giano's assertion that DG checkusered him. --Irpen 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I jump in for a second? Since I'm not a checkuser or an IRC fairy, I'm not a party to anything and can't give away any secrets. Per Mackensen's interpretation of the checkuser policy, he can't confirm or deny anything regarding Giano, and if the checkuser has to enter a reason when running a check (which I don't even know if it does), he can't reveal that either, if it exists. So Giano should probably ask David. However, looking at Giano's block log and recalling another WP:AN thread, it appears that David thought Giano had made a threat to disrupt the encyclopedia. That might have led David to inquire as to whether Giano had been creating or using sockpuppets. I believe David later acknowledged that he misinterpreted Giano's comments. In a court case (US rules) I believe the "reasonable person" standard would apply: Would a reasonable person faced with the same or similar circumstances react in the same way David G. did to Giano's comments? Thatcher131 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the question is, would the reasonable person knowing what we know about Giano could assume that Giano was contemplating a creation of the network of socks with the aim of the overall disruption of Wikipedia. That's the question, Thatcher is raising.

All right. My answer to this question would be "no way". Similarly to how I am sure that this is not what Tony would ever do either.

So, the question why Giano was checkusered is a serious one, in my opinion, and not to be dismissed lightly. --Irpen 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other good, long-term editors who have gone off the rails; whether it should have been obvious that Giano was not one such person is something that I can't evaluate. Thatcher131 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all have gone off the rails once in a while. The narrow question here is whether any of us would have resorted to creation of a sock-net aimed at attacking Wikipedia. No reasonable person can possibly assume that Giano might do it whatever mad he is about his block orchestrated at IRC. There is no way on earth I can see his being checkusered justified. --Irpen 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you disagree and think that anyone could reasonably suspect that Giano was to stage a sockpuppet attack? --Irpen 14:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience anyone might use sockpuppets. But then I've seen just about everything. Mackensen (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using sockpuppets is not illegal per se. It is using them to disrupt WP is what I am talking about. Could Giano have done it in your informed opinion of someone who've seen just about everything? --Irpen 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • From a technical standpoint it's quite easy: create a different account and go raise hell. The harder question is whether he would have been willing to do so; was he angry or desperate enough? I don't like to speculate about that publicly–it's unkind and uncharitable. At the same time, we aren't supposed to take risks. Checkusers are expected to be paranoid. At the same time, we're expected to operate in secret so that said paranoia doesn't reflect badly on the person checked if they've done nothing wrong. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Giano knows of being Checkusered, obviously this was not done in secret and DG shared his action with people. So, there was obviously a breach of supposed secrecy, wasn't it? More importantly would be to know whether the IP info revealed by the checkuser was shared as well. --Irpen 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an interesting point since DG didn't share that information with anybody, as far as I know, and he certainly didn't reveal IP information himself. That's the gravest breach of trust imaginable. I'd like to know where Giano got his information from. To clarify: Giano was the first person to reveal this information publicly, at least that I've seen. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are obviously mistaken since DG did share the info at least of the fact of the checkuser was run from what we see. More importantly, though, is that he had no justification for it whatsoever. Users like Giano and myself who built their reputation of commitment to the project by years of the content creation should not be worried that someone would checkuser them on the ridiculous pretense, like unexplainable suspicion of malaise or that "the account has been compromised" ridiculous excuse. While at it, I would like to make it clear to you and anyone with the checkuser access who might read this that I strongly object to the chekcuser being run on me on the matter of principle and WM privacy policy even though I am not hiding and my identity and location is not a secret and is already known to many. --Irpen 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do you know that DG shared the info? The checkuser log is viewable by all Wikimedia checkusers. Mackensen (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good question we better ask DG as well as to what was the justification and who he shared the info with and what info was shared. --Irpen 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I ask you again: what makes you say that David Gerard shared the information? Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merely Giano's knowing about it. --Irpen 15:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I repeat what I said above: all wikimedia checkusers (not just those on this encyclopedia) have access to that log. Any checkuser could have released that information, and I doubt very much that it was DG, because he keeps such things under his hat. Mackensen (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt that anyone with checkuser would have released that info to Giano. There is no way for sure to know what happened, of course. I think ideally the mess with the checkuser issues and lack of clarity about checkuser policy should be settled by arbcom. Starting an ArbCom case would be costly because it may likely keep arbcom tied forever, especially with the evidence of Kelly's abuse being added to the mess and some of the checkusers who have very little community trust sitting on the arbcom itself. I need to think about this myself... --Irpen 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007[edit]

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

When you have a bit of time, please look at this?[edit]

[10] No hurry. Thanks so very much! --BenBurch 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should say what this is. It is a checkuser on a guy who is evading blocks which was deferred to you since you did the original checkuser on the guy. BenBurch 18:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.88.88.214[edit]

You performed what looks to be a checkuser block on this, in May 2006 ("rms125 sock"); the block was indefinite, but User:El chulito requested unblocking, and seemed to be a good contributor, otherwise. I've unblocked the IP (log). If there's anything I should do (such as place an AO block), feel free to let me know, whenever/if you have a chance. Thanks! Luna Santin 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine, I think things are quiet on the Rms front (knock on wood). Mackensen (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another checkuser block[edit]

User talk:71.57.32.46 has requested unblock twice now. I said I'd contact you - though the block expires in only a few days anyway. Appears innocent, though I could be wrong. Cheers. Patstuarttalk|edits 07:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lifted. He got caught in one of many Cplot blocks. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail 2[edit]

Re the sockpuppetry - I've sent you a mail. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock[edit]

I was about to say the same, but you beat me to it [11]. >Radiant< 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These mistakes happen. I'm just grateful that the involved parties were able to talk it out.Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Access to admin channel[edit]

You know, I never go to IRC, because I am busy with other things but I made an exception yesterday. I logged in to #wikipedia and requested Interiot to grant me access to the Admin channel. I figured that since non-admins are allowed, this would not be a ground-breaking precedent setting event and I figure I can also offer some valuable insights to the channel's usual crowd by my unbiased opinions. Besides, there was never any incidents with my involvement into the breach of anyone's trust, so there is no doubts that I no of about my integrity. Finally, I believe that generally, the community holds me in the higher regard than some of the well-known channel's regulars.

Interiot told me that he is not qualified to make such decisions and advised me to talk to you about this. Could you grant me the access? Thanks, --Irpen 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment I'm reconsidering my own participation there. Until I've figured that out I have no business acting as op. I can, however, grant you access to #wikipedia-en-functionaries. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically request the Admin channel, not the functionaries one. Does your answer mean "No" or you would like to send me further to yet another chanop, just like Interiot did? --Irpen 17:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My answer means no, because at the moment I'm not there myself and strongly considering resigning my op access. Therefore, I'm not currently adding anybody. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clear:both in {{s-start}}[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you changed the template being used at Union Station (Denver) from the custom {{start RTD rail box}} to {{s-start}}{{s-rail}}{s-line}}(...). I think it's great that you are standardizing these succession boxes. And I looked at what it would take to remove the RTD-specific boxes. Recently, another editor added images on the I-25/Broadway (RTD) page, and the old RTD-specific box formatted the box so that it appears vertically below the images. That is to say: the box wouldn't align to the side of images anymore. I fixed this in the RTD-specific start box template, and then realized that style="clear:both;" was the reason that happened. Then I looked at Template talk:s-start and saw that you're actually in favor of clear:both. However, you don't list any examples of templates that were broken by removing this (or making it an option at least). Nor can I see any compelling reason to force every user of {{s-start}} to use clear:both when they could also use {{clear}} as David suggested. So, color me confused... unless you know of a better way to format the abovementioned page? Thanks! --BetaCentauri 11:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmph. Put that way I'm reconsidering my own insistence on "clear=both." You're certainly right that the use of {{clear}} accomplishes the same task and makes the formatting optional. Mind you, I don't like having succession boxes align next to images; I don't think that's proper formatting. The way I would avoid it in image-heavy, text-poor articles is by using the "gallery" tags to corral the images in their own section. That's my two cents anyway. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the thing is, not using clear=both allows making the page more compact. That way the succession boxes look like they're part of the content rather than added as an afterthought. Take, for instance, Waterloo station. This particular page has several succession boxes and sets of images. I'd argue each belongs in the section they're pertinent to. Compare Waterloo to, for example, Paddington station and Grand Central Terminal. In which case do you find the succession boxes feel like they're part of the article? Then again, maybe the style used in Exchange Place (PATH station) is better. --BetaCentauri (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the Tube pages.[edit]

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your good work on applying the s-rail templates to LUL articles, please accept this barnstar as a token of our gratitude. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West India Quay[edit]

I reverted this as trains towards Westferry go to Bank or Tower Gateway and to Poplar for Stratford. It showed the other way round before ir reverted. Simply south 15:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I swapped the terminal types. It should reflect reality now. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst i'm here, most trains on the Central Line do not cntinue to Woodford on the Hainault branch but terminate at Hainault. Also on the Northern Line, most trains terminate at Kennington on the Charing Cross branch. Simply south 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that should be easy to show. I thought I knew about most oddities of the Tube--apparently not! Anything else come to mind? Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both corrections have been made. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morden peak times really, see here. I also got it slightly wrong before you make changes to the Central Line. It is quite common to terminate at Woodford on the Hainault branch but still a good deal terminate at Hainault (and less at Newbury Park, but do not worry about the latter). If this hasn't been put into effect, most Chesham trains are shuttles to Chalfont & Latimer, expanding to through trains oly at peak times. Simply south 15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the moment it shows it as though there's a shuttle between Woodford and Hainault (and I know that it used to operate in that fashion). It's probably safe for the moment. I was wondering about the Chesham service--that's an easy change (in one place) and I'll make it at once. If you look at Kennington tube station, you can see the note about continuation to Oval at peak times. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Sorry for the mix up. Simply south 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, it's my fault for mixing up the details in the first place! Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above that is, trains from Chesham terminate at, lets call it C&L, and only continue to and from London at peak. I am not trying to muck you about and am sorry i have not got think quite right and have possibly not been quite clear. Simply south 16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I understand you. That is, main line trains from London terminate at C&L, with limited service between C&L and Chesham during peak times. In addition, there's a shuttle between C&L and Chesham. Do I have the thread? Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. When they are not running through to chesham, instead they continue to Amersham. Also, it is not the mainline but the Metropolitan Line. Simply south 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I was using "main line" colloquially. Okay, I think I've got it then. Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you change someting else actually? Although shown on maps etc etc etc, the DLR is actually not part of the LU, rather it is a seperate system with many things integrated. Simply south 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that. Yes, that's an easy change to make as well. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am startng on this new line so that the writing does not become squaushed. Everything is fine at C&L except the shuttles terminate there not Amersham. I suppose i should clarify more. Simply south 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Archdiocesan Choir School[edit]

I was trying to create a link to the Boston Archdiocesan Choir School Wikipedia page (which I assumed existed based on its continued presence on e.g. answers.com) but discovered it had been deleted (in Dec, by you). I was wondering what the rationale for deletion was. (I'm not certain that it shouldn't have been deleted, although I didn't see anything obviously wrong with the answers.com version.) 137.71.23.54 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was proposed for deletion in late November by Elonka (talk · contribs), who gave the following rationale: "No third-party references affirming notability per WP:CORP". I deleted the article as a procedural matter in early December. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Mackensen.  :) I'll keep an eye on it, give it some time to expand, and re-assess status later. --Elonka 18:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you online?[edit]

Hi, I want to e-mail the ArbCom about a banned editor whose one-year ban was meant to expire today (yesterday, actually, since it's now after midnight). It was extended because he continued to post on his talk page, and I think that was unjust, as I had told him he could, so, even if I'm wrong, he shouldn't be penalized for that. (Admittedly, what he posted was more of the kind of stuff that got him banned in the first place, but I really don't think he's malicious the way some other banned editors were — at least in my opinion!) I have Jayjg's e-mail address, and FloNight's but I've just looked at their contribs, and they don't seem to be online. You do seem to be. Can I send it to you through the e-mail link, and would you forward it to the rest of the committee for me, please? I'll have it ready to send one minute after getting your reply! Thanks. Musical Linguist 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. Mackensen (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. It's sent. :-) Musical Linguist 00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And forwarded...Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. I've posted about it here as well, so I hope it will be sorted out, and some clarification given about banned users posting on their talk pages. I'd feel bad if someone's block got extended because I tried to help him. Cheers. Musical Linguist 10:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joehazelton[edit]

Just letting you know, User:Jpgordon has deferred this case to you. Luna Santin 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel. Thought another section might be overkill. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky you. Jpgordon has deferred Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joehazelton - another request, not the one that Luna messaged you about on Feb 9 - for you to handle. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Munich U-Bahn[edit]

I just redirected the Ostbahnhof station to München Ost railway station before you got there putting up the boxes. Good work on those. Agathoclea 00:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Munich S-Bahn[edit]

Do you think it would be worth to use "Stammstrecke" instead of the individal linenumbers on the stations between Ostbahnhof and Pasing for the succesionboxes? Agathoclea 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a possibility, but we'd need to have that concept defined in the Munich S-Bahn article. It would be possible to create it just as another line, but we'd also have to define all the possible termini for it. Complicated, but workable. The important question is whether this would improve the end-user experience. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I suppose we could just define the Stammstrecke as a line that runs between Pasing and Ostbahnhof, and have lines hive off as needed. Let me try this somewhere and see what it looks like. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tested the idea at München Hauptbahnhof. The major issue, as I see it, is that the lines running over the Stammstrecke are not set in stone. The S1 and S2 veer off after Laim, for example. We can represent that with boxes, but it means that Stammstrecke is a variable. Mackensen (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This defines it only until Donnersberger Brücke railway station, but we would need a proper reference anyway. I'll ask Flo if he is online on the German wiki. Anyway the situation would not be too dissimilar to the S1 which has two termini in the west. Agathoclea 22:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this defines it as Pasing - Ostbahnhof and gives a nice view of the planned 2nd Stammstrecke. Personally I would have just branched those off where they leave. It is more the optics I am concerned about with an everincreasing number of lines going through. Agathoclea 22:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I think you've got a point. I've implemented this at München Hauptbahnhof (based on the idea of Pasing as the westbound end of the system). What do you think? Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am happy with both solutions. The current one with all the endpoints works equally well as just using Pasing/Ostbahnhof. It will just mean I have to start putting up all these stations. Agathoclea 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I've got you, I'm thinking about adding boxes for BOB. Do you know if the three lines have names? Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, you were just too late on that one, I went off-line. And sorry I don't know any names for that. And the German guy i was corresponding with for the U-Bahn articles has gone on an indefinete wikibreak. Agathoclea 08:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veoh[edit]

Hi, there is no reason that there should be no article on Veoh. It is all over the news. Please unprotect. Thanks. frummer 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • please let me know. thanks frummer 20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with the matter so I'm not inclined to act. Have you asked one of the admins who deleted/protected it? Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mack, I'm asking you to ignore him right now. Honestly, he is trolling and this is out of the bounds of normal sanity. He's freaking out and accusing everyone of sysop tools of acting out of line. Yanksox 01:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copper(II) sulfate[edit]

Hi, I saw that you reverted a paragraph in the article Copper(II) sulfate regarding use in school demonstrations. The paragraph seems legit to me, and I can confirm that the demonstration described is common in beginner's chemistry classes. You didn't specify any reason for reverting, so I thought I should just check with you what your rationale was, before I put it back, in case I might have misunderstood something. 129.240.250.4 13:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was added by a banned user who was trolling elsewhere. Not being an expert on chemistry I didn't want to take any chances. Feel free to add it back in. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI RunedChozo thread[edit]

