User talk:CIreland/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Lance Armstrong allegations

Sorry to bother you here, but I'm really baffled by this whole thing, including your vote to endorse the decision to delete the article. Perhaps these allegations are not that well known outside of people who follow cycling closely, but this is serious well-documented and notable material. It's not just stuff from someone's blog, but from books and 3rd party sources like the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. I don't understand the grounds on which it is being deleted. That is an "attack"? Isn't the whole point of WP:BLP#Public figures to make clear that well sourced allegations about public figures presented fairly do not qualify as attacks that should be omitted, but instead actually belong? What am I missing? Can you cite the exact words in a policy somewhere on which you're relying? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently typing a reply at WP:DRV. Please stand by...... CIreland (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be such a pest, but that reply only baffles me more. Are you suggesting that just because someone neglected to mention that it's important that the article not be an attack they "missed the point entirely" and their vote needs to be discounted? You note that JClemens understood this, but he's one who clearly explained why the article should be kept. Yet you still endorse the delete??? I'm sorry, but I'm just not following. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to re-argue the AfD at DRV, rather assess the closing. I'm happy to do so here, however. The issue is that such articles are inherently non-neutral. Whilst I recognise that article-length can be an issue, it is ultimately always secondary concern. Consider what would happen if such articles were normally acceptable - every political leader would have an "Allegations of...." article, some would have several. It's for this reason that "Allegations of...." articles have been deprecated for some time (we used to have quite a few) - most are now deleted or redirects: list of allegations article (italics means redirect). CIreland (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Prunesqualer

If a topic banned editor makes edits during his ban as Prunesqualer has done, would it be inappropriate to revert those specific edits since they should not have been made in the first place? Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they can be reverted on sight if you can isolate them. I looked at doing so, but there were many edits after them and it was unclear which parts of the text, if any, had been altered, removed or reinstated by unsanctioned editors. CIreland (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to see us fall into the same pitfalls of others so have made a quick note at Gaza War regarding to of the edits over reverting at this time.[1]Cptnono (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi CIreland, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina editing

I do not even know if this is the correct way to start a topic on your talk page, and if it's not you can correct it/me. I have a question about Janelle Pierzina's Wiki page. The user BaldPete seems to have some vendetta AGAINST Janelle Pierzina as he/she continually changes factual information on her page even to the point of warring with other users. Janelle Pierzina's page was semi-protected by you on January 11, 2011, so can you please explain to me how BaldPete was able to, once again, make unnecessary changes to Janelle's page AFTER the protection was put on? He changed this wordage (which is completely and totally accurate): " Extremely popular and beloved by Big Brother fans, Janelle won every single America's Choice award during her two seasons on the show." to this wordage: "Popular with fans, Janelle won several America's Choice awards during her two seasons on the show." The fact of the matter is, Janelle did not win "several" America's Choice Awards, she won each and every one, right up to the show's Finale when she won the final America's Choice of $25,000, voted on by the American and Canadian public, demonstrating how extremely popular and beloved she was (and still is) with the fans and TV viewers. Examine this user, BaldPete's, contributions to Wikipedia and you will find that almost the entirety of his edits have been to Janelle Pierzina's page, most of the time making very unnecessary edits just for the sake of editing her page. More than likely, this person is an ANTI-fan of Janelle Pierzina and cannot stand to see very positive information on her page so BaldPete continually edits it down or removes it entirely. Janelle Pierzina announced her engagement by posting a photograph of her engagement ring through her own Twitter account. When she married, she had a well-known Big Brother photographer, Philip Alan of Philip Alan Photography, come to her wedding to take photographs, which he promptly posted on his website for fans and readers to view. The information is out there, all over the internet, yet when it is posted on Janelle Pierzina's Wikipedia page, Bald Pete comes along to remove it. BEING A PERSONAL FRIEND OF JANELLE PIERZINA'S, it bothers me to no end that this user, BaldPete, continues to engage in edit warring (constant edit warring) over Janelle Pierzina's page and now, even after the page was protected, he has found a way to make yet ANOTHER unnecessary edit of her page. Can you please explain that? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janiesis (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is only protected so that new and unregistered users cannot edit it. I did this because an unregistered user was persistently adding information with very unreliable sources - it is absolutely disallowed to use forums as sources in biographies in order to protect living people from lies, libel and rumour-mongering. I have reviewed BaldPete's only edit to the article since it was semi-protected. I concur with his assessment that the language he removed was neither measured, nor neutral, nor encyclopaedic. I do not think there is any basis for your assertions that he is biased against the article subject. In my experience at Wikipedia, when article content has an overly promotional tone this can even reflect badly on the subject and causes readers to doubt the veracity of the article. In my assessment, BaldPete has acted only to protect the article subject - both from rumour-mongering and unencyclopaedic language. CIreland (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan

Good call here - I was in the process of doing the same. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And I literally was writing on the talk page that I felt the page needed to be protected in the "less information/BLP safer" version... I was about to go request protection when I finished and realized that you had protected the page already!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully an agreement can be reached quickly and protection lifted early. CIreland (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlock Nat Wolff

Hello. It will be 2 years next month. Could you unlock Nat Wolff please. Thank You. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll put pending changes protection on instead for now. That would mean that unconfirmed (new and unregistered) users can edit the article but those edits wouldn't appear in the 'live' version until checked by another user. CIreland (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unintentional Humor

What is your reason for continuing to remove Rebecca Black from the Unintentional Humor section? Her song has become a sensation not for its inherent quality, but for its laughable poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeCrowns (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it doesn't matter whether or not you or I think it constitutes unintentional humour - Wikipedia requires that contentious information like that is accompanied by a citation (preferably several) to a reliable source. CIreland (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

please correct the record on Titanic consensus dispute

Your accusation that I filibustered is incorrect. I deferred to BettyLogan. Please correct the record. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is BettyLogan's post on the Titanic talk page: "I think the record nature of the achievement should be "brought out" more regardless of whether the information is relocated; you are correct on that point. Personally I'm even open to moving the information up the lead, although not to the first paragraph since I think the first paragraph should solely define the film. I think it could be incorporated into the second paragraph ahead of the production information, since the box office/oscars are definitely more prominent information than the background production info. Is that something both you and Flyer would contemplate? Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)"

The Yogscast Wikipedia page

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to keep wikipedia clean, however, The Yogscast page is repeatedly defaced by numerous people and as such should not be deleted but monitored for useless pieces of information or general spam.

