Jump to content

User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew

WP:ANI#Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew

As you are one of this editor's mentors, I am formally requesting that the editing restrictions be extended so that this editor leaves me alone. Another mentor, Casliber, already told him to do as much and yet he is ignoring those instructions in blatant diregard for the agreement by which he returned. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I did review this when it happened, and discussed it with the mentored user via email. Let me know if you feel wikihounded again. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I while back someone called LetsdrinkTea saw me manually makeing large amounts of articles, so he gave me/taught me how to use this thing called a Java script, and he gave me a faster one, which allows me to make pages of insect species in large quantity (not of good quality though), but now people are sayin that I should sign up on the white list of auto-patrolled editors, and get approval for my bot, so here I am, can I get approved for the white list of auto-patrolled editors. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone else has done this. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delsort tab not working

...since yesterday or possibly the day before, even when I comment out everything else in my monobook (except the 2 necessary Twinkle lines) and refresh. FYI. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well ... now it's working again. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I love it when problems fix themselves :-)
John Vandenberg (chat) 04:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
fyi, I just hooked this up and have used on about a half dozen AfDs; I had one spot where it seemed to hang and I inadvertently poked the list option [1]; could you peek at my .js and see if there are any conflicts with other scripts that you're aware of? nb: I saw the bit about Friendly, which I have on in gadgets along with RefTools and Twinkle, and it's unclear if that issue self-sorted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
If you already have twinkle enabled as a Gadget, you can remove it from your monobook.js. Besides that, I have no idea what may have been the problem. Maybe it will also disappear like the problem Dank55 reported. (fingers crossed) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I missed that and just cut it. The balky behaviour seems a one-off; I may have just been a bit impatient for it to start-up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert John Bardo

Is this a reasonable fair-use?

I found the source on an extant link in the article. I noticed the fairly recent addition of him being Korean-American and have not been able to source it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be a category somewhere for mug shots. That should give us an idea of what similar fair use has been accepted. California state may place these photos into the public domain, in a similar way that all US federal works are. Sorry this is brief; I'll take another look on the weekend when I return to a decent Internet connection. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
duh: Category:Mug shots. I've updated the license and FUR modeled on File:Dana Plato mugshot.jpg; there are hundreds in the cat. I do expect that a PD claim may be valid, but this will suffice for now. Thanks, Jack Merridew 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That category name was a bit too obvious! :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Auguste Carrière

Do you plan on expanding this article? Currently, the article fails to assert notability and could fall victim to WP:CSD#A7. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do plan on expanding the article.
I've been working on setting up the transcription: s:fr:Livre:Nouvelles sources de Moïse de Khoren.djvu
John Vandenberg (chat) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, just wanted to make sure. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll also try to meliorate the bio. AdjustShift (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

supplied your request on RfArb, on the Clarification.

If you have any questions, I am reachable either via my talk page or via email. SirFozzie (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nordic Africa Institute website

Hi. They're a research centre. Their site is;

We have about 300 links to their papers, but most of them are using the ip, not the domain;

I've fixed about 3 and looked at the PDFs, which matched both ways; example

Know a bot-way for these to get fixed? Or at least a semi-automated way? Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. m:replace.py. You know you want to do it :P
It might also be useful to inquire about the copyright status of these; maybe we can put them on Wikisource.
John Vandenberg (chat) 14:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I should have expected; and, hey, guess what's sitting in my downloads folder? I'll read a bit, first — including prior email. Oh, their papers are BORING; raw information.. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Hi. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

Regarding Talk:Mae West#Sexette opening. The change made to the file pages still doesn't correspond with the actual opening date given in a couple places, but more importantly, I can't say that changing the date addresses the other points that were made about the photo. It is a horrible photo, it is even categorized on the commons as a blurred image. It doesn't provide any context for its use based on article content and honestly, and if you care to look around at comments, it has been widely remarked upon for being a poor image. However, if I remove it, it will spark yet another huge issue. Honestly and in truth with no bias about the uploader, it isn't suitable for the Wikpedia page based on nothing else besides quality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Furme

AWeenieMan runs Furme and he has been inactive for several months, you might need to implement Wikipedia_talk:FurMe#security_error on your own. MBisanz talk 07:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for letting me know. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

John Bot II

It's online again, use this tool to tag images. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it depend on {{commons ok}}. Should the WP:MTC redirect be updated to point somewhere else? John Vandenberg (chat) 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Images that will be moved need to be tagged with {{Jb2move}}, but this will allow taggers to specify categories to add to the image at the commons, a new name for the image (the bot will update usages of the image), and if to not mark the local image for deletion. It's an extra step, but it improves the quality of images added to the commons. I need to write up proper documentation for the process still. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The e-mail

Responded, and I am sorry that you seemed to believe that I went back on my word. I hope that I have explained it clearly (now for the third time). I also request that you read ALL of what I wrote in the Jayjg section, including the responses to G-Dett, Mackan, and Nishidani. Please feel free to request more clarification should you still be uncertain. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI

If I am reading correctly then I believe that User:Sephiroth BCR is advising that I notify the three mentors of this discussion. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Manifesto?

Hi, John. :) Does this count as a manifesto and, if so, can you use it on Wikisource under your special manifesto allowances? The contributor is claiming PD and I have asked for verification of that, but it seems that most of the article is a "primary source" anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikisource, and I have left a note at User_talk:Charles.hamilton95#International_Consensus_Statement_on_Attention_Deficit_Hyperactivity_Disorder
John Vandenberg (chat) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) It seemed like something similar to the last one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Sourcebible}}

Hi, I never heard back from you on this, so I'm assuming you were ok with replacing this and deleting it. Let me know if you still have any concerns or whatnot. Peace, delldot ∇. 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tool Newsletter 3

WikiProject Tool is being revived.
The current WikiProject Tool Collaboration of the Month is
Maynard James Keenan discography
Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

DYK for First Baptist Church of Augusta

Updated DYK query On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Baptist Church of Augusta, 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.

Royalbroil 12:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG! John Vandenberg (chat) 12:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I happen to know he's chuffed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I was complaining about my poor track record only the other night. Maybe this arbcom business will bring me fame and fortune after all. Maybe drugs and sex as well, but I might get slapped if I mention that as my hidden agenda. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit List of fictional trios; make-up a wish-trio of any three you like (remember, it's fiction). Choose wisely. Personally, I feel that fame, fortune, and drugs are overrated. Jack Merridew 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew bot

Hi. Just created the bot account. Will confirm from my main account soon. Cheers, Jack Merridew bot (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirming that the above is me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice to meet you User:Jack Merridew bot - read up on the Bot policy pages. I should have some time in a few days to help you.
I suggest you take a look at WP:BOTR and s:WS:BOTR, and have a think about how you would try to tackle the tasks there.
On Wikisource, you can bot with reckless abandon provided you dont screw up.
  • There are a few texts under "Importing text from DJVU to pages" - those all use the meta:djvutext.py tool I wrote.
  • The "Cut up formated pages" task would be done by pulling down the raw text of the pages, munging it, and then pushing it back up with meta:pagefromfile.py.
Enjoy, John Vandenberg (chat) 13:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

comments

I'm surprised that you should have chosen to expose a highly personalised prejudice when you were charged with writing a balance, even-handed set of proposals for your fellow arbitrators to vote on. This kind of comment, directed at me:

"Your belief that these polls gave you license to behave as you have is what got you into this mess."

shows significant bias. It's very much a blaming framework, isn't it; I'm not surprised that you have recoiled in horror at the messy case, but that is ArbCom's doing for want of a statement of scope and proper evidentiary rules. These matters are likely to be changed, I am given to believe, and the manifest unfairness of meting out punishment to people who had no idea how to respond to the sea of tongue-poking that went by the name of the evidence and workshop pages is all too obvious in this difficult case.

I think you are making the case far more difficult than it already was by showing patent bias in the statement above, matched by a gaping one-sidedness in the funnels you seem to have constructed for the voting. I assume your good faith—don't get me wrong—but I think you're too close to the text to see it. Do you get the feeling from the talk page that people are not just unhappy, but are dramatically losing faith in the hearings process? Unhappiness about ArbCom might be expected, but the messages coming from the talk page are more than that. It is becoming bad for the project, and ArbCom is looking more like a punitive process than one that heals and solves. Where are those elements? Perhaps you are driven by a personal distaste for incivility. Please be aware that long-established editors can be passionate, and that incivility occurs all over the project on a daily basis. The reformist group has had to suffer a large share of abuse; it has never seemed like a fun game to me. I have been interested only in pursuing this major reform, and the whole thing has been a pain. ArbCom looks as though it will prevent us all from gaining closure and moving on ... no, it seems as though the trauma will be continued systemically. That is why I especially resent your blame-game statement above.