Should we start blocking these trollish IPs on sight, or...? --210physicq (c) 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only if they're coming from the same ISP and acting the same way. No need to get block-happy over this. Mackensen (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in short, ignore the ranting? --210physicq (c) 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. It's only a problem when it interferes with the auto-archiving...Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser block of 129.7.35.202[edit]

Hi. You blocked the range 129.7.35.0/24 earlier today with the message {{checkuserblock}}. One IP in that range - 129.7.35.202 (talk · contribs) - has asked to be unblocked. Can you review the request and respond as appropriate? When I encounter an IP requesting to be unblocked after a checkuser block, should I always simply decline the request? --BigDT 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you should do what you just did–go and find the checkuser who did it. It's our fault, after all. I'll go review the request. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haunting and Haunted Hollywood[edit]

I see you speedied these pages as copyvios. However, there is some question about this and several other articles with the same contributor. If Argonaut was not the original contributor there is page history that is not a copyvio that is worth saving. Even if Argonaut is the original contributor there is a question as to if it's a copyvio as the originating website has a license which may be semi-compatable with Wikipedia's. At any rate, a group of us are willing to re-write these. Would you please restore it? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk) 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be willing to restore any versions which pre-date Argonaut's contributions, pending resolution of these other matters. Mackensen (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powerrangerbuster et al[edit]

Would you confirm the suspicions I have of Wrongporch (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) in this mess?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gare Centrale (Montreal)[edit]

{{s-start}}
{{s-rail|title=VIA}}
{{s-line|system=VIA|line=Toronto-Montreal|previous=Dorval|rows2=2}}
{{s-line|system=VIA|line=Ottawa-Montreal|previous=Dorval|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=VIA|line=Montreal-Quebec|next=Saint-Lambert|rows1=5}}
{{s-line|system=VIA|line=Ocean|next=Saint-Lambert|hide1=yes}}
{{s-line|system=VIA|line=Chaleur|next=Saint-Lambert|hide1=yes}}
{{s-line|system=VIA|line=Saguenay|next=Ahuntsic|hide1=yes}}
{{s-line|system=VIA|line=Abitibi|next=Ahuntsic|hide1=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=Amtrak}}
{{s-line|system=Amtrak|line=Adirondack|previous=|next=Saint-Lambert}}
{{s-end}}

Aldershot (GO station) & Fallowfield railway stationare quite irrelevant, but I can't find where they are embedded in the table (box) so I can't remove them. Peter Horn 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Peter Horn 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. Can you specify exactly which line of the box you are trying to remove? --`/aksha 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the phrases "toward Aldershot" and "toward Fallowfield", two phrases that do only appear in the finished version and that are meaningless & irrelevant. "Dorval" is OK. Peter Horn 02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"toward Aldershot (GO station)" & "toward Fallowfield railway station". Within this context this info is erroneous. How does one get rid of those out of "Dorval????? Peter Horn 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though whoever made these templates thought that railroads will stay where they are for all of eternity :) Check out this page for how far this kingdom extends! I'm looking into it... ack... GracenotesT § 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like User:Mackensen created these templates. Really an awesome (if not magnificently terrifying) system. You could try asking him any questions. GracenotesT § 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, my lack of knowledge about these sorts of systems kicks in. I'm sure that Mackensen would know, though. GracenotesT § 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Mackensen, can you help us??? Peter Horn 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what exactly is the problem? Have the termini changed? Mackensen (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Montreal-Ottawa trains end/start at the "new" station in east end Ottawa (just east of the Rideau Canal). It is the station that replaced the original one in downtown Ottawa near the parliament buildings. See Ottawa Station. The Fallowfield has nothing to do with VIA's Montreal-Ottawa runs. Likewise all Montreal-Toronto runs start/end at Union Station in downtown Toronto. Aldershot is beyond Toronto. Peter Horn 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the same message with AirOdyssey (Talk in connection with Dorval (AMT) Peter Horn 01:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the VIA Rail schedules, as per WP:V. NOT all Montreal-Toronto runs start/end at Union Station. At least one train a day continues to Aldershot. Same thing for Montreal-Ottawa. At least one train a day continues to Fallowfield. P.S. I know where the train stations in Ottawa and Toronto are, I've taken the train on the corridor more than once. That wasn't the point. AirOdyssey (Talk) 01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My appologies, I guess I havent been keeping up with the latest news. Peter Horn 01:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste...Peter Horn 01:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PATH infoboxes[edit]

Before you redo all the infoboxes for PATH stations, I think they should somehow denote the regular service and the late night service as the previous infoboxes did. Also, not sure I like having the next/previous stations linked at the bottom of the article. My preference is to keep them in the infobox, so one doesn't have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page (for longer articles). I'm not sure a uniform infobox design for all metro systems is appropriate, because they don't account for unique aspects of particular systems (like late night/weekend service vs. regular service). But, if you go ahead with the change anyway, I'm not going to stand in your way much. However, if you try to make the same changes to Washington Metro station articles, I know the regular editors there will likely oppose it because the infoboxes there incorporate things specific to that system. I don't think the standard infoboxes would go over well either for New York City Subway stations. --Aude (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I already talked to the Washington Metro people and consensus was to keep things as they were. I'm not planning on touching the NYC Subway either--far, far too complicated. My main desire was to present the information more clearly and concisely and to avoid duplication. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've altered the box on Journal Square to denote the difference of service [12]. Is this better? Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to think about it. It is better, though still not sure it fits all articles. I also like the look of your template. Scrolling all the way to the bottom for the next/previous stations is not ideal. It's most pertinent information, in my opinion, and a good way to link articles with eachother. While most subway station articles are short, they can develop into longer articles. In those cases, such as World Trade Center (PATH station), one would have to scroll way down. That article is really talking about four different stations that have existed there (Hudson Terminal, the original WTC PATH station, the temporary/current PATH station, and the future/permanent one) so tucking the pertinent next/previous station information into the way bottom is not ideal. Maybe you can come up with a way to make it an option of having that information part of the infobox? I'm not good enough with templates to come up with an solution for that. Is that a possibility? Regards. --Aude (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to make a minor change to Infobox Station but yes, that's quite possible. Let me fiddle with it. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am playing around with {{Infobox_PATH_station}} - a copy of your template, but trying to add the next/previous below the "other" section. (using {{NWK-WTC2}}) I can't get it to work right, but with some time I think I could figure out what's wrong. The look of your infobox is way better, and I think agreeable to people, if it can be made to accommodate unique aspects of the system. --Aude (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed Journal Square to use Template:S-note (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to convey the difference in service. Still at the bottom though. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I figured out so far: User:AudeVivere/Sandbox3 - it shows just one line but could show multiple lines and service. --Aude (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two lines now: User:AudeVivere/Sandbox3. That's all I'll do now with it. Your suggestions or ideas would help. I think something like this would be agreeable among users working on Washington Metro station articles. The infoboxes for both systems have traditionally been done the same. --Aude (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I've got a working example now at User:Mackensen/Pathtest. This allows the code formerly at the bottom to simply be included within the infobox. Thoughts (I cribbed from the Metro template, which has similar functionality)? Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not planning to touch the New York City subway? That's it, I'm unwatching this page; I just read it for the subway coverage. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now, if I could get broad-based support for bringing s-rail/s-line to the NYC subway that would be one thing, but the evolved system over there appears quite complicated. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that will work for PATH. Not to nit-pick, but the only minor thing that I would do different (if possible and not too much work) is maybe to tweak the colors. It's not a big deal though. Thanks for modifying the template. It will likely work for Washington Metro, though let's try it here and we can get feedback from others. And then, who knows it might then be possible for NYCS. I have worked some with them too. --Aude (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The line colors or the template colors? The former is changed easily, the latter I'd be loath to do since it would affect templates all over the place. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the template colors. Having the grey "Services" heading and then repeat the grey right under it isn't ideal. But, it's a nit-pick detail. Let's stick with what we have now. --Aude (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigers fan?[edit]

I can't believe I'm arguing about Fuzzy Zoeller evidence with a Tigers fan. I love the Tigers!

That being said, I don't think you understand my point about the Zoeller case. They are going after someone who RESTORED edits in December that were initially CREATED in August. Where can we see the evidence of the identity of the August editor? How can you not think this is important? --72.94.164.52 05:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to jump in here -- I've been watching this go on for about an hour now -- and say that it isn't that the vandalism is unimportant; it's that you keep bringing up discussion of it on a page where it doesn't belong. The article's Talk page is for discussion relevant to improving the article itself, not for discussion of who edited it six months ago.--chris.lawson 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but Chris, when I learned that lesson and tried to further improve the Discussion page by removing content that does not contribute to the improvement of the article itself, that edit was reverted. Seems that there's a cabal or hive-mind in action here. So, it is only too easy to also infer that this mentality would extend to a cover-up of Wikimedia Foundation's role in hiding the GFDL evidence from its own community. --72.94.164.52 05:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me how this edit helped to further improve the article's Talk page.--chris.lawson 05:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you may seek to get some more sleep, or something. That edit helped to tighten up the Discussion page, so that the content would be more focused on issues that directly improved the article itself. It is no aid to junk up a Discussion page with personal "Thank yous" to other editors. If you can't see that at needless fluff, I'm sorry I can't help you further. --72.94.164.52 05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The proper thing to do in such a case, rather than removing six-month-old inactive discussion, would be to archive the discussion instead of deleting selected snippets of it (especially when you remove context for replies that you did not delete). But you're obviously just here to argue and throw around accusations of "hive mind" and conspiracy, so you should probably go find someone else to argue with.--chris.lawson 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually here to try to find out who made the initial comments in August 2006 about Fuzzy Zoeller that were truly libelous. It's when that simple inquiry gets edited out of existence that I begin to liken Wikipedia's editors to "hive mind" conspirators. Cart before the horse, Chris. It's a basic principle of a logical argument. --72.94.164.52 05:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mack, long time no... talk page dif. FWIW, pulling that comment off the talk page was the right call. Cheers, JDoorjam JDiscourse 07:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-line[edit]

I actually think I just figured it out. At first I thought the S-line/left/x-line was for masking names.. but now I see that its just for termini. So, I got rid of the redirect on the right one (I was basing it off of London's LUL) and just put a single variable into the #switch. Is that how it works? -- drumguy8800 C T 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically. Name masking is done with stations. The configuration of the /direction/x-line depends on the shape of the line. Like, if you've got a line shaped like a horseshoe left/right is irrelevant so you just work with one template. DART, however, appears to be pretty straightforward. Here's how I'd do it. Take west/east as your left/right base. The "left" end of the red line is "Westmoreland," the right end is "Parker Road." Therefore, Template:S-line/DART left/Red should just contain Westmoreland, because there's no ambiguity. You don't need a switch statement at all. Ditto with Blue: Ledbetter on the left, Downtown Garland on the right. Hope this helps, Mackensen (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for having my back on all these edits! drumguy8800 C T 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. You should've seen it when I converted the entire London Underground--seemed like I made a typo every other station! Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear![edit]

Is it concratulations or commiserations that are in order? Pity for the time taken away from the good work you are doing now, but I have every confidence in your ability/insight at ArbCom. Agathoclea 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with congratulations, Mackensen, I am sure you will function well as a member of the Arbitration Committee. Prodego talk 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you smoking? Thatcher131 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me as well. Musical Linguist 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Joining the chorus... May this service to the community be kind on your nerves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Trains[edit]

I'm creating some new infoboxes for stations along the Merseyrail line: advice is appreciated! --sunstar nettalk 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of there being a template for all the major operators (e.g. Northern Line) in the UK, but since I realize this might be controversial, I'll leave a note at the talk page. --sunstar nettalk 14:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyrail[edit]

Btw, Merseyrail is actually part of our national rail network. It is not a seperate metro. Simply south 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm well aware of that. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose you could stick {{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}} at the top of the box (see below), but I think it's pretty clear as-is. Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  National Rail  
    • I suppose you already know that we no longer have a national single company of sorts. Simply south 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've kept up with the privatisation as best I can, though it certainly made a muddle of things. Since the various "lines" are operated by distinct companies–by distinct I mean they rent/lease their own rolling stock and have their own liveries–it makes sense to me to organise the boxes as such. It's not that significant a change from the earlier boxes either--just moving the TOC from inside the line box to a header above the line box(es). Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. Just wondering why the Merseyrail stations template that you've cleared from Sandhills railway station is 'superfluous' per your edit comment. Please can you advise? Many thanks 13:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's unnecessary for any station article to link to every other station in a particular geographic area, when all such stations are one or two clicks away through a less obtrusive method. The article already links to neighbouring stations and reachable termini. Additionally, through service route links and categorisation, you're no more than two clicks away from every other station in the region. The user, meanwhile, is presented the most relevant links first, and in a fashion that does not present too much information in one place. Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at this...[edit]

I know that on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel, you said that the evidence was inconclusive, but you may want to look at the page Jibbert Michart Macoy. It was created by Jibbity, but it's similar to the misinformation added by Danny Daniel's confirmed sockpuppets ([13], [14], [15]). Squirepants101 16:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even Jibbity's username is based on this "Jibbert Mchart Macoy" character. Squirepants101 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CBDrunkerson[edit]

Is this completed yet, or is it still to be kept active per you for further input? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geni[edit]

Do you have a list of Geni's prior indiscretions? I searched around and couldn't find anything and I have only some fairly vague memories. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Off the top of my head he's revert-warred over the site notice repeatedly, and revert-warred over the arbcom elections last December. I'd have to scrounge for the specific diffs. It was also warring that caused Ed Poor to desysop him the first time (a dubious precedent, given that Ed himself was desysoped for it, but noteworthy all the same). I'll hunt around. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the protection war over Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Paul August:

  1. SlimVirgin reverts Cyde
  2. SlimVirgin protects the page
  3. Geni unprotects the page
  4. Geni reverts SlimVirgin
  5. SlimVirgin reverts Geni
  6. SlimVirgin protects the page
  7. Geni unprotects the page
  8. Geni reverts SlimVirgin

Here's Geni revert-warring with Anthere over the site notice, in January of 2006:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]

And another revert-war over the site notice, this time in July/August of 2006:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]

Finally, there's the time he undid protect on an OFFICE-protected article without consulting Danny, back in March of 2006. This occasioned his second temporary de-sysoping (c.f. [21]). This may seem like old business but I dislike the pattern, and I don't view arbcom's failure to address the matter previously as an adequate justification for letting it slide this time. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll add this to the case in some form. Also, I would like to suggest that we remove the "after 60 days" clause from the Geni remedy you have proposed. It serves no purpose since the odds of an appeal or RFA succeeding during that time are exactly zero, but the Kremlinologists are reading some sort of meaning into the fact that Geni's remedy is putatively harsher than Yanksox'. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly related note, is it possible to encourage members to indicate their first and second choice when there are multiple variations of a proposed remedy? It gets hard to follow which variation is the most preferred. NoSeptember 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

the clerks will usually bug the arbitrators if we can't figure it out during the "motion to close" phase. Thatcher131 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish railway stations...[edit]

Seeing as I have somehow elected to cover almost the entire Finnish railway network on the English Wikipedia, do you think I should join the WikiProject Trains? JIP | Talk 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably worth doing. Just add your name to the list. Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jkammert[edit]

Appears to be affected by a schoolblock you set a few months back, with "serious vandalism from a banned user; please contact before unblocking." I'm not familiar with whatever Bad Things happened, there, but any advice you could provide would be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, Very Bad Things indeed. I was about a revert away from calling the school district. Anyways, the range looks clean, so go ahead and unblock and let's see what happens. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007[edit]

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Positioning of WCML template[edit]

I've partially reverted your edit to Milton Keynes Central railway station. Who wants to see a screenful of white space before the article starts? Who would even know to scroll down to find any content. I assume good faith but I don't understand why you thought that this would work? --Concrete Cowboy 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I didn't get a screen full of white space, but what you've done now accomplished what I intended. What browser/platform are you using? Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IE7 (IE6 does the same). [I should clarify - I mean "screenful of white space except for the Infobox and the list of WCML stations". I get both templates first down the RHS, then the text starts]. Nuneaton railway station is strange: I see the first para, then white space (apart from the template contents), then the rest of the intro and rest of the article as normal. --Concrete Cowboy 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's really weird. I'm running Opera on XP and it looks fine. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's whereabouts[edit]

"It is my understanding that Jimbo is presently traveling in India and may not have ready means of communication at his disposal." -- buried deep within the Essjay RFC.