The idea behind the page is good natured and when recreated with a large piece of information is then defaced by people who seem to have too much time on their hands. If there was a way the page could be kept and only edited by those who want to add something constructive it would be helpful. 1deano1 (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that, vandalism aside, there has been nothing that I found in any version of the article that suggested that Yogscast met our inclusion criteria. These can be somewhat complex, but a rough rule of thumb is the General Notability Guideline which requires that the topic but has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable and independent sources. In the case of Yogscast, this might include things such as newspaper reviews, major awards won or other significant coverage in the professional (i.e. with editorial oversight and not self-published) media. If there are such sources, it would be helpful if you could provide them either here, or by creating a draft in your userspace (e.g. at User:1deano1/Yogscast_draft. CIreland (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Same here, that's why I CSD'd it. You and UtherSRG did the killing. Awesome! --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it was originally set up by the guys at Yogscast themselves but when they reached out for assistance from the fans everything went to pot so to speak. With many random people editing it so much that nothing actually stayed there long enough to be improved upon.1deano1 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The page being made by Yogscast themselves doesn't help much. Whoever edits/creates the article isn't relevant, the article subject has to be notable. See more info here. --HTMLCODER.exe (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, whilst I was googling it to look for sources, I came across the forum post on the matter. If you think that the topic would meet the General Notability Guideline then create a quick draft in your userspace, where it should go unmolested, and drop me a note. If it is suitable for moving to article-space, then it can be protected against vandalism. I would advise you, however, that my quick google search didn't turn up any obvious sources that could be used for an article. CIreland (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

They primarily produce a popular podcast and are well known for the various YouTube videos they produce, specifically the Minecraft videos known as Shadow of Israphel. Since Wikipedia already has articles about various independent podcasts and minor youtube 'celebrities' I don't actually see any reason why this article wouldn't be permitted on Wikipedia, providing it's written correctly and not defaced by Facebook users. Flibblesan (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

All articles on podcasts etc. have to show evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources. In theory, all the articles we have on YouTube content etc. have received such coverage. In practice, of course, a small number may slip through the net but it is not common and their days are likely numbered. If you know of any suitable coverage for Yogscast then I'd urge you to add them to the draft that Matt has linked below. Without such coverage, it would be pointless to create an article as it quickly be deleted. If suitable coverage exists then there will be no problem; the likelihood of vandalism is a minor issue which we have many mechanisms to prevent once that likelihood has been established. CIreland (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on this. Could you please check it out and criticize the hell out of it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bastawhiz/The_Yogscast --Matt (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the draft. The problem remains that it still contains no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. High YouTube viewing numbers and subscriptions may be enough to avoid the speedy deletion criteria but I'm certain that as it stands, the draft would be deleted at Articles for Deletion if I moved it to article space without better evidence of coverage by reliable sources. Typical kinds of coverage that would be appropriate would be articles/reviews in the mainstream media or recognised awards (such as the Shorty Awards). CIreland (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

Thanks for protecting the Chevrolet Vega page. I filed the complaint against 842U and Biker Biker. The article has been judged neutral for two years (even before criticism section was added) because the Problems section was added by me (required for neutrality flag removal), and states all the facts regarding the car's issues. A complete Reception section of Praise and Criticism has been added as well recently, and is also presented with neutrality. The car's main issues (that caused the car's cancellation) are also mentioned in the lead section, Design and Engineering section, and the Development section, and it has been determined in a Project Automobile, and current article discussion, by several Users, that the article does not require further pruning, nor does the article require any major changes. There are 35 Users watching the article for a long while, and many of those User watchers have participated in discussions, contributing their suggestions and edits, and over 400,000 views of article have been made in two years...all viewers and Users seemingly having no problems with the article as it is. But 842U and Biker Biker, who did not participate in the two recent discussions, insist on making major changes to the article, including a non-neutral and biased lead section and further deletion of images and sections. 842U has been changing the lead section every few days for months (since discussion was ended recommending no further pruning of article). It is non-productive and taking much of my time away from improving other articles. I am requesting two images to be reinserted that have been in the article for over a year, and a few minor reverts of image positioning. Thanks. (Barnstarbob (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

Can you give me some links to previous discussions on the issues you mention? CIreland (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We are in the process of opening an RFC so all the opinions can be put on the table and consensus reached. A number of editors have expressed an interest in contributing and hopefully many others will join in once it is open (tomorrow if all goes well) That way nobody can own or dominate the article - not me, not 842u and not bob.--Biker Biker (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

CIreland- previous worthwhile discussions showing many User involvement on improving the article.

• April 2009 - NPOV
• April 2009 - Making article better
• April 2009 - Good, Bad and Otherwise
• June 2009 - Article issues
• November 2010 - Automobile Projects discussion

The only Users who have tried to dominate the article have been 842U and BikerBiker who have made several attempts to make MAJOR changes without listing on article talk page first or group discussion. The current discussion by 842U and BikerBiker offers no suggestions or improvements. A rewrite will certainly render the article nothing more than a biased web blog if left up these few Users.