A major concern is that your draft extends the stated policy that ArbCom is restricted to dealing with behavioural issues. The ramifications of a breach of its own charter will resound for a long time, especially if the balance issue is not fixed.

In communications I have received since you posted your draft, particular sarcasm has been singled out for the mom and apple pie statements that occupy a huge tract of the page and will require umpteem "supports" by arbitrators, as though their tasks weren't already onerous. Now is the time to call a halt to the redundant restatements of policy and pillars. It is ridiculous, and makes many editors embarrassed to be WPians.

The situation can still be saved, I believe, by doing this:

  1. removing the total fluff so we can all get to the point straight away;
  2. removing the proposals that breach the policy-constrained ambit of ArbCom;
  3. refraining from mixing up irrelevant "conduct" concerns with RFC results and consensus;
  4. making the wording of the key parts clearer (it is full of ambiguities and other micro-problems that alter meaning in ways you surely did not intend);
  5. requesting significant input by at least one, preferably more than one, other arbitrator, in the light of the serious misgivings about skew and gentle suggestions by two users already that you recuse yourself from the case (you are a programmer, which may be a problem, I think);
  6. refraining from making further statements that make perfectly clear a negative personal intent, so that the community can more easily gain a sense that a fuller appreciation of the issues is being considered from a neutral stance.

In particular, arbitrators need to be given a few choices that are more balanced to the reformist side; the perception is of a clear bias against it through both omission and commission. Tony (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to so that your unhappiness with the proposed decision has been noted.
I do have more to add to it before it goes to voting, and the other arbs are reviewing it to see what more needs to be added, removed or altered before we can go to voting.
Your suggestions regard the structure of the decision are unlikely to be implemented in this decision, at this late stage, but they should be raised over on the policy reform pages where they will be seen by more eyes, and probably people who have more time to focus on that.
I will try to find time to answer more of this in the next day or two. If there are specific aspects you want to draw my attention to, please break them into separate and specific subsections that are concise.
John Vandenberg (chat) 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your ongoing protection of Lar

Please stop removing complaints about Lar's behavior, as you have once again here;[2][3] compare also edit summaries here:[4]. It is increasingly apparent that some outside scrutiny of your committee and its behavior is not only warranted, but sorely needed.24.18.142.69 (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, naughty me. I moved a comment to a more appropriate location, and said I would respond. Quick ... outside scrutiny is required. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Naughty you, you were said to be the point person for this investigation, but never followed up.
And here you misuse the tools to silence criticism of yourself and your colleages.[5] (hint: move to obscure venue+sprotect AbrCom page = silence).24.18.142.69 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This is Proabivouac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have blocked him. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I was aware of that. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comment was not appropriate on that page, both due to the nature of your comment and because you not an active member of the community. You dont have a say in which page it is discussed on; I do. If you want this discussed on Wikipedia, we do it according to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, norms, etc. If you can write a balanced email, we can discuss it on wikien-l. If you would rather talk about it on WR, I'll be happy to join you there. If you want to talk about it privately, my email address is prominently placed on WP:ARBCOM, but I will say in advance that I would rather not talk to you privately, due to my own concerns that you will publish privately obtained information.
I do have other things on the plate now, so the response wont appear immediately. But, I am writing a response, if you will be patient. If you niggle in any way, I will delete your comment placed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Functionaries, delete the draft response I am writing, and go back to more pressing matters. And I wont loose sleep over it either. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion continued via e-mail. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The J&S case

Hi Jayvdb,

I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pages from the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA

You might need to file a new one, for procedural reasons (I don't know their standards), but I don't object to your new revisions ;). 76.117.247.55 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nazi news note

FYI. No reply necessary. -- Noroton (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

topic ban

why should i be topic banned from baronets and knights ?? Shouldn't this proposal be split into 2 - one for vk and one for me so people can vote seperately? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI Giano (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The main reason for you being topic banned is due to the statements of Tznkai, SirFozzie, and most recently BrownHairedGirl.
Would you like an arbitration case to allow evidence to be submitted to attempt to justify of a topic ban? The committee may eventually decide to not topic ban you, but that evidence will be submitted.
My motion is an attempt to avoid that, and avoid you both looking down the barrel of a community indef ban in the future. You will be able to appeal this motion after a bit of water has gone under the bridge, and we will probably consider more relaxed editing restrictions once the COI has been discussed privately with the committee.
John Vandenberg (chat) 11:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes please. I would like that. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Noted. However I dont think it is beneficial, especially as in the course of trying to defend yourself, much muck will be thrown on BrownHairedGirl. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The motion is unjust. Neither BHG nor I have done wrong. We both deserve a barnstar for defending the wiki.
When you asked "would I like...", were you asking out of curiosity or because you did not expect the answer "You bet I would" and you planned to come back with a rejection of my affimative reply? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It was primarily a rhetorical question, however your answer was informative. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

You said: "his long dedication to the project and its ideals do".

Does the above include Everyking's attacks on Jimbo? On the FA process and Raul's work? On many, many editors who have ever opposed him? How about the personal attacks and hatred that can be found in the tarpit, which I know you have access to. How are personal attacks and references to Jimbo's wife in attacks like this showing anything but a lack of dedication to the project and its ideals? Hell, he trashed ArbCom many times, or, as you can refresh your memory here, didn't think you should have been a member. I could go on, but we both know the rest that exists out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your description of Everyking's comment there is overboard; Everyking selects quotes from Jimmy Wales, which still appear there right now, as something that should be pointed out to people. If you think that is an attack, we had better delete Jimmy Wales as a WP:BLP violation. I dont agree with everything Everyking says, least of all his opinion of me, but he has a right to speak his mind when he discusses these matters on Wikipedia Review. :You'll need to point out specific and recent WR comments, privately if they would be inappropriate to mention here, as what I have seen this year (and I dont read everything) doesnt show any signs of wanting to disrupt or break Wikipedia.
John Vandenberg (chat) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a BLP issue. This isn't Jimbo's biography issue. This is about him stooping to using references to a user's -wife- in attacks against the user's -actions-. That violates the very basics of NPA. The fact that he would do that to one of our primary contributors and founders shows an attack on wikipedia as a -whole-. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The link here is citing her, as a source, for Jimbo's views, as expressed in conversation. She may well be a biased source - but that's for WR to thrash out, surely? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the advice. I'm not even sure that your advice will be helpful, to be honest. But it's a relief to get even the smallest amount of constructive advice on how to resolve the conflict among ourselves, considering we've tried so many things already. We really could use new ideas, if only because people won't let go of the old ones. Randomran (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know it is being comprehended.
By this stage it is a "meta" problem - a problem about how to solve the problem, or a problem defining what the problem even is. And of course there are a lot of people who want to import their own problem into this problem, making it more unsolvable. Trying to find left field solutions is also important to avoid getting worked up about it. Sometimes a new approach requires disengaging from the ongoing battle and undertaking a three month project that sets the scene for a new and better discussion.
Along that train of thought, an idea you might like to try is to grab a group of the less involved pro- and anti- PLOT contributors, head over to Wikibooks, and try and collaborate on a "book" about a clump of en.WP articles which mostly consist of plots. See b:A-level English/Wise Children, b:The Dark Is Rising Sequence: A Reader's Guide, b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, b:Chronicles of Narnia, and others in b:Category:Annotated texts. It may not directly help the Wikipedia policy debate, but it may help all involved work together to learn what is possible over there, and to then rethink their position on what should be accepted on Wikipedia in order to avoid overlap.
There is a related problem which would be called WP:NOT#SOURCE if anybody gave a #&^* about it, where articles are created here with only a dump of a source text, which are almost certainly either a copyvio or they belong on Wikisource. But if they are "notable" texts, they also belong on Wikipedia, but it is a lot harder to find good information about old notable texts, so we end up with very crappy articles consisting mostly of a source.
John Vandenberg (chat) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to see Wikipedia:Fiction, which I've cautiously supported. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted. It looks promising. It would probably be a good idea for this to settle for at least a few months before the push towards a guideline, otherwise it will be another failure.
Wikipedia:Plagiarism was a semi-abandoned proposal for ages - simmering to let it grow on the broader community and find its way in more watchlists.
I hope I dont see any drama there; when your name came up at RFAR, I was pleased to see the diffs were old. Hopefully it stays that way :P John Vandenberg (chat) 13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. thanks for the user page tweaks.
I see that going to policy as a necessary step prior to WP:NOT#PLOT going anywhere; said so at Wikipedia talk:Fiction#Rewrite. I fear it may turn into another llama if mobbing occurs.see mobbing behavior, too
I'll have a read of the plagiarism piece. It seems a no-brainer that that we should have some policy on that issue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a good read of the plagiarism piece and tidied it up. The WP:Fiction page has moved a bit and I'll comment to Phil tomorrow. He's agreeable to going incrementally and hopefully it can stay on-track. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

CeleritasSoni

User_talk:CeleritasSoni

{{Talkback|CeleritasSoni}}

{{Talkback|CeleritasSoni}}

Mail

Hello Jayvdb, you have mail. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As do you. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

meta

John, Thanks for your comment here. Very helpful; until then, I had no idea about meta and MediaWiki's other inter-language functions. Tony (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to arrange for your page to be imported to the meta project? The en.wp history will remain intact. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

.