You might want to move that right up top, as a comment under Jimbo's view, where most people will actually see it. Derex 02:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Rail[edit]

Why have you apparently taken it upon yourself to convert EVERY UK railway station page? Did I miss a memo? Or are you the self-appointed template converter? I fail to see why the template as seen below is apparently so offensive to you that you feel you need to change every single edition of it.

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
New Cross   Southeastern
Hayes Line 		  Lewisham

I look forward to an explanation. Hammersfan 04/03/07, 23.20 GMT

  • Because I enjoy editing Wikipedia as much as the next man and thought that the new templates constituted an overall improvement. I have worked with other editors on these and other railway articles and found broad support for these templates. I confess that I do not understand why you have come here with such belligerence. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on his user page, and he did me the courtesy of replying on mine. For the record, I agree with him. These VT templates on every station article are too big, too obsessive and likely to discourage readers from continuing to the end of the article. --Concrete Cowboy 12:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I also responded on his, if you'll note, telling him that I'd responded here. Where he got the idea I didn't respond at all I have no idea) As it happens, I've been quite discouraged by the reception I've received thus far and I'm bogged down handling arbitration matters for the forseeable future. I have no interest in pursuing the matter. I believe I've been reverted everywhere, so we're back where we started. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day![edit]

:) pschemp (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another present for you, courtesy of Jpgordon[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up[edit]

Tobias Conradi has added you to his list because of a revert you made. Fame and fortune will soon come your way. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear[edit]

Hi ,i just deleting these artilces [[22]] and every time deleting those are again poping up.see my contribution you will understand.Please Help me what to do.Khalidkhoso 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're editing through a proxy by the looks of things, and the proxy is substituting html special characters. I'd strongly suggest that if you're using a proxy on purpose cease doing so; if you're not then change your computing environment. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work from my office and i work in shifts ,so i do not know who uses this system and why.i do not use proxy,it is from local admin to use it, so I can not change there policies I am just work for money here.You guide me what to do.this is 1st time i am facing this much problem.Khalidkhoso 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration clerk[edit]

Has there been any discussion on the AC mailing list about appointing Cowman109 and Newyorkbrad as clerks (my request of last week?) Thatcher131 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom - Participation in pending cases[edit]

When the new arbitrators took office at the beginning of the year, the decision was made that they would be considered as recused/non-participating in cases that had been accepted before they came in, but could elect to participate in any such case either by noting that they would be participating or by voting. At that point the Clerks adjusted the list of active arbitrators for that case and the majority accordingly. Would you like to proceed on the same basis for the cases that were pending as of this morning? This is significant because we have some cases nearing closing and have to make sure whom to include in calculating the majority. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, we're recused from all active cases. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So noted in the lists of arbitrators in the pending cases. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop[edit]

Hi. There seem to be some problems with the software today. In this edit to the above, in adding your proposals your edit seems also to have removed some comments by Fred Bauder and others. I assume this was not intentional. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I've had that happen already and I've restored others. Might be best just to stop editing altogether until it gets fixed. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supposed to be fixed now. You might want to send a note to the mailing list urging arbitrators to check that any votes they cast today are correctly recorded. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a few parties that want to name more editors as parties to the article; I've proposed a motion-- please take a look at it and let me know what you think? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InShaneee evidence[edit]

Hi. You and Morven state on the RFAr/InShaneee evidence talkpage that "no evidence has been brought forward of a blocking pattern", but only of two separate incidents (the block of A Link to the Past, the block of Worldtraveller). I've given evidence of a pattern of blocking threats, which can IMO be as serious, and tend as much to subduing adversaries in content conflicts, as actual blocks. Please see the top of my evidence section. Right now I don't know if there would be any point in adding more examples of the same thing, since neither of you has replied to my question about it. I know there are more diffs out there, but it's very time-consuming to track down this kind of evidence, and if arbitrators aren't interested in it in any case, I guess I won't bother. Bishonen | talk 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • I will read this. As an aside, arbitrators can only be bothered to read what's in front of them. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er... they don't read the evidence secions before stating that no such evidence has been offered? Isn't that a little extreme?? Bishonen | talk 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Not at all. We read the evidence section. I re-read to be sure I hadn't missed anything. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbitration Workshop Page[edit]

I would like to draw your and ARbcom members attention to a bulk of personal attacks and accusation with which user:Fadix flooded workshop page. He openly admits that he will continue his attacks. It is absolutely unacceptable. Workshop page is destroyed. It is very bizzare that almost no other Armenian users participate in the discussion despite there are several involved. I have feeling that they communicated with each other and this is a strategy: Fadix bombs and tarnishes all Azeri editors involved (me, Adil, Atabek and Grandmaster). We have to response to all these allegations. And here is clear picture - Fadix vs. 4 bad Azeri editors. We can not keep silence because he constantly accuses us in sock- and meat pupetting, harassing, saying that we are government representatives, and so on. Maybe he wants that someone from us will lose his temper and make personal attacks. That will equal the situation because now several Armenian editors are listed in workshop for personal attacks. How long it will be allowed to harrass us - he repeats over and over again that we are oficial reps, etc. I kindly and urgently request temporary injection - no more personal attacks and harrasment on workshop page. --Dacy69 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Starwood RfAr case[edit]

User:Kathryn NicDhàna has given another statement (I think it's semi-evidence, but it's placed on the main case page) at here. Please advise action. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment. Here's the original, which I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section here. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My Arb case[edit]

The only issue to my knowledge that is still current and unresolved is the issue over Pallywood, where I made a mistake on trying to intervene in a content dispute (see my satement) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WMATA station templates[edit]

When you convert the old WMATA station templates to the new format, could you put the succession boxes inside the infobox? We've expressed a slight preference for that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro#New station infobox? and having it done that way up front would save the trouble of converting later. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. It's a simple matter of taking the succession boxes, stripping out s-start and end, and adding them to the services parameter. I've done that elsewhere, I just thought that the MARC section was a bit scrunched inside the box. I think that's the last interchange between Amtrak and the WMATA in any case. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more Kate McAuliffe accounts[edit]

The two ips which were creating these accounts were blocked. Yet it is still going on. I have found two more today.

I am tired of being the Kate McAuliffe vandal and sockpuppet (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Apologies to whoever got affected by a Kate McAuliffe vandal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Just to inform you. Already been blocked. Retiono Virginian 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance wanted[edit]

You seem to be the one who has worked on the templates for the succession boxes in articles on rail stations, so I hope you can help me. I'm doing a Wikia on transit, and many of the articles are direct copies from Wikipedia (with some minor changes that are irrelevant to this discussion). When I copy the articles with succession boxes, I can make them work OK, though I had to figure out the added template names I needed to copy. However, when I try to use parallel logic to create succession boxes on systems that have not been treated that way on Wikipedia, sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I can't figure out what I'm doing differently on wikia:metro:Old Mill (TTC) (which works just fine) and on wikia:metro:Milford Mill (Baltimore MTA station) (which fails to pick up the previous and next stations and the termini from the appropriate places).

I'd appreciate any help you can give me. You can reply to me at User talk:BRG or at wikia:metro:User talk:BRG. -- BRG 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! That really helped. -- BRG 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC RFCU channel[edit]

Good morning (GMT time); is there a quick way of being able to access the IRC CheckUser (clerk) channel, to monitor the bot feed? It would be extremely useful in clerking, as well as to ask for guidance during these early days of my clerking duties.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richthofen[edit]

As you expressed your interest in the matter on Clawson's RfA, you may want to take a look at the discussion and my proposal. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ban[edit]

hello, can you please ban me? Wikiholic888 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean block, not ban. And no, requested blocks are not preformed. Prodego talk 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given that "please ban me" requests were two of the user's three contributions, and the third was an image uploaded with the summary "this image is copyrighted, who cares?", I indefed for trolling. I didn't want to give this guy what he wanted, but the alternative seemed worse.... Newyorkbrad 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine since you set 'noautoblock' (Wernda still hasn't fixed that :(). Prodego talk 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Prussiaflag small.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Prussiaflag small.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. YaanchSpeak! 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richthofen (again)[edit]

An IP made this edit to the article talk. As you have the volume, is there anything to that or is it only rubbish? Does the book quote an historian Adolf Caspary or such? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand arbitration clarification[edit]

I have left a clarification why I feel arbitration is still necessary in regards to betacommand under my statement. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFAR#Betacommand flip-flopping question[edit]

I'm not sure where to put this, since Thatcher and NYBrad on User talk:Newyorkbrad discouraged me from lengthening my statement, or continuously replying to other comments. It's really as per "Response to ChrisO", and "Chrislk02's clarification why arbitration is still necessary", and "Comment by Chacor" sections. Yes, Bc does clean up after himself, then does it again. Note the 3 incidents that I detailed in my comment happened in 6 days. I don't really understand the fine details of bot policy, but reading that discussion, he seems to have a history of problems there. As Doc Glasgow writes, the Irpen block was back in December, so is spilled milk. However the other block issue in Bishonen's statement was less than 1 month ago. In response to it, Betacommand wrote:

Didn't help.

I'm not looking to get Bc completely banned, he is a well intentioned user, but he's a bull in a china shop, every time he turns around there is a crash and something expensive gets broken. I don't even know what remedy exactly I want to come from this, but there needs to be something. Maybe full desysopping, maybe some kind of probation, even a formal reprimand? Otherwise it just keeps going and going. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if an arbitrator asks for clarification (such as, "are there other outstanding issues") then it is appropriate to add to your statement. Thatcher131 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the 1st edit is my birthday[edit]

Wow, how amazing! Your first edit is the same as my birthday on the 23rd of August. Khairul hazim 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007[edit]

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Quaer beast article has been deleted again[edit]

Do your duty! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atomicthumbs (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Email[edit]

Just to let you know, I've emailed you (sorry, I've been having problems with people recieving them), let me know if you don't get it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-functionaries access[edit]

IRC user Mask if you could. Thank you. -Mask? 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have the ability to create/assign cloaks. If you already have one I can add you to the list. Be advised, that channel is fairly inactive. Mackensen (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SBB stations[edit]

I'm trying to better organise the Berlin S-Bahn and U-Bahn pages and I've come across your station template, but I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to accomplish other than creating a type of pipe link without manually doing so. I'd like to know what the purpose is so I can use it. Keatinga 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's the purpose. It's part of the backbone for the {{s-rail}}/{{s-line}} templates that generate the succession boxes. Mackensen (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks, good to know. I'm not familiar with the more technical mark-up and I'm trying to figure it out. Also, thanks for creating Template:Rail text color, it's very cool.

User:64.251.53.130[edit]

Hi Mackensen, you blocked the above IP in september 2006 indefinately for being used by a banned user. Well...... it got unblocked on March 1 and since then it's had 3 seperate blocks, I've just blocked for a month. Would you support indefinately blocking again? I'm hesitent to jump in by myself as you've obviously got the check user results somewhere. Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sockpupettry[edit]

Hi Mackensen, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive RFCU?[edit]

Greetings,

What do you mean by "inconclusive"?Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Otheus Why isn't it possible to conclusively say I am not using one of the IP addresses given, all of which are based in Australia/NZ? --Otheus 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Question[edit]

Totally unrelated to your RfB, except that I found him in your edit list: August von Mackensen. Are you related to the Marshal, an admirer of his, or is the username an odd coincidence? Just curious. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second. He figured in my senior thesis and I found him to be an interesting and engaging figure. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly enough, I had a similar relationship with Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, although it never would have occurred to me to make my screen-name a tribute to him, in large part because I still have difficulty remembering his correct spelling! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, Kutuzov! What I know of him I know from War and Peace, where he was my second favorite character from the army, second only to Denisov...Mackensen (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonest[edit]

I feel disclosing private e-mails in public is dishonest, as there is a general understanding of confidentiality. Everyking 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It brought me no pleasure, and I always wished later I'd simply forwarded them to Arbcom. They ignored them anyway, near as I can tell. I've apologized before but I'm content to do so again. I was wrong to disclose private communication between two people in a public fashion, whatever benefit I thought it might bring Wikipedia. It was unfair to you; you had a reasonable expectation that I would be the only one to read what you wrote. I breached that trust and for that I am sorry. As far as I know I have never done so since then, now more than two years ago. I know not what else I can possibly say on the matter. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, about the RfB... :)[edit]

Two questions posted there for you: one, in the question section; the other, as part of the continuing discussion under Bishonen's comment. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both answered, although probably too vague for your liking. It's difficult answering without a test case, and doubly difficult dealing only with boundary cases. Mackensen (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Something?[edit]

Was I imagining it, or did your userpage say you were an oversighter yesterday but not today? There's no record of removal of text in the history. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutiny for a statement of yours[edit]

Hi,

I noticed this remark of yours in amongst the threads of the RfB talk page, and I feel the need to examine it with you. I hope I'm not taking it to far out of context, but I find it very alarming: "My principal concern here is that making people feel their opinion is valued may not be of any tangible benefit to the encyclopedia."