An articles objective on Wikipedia is to provide concise information about the subject without biased opinion or framing of the subject from Wikipedia Users. Although opinions of many sources are included in Reception, the unbiased summations of quality sources are important here, as usually an unbiased view gives a complete picture in context with no information missing or distorted. There is too much emphasis on opinions of internet bloggers and writers. FACTS ARE FIRST. ALL THE FACTS. WITHOUT BIAS. The cars vices are mentioned in Development, Engineering and in detail in Problems, and then the Critisism of those problems are in Reception. (and...the cars virtues are presented, as well, in Reception) The vast information is presented with FORM. and with NEUTRALITY critical in an enyclopedia article. (Barnstarbob (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Shortly after the article's protection lapsed (also shortly after his one-week block ended) Barnstarbob made a series of significant edits to the article, even though he is well aware of the RfC that is going on, an RfC that I requested be extended so that Barnstarbob could have further input after his block ended. In his recent edits, Barnstarbob has, once again, gutted the "Criticism" section and generally ignored input from other editors that seems to form consensus at this point. I'm not sure what to do about him as of now. His recent edits do not seem to have broken any rules, but they are clearly bad form. Advice? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the major changes to the "Reception" section - after all it is difficult for people to comment on that section in the RFC when the version that is under discussion has been swept away from under their feet. I have explained this action on the article's talk page. I feel this is a reasonable move given that the RFC is still pending and hope that you don't see it as edit warring. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, that didn't work. He immediately reverted my changes and ignored my rationale on the talk page. Can I ask you to revert the whole page to the state it was in when it was unprotected, then reinstate protection until the RFC is finished? --Biker Biker (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't currently have a working computer. I will take a look at this as soon as I can access WP from home. CIreland (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been largely sorted out while I was offline. I'm fixed now and will keep the article on my watchlist. CIreland (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Machine readable NFUR

I remember, vaguely, back when we made a requirement that non-free use rationales for images have to be machine readable. But when I looked at WP:NFUR the other day, it doesn't seem to require it (anymore?). Do you know where the requirement went? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The origins of it are in foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. I'll have to hunt for it on en.wiki. CIreland (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean specifically the "machine readable" bit. The general requirement of an NFUR here is in WP:NFCC and WP:NFUR, but it is not part of the foundation resolution, for example they link to the Polish Wikinews policy, and Polish Wikinews does not require NFURs. The foundation requires images to "have a rationale" but they use "rationale" in a different sense and don't require the image page to record what that rationale is like we do on enwiki. Here is a nonfree image page on Polish Wikinews [2]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that it used to be a requirement on en.wiki, but looking through the histories of the relevant policies I can't find it either. CIreland (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm not crazy then. I will start a thread at WT:NFC. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, we know who would be most likely to know the answer, but he just got topic-banned. CIreland (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for being civil, these image removal issues lately have been contentious. We're in the midst of a typhoon right now, but I'm still supposed to work tomorrow. I plan to respond fully, but I am going to bed now. Please hold off on more removals, I'll be back in 18 hours, sorry for the delay.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I noticed you mentioned the topic-banned editor, I believe you think his work is necessary, but the strife and contention he creates are most definitely not-our Scouting Project Coordinator had to take a wikibreak from stress with that user-and he's an admin, so that's not a good situation in any measure.

When I saw my talkpage had turned orange, because of the above situation, I was actually loaded for bear for a fight with you, so I again am thankful for your civility and for actually following the request to go to the talkpage.

1. This issue has been hashed and rehashed over five years, as you can see in the Scouting WikiProject archives at least four times with different NFCC-enforcers; the agreement that has been cobbled together is that when a nation has multiple Scout organizations, showing their emblems is not a violation of NFCC. Because of strange situations in countries, where badges are available but websites or material even in their own language is scarce, at that point it's not a gallery for decorative purposes, the images are a form of documentation themselves. You can see how professional the Russian emblems in particular are-those were made for us specifically by Wikigraphists from crude badges, so this is something we are serious about, fully aware others may perceive issues.
2. You removed those images without fair-use rationales, that's okay, those can be either fixed or left out on a case-by-case basis.
3. In your edit summaries you stated "I don't believe...", appearing that the removals are your opinion only. Others believe differently and we have discussed this issue multiple times at great length, vide the archives. It's not a simple case of decoration or image overuse, and while it is not the optimum situation, it is not a violation though at first that is not so obvious. You at least take the time to listen, and thank you. Your colleague above barrels through, so I am quite happy with his topic ban. It's not the substance, it's the approach that is important oftentimes.
4. By going after large numbers of Scout articles in a short timeframe, it may appear you are targeting Scout articles for some reason-now I trust you are not deliberately doing so, but it was my first impression and I thought, "great, another fight..." :( Please be careful with this.
5. As discussed at length with the above user, which got him topic-banned from NFCC, just because there is a rule out there, does not mean one is obligated to enforce it to the detriment of other Wikirules (it does sometimes clash) or overriding existing discussions of other projects. It's meant to protect Wiki, not an ironclad device to beat other users away with.

I'll be back after work, hope you have a good day!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx

Hey there, thanks kindly for fixing that doubled nomination. take care . tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. CIreland (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

CodyJoeBibby

I'm by no means a fan of this editor, but I'm having a hard time seeing this as a plausible legal threat. pablo 20:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two possible interpretations: (1) It's a legal threat. (2) It's a continuation of the misuse of his user talk page when blocked. Either explanation is sufficient grounds to remove his ability to edit his talk page. Even putting the best possible gloss on his edits since being blocked, I think revoking his ability to edit the page further was an appropriate course of action. I'm not willing to restore the privilege, but if you can find another admin willing to do so, I wouldn't make a fuss about being reversed. CIreland (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology req for unprotection

Hi Clreland,

You recently protected the Astrology page. Yesterday an RfC was opened on the topic of the text that was the subject of edit warring and so far there is unanimous opposition to the text, with the exception of one editor who refused to take part and one editor who wanted the text in the first place, though he did not vote to support the text. Normally I would wait until the RfC had run for a few days but this appears to be a WP:SNOW issue here due to the large response, all in opposition. Would you mind reviewing the RfC and unprotecting if you agree with my take? Thank you. N^oformation ^Talk 00:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. CIreland (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do I understand it correctly that you noticed there is a paragraph on your Talk page from NI, read it, went over to the Astrology:Talk page, read the entire discussion on working to consensus, understood all the arguments, reviewed the RFC along with all comments, determined that consensus was reached, unlocked the page, then came back to yours to reply... all this in 4 minutes? I can fill you in that we were nowhere near consensus, and not anywhere nearer than where we started when you locked the page - see my comments there for more detail. You might even want to read the discussion to reconsider your decision. SLP (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir (or ma'am :)) N^oformation ^Talk 01:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are not going to close the RfC yourself, could you please refer it to an univolved ądministrator. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would not be adverse to keeping the RfC open for a few more days. Perhaps other editors can provide angles on the subject that we have not yet considered. While it's a snow oppose to the text in place, it may still be beneficial to solicit more opinion. N^oformation ^Talk 01:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to keeping it open. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Why did you lift protection in the beginning of a contentious RfC? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it contentious? I haven't looked since I've been home but when I left school there were zero supports !votes and a lot of opposes...17 opposes and 0 supports - not even the couple editors who actually wanted the text !voted, but even if they had it would have been 17-3, pretty much a snowball.N^oformation ^Talk 06:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I believed it unlikely that, given the state of the RFC and the usual consequences for editing in defiance of a clear opposing consensus, the edit-warring would resume. CIreland (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of problems with drawing any conclusions with the RfC that's only been running for a day:

1. The RfC isn't worded neutrally.
2. It's misleading. The question should be whether to remove the content, not add it.
3. The RfC discussion is misleading. Editors are claiming that the last stable version didn't have the text, but if I recall correctly, there was no censensus to remove the text. I could be wrong, but I think it was only removed by edit-warring it out of the article.
4. It's only been open a day. Those in favor of keeping the content haven't had a chance to state their case.
5. RfCs are supposed to solicit outside opinion but previous involved editors were immediately notified of the RfC.

Don't get me wrong. I think astrology is nonsense and the content be removed per WP:FRINGE as I've stated in another venue.[3] But I'd like the process to be fair. I feel as if those in favor of inclusion have been railroaded by their opponents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your points are fabricated, at least in part. You are wrong in multiple instances. The proposed text was first added here, and was immediately the subject of an edit war - it has never been stably in the article. The article had been without any fringe criticism of Nature for over a month before that. If you haven't done the legwork to comment accurately - don't fabricate things. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: First, please keep in mind WP:NPA. Second, you are wrong about when the text was added. I went though the last 500 edits[4] and the most recent stable version I could find is from August 19, 2011 where it went 6 days without editing (the longest stretch of no edits during the last 500 edits).[5] It looks like the text is there, albeit it used to be much longer and the wording has changed quite a bit since then, but it was there:

Initially, the Carlson experiment was criticized as having a biased design that made the astrologers' tasks more difficult than they needed to be, but deeper flaws in method and analysis emerged. Carlson had disregarded his own stated criteria of evaluation, grouped data into irrelevant categories, rejected unexpected results without reporting them, and drew an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. When the stated measurement criterion was applied, and the published data was evaluated according to the normal conventions of the social sciences, the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provided significant evidence (astrologers' ranking test: p = .054 with ES = .15, and astrologers' rating test: p = .037 with ES = .10), despite the unfair design, of their ability to successfully match CPIs to natal charts. Observers have called for more detailed and stringent double-blind experiments.

Please get your facts straight before you start casting aspirations. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That text was removed more than a month ago, and has remained removed without comment since. Are you supporting returning that text to the article, or are you just busy following your long-time adversaries and needling them wherever you can? Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the article still requires full protection, feel free to go to WP:RFPP and ask another administrator to do so. CIreland (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look like the edit-warring has resumed. You made the right call. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism

Can you keep an eye on this? One of the editors has announced that he intends to ignore the AFD/DRV, and fight using any methods to keep the page up. [6] [7] - I suspect that the moment the article comes out of protection, he's going to try to overturn the AFD by fiat. 86.** IP (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I will likely be asleep when the protection expires and at work the following day, but I'll look in tomorrow evening (UK time). On the whole though, if the dispute is going to need 24-hour babysitting, it'll have to be done by a another admin. CIreland (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox fix

Thanx! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For your help in keeping my talk page vandal free, it's appreciated! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Incubator / Google Technology User Groups

Dear CIreland, I'm an active member of the global GTUG (Google Technology User Group) community. Our Wikipedia article was moved to Incubator almost 2 years ago, before I even knew it exists. After that its main editor asked for help and I did my best to improve the article. I'm writing you because I saw that after moving the article to Incubator you've deleted it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Technology_User_Groups). Therefore, I have three questions:

1. Could you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Google_Technology_User_Groups and share you thoughts if you feel the article could be assessed for moving back into articlespace?
2. What else I can do to improve its structure and content?
3. During Incubator -> Articlespace transfer I'd like to change its title from "Google Technology User Groups" to "Google Technology User Group". May I?

Thanks a lot in advance!!!

Aygulka (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article itself. What happened was that when the article was moved to the article incubator by Seanchoe (talk · contribs), a redirect was left behind in the main article space that pointed to the moved article. Such redirects are not allowed (they are called "cross-namespace redirects from mainspace") so I deleted it as a simple maintenance issue without regard to the content of the article in the incubator. Ideally, when editors move articles to the incubator they should tick the box to prevent the creation of the redirect but this is often forgotten. As such, I have not read the article and it is well outside my area of expertise. However, I'll take a look in a while and give you my opinion, for what that may be worth. CIreland (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a look and, judging the article solely according to the general criterion, the chief problem that needs to be overcome is that there is no indication either by way of referencing or external links of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Such sources might include: coverage in periodicals; discussion of the subject in books on the wider topic area; papers on the subject in peer-reviewed literature; coverage on good (i.e. not self-published and with editorial oversight) websites. Any sources would need to be "reliable" - for example, a book published by a vanity press would not be considered suitable. CIreland (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"santorum" and protection

Hi -- you quite rightly protected Campaign for "santorum" neologism, on grounds of edit-warring. I wonder if you could offer any thoughts about the future of the article. Subsequent discussion on the talk page is heavily weighted towards inclusion of the EL, with a straw poll in which 18 people favor inclusion and 6 oppose it. People in the group of 6, however, have made it clear that they would carry on deleting the EL if the article were unprotected and the link added on the basis that there is consensus for inclusion; they indicate that they would do this even if there were a community-wide RfC producing the same result. The article shouldn't stay protected forever -- do you have any thoughts on how we might productively move towards removal of protection? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

At the time I protected the page, I was hoping that someone would start an RFC, that it would be closed by uninvolved experienced editor and that there would be something to point to as the (albeit, no doubt contested) agreed version. Part of the issue is that this is such a binary problem - there is little room for compromise; either the link is included or it is not. In order to unprotect the page, I think an admin would have to judge that one of two outcomes would be likely:

• Edit-warring would not resume.
• Editors persistently editing against a clear consensus could be subject to sanction.