Iberian Scripts

Dear friend: There are some Wikipedia editors who do not want even leaving a single phrase which "Iberian Scripts" is lacking for completion. I would ask you an advice of what to do or whether you could mediate. Please,see also User:Virginal6 discussion Thank you very much Regards --Virginal6 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello. I see that Virginal6 and Iberomesornix (and puppets as User:Tintagel67) are again making war of editions and accusing of conspiracies, censorship and even bullying to other users. All this was discussed and rejected as not only lacking any reliable sources and maybe self-promotion, but also showing the oppinion of reputed experts who "oppinate" on these theories with expressions as "compulsary comic" or "unmitigated disaster" (see, just to quote the main link Iberian-Guanche inscriptions deletion talk). I am tired of the accusations and provocations by these users. Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I can not help you mediate this. My advice is that if you are knowledgeable about this topical area, use your knowledge to expand related articles in ways that are not contentious, and come back to this "Iberian Scripts" problem later on.
For example, Canary Islands in pre-colonial times, Tifinagh, Guanche language, or Berber languages would all be good articles to work on.
If you can find the text by Nicoloso da Recco, we could archive it onto Italian Wikisource and then translate it into English.
John Vandenberg (chat) 03:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jay. Dumu and his puppet Kwami are again going mad about adding accepted facts already approved after a long discussion .These facts are necessary for Wikipedia robustness and are not fundamental changes. I have seen that Iberomesornix is himself Tintagel67,because he redirects ALL activities to Iberomesormix.On the other hand,I am not a puppet of Iberomesornix.Virtual or puppet Dumu Eduba,where are you?Anyway,best regards and I recommend some yoga or other type of calming down exercise.--Virginal6 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jayvdb. You see the kind of provocations we have to endure from people like Virginal6.
The truth is that there is a clear scientific independent consensus stating that the linguistic work wrote by Arnaiz-Villena is fringe science (quotes are as "compulsory comic", "lacking any scientific value" or "unmitigated disaster"). I put the references to published papers by reputed experts like Lakarra, De Hoz and others (I am awrae of some more, but they are not first class experts or have published their criticism in non regular publications, and so I did not quoted, but they exist and all of them say the same thing). Pichler was stated by Virginal6 as an expert who supported Arnaiz ideas, but I found a Pichler paper clearly rejecting as absurd theories, Virginal6 afford no evidence, neither from Pichler, nor from any other expert. Lacking any reliable reference has ressorted to write accusations against many Wikipedia users.
Trigaranus got an e-amil from an expert on Canary inscriptions, saying that he was the first one to suspect they could be Iberian, but that soon realize it was an absurd and untenable idea, especially as he found bilingual inscriptions. Yes one of the many problems of Arnaiz-Villena translations of Canarian (and Etruscan, Hittite, Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, etc.) inscriptions is that are refuted by bilingual inscriptions (or am I to be accused of being a puppet of Thefarie Velianas the author of the Pyrgi inscriptions?).
Virginal6 has been asked many times to afford reliable reference. He never answers.
So it is a fake, a lie and a coarsness to say that the consensus stating that Arnaiz work is fringe science are some wikipedians, consensus are the reliable sources, published in reliable books and journals and writen by well known reputed experts!
Virginal6 editions are severely flawed. He put forward as a proof alleged words ans alleged meanings of some ancient languages (all of them absurd invents from Arnaiz fringe work). I ask him for the sources and references from dictionnaries (such as from Sumerian), he could not. But he is still keeping on a war edition and a pityful badmouthing against the wikipedians that do not agree with him. He is here only to disrupt wikipedia and polute it with the fringe pseudo-science "compulsory comic" ideas published by Arnaiz-Villena, as scientific as Von Daniken's.
BTW: When you say Kwami is involved regarding editions on Na-Dene, remember that the Na-Dene theory has nothing to do with Arnaiz-Villena cracpot ideas, who claim as being Basque languages ("usko") Hittite, Berber, Ugaritic, Ancient Egyptian and others languages that no Na-Dene proposer would dare to include as are well known as Indo_European, Semitic and Afrasian languages.
Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


This problem came to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. We rejected it because the community decision at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iberian-Guanche_inscriptions was appropriate.[6]
I have asked Virginal6 to refocus their efforts elsewhere to make non-controversial edits, and have emailed them email to clarify their relationship with to Iberomesornix. If they continue to edit language articles disruptively, please let me know.
When I said that Kwami is involved due to Na-Dene, it is because Kwami has edited Dené-Caucasian languages and also reverted Virginal6 (talk · contribs) without explanation (as far as I can see). See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong/Proposed_decision#Rollback for why this becomes a problem. At times like that, it is best to ask other administrators to decide whether an account should be blocked. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer Jayvdb.
My concerns on the Dene-Caucasian question is the phallacy used by the Arnaiz supporters that Na-Dene hypothesis confirms the validity of Arnaiz crackpot theories. But I understand that it is better to be prudent.
I am also concerned by the personal attacks against an author written by Iberomesornix here (BTW Virginal6 also wrote very similar accusation, coincidences again!). I asked reliable independent references for that also. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Jay,could you please do some intermediation (public or not) to please ask Kwami to stop tagging my page as puppet,without addressing any particular subject since the page is still blank?(Please,have a look)I will not even look at Iberian scripts for a while and will do another works

I would think this is is personal persecution and has nothing to do with any Wikipedia contents--Virginal6 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Jay,this is Virginal6.Kwami has blocked my still BLANK page.Could you please unblock it since there is no particular topic to block?

Otherwise,could I open another page and work from there ?--Virginal6 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hi. I am interested to know why you included my name here. Thanks for your attention. --John (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to multiple passes of the same articles, such as Clement Attlee, you added to the sense of Fait accompli.
See /Evidence#Clement Attlee and /Proposed decision#G-Man.
user:G-Man was also added to the case at the same time. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be three edits to the article on my part, spaced over four months, with the last being six months ago (i.e. way before this became an arbcom matter). Do you really feel this necessitates an arbcom restriction on my editing? --John (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry it has taken a while to investigate this, and the fact they were so long ago doesn't alter the fact that these events contributed to this bitter dispute. G-Man became involved in policy development due to the repeated delinking of all date links, against the spirit of the style guideline at the time, only to be rebuffed there as well.
Your involvement is far from limited to three edits. All of your delinking edits are part of the problem, as I have not seen any evidence that you left a single year link behind after you used the script on each article.
Here are some more instances of skirmishes involving you, found due to looking at G-Man's reverts as opposed to any careful analysis of your contributions.[7][8][9][10]
More careful analysis of your contributions may indicate that you backed away from this dispute, or make entered into productive discussion with the people of the opposing viewpoint. If you have any evidence of that, please let me know. If you believe I could frame your involvement better, I will be happy to spend some more time digging a bit deeper. It isn't my intention to misrepresent the truth.
John Vandenberg (chat) 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
John appears to have been swept up in the last minute delinking dragnet. What is more troubling is that three arbitrators voted to restrict John for a year based this inconsequential evidence without giving John a chance to rebut the charges. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The case is not scheduled to close until the 31st; if John plans to rebut it, he need only say so and he will be given whatever time is appropriate to do so. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I do indeed intend to rebut it; this seems to be a real breach of natural justice to have the verdict before the evidence like this. I have never been involved with Arbcom before; is this the usual way you do business? --John (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is my initial rebuttal; if you will be kind enough to advise me where I may post a longer one I will do so. I delinked many dates using a script at a time last year when I believed this to be in uncontroversial accordance with our MoS guidance. As a wikignome this is the sort of thing I commonly do. It seems there were a handful of articles on which I removed dates more than once; three seems to be the maximum, as you highlight above. I participated in the twin RfCs on date delinking, and after there was obviously significant community dissent from what seemed to me like an uncontroversial application of WP:OVERLINK, I stopped making mass edits of this kind. I still occasionally remove date linking from articles on which I am working, but never more than one or two at a time. Your diffs such as this were from before the time when this seemed like a controversial matter. It has never been a matter on which I have consciously edit-warred. The diff I mention shows me making one acknowledged restoration of my preferred style. This was not a pattern of behavior, even though it was six months ago. It spanned a handful of articles, all British PMs I recall. I was not named as a participant in this case and it seems terribly unfair to have my editing restricted when I have never previously been warned, accused of disruption or anything else, nor been granted the oppportunity to defend myself or explain the edits I made. I would be grateful if you and your fellow arbitrators could reconsider this proposed restriction on this basis. --John (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I would further add that the relevant MoS page at the time of these edits stated that linking to dates for autoformatting was deprecated, as I believe it still does now. It seems counterintuitive to sanction me for editing to bring articles into compliance with our MoS, especially as the proposed sanctions refer to this as a benchmark of what is permitted. If the issue is edit-warring, I believe the diffs cited (showing two, or in one case three edits to the same page, over a longish period) would not be considered as edit-warring by most reasonable editors. --John (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have left a notice on the proposed decision for Arbitrators to come and read your rebuttal here before voting.[11] The evidence sections that are referenced on the proposed decision have been there for a week now[12][13] and I am sorry that I didn't notify you then. The current votes are definitely not the verdict; the prosed decision changes quite a bit from the moment it goes into voting (i.e. today) until it closes, which only happens once the arbs are happy with the decision.