This logic reminds me of Kelly Martin and the advocates of the great Userbox Purge. I thought everyone had learned their lessons from that, but perhaps you didn't. The encyclopedia is paramount, but it is written by people, all of us co-equal, across countries, continents, and cultures. If people do not feel that their input is crucial to the management of our volunteer project, they will leave. To argue with Edmund Burke from your userpage (I ignore Russell Kirk's existence in polite company, to keep the expletives from flying), it is not enough that everyone's interest is represented by proxy -- they must feel themselves empowered. A government can afford to ignore, for a time, a disillusioned, apathetic people; an all-volunteer project absolutely cannot. Wikipedia needs a dose of John Dewey far more than Edmund Burke. To be blunt, the tangible benefit to the encyclopedia that you've missed above is this: people must feel happy writing it! Ignore the community, and the paramount object of encyclopedic work withers and dies. I'm sure your sentiment was more intelligent than it appeared to me from your remark, and I trust that you will be more sophiscated in addressing this issue in the future. If you ever have any doubt why the community's sense of involvement in the project is of tangible benefit to the encyclopedia, you need look know further than the disastrous events of January, 2006: all the time and resources wasted when a small segment of administrators forgot that they needed to carry the community's goodwill with them in any action. Alienate too many, and the encyclopedia suffers. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't intend that my remark be interpreted too broadly, no. I agree wholeheartedly that people should be happy writing the encyclopedia, but we aren't talking about writing the encyclopedia! What we're talking about is selecting people to help with the maintenance of the encyclopedia, and this really is a separate question altogether. This is secondary, perhaps even tertiary to the writing of the encyclopedia itself: people should come here, to Wikipedia, to write an encyclopedia, not to participate in RFA. We need to balance people's desire to participate in process with the very real need to create additional administrators and to arrest the alarming development of administrative backlogs. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are talking about the process by which we invest people with additional "power" at this encyclopedia. Like it or not, there is general agreement that "administrators are often seen as the official face of Wikipedia." Nobody knows better than I -- a dedicated Wiki-Gnome -- that maintaining the encyclopedia and writing it are often very different tasks, requiring different skill-sets. However, the manner in which we choose our "official faces" is certain to be of important symbolic value to the morale of our contributors. We have enough difficulty convincing our doubters (and, post-Essjay, dare I say, the general public?) of the competence and decency of our "official faces." Making the selection-process for those faces less directly receptive to community concerns will not help. I don't know what sort of b'crat you'll be; but, if you act in accord with some of the more imperious-sounding language in your platform, I guarantee you that folks will be less happy working here. I understand that some of your language might have been calculated to present yourself as a bold reformer -- if you go too far in injecting your own judgment, rather than the community's, into the moment of decision, things will get much more contentious, and much less encyclopedica-centric, around here. Assuming your request does succeed, I'm committed to conveying these worries to you, in the hope that your conduct will be moderate, and not too revolutionary. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All things in moderation, including moderation! Seriously though, I don't feel as though I'm saying anything new. I want to help the community towards making RfA a kinder, gentler place with a more level playing field. I'm not a revolutionary and (I hope) I'm not a reactionary, warm regard for Russell Kirk's intellect aside (as a native of Mid-Michigan I'm biased). Thanks very much for your comments. Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm an RfA-regular -- heck, you might call me the Russell Kirk of the place, given my conservative stances! ;) -- and if you'll let me know of any way to make the place kinder and gentler, I'll be happy to help. I'm all aboard for that effort! Kind is good! :) Xoloz 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the moment the selection process is geared toward empowering a 25% hard core (for instance, Mackensen's RfB is "failing" with a mere 80% support). I'm not sure how you could call this process "receptive to community concerns;" I think it would be hard to design a process less receptive to community concerns. If you gave a random person total fiat, probability would suggest the results would be more moderate than they currently are, because that person would more likely come from the moderate core of the community than from the fringe which currently dominates RfA. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfB question[edit]

I've asked a question on your RfB and I would be interested to see your response. Regards and Happy Easter! (aeropagitica) 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of RFA background[edit]

Your comments show a bit of ignorance about what's been going on at RFA (which is understandable since you admit you aren't a regular). So I'd like to give you a bit of background.

In the last year only 5 RFAs have closed in a way inconsistent with a straight 75% threshold vote:

The other 99% of RFAs were closed in a manner that looked just like a vote. The low promotions were all highly controversial. The high fails were hardly even noticed since they fell in the "traditional" 75-80% discretionary range, though it is worth noting that this discretionary range is almost never used to fail candidates any more. Dragons flight 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That doesn't surprise me particularly and dovetails with what I've suggested about numbers running the show. Thanks for doing the research. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff got 75% ? Gosh, that's bad. --Tony Sidaway 08:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratting[edit]

Frankly, given your platform in the round, I don't see why we would need to bother with any sort of process at all. Surely all an ordinary editor like me would have to do would be to approach the noble on bended knee and ask to be elevated to the adminhood? Given that you say that you will simply ignore opposition you do not concur with (and have been read as saying that, before you complain, see TonySidaway's comment), why would you even need to see the opposition? Grace Note 07:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment mentions two things. (1) doing the right thing and (2) facing down opposing minorities. In the end, Wikipedia has to make a decision. We probably shouldn't continue with the situation currently on Requests for adminship, where a very small tail wags this very big dog. --Tony Sidaway 08:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the "right thing" is not a thing solely discernible in Mackensen's (or your) noggin. That's kind of the point of having consensual procedures. A point that has, I fear, escaped you. Also, Tony, on other issues, you have been very keen on small tails wagging big dogs. Those have been the issues in which you are part of the small tail, of course. Grace Note 01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many times I have to deny that I would play "kingmaker" before someone believes me. I've pointed out, repeatedly, that it comes down to a question of substantive opposition and that in situations that are controversial I would consult with other bureaucrats. However, you are hinting towards an interesting possibility. The Cunctator (talk · contribs) argued some time back for "Mak[ing] admin rights automatic for all regular editors." I find it increasingly difficult to disagree with that suggestion. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That I say the opposition is necessary, and that I would re-work the format so as to highlight opposition, suggests on its face that your characterization of my intent and motives is incorrect (although, it must be said, not unique). It ought to be easier for good content editors to gain the tools. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denying that you would play kingmaker would probably have more force were you not standing on a platform of asking to be made one. Which opposition is "substantive" is in the eye of the beholder. Often on Wikipedia, one faction will describe another as composed of "troublemakers" or "trolls". (Sometimes they may be right. I'm not suggesting that everyone is working with pureness of heart here.) I share the Cunctator's view, as it happens. I think all editors past a certain threshold should be given admin powers, and bureaucrats should be empowered to remove them if the consensus is that they are rank. I think you could be counted on to be reluctant to do so without good reason, because punishment is a lot more burdensome than reward (a lot harder on the conscience to be a regicide than a kingmaker, if you'll pardon murdering that metaphor).
I'm not trying to characterise your motives. I assume good faith, of course. You clearly want a change in the way things are done more than you want power! I'm not suggesting otherwise. And as I said, I do agree wholeheartedly that the current beauty contest is no good.
Were you suggesting that all editors past, say, a thousand edits, with no blocks in the past three months, or some other reasonable criteria, be adminned, and that we make RfC/Admin conduct actionable by bureaucrats, well, I daresay I'd support that. (Make the proposal and see whether it floats, why not?) What I don't support is empowering you in the current system. Grace Note 01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I suspect that the present RfB will fail, but I'm going to buck another trend at let it run seven days because I think good and interesting discussion has come of it. After that we'll see what's possible. Thanks for your reply, Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On radical change[edit]

Comment made at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mackensen
When bureaucrats run they are asked to explain their views on adminship-granting. Most of them quote a specified number, although that number does not exist in policy any more than the RfA process itself does. I have said I will promote on consensus. Note that I said I would be willing to promote anyone who met X, Y, and Z. If I saw consensus that a person met X, Y, and Z, then I would promote. This is neither radical nor revolutionary. That it is being treated as such is striking. It would be odd indeed for a bureaucrat to run without giving his views--we might as well have a bot! Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you may not have appreciated it fully, but there is a significant way in which this is radical. From the beginning of RFA is was not the job of Bureaucrats to judge whether a candidate had the qualities of a good admin. In fact, 'crats were not intended to be judging the candidate at all. The job of the 'crat was to judge the community's will (as experessed at RFA) and determine consensus. To use an extreme and silly example, if most of the community decided that "candidate's name starts with the letter M" was a reason to oppose, then the Bureaucrat was expected to implement that consensus and fail the nom. The Bureaucrat might think that the community's reasons were silly, but that wasn't part of the process. The Bureaucrat was only supposed to decide whether the community had reached a consensus or not. Within that framework, it might even be considered better than a 'crat form no opinion on the candidate's qualifications at all.

Compare that to your statements that you are looking for a particular set of qualities, and I think you can appreciate that there is a significant difference. As historically defined, Bureaucrats were not in the business of deciding what is or is not a relevant objection, and yet that is exactly the sort of thing you have declared you intend to do if promoted. If I understand your intentions correctly, you would shift from a process where 'crats judge the will of the community expressed at RFA to one where 'crats judge the qualifications of the candidates based on the information provided at RFA. While the distinction might seem subtle, I would qualify that as a radical change. Dragons flight 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To an extent, yes, I would be taking the step that a candidate be judged on his merits. If this is a radical step then things are worse than I feared. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Dragons flight, your "silly" example is just that. No person worthy of the name Wikipedian, not you and not I and certainly not Mackensen, would ever implement a clearly stupid decision just because the majority of people seemed to want it. That would be against the interests of Wikipedia. A Wikipedian must not act in a manner so as to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
So it was a poor example, but I think it demonstrates something about the mode of thought being employed here. The bureaucrat, in your view, has never had the power to make decisions. I think that is the truly radical view here. It certainly doesn't match anything I know about what it is to be a Wikipedian. I'm not saying it's bad, but whatever it is, it isn't Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I believe if you climb back in the depths of RFA the original idea was that the community should be the one deciding on whether a candidate should be promoted and not that 'crat. The logic there is that by expecting the 'crat to judge only the consensus of the community, and not the qualifications of the candidate, that it would help ensure that promotions followed the will of the community and were "untainted" by the personal opinions of the Bureaucrat. The Bureaucrat still makes a decision, but only about the consensus within the community not about the candidates abilities/qualifications. I suspect some of the advocates of this system would be surprised by how it has worked out in practice (but that is a seperate issue).
More to the point though, and as I argued on the RFB, I feel there are times when it is better to have a suboptimal promotion process that allows the occasional "silly" decision to be made, than to have a highly effective promotion process that sews dissent and disruption within the community. As an example, I would point to Carnildo's RFA. No matter how much good he might accomplish as an admin, I don't think the marginal advantage of one more admin justified the profound discontent it generated, including the RfAr and the retirement of several established Wikipedians. More than likely had he failed that RFA, he could have passed a few months later, and then the community would have been spared the disruption and he would have been spared the taint of that controversy as well. When it comes to large community processes, like RFA, I feel it is better to accept the occasional stupid decision, than to try and fix every error at the expense of harmony in the community. Dragons flight 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has suggested that the bureaucrat do anything other (except in the extreme case you gave) than to interpret the will of the community. However the interpretation must also be consistent with the good of Wikipedia. This requires judgement. Rather than a symptom of a problem, I would point to the successful Carnildo RFA as a triumph of the bureaucrat system, and an indication that Requests for administration suffers from deep flaws that breed unrealistic and fundamentally destructive expectations. A minority can never be allowed to exert control over Wikipedia. Recent attempts by organised minority groups to do so using the adminship process will not succeed. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Within the auspices of our consensus based system, it could also be said that a majority should never be allowed to denigrate and ignore the the views of a significant minority simply so that the majority can force their will upon the community. Also, as much as Wikipedia has grown and evolved over the years, I'm sure that at some level the majority view of what an admin is today simply isn't the same as what it was when we first started contributing here. Dragons flight 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that it isn't. However the Wikipedian view of adminship is not well represented in the small caucus that, time and again, misrepresents itself as a "significant minority" on Requests for adminship and attempts to impose a veto on good adminship candidates. That is not what consensus is about. Consensus isn't about votes. --Tony Sidaway 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, in many of the cases where people bemoan the tyranny of the "false" minority, I doubt very much that the raw result would change much even if every active contributor on Wikipedia got involved. Or to put it another way, I tend to think that what you want to write off as a "small caucus" often really does reflect the views of a signficant segment of the community. Now its easy to say: "No, they're idiots and (to use the current example) 28% of Wikipedians can't really believe that Danny should be denied adminship", but that's a pretty hard thesis to prove, or even give meaningful evidence for.
Or let's put it another way. Either A) you're right and RFA is being manipulated by a rogue element, or B) RFA is a pretty good reflection of community sentiment and you are in denial about how far the community has drifted from what you wish it was like. Personally, I agree its a bit of both (i.e. RFA regulars do matter), but I think what occurs at RFA is also a lot more the second option than you'd like to believe. Dragons flight 06:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. My apologies to Mackensen, for continuing this debate in his space. Dragons flight 06:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the minority would change in a Wiki-wide vote is beside the point. The problem is that good administrators are being opposed for extremely anti-Wikipedian reasons, and serious power is being exerted by a small rump. As I've said before, this indicates a serious problem with the process. Mackensen proposes very sensibly to face down the minoriry and restore Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 08:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is not a small group, but rather a significant minority within Wikipedia that feels people like you don't take adminship seriously enough? If you'll allow me to play devil's advocate, how do you know you aren't the one who has failed to change with the times and is now advocating an anachronistic view that is disrespectful to the legitimate concerns of others? Dragons flight 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this because only the small rump believes otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 09:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me back to one of my points above, I don't think the group is nearly as small or insignificant as you believe it to be. Aside from name calling, what proof do you have that they are? Dragons flight 09:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, that there are so few of them and their sole power consists in sabotaging RFA. "Rump", incidentally, is a term used to describe a minority. --Tony Sidaway 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your query[edit]

Thank you very much for your question. No, not that was not my intent. As an uninvolved third party, it looks like you did something wrong in that situation, but you have apologized for it and I mean do not mean to be citing that as a reason for opposition. I will clairfy my comment on the RfB. Thanks very much, Johntex\talk 23:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for making that clear. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. I am sorry about the confusion. When I listed Everyking I was thinking of statements like "I don't agree that it would constitute a mandate; to change the system general approval would be required on the RfA talk page or some similar page..." As you have probably already noticed, I just took out Everyking's name from my list of people I am agreeing with. That is cleaner I think than trying to explain on your RfB where I agree with or disagree with Everyking. Best, Johntex\talk 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I just wandered by and I realized a contradicted myself above. I have fixed it. Sorry about my inept use of English. Johntex\talk 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA reform[edit]

Regarding your comment here: You may be interested in (and I'd appreciate any input/comment on) my proposal for RfA reform. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfB and RfA reform in general[edit]

It is obvious your RfB is going to fail now. On a strict vote counting basis, you're 74 votes in the hole now, assuming 85% threshold and 178 for 90%. It was changed from 90% to 85% in some references without discussion, so it's uncertain what threshold the current bureaucrats will use. Discussion long, long ago set it at 90%. Your RfA was percolating along at ~20 votes in the hole all day Sunday, but as soon as Monday rolled around, it started heading south in a hurry. With three days gone in the RfB, it's unlikely it will reverse course and climb that long ladder back into the positive.

The failure of your RfB and our past disagreements aside, the failure of RfA is something we both agree on. We are far from being alone. As I've spoken to many times in the last few weeks, the regulars at RfA are incapable of reforming it. Any proposal put forth has been shot down. There is simply too large of a group to gain consensus on the best way forward to fix RfA.

I had a discussion with Cool Cat about this a few days ago. I helped him put together the page at User:Cool Cat/Adminship survey summary by providing some references to charts and data. In our discussion, I noted that the page he created was just a beginning. The analogy I used was that this page got us to roughly Baltic Avenue, when our goal was to get to Boardwalk. Considerably more work would need to be done. I did not know that he intended to bring an RFAR on the subject and would have advised against doing so until considerably more work had been done, in the least.

I have long felt that since the regulars at RfA are incapable of reform that there were two parties capable of accomplishing the overthrow (for lack of a better term) of RfA; ArbCom and Jimbo. Seeing the resounding rejection of the RfAr and the rationale for rejection, it appears ArbCom is entirely unwilling to take such action. That leaves Jimbo.

I believe the time has come to put together a very well reasoned and supported proposal to overthrow RfA and replace it with another system. In sum and speaking in abstract,

  • RfA has failed in its mission to supply Wikipedia with a sufficient number of admins to keep vandalism in check and prevent routine backlogs in a number of areas. A number of pieces of data can be put forth to support this position.
  • The regulars at RfA are incapable of coming to an agreement on what system should be used in replacement of the current RfA system. A reading of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform is a primer on just the recent set of proposals that have been put forth, much less the often rancorous debate surrounding any proposal put forth.
  • No other group at Wikipedia is capable and/or willing to supplant RfA.
    • ArbCom has declared itself not so empowered as witnessed by the recently rejected RfAr.
    • The bureaucrats are not so empowered either, as the attempt to replace RfA with WP:DFA attempted by bureaucrats Linuxbeak and Ilyanep so found [25]; the resulting revolt was loud and rancorous.
    • In discussion, at least some stewards have indicated an unwillingness to replace it either.
  • This leaves just one person with the power to supplant RfA; Jimbo.
  • At this time, no coherent effort has been made to determine what system should replace RfA that would erase the problems extant at RfA and achieve the actual goals of RfA. No proposal to supplant RfA can realistically be made without providing an answer to the question "What do we replace it with?"