I'm not convinced that either of those are the case. If I unprotected the page and then started blocking people for removing the link, trying to point to the talk page as evidence for consensus, I suspect I would receive extremely harsh criticism at AN/I and, at best, the page would be re-protected in short order. I am extremely reticent to take any admin action I do not believe I could obtain consensus for.

An RFC would take time, likely longer than anyone would want protection to remain at this point. Two possible suggestions would be: (1) to obtain an agreement of both sides to maintain the link in one state while discussions proceed so that the article could be unprotected for general editing. (2) to seek a temporary restriction at AN prior to unprotection such that editors editing in defiance of the restriction could be uncontroversially sanctioned. However, with BLP policy being a factor, I am under no illusions that there is an easy solution.

CIreland (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jumped again

• 75.194.236.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Nightw 20:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear CIreland,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

List of rock formations in the United Kingdom

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom. proposal regarding the scope of the list. -- Bejnar (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello CIreland. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Six-Day war

Hi there,

Thanks for your comment on my talkpage. I agree that involving other editors is the right thing to do. As the editor in question hasn't responded on the talkpage, I'll report him for edit-warring to try and resolve this issue. --Dailycare (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

protection of George Gollin‎

You protected this page in 2009 for BLP reasons (I presume). Since it is such a low traffic page, would you consider pending changes protection on it? Crazynas ^t 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think pending changes is a good idea in this case as reviewers could not be expected to be aware of the background and history of problems here - thus it is too likely that a superficially OK, but actually highly defamatory, revision would be accepted. There are additional concerns as well, which I can explain in email, if this response is unsatisfactory. CIreland (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

I've replied further on my talk page. David in DC (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Hello,,can you please take a look at what has been happening on the 'Aryan' webpage,,Administrators are deleting all material relating to the Gaelic word Tara as having a possible link to the word Aryan,,even though it has perfectly valid references.They are even deleting material from the talk page and from the undelete request page and they have locked the page,one of the Admin by the name of Paul B started abusing a user also with the word ,Domn't, . Something very wrong is going on here, can you please help sort this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomact (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

BKWSU

Could we have the BKWSU topic protected again until matters are resolved? We're really no further forward.

I replaced the {{pp- }} tag but that alone does not seem to do it?

Thank you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In order to protect the page I would need be able to justify such with reference to the protection policy and at this time I do not believe that I could do that. The {{pp- }} tag is merely a notice and does not itself cause the page to be protected; in order to protect a page, the protection settings for that page need to be altered - something only an administrator can do. CIreland (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Parker-Bowles

Why is it vandalism? Only what some people are saying. Shall I get proof that people are saying that? Might not be true but might be of interest. No need to get shirty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.178.239 (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. We tend to get shirty when people mistake it for /b/. --CIreland (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, this Aryan stuff. It is a silly old fascist term. Indo-European is more acceptable. More-precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.178.239 (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea what this is referring to. --CIreland (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ruth Lea is indeed ideological and wants less holidays and worker protection. She said so on TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.178.239 (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Then cite some sources to confirm that. I only warned you about the nonsense at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. --CIreland (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

shia

Hi i would appreciate it if you could undo what you did as some of the information were incorrect, so i decided to correct it Knasim999 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

fyi

You told me to go to REFUND. I did so today. Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Liliane Bettencourt

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll take a look in a week or so before it expires. Most of the edits that caused the PC protection were actually sort of good-faith - a result of some kind of scam emails using her name and linking to our article resulted in some folks assuming she was not real and our article a hoax. CIreland (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrei Bugneac

Now that was a quick review, it must have been less than a minute! Sure you entirely read it? ;) Kareldorado (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, for it was a sweeping epic of succulent prose overcut with a cartesian subtext that elegantly captured the triangular dilemma of humanity's ontological quandry. Or maybe it was a garden variety footballer stub with no obvious problems by someone who clearly knows what they are doing. Either way, well done. CIreland (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL, great answer and thanks for the reviewing enthusiasm. Kareldorado (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome

I see that about seven years ago you made a complimentary comment on my talk page about the Components of medieval armour page I made shortly before. So, while it's a little late, thanks for the thanks. Waerloeg (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

CIreland (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate, full protection, ArbCom and a little light begging

I'm not willing to lift it, but this is not a "no"; let me explain. All I did (if I remember rightly) was restoring protection that had been cut short as an experiment, and it looked to me as if the experiment demonstrated that continued protection was necessary. I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with the subject and with whatever contentious issues you're talking about (if I were dictator, the whole article would be deleted; as it's an ongoing controversy, secondary sources can't even exist yet, but people insist on pretending that primary sources are secondary), so I cannot have a reasonable opinion on whether unprotection is a good idea. I think the best course of action is for you to ask someone who's uninvolved yet more familiar with the situation than I am, and when you do, please be sure to say something like "the protecting admin is fine with you unprotecting it, if you think that's the wisest action". Judging by the way you asked me, I assume you're involved, but if you're not, feel free to unprotect it yourself. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You sound as if you're not going to ask anyone. That's not what I intended! If you ask me the same thing when arbitration has concluded, I'll give the same response, because I'll still not have a solid opinion; you might as well ask someone else now instead of waiting for the case to conclude. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I'm just going to leave this here.

Third age - 2931: Aragorn is Born Third age - 2941 - 2942: Bilbo returns to bag end Aragorn began his travels in TA 2951, at the age of 20 Remember at the end when Legolas was told to seek out Strider?.... Strider would have been 10 years old at the time. It's even more surprising if Thranduil actually called him "Strider;" that was a disrespectful nickname given to Aragorn by the Bree-landers and was only used in that region. That name wouldn't even exist for another 10-40 years. Here is the kicker though, at the time.. Aragorn was in Rivendell as an adopted son of Elrond, going by the false name "Estel" ... So there is no 'seeking him out' as he was with the elves all along ^.^ "Peter Jackson please -.- " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.104.85 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know; Tolkien fan myself. But this is obviously unsuitable content for an enyclopaedia article, especially inserted multiple times. Wikipedia is not the right place to complain about the film adaptations. CIreland (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

RE:Quotation

Already been handled, thanks. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping out with User:sharazjeth

TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 20:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed Unsubstantiated Claim

I have removed the unsubstantiated claim that I made from here: This on the talk page here. Please consider the 1RR restriction. I have already started to reform my behaviour as can be shown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_News here]. I would also like to remove any content from the talk page on the VAXXED article that is deemed inappropriate and doesn't follow the rules. Thank you for your consideration. Conzar (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games ‎

Why did you remove my post? You said citation didn't match but was it not a PERFECT example of the use of funds raised coming under scrutiny?