You can add a longer comment to the talk page, and/or you can submit Evidence to the /Evidence page. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. And thanks too for clarifying that this is not a final verdict; you may consider my link to Alice in Wonderland above as redacted in the light of this. --John (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to write a more detailed rebuttal on the evidence page. It is still only five days since I was informed of these proposed sanctions against me. It might take me a day or two to draw this up. As a matter of natural justice, I think it would be reasonable to give me this time. Would that be all right? The fact that other arbs are already voting before I have a chance to mount a defense makes me wonder if the Alice comparison was apposite after all. --John (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure. When you are done, either email arbcom-l to let everyone know, or let me know and I will start a new thread on arbcom-l to make sure every arbitrator is aware. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I should be able to get this done within 24 hours or so. I'll let you know. Is a continuation of my evidence the best place to add this? --John (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I just found this. I've worked closely with John for a very long time and he is just not the sort of editor that deliberately edit wars, or operates in contravention to consensus, rather just the opposite, he strongly is on the side of working within consensus and is consistently promoting that, and counseling those not abiding by consensus or edit warring to desist. Very much on the side of the good guys, and the kind of admin we could use a ton more of. That's the sort of statement it's hard to provide concrete diffs for, you have to have seen him in operation to know it. But it's true. I am frankly quite surprised to even see his name mentioned here. If ArbCom votes to sanction him, even gently, I will be greatly disappointed. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lar, thank you for your support. John, I have now added a longer rebuttal. --John (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
And subsequently trimmed it to 1000 words. Sorry, I have never done this before and didn't notice the restriction. Please do what you can to help me here. Thank you. --John (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence#Further evidence by John? You said "If you believe I could frame your involvement better, I will be happy to spend some more time digging a bit deeper. It isn't my intention to misrepresent the truth." Can you reassure me you have done what you said you would do? Thanks for your trouble. --John (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

Thank you for ranking my involvement with date delinking a hair above the parties'. If I had realized it would have been seen so, I would have backed off before this.

While I intend, and long intended, to go away from MOS as a whole after this, I would appreciate, if I must be sanctioned, being allowed discussion of other topics than dates (of which I am thoroughly tired). I can (as I hope the samples on the proposal talk page show) answer questions politely, and comment usefully. (I would have preferred the same standard for Tony, if possible; and oppose a ban - see this edit and the next one.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that the parties involved are site-wide topic banned from all related discussions. That makes for a simpler remedy, one that is more readily enforced by admins, and hopefully this will encourage the parties to respect the clearly drawn lines.
Your input may be useful in these forums, but Tony1 and Greg L also have useful things to say and have done so civilly often. If it was merely civility that was the problem with their participation, a civility restriction would be sufficed. However a large part of the problem is the battle mentality which is so ingrained now that the parties simply need to disengage as much as possible. With the parties removed from these forums, others will fill the void - the questions will still be answered. The answers may be different - we could see new directions come from this.
Also, these remedies can be appealed at a later time. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A reasonable approach, and I look forward to seeing what happens; but you may have missed one instance of the battle mentality. I cannot read this as other than gloating over victory, especially in response to Locke Cole's valedictory. This is one of the ten or dozen repetitive voices.
I hope it is clear, at least, that I battled for a middle way; I do not want routine linking, and I opposed autoformatting as well as bot-enforced delinking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence about user:HWV 258, except that Locke Coke suggested that HWV258 is Tony1, without evidence, which isn't an accusation I have taken seriously. The gloating going on is terrible, especially when they made such a fuss about Tennis expert gloating when TRM resigned as crat, however it is unrelated to this case. One of the elements of this decision is a review in three months after the close - behaviour will be closely monitored.
If your beef was basically with the bots, a case about Lightmouse/Lightbot after the third BAG approval would have saved us a lot of grief. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I expected that the case, either then or when LC actually filed, would be rejected by ArbCom as not having been through dispute resolution. It still hasn't; but I don't suppose there are any mediators so masochistic they want to deal with this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quarterly report to the community

John,—

In your extended candidate statement at the '08 arbcomm elections, you resolved to report to the community on arbcom-l activities after you'd "settled in." As you know, I took a hiatus from Wikipedia soon after the New Year, and have only recently returned, so I was wondering if, in my absence, you released that report? If not, do you plan to in the next couple of months?

My curiosity has no hidden agenda; your promise to report back on "the slackers and the lurkers and people whose term is up" simply came to mind a few days ago.

Regards, AGK 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond more to this when I have more time. In short, I would still like to provide a report like this, it has been discussed very briefly within the committee, however its primary purpose was to indicate who was not contributing to arbcom-l, and/or not making use of Oversight/Checkuser (this was due largely to my dissatisfaction with the percentage of active Oversighters pre-election).
Obviously now that arbcom-l is only sitting arbs, everyone is extremely active. The audit subcommittee has been published stats on Checkuser/Oversight, and we are moving towards an expectation that people with the tools are actively using those tools to assist with the community requests, rather than keeping them for personal requests. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. AGK 13:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wallace-Darwin artwork

Dear Jay, is there any other problem with this image?.I would like to use it if possible.Thank you--Virginal6 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Following up on Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_15#Wallace_.26_Darwin.jpg

this image of Alfred Russel Wallace appears in Nature (journal) Oct 7, 2004; 431, 7009: The Heretic in Darwin's Court: The Life of Alfred Russel Wallace by George Beccaloni. pg. 630. It is obviously old, but it could still be covered by copyright, and the journal article doesn't give any details about the copyright of the image. It also isnt in commons:Category:Alfred Russel Wallace John Vandenberg (chat) 01:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New Image for "Wallace and Darwin" collage

In regards to "File:Wallace and Darwin-2.jpg" - deleted by me.

Dear Jay, as the problem with this image was "Wallace"head.We have substituted it by a Wallace´s head from Commons and retouched and recoloured.New one is named "Wallace and Darwin-2" I will put it up in my page ,and if you consider it non-appropriate ,just tell me and I will remove it it. Best regards--Virginal6 (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

this image of Darwin has no details about it; it also appears here without any further information. here it is flipped and attributed to Natural History Museum. It does not appear in commons:Category:Portraits of Charles Darwin. No evidence that it is free of copyright, so I have deleted it.

Before you upload another one, please make sure every single pixel of the image is provable public domain, or your own creative work.

Also, "CC BY-NC-ND" is not an acceptable license on the Commons project. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

    • Thank you.

It did not seem any problem with Darwin we took from Almanac;I will take it from Commons .Orangutan was retouched from a taken photograph by me and much retouched Java Islands fron another photo from a child "bulb-globe"and also blurred.

I will do it again under the proper license and post a note to you.

Bestt regards--Virginal6 (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Namespaces

The FAQ transcludes to the top of the talk page to give people an explanation of answers to simple questions they might ask. It is in WT instead of WP because the FAQ template is used primarily in the Article space, where putting the FAQ at Article/FAQ instead of Talk:Article/FAQ would violate the rules to subpaged articles and placing meta-content in the content namespace, as well as making the FAQ appear on Google. Regards. MBisanz talk 10:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of why it appears in namespace 1 instead of 0, but that limitation doesnt exist in 5 vs 4. My question is because the lack of a talk page removes the most usual discussion venue. In article space, which doesnt allow subpages, all discussion typically happens on the one page. WP space is a lovely mess, and each page is separately discussed.
The target audience of a WP FAQ is usually quite different to an article FAQ, but maybe that isnt so clear here.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying and confirming. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved

and {{FAQ}} isn't playing nicely; it assumes the talk namespace. It seems to me that such pages may need their talk page to discuss things. The legit issues MBisanz mentions could possibly be address via other means? In the meantime, the usage on WT:ARS is going via a redirect which is precluding discussion there ;) Possibly the page should be moved back, at least for now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

requested info removed as being far too much

I had posted stats showing my changes in editing since the RFC/U but felt it was too much to wade through in the RFAR. This is only to tell you that it is available. In my last 500 edits, the only controversial one at all was removing "Category:Homophobia" from Joe the Plumber and for which I had substantial support. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:ArbComOpenTasks

There are a few questions floating about on Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks (colours, boxy-look, spacing, column order) that could use some client-input. I'm sure if things got too out of hand, we'd hear about it soon enough; I didn't realize how many pages this is transcluded onto until today. Seems RFAR is well-stalked. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I'll let others handle this. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
and they have; Kirill chipped-in and AGK, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got another mail. AdjustShift (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This was hand balled to others. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

please note

my latest addition to [14]. i would greatly appreciate a specific response to what i said about collect violating 1rr and collect continuing his problematic behavior since the RfC. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

why havent you responded? --Brendan19 (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
FayssalF has responded. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
i know, but i asked that you and others respond. i wonder if the 10 day limit is too short if you and others cant respond within that limit. i cant help but feel that things are still unresolved. --Brendan19 (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This is intentionally left unresolved. It is up to Collect to resolve this by taking on board the outcome of the RFC and RFAR request.
If the problem continues to grow, we will need to look at this again.
John Vandenberg (chat) 03:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you're busy, but...