Some months ago, starting in January of this year, I sketched out a plan of action to achieve RfA reform. Among the steps in the strategy was:

  • Run an RfB at an appropriate time: The Essjay resignation forced my hand, and I ran it considerably earlier than I expected (I'd intended to run it in May). I knew full well beforehand that it would fail, for a number of reasons. But, I had to get it out of the way, lest anyone considering my words regarding RfA reform believed I was grandstanding in an effort to gain favor for a future RfB. My words to this effect would not be enough; I had to have a badly failed RfB to remove any doubts. My intention was to let it run until it was >100 votes in the hole, assuming 90% threshold. There needed to be no question that not only did it fail, but that any future attempt would be similarly doomed. Once it achieved that, I withdrew.
  • Resign from adminship: Too much emphasis is placed on social currency at RfA. I've written extensively about this elsewhere. In order to achieve my goals, I had to remove myself from the social currency system, and prevent others from comforting themselves by thinking that threatening my adminship was a means to suppress my voice. Not surprisingly, I was attacked on this point anyways in discussions regarding clerks. I had to prevent large amounts of heat being generated tangential to my efforts so that efforts would be more focused on light. Removing myself as an admin was a step in that direction. It's helped, but not as much as I'd hoped.
  • Focus my efforts: I was spending lots of time on a number of different facets. I needed to step away from them and focus my efforts solely on reform. The straw on the camel for me in this regard was creating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination data in mid February. I was entirely too focused on detail data. I was spending far too much time counting rings in trees and nowhere near enough time flying above the forest.

In early March I was involved in a discussion with David Gerard regarding the nature of RfA. In that discussion, he indicated he would likely be approaching Jimbo to ask for RfA to be overthrown. I had hoped, perhaps naively, that this would result in Jimbo at least looking at RfA with an eye towards possibly overthrowing it. I do not know if David ever approached Jimbo, or if Jimbo did take a look. But, given how much was wrong, I expected RfA as we know it to be gone by now [26].

I did not expect to get drawn into a discussion regarding the status and nature of clerks. This disagreement consumed a great amount of time and energy. It dovetailed very nicely into my strategy for RfA, in that the strategy for my efforts at RfA strongly supported my efforts at removing the exclusionary nature of clerks. I was very heartened that my efforts in this realm succeeded, despite a number of objections (not gloating here, just noting).

However, I found myself having a distinct lack of energy subsequent to my clerk dispute efforts. I stumbled, and fell back into a pattern of doing trivial things (like, fair use image removal from non-mainspace). As time went on, and David/Jimbo did nothing at RfA, I became disillusioned about any hope that RfA could be reformed, and thought to myself that it would take people with more brains and time than myself to achieve RfA reform.

Then, I came across a video having to do with Red Hat Linux. Viewed from the perspective of RfA needing reform, and that reform being equivalent to Red Hat Linux, the video gave me new found impetus, enough to write m:User:Durin/fodder. Still, a week later I found myself lacking energy. I went into a self-enforced period of inactivity in an attempt to refocus myself, not editing for the better part of a week until your RfB came up.

Now it seems everyone is talking about RfA reform again. Yet, once again that reform will be impossible to achieve without Jimbo stepping in. But, in order for him to step in we must present something he can get his arms around in a ready fashion. There needs to be highly detailed work to support the overall proposition so that the peanut galleries can at least follow along, and if Jimbo needs to be convinced the material is there to support it. From that, a strong executive summary needs to be written. It needs to summarize why RfA is broken and the problems it currently has, be very clear about the goals RfA is supposed to achieve, and propose a system that will achieve the goals, avoid the extant problems (many of which are social in nature) while being scalable to a Wikipedia of some years from now.

Despite your RfB failing, I hope that you will be willing to engage in assisting in such an effort as detailed above. Frankly, I lack the time and energy to do it largely by myself. It's going to take several very focused individuals to achieve it. I don't have a suggestion on an inception point. Userspace somewhere, with some notions of focus skimmed from the above and/or elsewhere.

Sorry for the long ramblings. I guess in short I'm asking if you're willing to help with this? --Durin 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I always appreciate long ramblings, but I will need time to digest what you've written. Thank you very much indeed. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durin, for some time I have been thinking about writing an "RFA Reform Survey", as a way to try and grab some focus on the issue. Namely to lay before the community the core of the various proposals that have been made and see if anything can gain some traction. For example, I would ask things like "RFA should be preceded by 2 days of discussion without votes.", "Bureaucrats should exercise greater discretion in deciding who to promote"/"RFA should be an election decided by vote tallies alone", "Promotion standards should be lowered", and "RFA should be sturcture more like an RFC, without explicit 'Support' & 'Oppose' sections", etc. The cynic in me doubts that any reform can gather a strong supermajority, but my hope in writing such a survey would be to try and bring into relief people's views on RFA reform, and to try and tease out what reform paths the community may be most open to. Are you or Mackensen open to helping design such a survey? Dragons flight 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not. Reason; age old complaint from me. No effort to determine what is wrong with RfA, and no effort to determine if X proposal answers those problems while adhering to the goals RfA should be striving towards. Which system to use to replace RfA is really one of the later questions to ask, not one of the first. --Durin 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, do you have some new suggestion for getting at the question of "What's wrong with RFA"? Much data has already been collected, in no small part thanks to you, but I think the question of what's wrong with RFA still largely ends up being a subjective determination based on widely varying opinions of what RFA should be (or should be trying to accomplish). In other words, I don't think the lack of agreement on RFA is really a symptom of not trying to understanding the problems, but rather that people look at the same evidence and come to widely different conclusions about what the problems are. And yet many people have already formed many varying opinions on what the reform should look like, which does help to elucidate what they percieve the problems to be. Dragons flight 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the unexpected result of the Danny's run for admin, it appears that the bureaucrats have quietly and without much fuss reclaimed their discretionary powers by declaring no consensus but promoting on a consensus of bureaucrats. It's pretty much what Mackensen said he would do if he was a bureaucrat. This seems to have gone down quite well (protest has been muted compared to the Carnildo affair). I suspect that we've just witnessed a quiet revolution. Requests for adminship seems to be a lot healthier than this time last week. --Tony Sidaway 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking one RfA of a highly unusual (in fact unprecedented) candidate as evidence of some revolt and RfA somehow magically being cured is a serious stretch. The track record speaks blatantly otherwise. --Durin 01:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I opposed Cyde's nomination, I am glad that the bureaucrats reclaimed their discretionary powers and promoted Danny. That said, I am of the belief that it happened largely because it was Danny and the bureaucrats would have promoted him whether there was a percentage akin to Carnildo 3 or not. There are many other similarly close RfAs that should obviously, in my mind, been successful but were not simply because the bureaucrats did not want to spend their social currency on such a "trivial" RfA. Or at least that is the cynic inside me. :-) --Iamunknown 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what happens in future. However, not all close RFAs run on first-time candidates are as easy to call as Carnildo's and Danny's, so I wouldn't read too much into the failure of the bureaucrats to make judgement calls when they have insufficient information to make a judgement. In the Carnildo and Danny cases, at least they could look at the record and say "no great risk in promoting." In the Carnildo case they were even more cautious than that and, and promoted Carnildo for a probationary period.
I do think that granting probationary adminship to close cases could be a solution. Potential administrators are intimidated by the atmosphere in that place. I see that a lot of hard work will still be required to put that very important mechanism back into a real Wikipedia consensus-based framework that reliably produces good administrators at a realistic rate.
It looks to me like the fall-out from the Danny request for adminship may have been very sharply limited, and if that proves to be the case in the long run, say a week or two, then we've got a clear sign of how we can move from here. --Tony Sidaway 07:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we don't. If there were an RfA for a typical candidate that followed these lines, then maybe...maybe. Danny is an extreme exception. --Durin 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis. Thatcher131 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at Danny's RFA talk[edit]

Mackensen, I don't expect a reply, but since it appears you have glossed over this at the talk page of Danny's RFA, I'm cross-posting this here:

You said: They weren't directly implicated by checkuser? Gosh, that's news to me. When I say that they'r the same user, I'm explicitly speaking as a checkuser.
I said: Your tone could be a bit less...mocking, Mackensen. I am not infallible and was merely taken by surprise that admins were making a bee-line for editors that seemed to me, based on my current information, to be only "suspected" sock puppets.

I didn't know who you were prior to your RfB and, further, didn't know you were a CheckUser. I apologise if my tone was inappropriate. --Iamunknown 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, if you didn't know then your tone was entirely appropriate. Sorry for the confusion, Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's a fair point that most editors, who don't hang around the process pages as much as Mackensen and I do, don't have the lists of who is a checkuser, etc., at the tips of their fingers. It's also a fair point that those of us who are part of one particular process or another come inadvertently to tacitly assume that everyone will recognize our names. No harm done, I think. Newyorkbrad 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA/Danny[edit]

I wonder whether the 'crats would have taken so much time to sift through the arguments at Danny's RFA without the discussion your RFB engendered on the need for them to use their discretion more widely. So, if it fails, as I'm afraid that it will, something good has come from this. Good for you. --Spartaz Humbug! 07:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle's input[edit]

Hi Mackensen, since this is a long comment (you seem to have received many of these already, but here's another) I decided to post here instead of on your RFB. Since you are an admin who I greatly respect I think it will only be fair to you if I can elaborate a bit on my views on RFA, and why they conflict too much with your RFA views.

Generally, I am in favor of having a bureaucrat discretion range. I don't support a super-fixed threshold: Over XX% always pass, below it always fail. It is true that on RFA, some arguments are strong, some arguments are weak but good faith and reasoned nonetheless, and some arguments are just meta-reasoning utterly unrelated to the candidate (e.g., at the risk of violating WP:BEANS: "Oppose. Wikipedia is a waste of time, why bother?", is a protest on some slight and not something the candidate could possibly be expected to remedy in any reasonable way.)

However, I do think that the position of bureaucrat should be a position more akin to election coordinator and counter, than one of a trial judge. There are serious advantages with having the community having the final say, and leaving large percentage ranges where there is no bureaucrat discretion. First, what makes a good and bad admin is generally a subjective view. Very subjective. It is hard to find truly objective criteria here. Even harder than to find truly objective criteria of what "notability" is supposed to mean on AFD. It boils down to the discretion of the community. As such, in the majority of cases, I cannot see a really good case for saying that the bureaucrat's discretion is sounder than the discretion of the particpants on the RFA.

For some case studies I'll mention:

  • On Sam Vimes' 2nd nomination the vote count was 68-19, or 78.2% support. This is within the 75-80% discretion range I support. I felt that most (not all) of the oppose arguments were strange ("reverts vandalism but does not warn the vandal" seems to turn the reversion of vandalism into a bad thing which was used against the candidate.) I think it is good that the person was promoted. Would it have been a good call if the level of support had been 68%? I don't really think so, there were other, better reasoned oppose votes as well, for instance Joturner who expressed concern over lack of experience in Wikipedia namespace. And perhaps those who were concerned over lack of warnings weren't all that frivolous, maybe they were concerned that Sam would start blocking vandals and newbie testers without adequate warning. But in the discretion range, I think it was a fair choice to promote, and we got another good admin on the roster. (I may be a bit biased here, given that I supported that RFA.)
  • On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me I supported the RFA as well, but the final tally again was in the discretion range. 117-36, or 76.5%. Even though the bureaucrat's decision went against what I voted, I still think it was a fair call to close it as "no consensus". Concerns over lack of experience were fair enough, and the fact that the candidate was very new is true. That CSCWEM, with more experience under his belt, and perhaps some more maturity, wound up promoted a few months later shows that it was not all bad that he didn't get the admin tools at once. He is now one of our best admins.

I think that if the bureaucrat is to start tossing aside "oppose" votes in the closing, then that should only be due to either sockpuppetry, or reasons so utterly unrelated to the candidate that any reasonable person will realize that the dismissal is a fair decision.

I don't agree with the "RFA is broken and must be fixed" mantra. I'll admit that I'm unsure what "broken" means here, does it mean that good candidates are not getting promoted? Does it mean that the tone on RFA can get too nasty? Does it mean that RFA tends to promote rogue admins? (If it means any of the above, then my views are incidentally "Sometimes, but usually still reasonable and remediable sometime in the future, using the same RFA process, a new nomination a few months later is frequently successful", "Yes, but that is a trouble with the participants, not the process itself" and "Generally no, the admins who have wound up forcibly desysopped were rarely such that we could tell a priori that the adminship would end that way.") So I feel that what is not broken does not need that much fixing. The times RFA have really generated storms have been when bureaucrats have used their discretion outside the normal discretion range (Sean Black's re-RFA, Carnildo's re-RFA, Ryulong's 3rd RFA, and now Danny's re-RFA). In all these cases, arguments were presented directly related to the candidate's previous use of admin tools, or concerns which directly relate to the use of admin tools. Even so, bureaucrats used their "discretion" to override these significant and real concerns, and I feel that is disrespectful. I feel that any overriding of significant concerns in the oppose section should be done only by the community... in the form of support. I opposed Khaoswork's adminship a long time ago based on experience concerns, but was overridden by the community. That the candidate became a good admin shows that the community made a good choice (and I didn't in that particular instance). It just seems to me that giving bureaucrats more discretion is the wrong way to go here, because, as I write above, why is the 'crat's discretion inherently better?

There are of course times where I see RFA's fail when I supported, and still think the person would do well with the admin tools. Kappa failed his RFA, and I feel that was a great pity. I think Everyking was a major boon to RC patrol when he was an admin. I consider it a pity that he failed his re-RFA application. But I won't didmiss the entire RFA system as broken because it produces a few results I disagree with. As a method for gauging community consensus I would in fact give RFA pretty high marks, the results which I didn't like are caused by the community consensus going against me or not existing. And no process can be expected to remedy that problem.