Barackaddict (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Where in the article you are using as a source does it say that the use of funds came under scrutiny? If you want to say that the existence of the article itself is an example of "scrutiny" (a loaded word) then you cannot; that is original research i.e. your opinion. CIreland (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

-What are you talking about editing a page? I was viewing a wikipedia article about the Byzantine empire and you sent a message about editing a "revolution page". I come to wikipedia to read the articles, some of which are very good and thorough. I don't need to be receiving false messages about creating and editing article on here filled with accusations of "vandalism". I'm a 70 year old man, a Vietnam Veteran, I don't need some punk kid trying his best to chastise me with passive aggressive messages. Kindly back off and don't send me anymore messages. I don't need bored children telling me what I can and cannot read, I'm 70 years old, I'm likely older than your grandparents, young man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.132.210 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, CIreland. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Steve Coogan Image

Sorry about that, I'm not entirely sure how it works. I'll upload the previous image if that will solve the problem. - Jak Fisher (talk)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi CIreland.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CIreland. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:SVTCobra#Notification

Hello CIreland. I need help understanding what is happening. Your notification said to feel free to contact you. I am a longtime Wikipedian in good standing. GamerGate is something that happened without me being aware of it. I am not a gamer. However, I recently became aware of it (people making references to it). I looked it up on Wikipedia, as we all do. This led me to the Brianna Wu page. I read it but when I feel something is a 'stretch', I check the sources. I found that none of the cited sources said that Wu was a software engineer. Before editing, I even consulted Wu's personal website, which made no such claim. So I removed that part as unsourced (I believe that remains policy). In less than one hour, Brianna Wu herself, was tweeting about my edit. Multiple editors came to revert my edit or debate me. I tried to answer as best I could, but Brianna Wu had called me a GamerGater in her tweet. I'd answer on person on their talk page and another would answer. And now, finally, I have your notification, which quite frankly sounds ominous. It feels accusatory and I don't know what I did wrong. As of this moment, my edit still stands. (others have started some "edit-warring" by the looks of it) Please advise ... --SVTCobra (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Some points:

• Getting a discretionary sanctions notification does not imply wrongdoing. Most people editing in a contentious area get one. That includes me.
• The above being said, I did find one of your edits objectionable. Not the "software engineer" edit but rather this edit. It's an old gamergate canard that Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn et al. (all women, of course) are not really developers/software engineers/programmers/game designers/whatever but are professional victims, milking their faux victimhood for financial gain. That's Grade A bullshit, of course, unsupported by any reliable source and repeated only in the fetid sewers of the internet. So, when you swapped "Game developer" for "Public speaker" (entirely misrepresenting the suggested source in your edit summary) I was put in mind of the previous nonsense and recalled the faint whiff of virtual excrement.
• Whether the occupation field says "software engineer" or "developer" or whatever, I really don't think is very important. They're all more or less synonymous in everyday parlance. But it's never going to only say "Public speaker", because that would be false and malign.
• I realise that gamergate is a minefield to the uninitiated and it's easy get labelled. So Ms Wu called you a gamergater, so what? Maybe it was just because she looked in your contribs and saw this corker from September. I know I did. It certainly made you appear a lot more familiar with gamergate than you say you are now.
• And just to avoid any confusion: I may be an admin here, but on the topic of gamergate, I'm just a regular editor. And a frothing-at-the-mouth SJW to boot.

CIreland (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your prompt response. I am comforted by the fact that you looked into my history including the Anita talk page. I never said I woke up today and became interested in GamerGate. "Recent" to me is at least months. The years pass rapidly at my age. The Wu as a public speaker actually comes from her own website where she talks about it becoming a bigger part. And then there are agency sites that have Wu on the roster. Furthermore, her site is full of videos documenting various speaking engagements. I know that it was a bad edit on my part. I guess I felt is was a semi-sourced edit for an unsourced edit. I still don't feel like I understand GamerGate.

PS. I don't think you should call yourself a "frothing-at-the-mouth SJW". At least no publically.--SVTCobra (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why I feel the need, but I want to amend what I said. I did not come to the Sarkeesian article through an interest in GamerGate. In hindsight, I think it was Sarkeesian's UN testimony that led me to her page, and she was one of several things that mentioned GamerGate which I later began reading about.

Also, you said "so what" about me being called a GamerGater and I think you know that it exactly paints me as 4chan monster coming from the sewers of the internet (a turn of phrase you've used twice with me). I think it is probably near the same as being called a Nazi for some people. If you have the time, I would love to hear what you consider to be the sewers and what is not the sewers. Cheers. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion you are giving far too much weight to an ephemeral remark made on the most ephemeral of platforms that will be forgotten in moments. Like it or not, you have made remarks and edits that are likely to be considered consistent with the label. Unless you are wanting to disavow those remarks, the label itself is largely irrelevant.

You know what I found most jarring and unexpected in what you said above? It was when you said I should not publicly label myself a "frothing-at-the-mouth SJW". It illustrates the difference in perspective. It is just a label. Appropriated, in this case, to gently mock with "frothy" hyperbole those who would use it. Yet inconsequential even if some would find it accurate. "Gamergater", "SJW" - these expressions are barely, if at all, even used in any place that actually matters.

"Sewers of the internet" is a throwaway metaphor that doubtless does not bear rigorous application. I just mean those virtual places where discredited ideas are cast out to because they have been rejected in the larger world. The echo-chambers of Reddit; the YouTube videos of conspiracy theorists; the unread and abandoned blogs peddling pathological science; etc. etc. Basically I mean places on the internet Wikipedia would consider an inherently and unquestionably unreliable source.