Hello, John Vandenberg. You have new messages at Quadell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Pmanderson has been incivil

The section link to Tony1's evidence is broken. I think you need a space before "incivility". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated; thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


copyvio, sticky wicket(s)

Hi. I really came by to ask your input on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Copyright status: historical marker text (particularly as relates to the one up at CP, List of New York State Historic Markers in Cortland County, New York. I know you can do magic sometimes in figuring out what's copyrighted and what's not. :D) But while I'm here, I also thought to ask you to weigh in on a question related to Philippines' copyright law. I'd be most particularly grateful for input on the former, since the permission I was hoping for may not come through after all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not likely to get to this any time soon.
I will note that I have quoted similar markers at First Baptist Church of Augusta#Historical marker as I believe this (plain text) is fair use. Photos on Commons need to be handled more strictly, because as the markers are visual art in addition to the literary art.
You may want to engage people at WT:QUOTE or raise the question at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium, especially if it is a decent sized text. (the historical markers are not sizable enough for Wikisource to care much for, but they do like a nasty copyright question)
John Vandenberg (chat) 02:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry I failed to notice your reply. Not unusually, my attention has been diverted by more recent matters. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Del-sort tool

How do I properly go about asking for new sorting categories to be added to the tool? I'm specifically thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Game and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion, though there may be others. Maybe these are already in the tool, but I have been unable to find them. I would have expected to find them in the Arts subsection. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The tool simply loads this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact
"Game" is already on there in the "I.T." section, but you can add it to Arts as well.
The tool is not designed/intended to be used for deletion lists that other projects maintain, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. If there are sufficient deletions occurring in that topical area to warrant a separate delsorting list, propose it at WT:DS (preferably giving some metrics).
John Vandenberg (chat) 11:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Application for taking part in J&S guidelines discussion

Hi John,

I have applied and sent an e-mail to arbcom-i, but I'm not sure if it has been noticed. Could you acknowledge that the request has reached the ArbCom? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is my application being considered now? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The arbitrators are aware of your request. In my opinion, you need to work on other topics for a while. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No time for that ATM. I'd just like to cap my engagement in this debate with a properly source-based and policy-compliant J&S guidelines document. I'd hate it if the 700+ hours of research and argumentation I've put into this (along with the similarly substantial contributions of other editors who got banned) all turned out to be wasted because a group of no-sources-necessary let's-bypass-bothersome-policies-with-consensus editors manage to insert some sneaky back door in the document at the last moment. When can the result of the ArbCom's deliberations be expected? MeteorMaker (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The usual

Bufferbot stopped working sometime on May 28th. DS (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I forgot to tell you; the server it is on fell over and I am in the wrong part of the country to fix it right now. It could be two weeks before I get to it. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Full-date unlinking bot proposal

Hello. I am working on a proposal for a bot to unlink those dates where there is the strongest consensus. It is not directly relevant to the ArbCom case, but you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot. I am starting with the draft already because I want to give those who might be sanctioned a chance to comment as well. I am planning to start a community RfC soon. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Your approach looks quite good; I've watchlisted it and will monitor it as it develops. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource as a source in a Wikipedia article

Hi John, as you are a sysop at Wikisource, I thought it would be appropriate to ask you here: would you consider the usage of a document on Wikisource to be reliable? In this case, I'm referring to the citing of Alabama State Constitution of 1901 (Initial Constitution) in List of counties in Alabama. I don't know if it's been fully proofread, so I don't know if WP:RS would condone this or not. Thanks in advance for your input. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am working on an answer for you.... John Vandenberg (chat) 23:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay. I have been overhauling the text in question in order to demonstrate a few points that may interest you.
I have put my hands on a set of pagescans of this document, and uploaded it to Commons. I then set up a "transcription project" s:Index:Alabama State Constitution of 1901.djvu and copied all the text across to it. This took quite a bit longer than it normally would because the Wikisource page s:Alabama State Constitution of 1901/Initial Constitution had all sorts of extra guff in it, making copy and paste quite slow. If you look at the previous version, you will see the sections have a broad & bland description, such as "Equality and rights of men" for section 1. Where these came from I dont know, but they are not in the edition that I have pagescans for.
Once the text had been migrated, I transcluded the transcription pages together, reducing the wikicode of that page from 20&KB to 5KB.[15]
Now if you look at s:Alabama State Constitution of 1901/Initial Constitution, you will see "[page]" links down the left margin. Clicking on those will take you to a side-by-side view of the text and the pagescan. Pagescan 11 is the one used as a reference in the Wikipedia article, and you will notice it says "This page has been validated" on a glary green background just so that you can't miss it. That means that two distinct users have checked it and believe the text is accurate (check the edit history). The other pages in the transcription project are merely yellow, which means you have work to do ;P
I'm going to conclude this message here, as it is about the technology. I'll start a new thread below to answer your question. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a tad busy, so this will be a bit short, and a rambling essay.

Yes, I firmly believe that Wikisource should be viewed as a reliable source.

Usually texts are copied from somewhere else on the internet and dumped onto Wikisource. If this was not done, the Wikipedia article would be linking to somewhere else on the internet. The problem with that is that the rest of the internet doesnt have an edit button on each page, so pages cant be improved, or the accuracy of each internet site must be evaluated by Wikipedians. When a Wikisource page is referenced by Wikipedians, the quality of the source slowly gravitate towards being 100% verifiable, like I have done above with s:Alabama State Constitution of 1901/Initial Constitution. Note that the problems in that text came from somewhere else - you can be certain that someone didnt type up that page by hand.

A large majority of our texts came from Project Gutenberg (Wikisource was originally called "Project Sourceberg"), which varies in quality, but similar texts are found all over the internet. There is no reason to consider Wikisource texts to be of any lesser quality, and due to more active maintenance, there are reasons to consider it to be a higher quality source.

As another example, see s:William Robinson Clark (Obituary) and see this. That Obit was being used as a reference, and it was a dead link. What is worse is that Obit included explanatory text throughout the text in round brackets - this was clearly indicated as being additions to the original, however it will be copy&pasted across the internet and before long everyone will believe that those comments were in the original. If I was to spend a few hours on it, I could easily find pagescans of the original Obituary, but because it is on Wikisource, anyone can do it.

In regards to quality control and page protection, a large proportion of the edits are now moving our texts to pagescans (see pretty statistics) where they can be provably correct. For edits to texts without page scans, we have s:Help:Patrolling of each revision (as opposed to new page patrol here on en.WP). Where the edit looks questionable, we try to find page scans. Some bad changes will inevitably slip through the cracks, as we are understaffed on patrollers, however Wikipedia readers often go to Wikisource, see that something is amiss and rollback the bad changes. In our experience, protection doesnt help. We sometimes protect our featured texts because they are on the front page, but when we forgot, vandals dont suddenly appear. Maybe the vandals only hate Wikipedia, and are not so keen on accusations of libricide. Food for thought there.

The main problem we have on English Wikisource is American pulp fiction (e.g. s:Author:Lovecraft), where there are many different editions, and scans are incredibly hard/expensive to put our hands on - libraries dont put mucch emphasis on scanning these. As a result, these pages are on shifting sand as people make good-faith improvements to one chapter, meaning our edition is a multitude of editions all wiki-ed together.

John Vandenberg (chat) 06:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your incredibly thorough answer. I was inclined to AGF on the source anyway, but you've convinced me that Wikisource can be trusted. Thanks again.
Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
  • 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
"This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

oh, look; an admin online in my timezone (almost)

Needs doing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone else beat me. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Ya, I see; core issue here is that some implementation gets off on the wrong foot and the extant code base becomes reliant on that implementation in subtle ways and holds back refactoring efforts. What were they thinking when they let the non-technical anybodys loose in the innards of a website? See also: on constructive criticism. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: weird archiving on arbitration pages

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#weird archiving

When you get a moment, could you follow up on this thread, John? We're standing by for direction.