Anyway, hope you're well, and hope the ArbCom duties haven't made you're eyes square from staring at the computer screen yet. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Otheus[edit]

I very much want to know any specific finding about the 203... IP address. That IP made personal threats against me and I've been waiting two weeks for a response on that despite messages to Luna Santin, Dmcdevit, and an e-mail to Cary Bass. It is absolutely intolerable for this serious matter to slip through the cracks with this many people for so long. DurovaCharge! 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP is registered to a public library, there is very little that can be done unless there is an obvious instance in the record of a user editing from an account and then logging out and posting anonymously. From Mackensen's previous comment (There isn't, however, an obvious account behind these) it seems like there is nothing confirmable. (For example, I have sometimes edited from a public library and I have no way of knowing who else might have used it.) This person made attacks on 3 different days, so he/she may be a regular visitor or lives in the area. Whois [27] gives the name and email of a contact person for that IP. Perhaps you can open a dialogue to find out if the library has user logs, or if not, would they be willing to react quickly if another attack occurs. We could consider permablocking all anon editing from that IP as an incentive; it might even be a good idea policy-wise to permablock anon editing from public libraries and other public internet terminals. Thatcher131 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Frederick Field[edit]

Updated DYK query On 11 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Frederick Field, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


New point[edit]

I've responded to you, just above Edivorce's oppose comment -- wasn't sure if you'd notice it in all the word-mess (a reason to think, maybe, that contentious RfX's are a little too big for a free-ranging discussion? Maybe that's why we have folks use bold-face, and numerize their comments... for ease of comprehension. Perhaps the current system has a reasonable basis after all! :) Xoloz 16:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've begun to wonder about that myself; the level of polite constructive discussion in this debate is most unusual. If we could encourage that kind of give-and-take more in regular RfAs we might be getting somewhere. That doesn't, however, necessarily do anything for lowering the bar. It also makes it difficult to determine how many different people regard each objection as important (take for example the fellow who indicated the agreed with all the opposes–he can't possibly mean that, as some of them contradict each other). Mackensen (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mackensen, as an RfA regular, may I say that most RfAs are this friendly -- the discussion is less extensive only because wiki-philosophical issues are less-often invoked. Perhaps your concern over the current system is born from your lack of recent experience with it? Xoloz 17:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because the discussion forms only one component of my concern. My primary concern is that the barrier to adminship is far, far too high. In particular, I find that the insistence on X number of project space edits to be without foundation (and, as I recall, you advocate the practice). Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

That was a bit mean. Please don't block me again. --24.235.229.208 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. And thanks for writing back. At least there is one admin willing to converse with us lowly peons. You guys should have a focus session or something about that. Communication is key. --24.235.229.208 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFB[edit]

Just wanted you to know that despite my !vote to oppose, I do generally think that you do good work for the project. Nothin' personal, and I wish you luck on finding ways to improve RFA. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing personal assumed. Hopefully we can find common ground on the issue. Best, and thanks for the note, Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's my misfortune to inform you that your request for bureaucratship was not successful. I know you were under no confusion about your request being different than the average and I commend you on your guts for proposing a change. - Taxman Talk 22:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all; that's the outcome I expected. Thank you very much indeed. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although your nomination did not pass (and I was an opposer), I do think you have some good ideas for reform, and hope you continue to advance them to the community where hopefully a consensus can be had. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfAr[edit]

I noticed you changed your vote on the motion to close. Do you wish for me to wait for your proposal to pass before closing it? (It needs 2 more support vote to pass.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Note[edit]

I saw that in your edit summary, so no worries. I've been following the thread, but thanks anyways for the note. Much appreciated. :) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Burntsauce[edit]

Hi. If you have a second, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Burntsauce_blocked.2C_talkpage_blanked_and_protected? I'm concerned that a mistake has been made. Jkelly 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hey, I noticed that in January, there was a block you made based on CheckUser:

  • 21:20, January 5, 2007 Mackensen (Talk | contribs) blocked "121.6.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (massive disruption)

Would it be appropriate to ask what kind of disruption? There's an IP currently making questionable edits. – Chacor 11:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loving this, they're adding {{fact}} tags to Singapore yet introducing their own unsourced info, and removing fact tags I tagged on them. Don't you love hypocrisy? – Chacor 11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's hypocrisy like that which gives me a good laugh–right before I block them. With an edit summary like that I was dealing with a sockpuppeteer; I don't remember who at this point. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. You know, somehow I doubt that. Since he's [yes, hypocritically! :D] added unsourced info to other articles too. Thanks, anyway. – Chacor 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFB[edit]

I still can't get over the fact that the community will not give an Arbitrator Emeritus, Oversight, CheckUser, and admin Bureaucrat status. Those accomplishments (or promotions, whichever you want to call it) are amazing for a user to achieve. Clearly if someone can be trusted by the Foundation and ArbCom with sensitive IP information per the CheckUser tool, then he or she could be trusted with the simple task of promoting users and granting bot status. Still kinda peeved,  ~Steptrip 03:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, your RFB attracted as much attention as the administrators noticeboard (in page hits per day) [28]. The community is strange and I don't always agree with it (as in this case). I was reading the whole page a bit at a time over several days but unfortunately it ended before I finished reading and I missed out. My suggestion; become a steward at meta and de-sysop everyone who opposed you ;) James086Talk | Email 10:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have lost my bit then, cos' to be honest running for stewardship appears to be easier than running for b'cratship on en.wp! (stewardship elections are on percentages) ;) - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question[edit]

I have responded to your question ([29])/ --Dweller 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

s-rail question[edit]

How do you fix the link to the TOC correctly in the resultant infobox, or rephrased which template is controlling that?

two examples I've encountered are;

historically (lets not go there for now) Gatwick Airport railway station vs [30] - specifically that all the TOCs wl's work except Southeastern (points to Southeastern not Southeastern (train operating company), while Southern does point to Southern (train operating company).

currently I'm working on New Zealand and with Britomart Transport Centre vs [31], i can't get the "MAXX (Veolia)" to wl like it used to (the MAXX piping to ARTA and the Veolia to Veolia (New Zealand)

Hope thats clear, and thanks in advance Pickle 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might have solved that myself, i inputted the data into {{tl:Template:S-rail/lines}} wrong, silly me Pickle 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VnTruth Arbitration Request[edit]

Check the recent history of the Ngo Dinh Diem article.--VnTruth 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I, please?[edit]

Can I, please, ask the reason for declining Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NAHID? I am not challenging anything. You could say, I just wanted to know the process better? Is that alright to ask? If yes, please, respond to my talk page. Aditya Kabir 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have oversight?[edit]

Delete I was wondering about... can you oversight the bad revisions? Do you have that power? You can answer here, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks. --Ali'i 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that's what's going on. If anyone else posts a name like that please remove it ASAP and let me know. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure thing. I had emailed the oversight list, but wasn't sure if you had the oversight power, or were just deleting the info. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the deleted talk page. What is your basis for deleting an entire talk page? Edison 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Libel. I've restored what I can. Please be vigilant about removing unsubstantiated claims. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted again... [32]. --Ali'i 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zapped. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wanna say thanks for helping out. I know you now have about a thousand people yelling at you, "WHY DID YOU DELETE THIS?!?!", but please know that there are those of us that appreciate your swift (hopefully swift enough) removal of the potentially libelous info. I guess protection is the way to go for the time being. I hereby award you this Text-Only Barnstar... Mahalo! Keep up the good work! --Ali'i 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let 'em all yell. Thanks very much for letting somebody know before it got out of hand. Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this really need oversight? If it will tear the page history apart, it seems there would be an "editorial reason to keep the revision", which disqualifies it from oversight criterion 2, and criterion 1 doesn't apply so much. Just wondering, since I like to keep things as GFDL compliant as possible. Then again, it is a talk page... Prodego talk 01:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, if it turns out that the posted name was in fact the correct name, will you say anything?

  • No, the ultimate identity of the shooter is beside the point. At the moment we can't substantiate any name; publishing one would be libelous. I'm far more concerned about the possibility that the posted name is wrong. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the oversight. I posted my comment because it was not clear for the comment left on the page that you were going to edit the coments and restore the non-libelous ones. The deletion ate a comment I had spent some time writing and was in the process of adding to the talk page. Oh, well, no worse than other edits eaten by random computer glitches. Edison 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For effective use of oversight and page protection to keep Wikipedia out of trouble- and thereby protecting an apparently innocent person's reputation. WjBscribe 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well a name has now been released in relation to the shootings [33] and its not the person whose details were in the deleted revisions that required oversight. Well done for being on the ball! WjBscribe 13:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, at least two different names were removed, and the current one is neither of them. I'm feeling pretty good about that now. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan[edit]

Would you mind closing this so I can refile it as per checkuser request. Interference from other users made the case complicated and hard to follow. I will summarize what I originally had as well. -- Cat chi? 23:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Mackensen, thank you for helping identify the sockpuppeteer on the Fellowship of Friends page. Mario Fantoni 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram-CG evidence talk page[edit]

Hi, Mack. A user has asked on the evidence talk page about the scope of the Ideogram-Certified.Gangsta RFAR case and has been answered, I don't think very appropriately, by Ideogram himself.. also by Wizardman, another user who has submitted evidence exclusively against CG. I have repeated and specified the question myself now, because I think it's rather difficult to supply evidence without some delimitation of what the case is for. I've explained fully on the page. Could you take a look, please, and respond? I know how busy you are, but this is the kind of thing that could save time in the long run, I think. Regards, Bishonen | talk 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On a cursory glance, I'm also concerned about the level of hostility he's exhibiting toward Durova (see section titled Durova's prejudice). El_C 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think that we have to remind participants to behave. Sigh. Mackensen (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request[edit]

As soon as you've got a minute, is there any chance you could attend to this check IP request? It's getting quite serious (read Newyorkbrads comments for a thread on the issue). Cheers Ryan Postlethwaite 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar[edit]

Just to tell you I marked the case as completed. I had the shadow of a doubt since you didn't use a template. -- lucasbfr talk 12:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser NisarKand[edit]

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but can you please tell me why this checkuser case was declined? Thanks. --Behnam 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding sockpuppets a while back[edit]

I saw that you overturned Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LactoseTI.

However, I am suspicious about the relation between LactoseTI and Komdori.

Komdori has not responded to any questions or comments on his userpage for many months. He has also not been active around articles that he has been participating in, for example Mount Baekdu. He has most recently only responded to my comments about a couple days ago.

However, there is a dispute that have arisen and he has immediately voted for the side he supports along with LactoseTI, while not participating in the discussion but knowing almost everything we have been talking about (although he may have been observing without making any comments). [34]

Also, several users have questioned the authenticity of his claim of being Korean descent. It is extremely rare in Korea, or in Korean communities elsewhere for a Korean to reject Korean positions on political issues. Komdori has always refuted pro Korean arguments, which has made several users (including me) curious about his beliefs.

Now this is only an assumption and I am not saying it is wrong for him to believe in what he wishes to. It is not like ALL Koreans are pro-Korean.

It is simply very unnatural and almost strange for a user who claims to be of Korean descent to not defend the Korean arguments. It seems as if the user was purposefully created this way.

Again, I am only assuming Komdori's ethnicity to be not true as he claims and I am not disagreeing with his beliefs.

I am also not here to weaken LactoseTI and Komdori's arguments (for I am opposing their arguments generally) on purpose by making a false accusation. The awkward relationship between these two users and how Komdori knows everything even when not participating in the discussion does not seem normal to me.

thank you for your time. Good friend100 02:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that I have not responded to anything on my userpage because nothing was written or asked of me.
As for LactoseTI, we work at the same institution and have lunch on a regular basis; I've been too busy to contribute (and actually I am still too busy to contribute much) but poke around from time to time. He sent me an email about the Port Hamilton article because he knew I know more about that event than he does, and I had a strong interest in it. Everything from the arguments have been posted for all to read, not everyone posts without reading them first.
I find it offensive that you claim I am not Korean because I don't fall lock-step in with what propaganda you might have heard about political issues. Not only am I pro-Korean, I am a patriot. I also think that by following policies here we can "win the important battles" rather than losing everything. You and your buddies try to get everything named with Korean names or written from Korean points of view rather than just things that are commonly that way in English. Overall I think we will lose more that way. It is very revealing that when someone comes along who tries to be balanced you see them as non-Korean.
Lastly, while I'm offended, I guess I should be proud that you would group me as a native speaker. Komdori 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has really been bugging me, and I'm sorry for screwing up your talk page, but I figure it is relevant to the discussion: I don't see how someone can reconcile "I am only assuming Komdori's ethnicity to be not true" with assuming good faith, and I think it is close to a personal attack, too. He is basically saying, "if Komdori was a real Korean he would think the way I think, because I'm real Korean and I know how Koreans think." I find whole argument here really insulting. Who appointed Good friend100 spokesman for the Korean people?
You said "It is simply very unnatural and almost strange for a user who claims to be of Korean descent to not defend the Korean arguments." As far as this goes, I do defend Korean arguments. But you said, "What if we apply WP:IAR? Then we could move this article to the Korean name." I believe that logic to be flawed. I don't think I have to join with you just because you are another Korean. Komdori 18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, sorry if you are offended, I'll respect your opinion a little more. Good friend100 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxiad[edit]

Would you mind looking into this case. There are far too many sockpuppets for comfort. Raul did a partial check already. -- Cat chi? 23:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably all the IPs are open proxies. Many were blocked as proxies by dmcdevit within the last few days and I blocked as many of the rest as I could be sure about. I'm puzzled about the account names, are they confirmed or part of Raul's working notes only? Thatcher131 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mackensen[edit]

I'm sorry that your RFB failed, and please don't be discouraged, because you are a very good arbitrator and hopefully you can launch another RFB in future.

By the way, I saw your name mentioned in the User:Robdurbar affair, and I suspected his account was stolen. But you said it was him, what was the reason that you were so sure?

Happy Editing! -WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there![edit]

Hi Mackensen! I don't believe we've 'met', but it appears that we share some similar views. I recently made a proposal of sorts on WT:RFA, which can currently be viewed here. This fine fellow pointed out that you made a very similar proposal a while back. Bit curious, but I guess it's true what they say about great minds thinking alike, hehe. The idea has seemed to generate some support, so hopefully we'll be able to implement this at some point. I invite you to participate in the discussion, and also, would you mind if I merged our two ideas, as you seem to have some of the logistics spelled out a bit better than I? Cheers mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great minds indeed. I've dropped a note at WT:RFA; I don't see any difficulties in a merger. Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sockpuppet issue[edit]

Hi. The arbitration committee didn't accept the case, so I'm going to try some other recommended avenues. But I haven't heard back about the sockpuppet stuff I brought up -- is that being checked or should I go through the more usual channels now? -BC aka Callmebc 12:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a follow-up -- I want to move on, but I need to first know if that sockpuppet stuff is being looked at by the appropriate folks. Thanks for any info. -BC aka Callmebc 11:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise: Special:Contributions/HappyInGeneral[edit]

I read your notice [35], and I agree that there is a revert war going on, which I don't like, so please help me clarify a few things by commenting on my contributions.

The Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page:

- I think that this contribution is essential: [36] because it's well sourced and very relevant to the page. Please review and let me know what you think.

Also the tags are necessary because the current version of Suppression_of_Falun_Gong [37] is hijacked by the POV of Special:Contributions/Samuel_Luo a Falun Gong critic who is proposed for being banned [38], also you may observe that the contributions of Special:Contributions/Pirate101 and Special:Contributions/Yueyuen are only imitating Samuel Luo's behavior.

A few questions:

  1. Is the information well sourced?
  2. Is the information relevant?
  3. Do we have consensus on that page?

My opinion regarding these questions, and please let me know if I'm wrong.

  1. +
  2. Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.
  3. If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.
As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.
Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page [39] however this was deleted: [40]. Abusively and repeatedly [41].
Also please review this section of the evidence page: [42]

PS: Note that this is question is here for more then a month now: [43]

I would really like more input on this issue, which would be also very much appreciated. Thank You.

--HappyInGeneral 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[44] Question[edit]

I know you have already dealt with this case before and determined that it was a "likely" violation of Wikipedia policy via checkuser but that you also provisionally overturned that result. However, you also said the issue could be revisited. My question is, what types of behavior would qualify this case for another look? I'm not an expert of the vagaries of account abuse but have sucessfully uncovered several sockpuppets via other checkuser cases. These "two" editors behavior seem problematic. The evidence I have this time is: 1) User:Komdori's last edit was 27 Novemeber 2006 and did not start editing again until 16 April 2007. [45]. 2) User:LactoseTI's last edit was on 24 October 2006 and this user did not start editing on Wikipedia again until 9 April 2007. 3) Komdori had only 12 edits after LactoseTI's last edit in October of last year and both began suddenly editing again April of this year. 4) There is one single message left by LactoseTI on Komdori's talk page urging his/her participation in a debate on the Port Hamilton article. [46]. However, there are no other messages between the two editors but they happen to edit in a similar manner in both the Goguryeo and Turtle ship articles. The previous checkuser complaint also notes that neither editor left messages on eithers' talk page but yet remarkably the two editors were editing the same articles and sharing the work of cleaning up problematic image licenses.

I was not a party to your private communication overruling the checkuser result but I trust and defer to your judgment. However, it would make me, and I assume several other editors, more comfortable with this/these editor(s) if a reasonable explanation is adduced specifically addressing why both editors' edit gaps correlate so amazingly well (as shown in both the previous checkuser and recently), why both editors' substantial edits are on the same topics only, and why both editors' personal opinions are almost always the same. This is not the type of subject I want to spend my time but I did feel that if this is some kind of meat puppetry that something should be done to end this matter conclusively. I appreciate your help and time. Tortfeasor 06:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Metropolitan[edit]

I was ust wondering. Do you think you could change the s-rail template so that towards London it is "towards Baker Street and Aldgate" as the majority of trains terminate at Baker Street. However, there is stil about 2 tph going to Aldgate or something.