CIreland (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You can call Twitter ephemeral if you like, but it took nothing more than a random tweet to make an international news story about CNN broadcasting porn for 30 minutes. All of it false, of course.

I, personally, reject labels. You are free to embrace them, even if they were conceived as pejoratives. In my opinion, they cloud the minds of those who would review our edits.

I do not disavow or retract my assertion that there is legitimate criticism of Sarkeesian. (And I spoke not about her Tropes work.) I saw her UN testimony and thought it was an incredible attack on free speech. When I saw her Wikipedia page, I was shocked that there was not a mention of this. I was short on time and did the lazy thing: begging on the talk page for improvements. In response to my detractors, I think I put some lame links which I'd gathered with Google for anything that looked like a reliable source. It was lazy and half-assed. I am not surprised nothing came of it.

But this brings us back to to "the sewers". You call it "discredited ideas" from unreliable sources. You mention YouTube as such a source. Does Sarkeesian herself come from the bowels of these sewers? Are many of her claims not discredited? I find a major imbalance here.

My last remark will be a throwback to something you said about Wu and Sarkeesian being professional victims. I don't think they are, but they are certainly profiting from it and using the victim status to garner more attention.

I welcome your thoughts. --SVTCobra (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To answer you question about YouTube: I singled out "the YouTube videos of conspiracy theorists" as an example - which Feminist Frequency clearly is not an example of. However, it's also the case that the FF YouTube videos are not a reliable source (except as source for their own content in their own article) for Wikipedia; they have little (if any) traditional editorial oversight or peer review. They are also pretty basic; feminism and feminist cultural criticism has a wealth of proper academic material we can draw on.

You ask, "Are many of her claims not discredited?". The answer is simply, "No". And our articles reflect that. That doesn't mean that every video is a flawless masterpiece, of course, but they are very widely praised by people who are employed to review and critique this sort of thing. That's hardly surprising either, this kind of feminist analysis is taught in the earliest stages of just about any university arts or social science degree. I was taught it thirty years ago and have been re-taught it a number of times since. Doubtless most professional reviewers and critics had a similar experience.

CIreland (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So, the ideas of an unseen all-encompassing patriarchy and Western rape culture are not examples of conspiracy theories? I must say, I am really beginning to worry about how "feminist analysis" is being taught at universities. I am sliding towards becoming anti-feminist. However, I am not going to go into an "echo-chamber". Do you have any reading or videos that you'd recommend that might logically dissuade me of my anti-feminist leanings? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they are not conspiracy theories. The notion that 9/11 was an inside job by shady figures in the US government is an example of a conspiracy theory. Concepts like "Rape culture" and "Patriarchy" are broad attempts to document societal attitudes and circumstances (both present and historical) by examination of things like power relationships, use of language, representations in media etc.

As for reading, a good start would be our article on Second-wave feminism. If you want to go in depth, seminal books would include The Second Sex, The Feminine Mystique, Sexual Politics and The Female Eunuch. All of which have generated a mountain of academic discussion in their own right. If you want an example of something in a similar vein to the "Tropes vs.." series but from traditional arts criticism, reading analyses of Dickens' representation of women should yield good examples. It also illustrates the point that the FF videos are very rudimentary (often over simplified) in comparison and have a very different intended audience.

You seem to be misunderstanding how critical theory is taught in universities. Think of it more like learning a history of ideas that extends to the present day. So for example, in the example of feminism and literature it's more a case of "These are underlying ideas, these are the most influential thinkers, here are some examples of its application, now go write a simple feminist analysis of X, Y and Z". And then the same is done for a whole host of other interpretative approaches e.g. Marxist, Psychoanalytic, Structuralist (multiple sub-sections to that), New Historicism, New Criticism, the list goes on. My background is in literature (not to mention no longer wholly up to date), so forgive me if I have restricted examples to that area. Here is an example from Yale's YouTube channel of background lectures but remember a full course would also include seminars/tutorials, reading lists etc. CIreland (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I have dedicated some time to your suggestions. I grew up in Scandinavia in the 1970s and 80s. So the goals of Second-wave Feminism are not new to me. If fact it was pretty much the norm, even though we were quite rural. Children's clothes were gender neutral. My sister wore my hand-me downs (I am male if it wasn't clear). My mother was the sole provider. I'll leave that as a preamble, but we can return to my personal experience if and when needed. I did not watch all of Professor Fry's lectures on YouTube. But I did watch #20 "Classical Feminism" and #23 "Queer Theory and Gender Perfomativity". Dr. Fry is certainly eloquent (and I wish some of my professors could have spoken so well without consulting notes), but he is still analyzing 19th and early 20th century authors to find his points. Men writing from a woman's point of view and women writing from a man's point of view, but it is all still fiction. He makes enormous logical leaps to say that Virginia Wolf's writing predicted French Feminism over a 100 years later. I am of course disadvantaged by not having the articles that the students were to have read before the lecture, but I think I get his points. In the second lecture, he analyzes the works of Judith Butler in relation to Michel Foucault (both are philosophers). At this point he is analyzing the nature of sexuality ("whatever it is" as Fry likes to say). From here Dr. Fry is way out of his realm. He is talking about gay people in current society and the tyrannical domain and stuff like that. He continues to talk about what what sexuality is and how we sometimes perform to conform to societal norms. Fry continues to pick and choose from these authors and then say "it is so" and sometimes he chooses to meld what they say and say this is how society is. Dr. Fry is in the English department and is supposed teach literature. He is not a philosopher, he is not a behaviorist, he is not a historian, he is not a psychologist, he's not a sociologist. Why on earth is he using his lectures to spout his views on such matters and not teaching English literature? Seriously, at the end of 23 he goes off the deep end and just talks about himself. He says that you can't have heterosexuality without homosexuality. He then says without those two you can't have drag (cross-dressing). He says that he is performing for the students. Performing as a white person. Performing as a male. And he is uncomfortable in all those roles. Dr. Fry is intelligent, obviously, and he has things to say that should be heard. But he should not be teaching Eng-Lit. I encourage you to at least watch the video from this point https://youtube.com/7bkFlJfxyF0?t=39m42s I have much more to say about Feminism, but I had no idea that Dr. Fry would take so much of my time. When you sent me to second wave feminism, I thought Dr. Fry would be another soft-ball that I wouldn't object to. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of reply, I haven't forgotten this but Christmas is our busiest time at work. CIreland (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I certainly had my expectations backwards. I thought Fry would be the unobjectionable "soft-ball" and second-wave feminism, as the very source of ideas like "rape culture", "patriarchy" etc., would draw the almost all the criticism. I actually tried to find some alternate critical theory lectures because I thought Fry was pretty conservative but I could only find Yale's channel that had a full set.