Regards,

AGK 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology

I don't know, really. My source just says "Wikipedia", without specifying a particular-language version. And I can't read the primary source, arbcomdramu always makes my head ache. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

'Harassment'

My apologies for repeating what you felt to be harassment. I should say though that the repetition was unintentional and resulted from my not understanding what the issue was in the first place. It will not happen again. This information emerged as a result of an AfD debate. I have no desire to harass anyone. My aim in posting the information was to support the claim that an article currently under consideration for deletion can be properly characterized as spam. If, in the future, I come across another instance of an editor creating content that is probably intended for self-promotion, what is the proper course of action? In the meantime I will remove the edits from the debate in keeping with "Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia." As for the oversight request it seems it is unnecessary for me to make it as you have already initiated it.--Picatrix (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you need to prove the identity of an editor in order to justify calling an article spam, then it probably doesn't meet the criteria for spam. AFD and notability should focus on the reliable sources available as opposed to the contributors who wrote the content.
Thank you for attending to your comments, and my apologies that I cant provide more of an explanation here. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm always happy to clean up my own mess, insofar as it is possible, and in this case it is clear that it is mine. On that note, however, I should point out that while I have reverted the offending material in the AfD discussion, it has still not been deleted, though it has been from the talk page associated with the article in question. Don't know if that's just because you guys are busy, or if you were not aware of its presence there – though I did point it out in a pervious communication with you. Is there something further I need to do? --Picatrix (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right mate. You have done all that you need to do. This particular issue is taking a very long time to discuss/resolve, which has complicated matters further. We are aware of every instance; if more appear, please revert on sight and alert WP:OVERSIGHT or myself via email. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New message

Hey there. I responded to a post on Wikipedia Review that you had left there a while back, in which you said some additional remedy to a case was likely, but which never happened. In addition, I had an additional matter that I wanted to discuss. Could you please try to get this before the 'Date delinking' case is over? Thanks, NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The reason I responded at WR instead of here was simply to continue the conversation at where it started; you are free to move it to wherever you wish.

As I mentioned on WR, I am not keen for the committee to make decisions about an RFC, but other arbs are welcome to make proposals which would do this. I dont know why this hasn't been done; a likely reason is time constraints. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking - Implementation notes

Sorry to bother you, John, but are you sure you are looking at the right place when you say remedy 1 is passing? Remedy 1 has 0 support; 7 oppose; 3 abstain. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 00:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

John restricted

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position in your "vote" on 30.2.[16] It is appreciated and makes a good point about the tools. I still think that John was an innocent wikignome who got caught up in this, but nobody can condone the reverts. I sincerely hope that the revert restrictions on him turn out to be beneficial in the end. Regards --RexxS (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I, on the other hand do not find comments like this one and this one acceptable. Your presumption of guilt shows me that your offer here ("If you believe I could frame your involvement better, I will be happy to spend some more time digging a bit deeper. It isn't my intention to misrepresent the truth.") was not a sincere one. I'm afraid this is now a case of misrepresenting the truth, and doesn't reflect well on you or on the Arbcom. Which "tools" are you referring to? Also, it would be good at this stage if you could provide some actual evidence for your assertions regarding my supposed "gaming" and "edit warring". If what you have come up with represents all you have, perhaps it is time you followed through with your undertaking to "dig... a bit deeper". --John (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
By "tools" I am referring to the script you used multiple times on the same article.[17]
"Gaming" applies to everyone involved; not you specifically. Your role in this appears to be minor, and maybe not intentional as you suggest. But that doesn't diminish the fact that you were involved in sequences like these:[18][19][20][21][22]
The evidence is already on the Evidence page and on the Proposed decision. I have dug further, and confirmed that the evidence provided is not an isolated incident. I provided them to you above on the 17th[23], and you omit them in your rebuttal/appeal.
Your involvement goes back further of course.[24][25]
Your involvement has been minor; G-Man's involvement has also been minor. The intention is to restrict people who have demonstrated a willingness to edit war on this issue, so that we dont need to keep the injunction in place.
I dont understand why you are targeting me - I would rather you are only sanction for the three months before the stability review. The other arbitrators are also reviewing the evidence and making decisions based on that.
John Vandenberg (chat) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am "targeting" you because you added me to this case and have been the driving force all along to have me restricted. I might better ask, why are you targeting me? See User:John/ArbcomAppeal for my latest rebuttals of your latest "evidence". Can you see how flimsy and weak your Su-27 diff looks? Is that the worst you can find against me? Does any of it even come close to WP:EDITWAR? Feel free not to answer and to ignore me again, I get the feeling you had already made your mind up right from the start and your offer to "dig deeper" was not a sincere one but just something you said because it sounded good. --John (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote your appeal, and I directed everyone to read it. I did dig deeper, and I remain convinced that the findings are accurate, and the remedies are appropriate. A majority of arbitrators have agreed. Since digging deeper, I am thinking that Lumos3 should also be sanctioned for his involvement, which has not been raised by anyone else as far as I can recall.
The Su-27 duffs were to show that you have been edit-warring about date linking for a long time, and your involvement goes back as far as I look[26]. Here are some more reverts during the period that this RFAR was dealing with:
[27][28] User_talk:DionysosProteus#Mike_Leigh
[29][30][31][32][33]
If you continue to believe that you have not edit-warred, and that the committee has acted improperly, please take your concerns to other arbitrators, Jimbo or to the community.
John Vandenberg (chat) 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I broke another main page

m:File:Orbiting links on IE6.jpg — Oops, I did it again.

Fix is queued-up and needing deployment; see:

and my other recent edits over there; see also:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (who is leaving interesting CU-footprints today)

Man that looks terrible. I am off to bed for an early night; find a meta admin before the IE6 masses have reason to complain. You probably have weeks, tho; the IE6 masses are likely tuned into Youtube; this wont affect your credentials on Wikisource - heck you could break the front page there and no IE6 user would notice for years, and if they did they probably would realise it anyway. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC) ... , so long as the content text was readable - I've occasionally wondered if deleting the front page there would have any impact to readers. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why it looks just that way. the bit that broke it was suppoed to be a fix specifically for IE6. Anywany, I'm on IE8 an the moment and it works; 7 would, too. 6 is profoundly retarded in many ways and positioning is one of them. G'night, Jack Merridew 13:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
(e/c, above and below) I hear ya. I had to do some DHTML with IE6 support in the last few days, which is a bit of a throwback for me, and I was reminded at how cunning that browser is - it is complaint with standards only at the times when you least expect it, which is almost all time given its track record. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It's all fixed. I am a firm believer in users of junk getting a deminished experience. Pity to be putting effort into that thing at this late date. G'night, Jack Merridew 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My history

Hi,

Could you help remove particular nasty comments from my history (if this is allowed) or point me to a page so I can read up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing ... im doing it now. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been a bit heavy handed in order to hit it all quickly. I'll review my actions tomorrow and restore any productive discussions that I have suppressed in the process. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

the main page is broken, and has been for a long time

This is an interesting, and possibly unsolvable, issue. There are few pages with so many languages present.

also

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I cant help with stuff on meta; I'll work towards sysop there when I retire. :P
And, I like my vegemite sandwiches with avocado. Nothing beats that, but I fear my recipe would have even less luck. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The more I nose about meta, the more I find that's interesting.
I posted a nasty work-around there, but I don't like it. Know an Arabic speaker who's good with code? Any RTL language, really. The browsers are doing what they should, given the code; it's just that different bits of text trying to go different directions on the same page is asking for trouble.
bacon, egg and cheese sandwich with two hash browns rules. (not on the side, either; top and bottom layers)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Stewards user:Mardetanha and user:Meno25 will be able to help you find someone.
It's 10:30 PM and I feeling like breakfast now. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links; Meno25 I've seen somewhere; some Meno, at least, not Gili Meno
Menu here, which I use as a mouse pad, says “Breakfast all day.” (and the AfD will keep; and I didn't even !vote there)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Go, Mississippi (song)