Separately, on the Amersham Branch, it should really only read "towards Amersham or Chesham" between Moor Park and Chalfont & Latimer. The other branch is the Watford Branch which is fine. Between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Moor Park it should read "towards Amersham, Chesham or Watford" on the main branch, obviously with "towards Uxbridge" on the other. Finally between Aldgate and Harrow-on-the-Hill it should read "towards Amersham, Chesham, Watford and Uxbridge". However, the layout of the termini etc should not change at Chalfont.

I hope i'm not confusing Simply south 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed up the changes to the north end of the system per your suggestions; I'm less sure about changing Baker Street/Aldgate. If there's more than one train an hour going through to Aldgate that might be significant enough to leave things as they are. Still, the change can be made if you think it would be more consistent. Mackensen (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McConn on revert parol for a year?[edit]

I've just noticed that this is the conclusion you've come to, and I'm quite surprised. I doubt that there is anything that I can do about your decision, but I still feel the need to defend myself. It's true that I've engaged in edit warring, but rarely have I ever reverted without discussion (in fact using the talk pages to explain each of my edits is something I make a priority of), and rarely have I ever participated in a revert war that wasn't over edits that were quite clearly inappropriate. I believe that I've also been regarded by most other users as very reasonable, including by those that are on the opposing side, such as Firestar and Tomananda. It's rare that people rationally complain about my editing behavior. I also make a point of using the talk pages to discuss content without pushing my opinion about Falun Gong. And because of these things, I haven't felt any warning or threat that some action might be taken against me. I appologize for the fact that I haven't been following the arbitration case or participating in it. This is mostly because I was away from wikipedia for about two months, and only really came back after the pages were opened up to make some edits that I thought were rather straightforward. (I understand now that this was probably wrong and that I should have waited for the arbcom case to finish before making such content changes). Anyway, were I to know or have been warned that my editing behavior has been a problem I would change immediately; you don't need to put me on any kind of restricting parol to do that. I respect your position and understand that you've done your homework, but from my perspective this kind of decision without any warning seems like jumping the gun. Thanks for listening. Mcconn 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)[edit]

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification[edit]

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved administrators and probation enforcement[edit]

I saw your vote on proposed principle no. 1 in the Zeq-Zero0000 case. As I've observed on the Workshop, a difficult issue is presented. I've taken a crack in the Workshop at some intermediate/compromise wording, which you might want to consider as you formulate your own ideas or proposal. Hope it's helpful in some way. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that helps a good deal. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak rail succession boxes[edit]

I noticed that you've been putting succession boxes on stations inside station infoboxes. I'm personally of the opinion that this not only looks terrible, but also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Was there consensus reached on TWP about this? I'd personally take them all out and put them in the body of the article itself. —lensovet–talk – 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, there's no consensus whatsoever, and I don't feel all that strongly on the matter. I know there's a school of thought that argues keeping the succession boxes at the bottom of the article makes the information inaccessible. I'm not convinced either way. Some subsidiary projects (PATH, Washington Metro) have this as their preferred method, which is why I designed the functionality in the first place. Feel free to change the location as you see fit. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mackensen[edit]

The issue as I see it with that arbcom request is not BLP but the constant overiding of discussion by a core group of users. What sparked the request was this, put simply. Afd 1, allegations of an improper close, DRV supports it, open afd 2, closed after 45 minutes as enough discussion on the subject, DRV 2 closes with improper close* again, AFD 3 runs well for four hours and consensus points to keep and then once again is closed citing enough discussion. I reopened the afd and it was again closed.

*I came into that at DRV 2 after some very annoyed people had posted to the administrators noticeboard. Carefully read that DRV, and the two previous afds then carefully weighed up all the arguments in the deletion review (ignoring content arguments apart from BLP - deletion review is about deletion policy, not another afd) decided that there was no consensus on the BLP issue, but there was strong consensus among those who bothered to argue deletion policy that closing a discussion after 45 minutes is ridiculous - especially after it was opened as a result of DRV. As someone pointed out, something sent to afd should never be speedy closed because there is quite obviously consensus not to. So i then opened the third afd. Which ran as best as I thought it could for about 4 hours and then got closed. I don't believe an RfC will work, considering the stifling of discussion that happened to lead this issue to an arbcom request, there are many of us who have no faith in it not happening again. As i see it, this is request is about the flagrant abuse of admin powers to stifle legitimate discussions. These afds were quite clearly closed against consensus, judging by the outcry of all those involved who obviously had their !votes ignored. This is also supported by the fact that when the third afd was closed, consensus at that point was quite clearly in keep territory. Despite this, it was still closed as "enough discussion" from the others.

For these reasons I urge you to reconsider the way the case has been presented. I don't blieve its largely BLP, I believe its a (to use a cliche) "admin abuse" case. All I want is a fair community discussion (afd) closed by an impartial admin. Thats what I was hoping to achieve with afd 3, but once again the communities voice was ridden rough shod over. ViridaeTalk 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I think my initial reading stands. Regardless of process concerns, the only important issue is the proper interpretation and application of BLP. Administrators are rightly conservative on the question, since it's information regarding living persons that regularly attracts negative media attention and brings the entire project into disrepute. If process is endangering the project then that process needs to hurled with great force. The Arbitration Committee is not going to step in and conduct a deletion request for you. We will resolve disputes between users if need be, although Jeff's refusal to follow earlier steps in the dispute resolution process suggests that dispute resolution is not sought. You're asking the committee to win a content dispute or take a stand on BLP. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee will rightly ask why the initial deletion was overturned, and arbitrators will inquire why the first deletion review was a replay of the deletion debate instead of an evaluation of the close. There's no answer to this that I can see, and I've half a mind to ask Xoloz (talk · contribs) why he permitted such an abuse of process to occur under his watch. Everything that happens flows from the fact that a valid close was overturned by a non-sensical deletion review. This is Jeff's comment from the deletion review: "Strong overturn, and don't relist. When you have multiple reliable sources referring to him as one of the most famous faces in China, it's a done deal. Period." This has nothing to do with the deletion review process. This should have been ignored. That he failed to comment in the initial deletion debate is regrettable, but a debate which ran for eight days surely had requisite participation. You tell me it's administrator abuse; I see administrators doing all that they can under trying circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually neither. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted in the long run. What I want is a fair hearing for those members of the community that DO have an opinion, which thus far has not happened. Circumventing discussion in this way is a ridiculous way of trying to fix a percieved problem. It is the process concerns that have caused my involvement in this case. afds being shut down by those that commented heavily is a BAD THING circumventing further discussion by closing it early is also a BAD THING and it is for those reasons that I urge you to reconsider. You stated that administrators are conservative on the matter of BLP - and rightly enough, but there are administrators on BOTH sides of the BLP debate on this issue, myself included. Mangojuice had some pretty persuasive arguments against the BLP issues raised here, (he is running a website to use the meme for his own advancement, all the facts are properly and accurately sourced) but as far as I am concerned BLP is not the issue. As for other dispute resolution mechanisms, there has been vast amounts of discussion on ANI, the various talk pages etc. As far as I am concerned, an RfC is only going to inflame matters. When those who are supporting a fair discussion are faced with comments and vitriol like [47] and [48] and [49]. What hope is there for an RfC that doesn't inflame matters further. I think magojuice sums up my feelings on the matter well by the way: [50]. ViridaeTalk 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not prepared to work with the existing mechanisms then I'm afraid we can't help you. I would prefer that you address my main point: the community did get a fair hearing in the first deletion debate, but unfortunately (for some) that hearing resulted in deletion. I see nothing wrong with that deletion debate, yet somehow it was overturned. Our deletion processes aren't supposed to work that way. BLP goes a good deal farther than adequate sourcing, a point also made during that first deletion debate. Indeed, the discussion on that first debate alone was quite sufficient for the topic, and any arbitration that came of this would focus on why things went so far, and why it was that said debate was overturned. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'm concerned that you're arguing process over what many if not most consider a BLP matter without having an actual opinion on the issue. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't have a "refusal," I figured that the amount of discussion on the topic regarding people's complete inability to allow any other result was enough. The discussions at AN/I, at DRV, at the multiple AfDs were obvious. Earlier steps in dispute resoltuion should occur, but do not haveto occur, that's hardly a mandate. Certainly, if I felt an RfC would be anything more than an excuse to pile on further, I would have gone through it just to legitimize the process (yet another thing people despise, BTW, but seem to care about when it comes to ArbCom), but let's be realistic - any RfC is going to be a pile-on of a bunch of people ranting and raving how this issue needs to die and that we don't need to discuss it further, peppered with more insults and incivility (as if the crap we're seeing on the Arbcom page isn't enough) and then it gets back to you guys in two weeks anyway. As for your second comment, why would anyone ignore a statement demonstrating why the closure was inappropriate in a DRV discussion? That's exactly what DRV is for - if you really beleive that DRv cannot review erroneous closures, then what's the point? your assertions below worry me, especially when you think the first DRV result was improper - even if it were, wouldn't the second AfD eventually result in the proper outcome if that were the case? This is extremely disconcerting, even if you weren't on Arbcom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked closely at the DRV you mentioned. I have to say that there is an almost equal run of votes from either side, that are just an afd in the wrong place. However similarly there are a number on either side that do argue deletion policy. That is a tough call, and personally I would not have closed it full stop. But as it was, it was closed, and a new afd was started and as such should have been allowed to continue longer than 45 minutes before it too was closed as a delete. That brings us to the start of my involvement, and I have to ask if you find any fault in my closure [51]. I was simply trying to resolve a touchy situation. I really think that stifling discussion like that seen in this issue of massive detriment to the community. It leads to massive distrust and divisions, as people have their opinions totally ignored. ViridaeTalk 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by a rough count more people wanted to keep the debate closed and article deleted, so by that metric alone I question your decision to close the debate early. Your claim that there are no BLP issues involved is one that I don't agree with, and that you asserted as much without giving substantial reasons, when many commentors clearly thought there were BLP issues, does not do those people justice. You note that DRV overturned the original AfD without reflecting whether this was the correct action, something you've apparently just done now, at my suggestion. You're quite right to state that "DRV is here to review the process of deletion"--can you now apply that to the first DRV discussion, the one that actually matters? Much of this commentary is over whether the correct processes were followed, several stages removed from the thing itself--I want to know why the first deletion was overturned, and I can't get an answer. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rough count was exactly what I was trying to avoid. I closed that DRV as open a new discussion, because the vast majority of the "keep deleted" votes were either not relevent to a DRV (ie afd style) or cited BLP claims. The BLP claims were then answered by quite a number of people, rendering them invalid as a way to determine consensus of the discussion. This just left the "overturn" votes - most of which were proper DRV style ones, which were citing improper closure. Hence why it was re-opened. ViridaeTalk 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree, BLP isn't a focus of the concern here. It's a sideshow to the real issue of administrative action that stifled discussion, and lead to some unfortunate wheel warring, thus rendering the question of an RFC somewhat moot. FrozenPurpleCube 01:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it is the focus of concern here. The original deletion debate, that no one seems to want to talk about, ran the correct length of time, was closed correctly, and then overturned by an improper deletion review. That's my reading and no-one's actually told me I'm wrong. The rest of these flows from process run amok. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't see BLP making for the problem here. BLP can be brought up in the discussion. (And I think that there are sources from FOX news, the BBC and other such sources tells us that we can expect to meet the reliable sources requirement.) What's wanted, but being prevented, is the discussion about that. In any case, the original deletion debate was overturned by the closing admin, voluntarily, as shown here so I see no reason to be concerned about that. This was linked to in badlydrawnjeff's initial statement, perhaps you missed it? FrozenPurpleCube 02:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact I'm capable of reading, but I find the point irrelevant, since the debate was then closed by Drini. Drini is the closing administrator. This close was then challenged at Deletion Review. I've addressed this point below. BLP is at the very center of the deletion debate, which is at the very center of the problem. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you meant that was where you first thought there was a problem, well ok, but I wouldn't have called it the original deletion debate. To me, that was the re-opened deletion debate. There was nothing wrong with asking Daniel to reverse his decision, which was what I considered the original deletion debate. BLP still isn't the issue though, the issue is discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you want to question Viridae's early closure of the second DRV and the re-opening, I suggest you also question the numerous previous early closes of that second DRV. Not saying one wrong justifies another, but I think that does show the real probelm. FrozenPurpleCube 02:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to question Viridae's early closure–he asked me to, so I did so. If this comes to arbitration I suspect I'll have to question a number of actions, starting with the overturning of the first deletion debate. As it happens, I'm not currently voting to accept, for reasons given on the main arbitration page. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note, I think the second question I would ask is why Matt Crypto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undid Drini's close with the summary "Let AfD run its course." when, of course, the AfD had already run eight days. I can only assume that he didn't read the debate before undeleting. I find it surprising as well that the initial arbitration request did not list him as a party, although he surely was, or Xoloz, whose role was perhaps more important than anyone else's in taking us through this process marathon. That said, I'm not persuaded that the committee should deal with this. If the committee does wind up taking the case, I've given you a good indication of the issues at hand, which ought to be useful regardless. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask Matt Crypto, but he's declined to participate further so I doubt it matters. FrozenPurpleCube 02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost think it might be an idea to take this proposed arbitration, if only to establish that the Biographies of living persons policy has real teeth. But I think that much is already obvious to those who can read the policy, and in any case common human decency would have kept this execrable trash off the wiki even if that policy had not been written. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just choosing to ignore the fact that kid has a website on himself capitalising on the exposure the meme provided? Are you ignoring that all the sources are reliable accurate secondary sources? How about that there were several attempts by various people to refocus the article on the meme not the person - ie to "include only material relevant to their notability". What you think is trash, others think is notable enough to be included and it is the communities voice not that of a handfull of editors that should prevail. ViridaeTalk 03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're ignoring all of those, and rightly so. This is an area where we must always tread lightly. Such articles are about real, and quite innocent, people who have been hurt by malicious individuals and we must be careful to avoid becoming a conduit for their further persecution, even if they themselves make unwise decisions. We are not like their persecutors. We are not callous. We are Wikipedia. The community spoke and the article died. That you objected is not a reason for the community to change its mind. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the community spoke and many believed the article should not have died. Your consistent attempts to shut us up do not demonstrate the community's actual desires. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An eight-day Articles for deletion (AfD) debate is more than enough to decide such a matter; most AfD debates last for just over five days. Moving to stop abuse of process isn't the same as shutting people up. The community spoke and subsequent attempts to stick a microphone up its fundament and make it say something else have failed. --Tony Sidaway 03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV felt otherwise. Your lack of acceptance of the community's wishes is not my problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're turning this into a ping-pong game. The article is dead, so it's hard to argue that the community felt otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is dead not because of the will of the community, but because of administrators who decide that the will of the community does not matter. Your consistent revisionism regarding this topic is not tolerable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I hesistate to use another editor's talk page for this discussion, I believe you're mistaken here. The community did not actually decide anything, but rather, individuals acting within said community did. That those individuals may be mistaken in their actions is very much in question by other individuals. FrozenPurpleCube 04:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've both been Wikipedians long enough to know that administrators are responsible for determining the will of the community within the narrow context of the views of individual Wikipedians and the broader context of Wikipedia policy as determined by community consensus. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and when they get it wrong, as they did with this article, you've been around long enough to know that's where DRV comes in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think you missed the point, which was that said administrators were considered by other people to be mistaken. Since being an administrator does not give a person absolute infallibility, that is quite possible, don't you think? If you wish to convince me, and perhaps others that said administrators were not mistaken, but instead correct to make their decision the method to do so is not to deny the questioning, but to answer it. Sadly, that only worsens the problem. FrozenPurpleCube 04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why rightly so? If the kid is capitalising on the exposure to hopefully make himself a buck, then how is not fair to him that we have a perfectly balanced, inoffensive, accurately sourced article on the situation (meme) that gave him the notability in the first place. I would also have to say, the community HASNT been listened to is exactly how I became involved in this situation. If in a fair and balanced afd, the community decided the article did not need to exist then I would be quite willing to have it deleted - it would delight me that such a discussion finally occurred. However every single one of the afds has been marred with claims of misconduct. If people were so pissed off by the results of the DRV on the first one, then they should have taken up the situation then and there with the person who closed it - open an rfc if necessary, discuss the matter. You don't just shut down a discussion after 45 minutes and claim that it was valid. Circumventing discussion has pissed off a lot of people. To further amplify the issue, the third afd was shut down as delete with a consensus to keep. How hard is it to have an open discussion on the subject without trying to force your opinion on everyone else. If consensus among the community was to have the thing deleted, then why force the third afd to close. It just inflamed things further, as any person experienced in the ways of wikipedia should know it would. If you so strongly think it should be deleted, go and have your say at an afd on the thing - aregue your point long and hard, cite everything you can to back yourself up and if the community indeed agrees with you it will obviously be deleted. But to stifle discussion and ignoring peoples opinions just pisses everyone off. I have to ask, if you truly believe that the community supports deletion - why don't you open a new deletion discussion on it yourself. You might thing it process wankery to go through another afd when as far as you are concerned the right decision has been made, but it WILL satisfy a lot of people and it WILL defuse the situation. It is also a show of good faith for a community divided and would maybe restore some shattered faith for many people who see this whole situation as admins pushing people around to get their own way. (Mackensen, your views on this suggestion would be appreciated as well). ViridaeTalk 04:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to rerun the deletion debate until you get the result you want. There was consensus to delete and the article was deleted. --Tony Sidaway 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the first DRV found that the consensus wasn't there. But that is imaterial to my suggestion. My suggestion was, that if you so strongly believe the community thinks the article should be deleted, why not , as an act of reconciliation and good faith, open another one and make sure it is closed by someone unbiased and uninvolved. You believe the community belives the article should be deleted - if you are right you end up with the article being deleted, but with the added bonus of finishing this mess. If you had read all that I have said here correctly, you will see that the result I want is a fair hearing for the communities views - i honestly have no care in the world wether it is deleted or kept, as long as it is done honestly and fairly. So in this situation I guess you do have to run the discussions again untill you get the rsult I want. ViridaeTalk 04:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mackensen has already adequately covered the various deletion reviews. As I've said before, I don't believe that it's right to rerun deletion debates over and over again until you get the result you want, so it would be wrong to rerun this one. We're all trying to build a good encyclopedia here, but this proceduralism has no part in it. It's a means to an end, no more and no less. The end has been achieved and attempts to subvert that end have failed. The case has been taken to arbitration and looks like it will probably be rejected.
Suggestions that Jeff or whoever take their concerns to Requests for comment don't seem to have been taken seriously, which I think is a bit of a shame. But if you're really committed to the will of the community this is what you, and Jeff will do. Write up and RfC about the conduct of the various parties, and where you think they've conducted themselves poorly, and we'll discuss it. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far quicker and cleaner to follow my suggestion. Also an act of good faith an attempt to restore the faith of the large subset of the community who feel themselves wronged by a blatant disregard of their views. ViridaeTalk 04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sympathetic to those who feel disenfranchised, I don't think it's really Wikipedia's problem. We have processes for a purpose, and that purpose is to construct an encyclopedia. When the deletion of something blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia is wrongly challenged by people more concerned with following process than doing the right thing, there is a conflict that can only be resolved by stating flatly that process has an end. So while I'm sympathetic to those feelings I feel that they stem from a very grave misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia and the place of our processes in the scheme of things, which is pretty low down. If the process is leading to people repeatedly trying to get an obviously unsuitable item undeleted, then the process is the problem and should be stamped on very, very hard. --Tony Sidaway 11:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an increasing number of people who disagree that it's unsuitable, Tony. Again, you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't suitable, and your continued misrepresentation of the facts concerning this article do not indicate a true understanding of what's going on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the course of trying to raise this article from the dead, you have made numerous allegations of misconduct, primarily by administrators but also seemingly by anyone who disagrees with you. The article is dead, but you could do something about the alleged misconduct by following the dispute resolution process. Please do so. --Tony Sidaway 11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been misconduct on both sides, it has nothing to do with who agrees or disagrees with me. And trust me, if the arbcom case does get declined, it will go to RfC, and then it will end back up at Arbcom for the same reasons. The article is not dead, thankfully, that much is sure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to wait for the arbitration case to be finally removed to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. You can start now. Please do so. --Tony Sidaway 12:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but I think Arbcom should accept the case with or without an RfC. There's too much misconduct to willfully ignore. Besides, you're only asking me to do that to delay the inevitable, why would I ever take that advice? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take my further responses in this discussion to User talk:Badlydrawnjeff and (where relevant) other user talk pages until such time as an RFC is created for centralized discussion on this. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're better off keeping them to yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackensen. – Steel 12:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a song about Alice's Restaurant... ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your recusal, I was just about to request it. Classy move on your part, seriously. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome. I could hardly have done otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Blocked and unblocked[edit]