You are kind of right that, in this course, Fry is not teaching English Lit. But I can guarantee that every undergraduate English Lit program will have one of these courses. That's because this is sort of meta-English Literature. Most English Lit courses will concern particular writers, movements or historical periods. So, for example, one might take a course on Shakespeare in which you, of course, read Shakespeare but also read and write criticism of Shakespeare. And some of that criticism you read will be from a particular "school" of criticism (Marxist, Feminist, Post-structuralist etc. etc.) Fry's lecture course is a history of literary criticism. So that doesn't mean that Fry himself writes about literature and Gender Theory (if you Google scholar his publications he clearly doesn't) rather, he is illustrating the Gender Theory perspective on literature. So, he may not have studied in depth sociology, psychology etc., but that doesn't mean he can't give an undergraduate overview of what Gender Theory concerns and how it has been applied to literature. However, somebody who writes professionally about literature from that perspective would have done that interdisciplinary research. All that being said, the degree to which particular approaches to literary criticism borrow from other disciplines varies widely; more formalist approaches (example: New Criticism) are much more self-contained.

Finally, topic areas are not so neatly divided as your remark: He is not a philosopher, he is not a behaviorist, he is not a historian, he is not a psychologist, he's not a sociologist. suggests. Historians are not sociologists but write about the structure of Roman society. Economists are not psychologists but talk about Value. Physicists are not mathematicians but utilise differential calculus.

CIreland (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

First, I want to thank you for talking the time to have this discussion with me. I have no expectation that you reply quickly, but only at your own leisure, if at all.

Fry: He isn't teaching English Lit in this course? The video series description would have me believe otherwise: "This is a survey of the main trends in twentieth-century literary theory. Lectures will provide background for the readings and explicate them where appropriate, while attempting to develop a coherent overall context that incorporates philosophical and social perspectives on the recurrent questions: what is literature, how is it produced, how can it be understood, and what is its purpose?" But whatever it is, should we, as a society, build our perception of the world on literary criticism? Especially when it is not taking the authors words literally? "I think Jane Austen mean't X when she wrote Y so therefore our current world is Z". It just seems perverse to have this as the underpinning of a worldview as important as Feminism.

Second Wave Feminism: You mention gender theory and I included the link because it redirects to gender studies. Just reading the part before the table of content is mind-bending. There is an overwhelming emphasis on art and culture and an outright dismissal of reality ("For instance in anthropology, sociology and psychology, gender is often studied as a practice, whereas in cultural studies representations of gender are more often examined [in gender studies]"). Sure, let's look at books and movies and not at actual humans.

But why do you keep bringing up 2nd wave? I do not have a problem with it. And I think you know that 2nd wave is not today's Feminism. The focus on intersectionality has removed it so far from women's rights.

University topics/areas of study: A historian does not need to be a sociologist to describe the structure of a society. The key word is structure. The historian does not (or ought not) make conclusions about social interactions that are not evident in archeological findings. Have you seen how Economists use the term Value? They avoid psychology like it was the plague, and when they are stumped, they ask actual psychologists for help in explaining why their simple models don't work. I will ignore your physics/mathematics comparison as math is just a tool.

I hope we can turn the conversation towards modern Feminism, should you choose to continue the debate. If I were a 2nd wave feminist, I'd be upset that my movement was hijacked and debased. Cheers, SVTCobra (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Recently blocked editor

Hello. Thanks for blocking Eduardo89. It looks like that account has some old sock puppetry that's slipped through the cracks as well. User:Alrightmate was one that was blocked in 2008 as part of a lengthy vandalism spree at Schule Schloss Salem. Another editor documented this on Eduardo's talk page at the time. Unfortunately, the user doesn't seem to have grown out of it. This February there were a bunch of SPAs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Liberty Conservative, and User:Wykydron, who was part of that older spree, came back from a nine-year-long hiatus to agree with Eduardo there.[8] Considering this, I request that you make the block permanent. I will file a SPI if this activity resumes. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bill Nye Saves the World

Hello.

Might you consider reviewing the last two versions of that page before you locked it, and choosing Pepe's version instead of the one which was a reversion? I don't know what to make of Pepe, seems like he's done a lot of odd things on that page, but I have had a few minor edits somehow caught up in that back and forth and right now they are absent, but more importantly I think the CNN, gizmodo and Washington examiner reviews actually lead to an overall balanced and representative-ish set of critiques. Whereas what's there now is just, bizarre. This is irritating to me because I've only done a few things and I haven't been edit warring with anyone. Cdg428 (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The version that gets protected is the version the article happens to be on when an admin judges that the only way to stop the edit-warring is to lock the page. It's true that admins can invoke WP:PREFER to revert to an earlier pre-edit-war version but this really isn't a case where that could be justified; there is no obvious stable version. To an outside observer, the last two versions are not even especially different.

Whichever version got locked, it was borderline inevitable that someone would come here, asking what you are asking. Everyone involved thinks their version is obviously better - that's why there was an edit-war.

The purpose of full protection and blocking in response to an edit-war is to ensure that there is only one way to "win" an edit-war - by getting consensus at the talk page. You might consider starting a request for comment to gain outside input if you feel a consensus is unlikely to emerge without it.

CIreland (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

CSD: Identitarian movement

I was researching dead links when that website came up. I should have known better and I thank you for catching that.  — Myk Streja ^(who?) 20:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

White feminism

FYI, this IP was right to an extent that this is not even grammatical. See this sentence, the talk page and my tag. IMHO the whole article needs rewriting. Zezen (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	"Up to no good"--bravo. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, CIreland. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)