Hi. :) Since you so rule in this territory, I wanted to note that there's a conversation at WT:C (here) as to whether or not these lyrics are pd. Can you help out in determining that? I've removed them pending verification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As it relates to Wikisource, this is an opportunity I cant possibly miss - I'll be right there once I grab a cuppa tea. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You are just a detective. :) I applaud your copyright status identification skillz, sir. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Ta ;-)
And the sheet music in this is the original as best I can tell, so I can put that onto commons and Wikisource. \o/ I will do that now. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Mississippi Governor's Mansion
I know you're still dealing with this one, but do you have time to address a question about [34]? The website explicitly claims copyright on images, but does not disclaim text and at the bottom of the page says, "The user must assume responsibility for compliance with federal copyright law (Title 17, United States Code) or any other issues involved in the use of the item(s) listed." Can you help determine the status of this text, which is incorporated (and not yet blanked) in Mississippi Governor's Mansion? If not, I'll trot it by WP:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it for the now and will bring it up at WT:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll skip all the plaques and landmark cases until I have time to come up to speed on them, and I honestly don't plan on making that a priority. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely understand. There's just never enough time. We need an army. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I sent you an email. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi2

Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests_for_comment_Is_Skinwalkers_evidence_acceptable_and_can_I_be_allowed_additional_space_to_respond_to_the_accusations.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

An RFC on an RFAR talk page. That is a first I think. I'll take a look... John Vandenberg (chat) 04:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn RfC

I note that you deleted the RfC regarding User:Mervyn Emrys' conduct on the Talk:University of Maine for "insufficient evidence of having tried to resolve the user conflict." While I doubt the RfC would have done neither much harm nor much good, I did want to bring to your attention that I did leave a standard AGF notice on Mervyn's talk page after his inflammatory comments, which he later promptly reverted and characterized as "rubbish". Madcoverboy (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Templating people is not a reasonable attempt at trying to resolve an issue with them. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My personal choice of words would have been decidedly less neutral in tone given nature of the attack. Nevertheless, the point is duly noted and I consider myself trout-slapped. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
As I have noted on User_talk:Mervyn Emrys[35], I think there is a user conduct issue, but I am pretty sure that it can be resolved without an RFC. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Mervyn has a habit of templating others. Also, he has a peculiarly unfriendly attitude towards anyone who's worked to justify the word "flagship" on that article, ever since *he* started the whole issue by removing it unilaterally with a comment about "a university is not a ship". The RfC would have allowed a hearing of grievances which many have towards his actions. He's clearly broken 3R on the page repeatedly.67.251.33.247 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
He did edit-war, but I cant see any 3RR violation. Can you support that with diffs please?
An RfC is not a venue to allow a hearing of grievances; they are intended to resolve an problem that cant be resolved by normal discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

JVBot/whitelist

Hi. For info: A few of my recent page creations don't seem to have been auto-patrolled by your bot. I don't know if your bot isn't working or if there is some other issue. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot is down at the moment; it should be back up in a week or two. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence mischaracterized

I take exception to your recent comment in the Obama-articles ArbCom case, for several reasons. First of all, the talk page of the proposed decisions is really not an appropriate place to be presenting evidence. Secondly, those diffs of my alleged edit warring are a gross mischaracterization of what happened, particularly because in almost all cases there was no breaking of the three-revert rule (even in spirit). The diffs you presented involving disputes with User:Andyvphil and User:CENSEI are particularly unreasonable given that these were agenda-driven editors were topic-banned by the community (and in the case of CENSEI, indef blocked) for their disgraceful behavior. To depict these disputes as a "history" of edit warring is grossly unfair. I am extremely disappointed that my work to protect the project from blatant, agenda-driven editing is being characterized in this manner. I request that you refactor your comment after you have had a chance to properly review the circumstances. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I will endeavour to comment on this in the next 24 hrs. Please ping me about this if you don't see some movement from me about this. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to look into this for me. :) -- Scjessey (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You asked me to ping you about this. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. Everything else is out of the way now; I will focus on this today. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to extend my thanks for the effort you made in studying my contributions. I have responded to your comments about this matter more expansively on the decision talk page, but I wanted to personally thank you as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim

I've left a response on my talk page. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC2

Hello, I have noticed you recently voted on the de-sysoping of Future Perfect at Sunrise. I feel very strongly about this issue and have left a note that might be of interest to you on the talkpage of the proposed discussion page. Best regards. --Athenean (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't have time to comment there today, but I have read your section and the section below it by Kafka Liz. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Source input

Need your wikisource knowledge here: User_talk:Rlevse#Edward_.22Porky.22_Cragg_and_Ernest_T_Cragg_articles. Did I give the guy good info on item one? I am not sure what to tell him about item two. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re point 1, you advice is good - you may need to help him with the file. Once uploaded I can help as well.
Re point 2, I suggest taking this to the appropriate WikiProject to see if they would consider it a suitable "primary source" to be mentioned. Commons may not like to be a webhost for this type of video; it would depend on how useful it is from an educational point of view. MMy uninformed opinion is that the video would be appropriate on the biog, provided the two sons are not underage. Best advice I can give is talk to user:cirt; he knows more about this area, and there could also be a Wikinews angle to this.
Before it can be uploaded to Commons, it needs to be converted into the right video format. It sounds like the video file could be quite big. If he (or you) can push it onto an FTP website somewhere, or send it to me via Skype or Google Talk, I can help arrange for it to be converted. Once I see the video, I will be in a better position to recommend what options are available.
John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Shame.

I supported you for the Arbitration Committee [36] primarily because I thought you understood the problem of nationalism on Wikipedia. Surely your own election indicated the nature and extent of the problem. One would hope that the project would be strong enough to withstand the loss of one or two talented administrators in the area of Balkan-related articles, but two-years experience here has suggested to me that it is not. Moreover, the message you are sending to committed, neutral content editors —especially in battleground-prone areas— is reprehensible. Banned users, single-purpose accounts, and drive-by nationalist ips always respawn; outstanding administrators do not. Your actions today have caused me to reconsider seriously my involvement with this project. Please register the complete disappointment of the faith I have placed in you and my deepest opprobrium of your actions. Aramgar (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved administrators should be able to moderate the topical area without using their tools, by use of good arguments on noticeboards, etc. Whether FPAS is neutral or not does not matter - he is involved, and using the tools in that situation results in accusations of abuse of power even when one is neutral. Perceived or actual abuse of power results in more nationalistic campaigns being run behind the scenes in an effort to try and counter the abuse of power.
The way to end the games is for involved admins to not push the buttons when they are involved. That is policy. There was an existing arbitration ruling covering this topic; disruption could have been reported to WP:AE and left for someone else to deal with. FPAS didnt need to use the block button and then be incivil.
Like Moreschi, I believe that stronger control is needed over these pages - so strong that uninvolved admins don't need to be domain experts in order to act on what they believe is disruption. We need better community developed solutions such as User:Moreschi/Proposal. See also here for my thoughts on ways to handle this.
There were also other issues involved. FPAS has done immense amounts of good work, and I would be open to an appeal if he changes pace in light of the remedies - he needs a break.
I will be out for a large part of today. I'll respond to any feedback as soon as I have an opportunity. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I had resolved not to comment further on any of this until a result is official, but here I have to butt in: "involved, and using the tools in that situation"? Excuse me, but how does that in any way tie in with the present case? I never pushed the buttons to further my position in the Macedonia naming issue. In the whole of the findings for this case, there is one single incident marked as questionable use of tools, the block of that harasser on my talk page, and that was only tangentially related to the Macedonia case at best. Is that incident really the main reason you voted in favour? In my two and a half years of admin activity on Balkan-related issues, I have, to the best of my memory, never had a single complaint about unjustified "involved" admin actions, and that despite the fact that my editing and admin activity were sometimes in closely neighbouring areas (something that I would be happy to reduce even more than I already have, by the way). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The one incident is sufficient; it is inappropriate on a lot of levels, esp. given you previous declaration of willingness to edit-war with these parties, and your subsequent post on ANI wishing you had used a more inappropriate phrase. That type of conduct by an admin, and while there is an extremely heated dispute at Arbcom, is extremely poor form.
But, my main motivator here is that given an choice of desysop or forcing you to use training wheels, I will not support subjecting you to the latter option, nor would I wish that upon a trainer. You have been a good admin as far as I can recall and see. I would rather a desysop and later resysop. later. After thinking about this more, a three or six month desysop would also be sufficient to make the point. Honestly I am sure you would be resysoped at RfA after a few months.
If you can write up a recusal statement (similar to User:Jayvdb/recusal) that ensures that you are not able to act as an "admin" in this topical dispute, then I have no further concerns and will oppose desysopping. There are plenty of other nationalistic disputes where you can use your tools and experience to bring some calm.
I'd also like to see some self-awareness about your composure - imagine what would happen if all admins replicate the same invective you have on many occasions. If you have apologised for your comments or conduct somewhere, point me at it.
John Vandenberg (chat) 06:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a few things: With the editor I blocked in that incident, Sadbuttrue92 (talk · contribs), there was no "willingness to edit-war with these parties" in the context of the Macedonia dispute. While it is true that the last-straw harassment comment from that editor had been related to the Macedonia dispute, the editor himself had otherwise, to the best of my recollection, not shown any particular interest in the Macedonia fracas. I had seen him on a number of other Greece-related disputes, but not in the Macedonia naming edit wars. That situation was thus only very tangentially related to the present case. Apart from that, I've of course never been particularly happy about that block, neither in hindsight nor when I did it – I was perfectly aware it wasn't the most regular thing to do. The reason I snapped was that I had previously reported yet another case of similar personal harassment, just the day before, hoping that fellow admins would deal with it, and was disappointed with the lack of action. I was simply tired of having to go through yet another tedious ANI thread explaining things to people who'd just stand around nodding: bad, bad harassment, but then doing nothing. Not sure if that excuses it, but whatever. It was an isolated case in any event. –
As for recusal, the question is, how wide would you want that to be? In the Macedonia case itself, I have never used the tools anyway (except for those cases that clearly cross the line into vandalism, and for banned socks). The Balkan issues as a whole are huge, and I don't see why I should recuse from all of them. In between, there's a wide range of possible definitions of how far my "involvement" goes. Drawing the line has always been a bit of an unavoidable balancing act, but I'm open for suggestions about how I could clarify that line. Your suggestion that I could just go and choose "other nationalistic disputes" to work on, I'm afraid, misses the mark a bit, if by that you mean I should just switch to totally different parts of the world. The point is, the quality of my admin work in the Balkans has always crucially depended on the fact that I have a personal interest in the topics. I know the countries involved, I know the history and the mentalities involved, I know each participant's character, POV preoccupations, editing history and intellectual profile, I can empathise with them, I have the patience to actually follow the intricacies of their debates, and I recognise each editor's handwriting if somebody returns as a sock. There's no way I could do, or would want to do, all that on Japan-Korea, for instance. (Well, I've tried once or twice, and turned out to be considerably less successful.) –
As for taking a "break", I could accept a temporary admin break, but honestly, I don't think I'd be willing to face the perspective of another RfA or Arbcom appeal at this point. You can propose a temporary desysop as an alternative (three months would also be the time frame within which the Macedonia case ought to be finally hammered out, a process in which I would obviously only take part as a normal editor anyway.) But with a formally indefinite desysoping, especially if it is framed in the language currently seen in the proposed decision (much of which I find demeaning to myself), quite frankly, my reaction would be to permanently resign from the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed a temporary desysop, and withdrawn my support from the desysop proposal (for the moment).[37]
In regards to the "other nationalistic disputes", I would think a break from administrating the Balkans would be a good idea, where the participants overlap, but would leave that to your own prerogative. It is precisely because you know them all the participants so well that a break would be a good idea. Any chance you are interested in the the other side of the Black Sea ? ;-)
I really dont like threats of resignation.
Will try to reply to your other points as I find time. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Sent you (and Carcharoth) an e-mail just now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A small detail