Hi there Mackensen! I was composing my note to Mr. Raymond just as you were leaving your message, apparently. Apologies if my delayed response (I was taking some time to choose my diction appropriately) caused you any stress. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm much more worried about the lack of the first message than the second. Thanks for doing the decent thing. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: access to the -admins channel[edit]

I had not planned on returning to that channel in a long time anyways. Thank you for making sure I stay true to my promise. ZsinjTalk 12:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this may be a strange request, but do you have a copy of the log from last night in -admins? I only want the part I was in from the point "Zsinj|Class is now know as Zsinj" to where you said you were going to bed and I said "Me too." I did not have logging configured and I thought I had copy/pasted the text into a file, but I did not save it and it was lost when my computer restarted overnight. Thanks. ZsinjTalk 15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I lack such a log. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks anyways. :) ZsinjTalk 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Probablamenti[edit]

I saw your reply to me here [52] all together too tiresome to become deeply involved with, at the moment but it did amuse me to see you say "Arbs privately" - Wouldn't it be fun to know who exactly on the Arb Mailing List was on IRC - I wonder? - and indeed as you say we have indeed " seen it all before" haven't we and what lessons have been learnt? - I think the common parlance is "Fuck all".

Anyhow, the reason I'm here is because I think you are the only person with the knowledge and authority to sort out the ghastly Kittybrewster business before it escalates out of all control . Giano 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm far too gone to be reformed, but there we are. I've got a subscription to the online version of the DNB and I'm looking for Arbuthnots--there do seem to be a few, but the name isn't uncommon. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen be serious - I am serious - "together we can beat this" Giano 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm serious as well, about the Arbuthnots in any event. I'm looking at the articles presently on AfD and seeing what sources I can find for them (I'm serious about the other matter, but another time). Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The principle problem is the pages no longer on AFD already deleted, quite a few of them - so many in fact that trust in their principle editor is now non existent. I'm sure, like me, you have had a great aunt who has exalted a family member to near God-like status, and we have all smiled and agreed that he was indeed a prince among men - the difference here is that we know mad old great aunts say these things, Kittybrewster is putting these things on an encyclopedia and believing them - houses have become castles, mediocre army officers have become generals and so on - in short all trust has gone. His chief references are books without references by said Great Aunt or his own version of the family tree. We are not talking of the Medici here or even the Windsors but a bog standard ordinary upper middle class British family - all of whom could produce similar people. Kittybrewster himself says he is Sir William Arbuthnot 2nd Baronet, maybe he is, but to boast of such a recent title would be dismissed outside of England as ludicrous, and anyhow how can he write about his own relations in an unbiased way - The other consideration is that he claims his brother to whom he links is a named Member of Parliament - are we sure Kittybrewster is who he claims to be? No baronet or higher I have ever met would edit a page about their own relations - Whatever - it is a nasty can of worms. Giano 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm writing such a book on my own clan (though not much lately). However it has hundreds of references, so hopefully 20 years from now one of my cousins won't be making dickish entries on the XXXXXXX family. Thatcher131 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and I'm about to do my own great uncle Grand Admiral di Testosterone in the meantime lets sort this one first Giano 20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a passing thought, but if Kittybrewster's brother is (as claimed) "a direct descendant from King James I", one does have to wonder why it's not mentioned for any of the other relatives (including Kittybrewster's autobio). While I'm not a rapid anti-Arbuthnot (there are far worse offenders out there) it does seem odd. Come to that, if Kitty's the second baronet, why do we have a Sir William Arbuthnot, 3rd Baronet? There's something weird going on here - iridescenti 22:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second one's easy: different branch of the family. It's a wholly separate baronetcy. The first one is odd. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir William, 2nd Baronet->Sir John, 1st Baronet->Kenneth Wyndham Arbuthnot-> William Reierson Arbuthnot->George Arbuthnot of Elderslie->Robert Arbuthnot, Jr., of Haddo-Rattray->Robert Arbuthnot, Sr., of Haddo-Rattray->John Arbuthnot of Whitehill & Toddlehills->Robert Arbuthnot of Whitehill->Beatrix Gordon->John Gordon of Chapelton->Sir James Gordon of Letterfourie->Annabella Stuart, Countess of Huntly->James I, if I read Kitty's tables correctly. I'm not sure it's so notable as to need mentioning, but it appears to be true. Choess 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you unprotect Cowboy Rocco's talk page?[edit]

He didn't abuse any templates, and I'm on the phone with him right now. At least consider it.--Kkrouni 00:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see he had a two month extra block for the removal of that template, but he only had a one month block for sockpuppetry... Can't you just let him off with his original one month block?--Kkrouni 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badlydrawnjeff arbitration[edit]

I'm not sure if this needs to go to arbitration or not. I've collaborated with him here (although not very often), and found he is trying to help the encyclopedia (albeit in his own way).

As regards Qian Zijun, maybe we should allow discussion of it on the talk page with a {{Db-botnomainreviewed}} template, like on Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America, and that may make the situation a bit better.

However, even Internet memes are not exempt from biographies of living persons - as we all know with the Brian Peppers deletion review - and for this one, we definitely need reliable sources before an article can be re-written.

Allowing the use of a talkpage to discuss a new article may be one solution that could be used.

I'm really an outsider in this situation, but if I'm helping to try and resolve it, hopefully that would make things a bit better. --SunStar Net talk 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discuss case on your talk page[edit]

Would you like to move discussion to this page? I don't see any reason to get demon needlessly worked up. jbolden1517Talk 18:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you like; I think the matter is more pertinent to the Mediation Committee than to me; I'm just offering advice. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkelkar 2[edit]

Hi. Would like you to take a look at this – [53]. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just wanted to make sure you saw this[edit]

Hi,

Since Ryu clears his talk page more actively then anybody I've met before, I wanted to make sure you'd caught my reply to you... (this is the whole thread, which you also might choose to remove, but it least then I'll know you've read it!)


Hi,

I just wanted to make sure that you intended to be discourteous, and it wasn't inadvertent! Now that I know you are really actively refusing to discuss the action you've taken, I'll evaluate any future disputes in that light. It's unfortunate, but some people make the choice to be the "strong, silent" type! Best wishes, Xoloz 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an edit war that I sadly got involved in tangentially. I no longer wish to be associated with it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz, in case you didn't notice there are people on the talk page discussing that change, generally supportive. If you could take a second between rollbacks to explain yourself I think we'd all be better off. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I explained myself in the edit summary, and in the note the Ryulong has now nicely blanked from his page. I think its great that there's a talk page discussion; by the same token as your precaution to me, it would be nice if someone said "see talk page" in that handy edit summary. I've also explained this to Tony, the first person to add these changes, in a talk page discussion a few days ago. I'll explain it to you now, too, Mack...

When a DRV is disputed by anyone, a procedural nom. resolves the issue quickly -- since not every Wikipedian can be expected to patrol our process pages, to do otherwise might result in "renoms" from DRV delayed by days or weeks (this has happened when renoms are sometimes forgotten.) This opens us to red tape, and stupid endless discussions of procedure. Quick relisting is unambiguous, and chops the potential confusion in the bud. Because it is common sense, it will happen irrespective of any policy. Closers who know the problems that come to DRV daily will even use "pro forma" deletes to justify quick relistings, if you insist. I personally would rather such legalese didn't enter into our processes -- I them quick, plain and clear. I'm sure you'll agree, so I'll appreciate your kind indifference as the renominations continue. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

An affair in which you are involved is being discussed here. Bishonen | talk 10:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:S-ptd[edit]

Template:S-ptd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see more about this here. The vote is not expected to be a thriller or anything; the Project only wishes to get rid of a redundant template.

Basically, I am afraid you should visit the Project's talk page more often; there are several issues that need to be dealt with. Right now it seems to be forgotten by almost all members of the Project.

Also, there is a working version of the /Guidelines subpage at User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS and any input, either a good idea or a simple comment, would be greatly appreciated.

Have a nice day.

Waltham, The Duke of

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, 

David Mestel(Talk) 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trivia[edit]

Hi,

I wanted to learn more about why you thought the Template:Trivia thing was a content dispute - I viewed it as a policy dispute, where a template is overreaching policy, which I think needs to be discouraged. Thanks - Tempshill 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd come by to drop my two cents. It's a content dispute because you are arguing over the content of a template, and the arbitration committee don't tend to rule on content disputes - they deal with the behaviour of the disputants and at present, there's no behaviour that merits ArbCom sanction. Secondally, Mackensen said it was premature, this is because you haven't participated in any forms of dispute resolution, why don't you try a request for comment? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did try an RfC and posted to Third Opinion as well - sorry I added that after you saw the RfA. (I had not seen the template to fill in, so I winged it, and another editor helped find the template, so my filling in of it was piecemeal. Sorry.)
But I think that content within a template is much more important than content in an article, as Template:Trivia is scolding all the editors for something that's not in any guideline or policy. (And is now doing this scolding on thousands of articles.) The template is purporting to enforce a policy; this is quite different from a POV edit or whatever. It is apparent to me that word from above will be required in this case - the bot author will not change his mind, and neither will the anti-trivia-section editors who keep reverting the changes. Thanks - Tempshill 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that template disputes are more important than article content disputes, we're here to create an encyclopedia, not a sea of templates. Templates don't trump policy, they just make articles look pretty, most of them aren't even needed. I saw the RfC request, it doesn't look like you got much attention to it, but the point is, there really isn't any disruptive behaviour at present for ArbCom to rule on, if individual users are disrupting, I would suggest a user RfC, but I can't see any evidence of this and you would need to get it certified. My suggestion to you is to take a look at the mediation committee, they may be able to mediate your dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But templates that purport to dictate a policy are more important. I guess what I am looking for is a rule along the lines of, Templates that purport to enforce a Wikipedia policy or guideline need to actually adhere to that policy or guideline. To take the argument to an extreme (which Template:Trivia is not), suppose someone created a template about biography articles and robotically attached it to every biography article, and the template said:
This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
This distortion of the bio policy would be removed immediately by admins, correct? Tempshill 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take this to my talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question though, which policy are you talking about for {{trivia}}? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen/Archive13&oldid=1144732943"