A posting by somebody on the PD talk today brought the following off-wiki blog to my attention [38], showing yet another ongoing meatpuppeting and concerted harassment campaign with plenty of nastiness. So, apparently the user "kostas68" on that forum is our Feristos despoton (talk · contribs), a known abusive account who was inactive for a while but reappeared to join the campaign here in response to the forum thread, and "kzk842" has shown up here under the same name, Kzk842 (talk · contribs), now clearly identifiable as a classical meatpuppet. The initiator of the forum thread, "Vasot", is probably the IP 79.166.2.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), judging by their first post. Could you do the honours? Judging by the comparable measures in the Arbcom case, this would certainly warrant sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Will jump onto this in a few mins... John Vandenberg (chat) 11:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if you need anything translated. Although the bits in English should make the situation clear enough, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm reading it all. There is no current disruption on those accounts, so I am slowly working through it. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

this hasnt been reverted - is it OK? John Vandenberg (chat) 12:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that edit seems factually correct, the Strymonas runs through Serres prefecture; the Axios doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re comments

Hi John, I would just like to draw your attention to your comments here, and correct any misunderstanding you may have. As is indicated by the editor MickMacNee who opened this amendment discussion states here “A dispute is ongoing about the proper venue for conducting discussion of the issues raised in the Article naming dispute, and nothing to do with moving articles. This is also supported by every editor who commented on the subject, (and not the current process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration). I hope my belated contribution will help in your elucidation on the nature of the subject, and would kindly ask you to strike or remove your comments as they are clearly incorrect. Thanks in advance, --Domer48'fenian' 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment about your edits which rearranged what topic resides at certain pagenames is there for your edification. Take it or leave it.
The motion which is now passing has nothing to do with moving articles either. It addresses the proper venue problem.
John Vandenberg (chat) 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Virginal6

I am trying to construct a general page for Wikipedia on Rock Canary Islands Inscriptions. Would you please be willing to have a look to my User page?.I am starting the page there and will be finished in 2-3 days.Then I could move to Wikipedia depending on if you find it interesting or not. Please,look particularly to the 2 kind of alphabets (i.e: 1)Numidic and 2)Latin or Iberian-Guanche from Fuerteventura and lanzarote) that Kwami,Trigaranus and Dumu Eduba made people believing that were the same ones.Just a quick look shows they were wrong.

I will remove the Iberian-Guanche name,if they wish,but they are Iberian rock scripts in the Canary Islands. I have also noticed that Paul Barley is starting a section in Arnaiz-Villena page about Iberian language in the Canary Islands,but I do not think this is the place and he is also mistaken by the 2 kind of alphabets .I have to clarify it or move it to another page ,again if the Editors think it is appropriate.Best regards----Virginal6 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I am not going to interfere or mediate. Please work on something else, as I recommended before. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
OK,but I have to work on my skills. Regards--Virginal6 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There are thousands of articles which you could work on without any problems. "Nicoloso da Recco" is begging for your assistance. I listed many above. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I will try with Nicoloso:Thank you--Virginal6 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland motions clarification

Just to Wikilawyer a bit before the second motion gets enacted, is claiming that "Ireland the state" and "Ireland the island" are the same thing disruption, or just a POV to bring to the discussion in an attempt to gain consensus?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I'll leave these types of question for the moderators to answer. If they are not answering, we need new moderators rather that edicts from arbitrators. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC2 closing? What about the R25.x's?

Proposed remedy 25 shows you recently withdrew your vote to allow further consideration. A number of arbitrators have already voted to close the case, so I am hoping that you'll get to decide on this before it's too late. I realise that none of the remedies relating to Future Perfect's administrator status is currently passing. This could go either way, but I was hoping to see this matter addressed one way or the other before the case ends. I understand that you may be waiting to see how the temporary desysopping remedies go (25.2, 25.3). If that is the case, then why not vote as "Third choice" or "Oppose" (whatever it is you'll decide) on remedy 25? That will ensure the issue gets addressed even if the case closes. (I have left a similar note on Cool Hand Luke's talk page as you guys are the only ones who haven't voted on R25 yet) --Radjenef (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to allow a permanent desysop to proceed unless the other arbitrators are going to consider the alternatives. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some shameless thankspam!

User:Colds7ream/RfA

Arnaiz-Villena / Virginal6 problem

Hello. Following the suggestion of Paul Barlow I try to add a description of the Usko-Mediterranean in the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page and its criticism. I tried to document well my sources and data, and added bibliography. But then Virginal6 has deleted all the section saying that are my arguments against the Iberian-Guanche page (as I always said I only afforded reliable sources).

I would accept corrections and even deletion by a reputed editor, but Virginal6 seems too fan of Arnaiz Villena (and remember that is a suspected puppet of Iberomesornix, user who was very near to A-V or was A-V himself). Please take a look. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If it keeps happening, please raise this at WP:ANI, or let me know and I will take it to ANI. I would rather stay uninvolved in the content aspect of this matter. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It happened again. And now Virginal6 claims libel and vandalism. Of course the changing of reasons now for the same deletion of the same text shows a lack of sincerity. Curious that the same user that accused other of keep silence on Arnaiz-Villena theories delete them when explained.
I have not reverted the deletion, but I believe that it is only a vendetta (my crime; having afforded and quoted the experts who have criticized those silly Arnaiz-Villena bongo-bongo theories).
Please, raise the WP:ANI --Dumu Eduba (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I am looking into this. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the research you did; it is helpful even if it was removed. I think we should try to work with Virginal6 to understand the "possible libel" concerns. This might take a bit longer, but we should be able to craft a better article as a result of more discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you for your effort and your time.
As the accused side I consider the accusation of libel to be an insult and a personal attack, and I expect for an explanation because I can not find any piece of my edition that could be libel and this is a very serious accusation indeed (much more even that vandalism).
It is significant that the first "reasons" to the deletion argued by User:Virginal6 were not vandalism neither libel but:
"All these arguments were used by Dumu Eduba et al to delete "Canarian-Iberian inscriptions".They should ask to undelete "Canarian-Guanche Inscriptions" or add counter-arguments here" [[39]]
and
"These additions were in the "Canarian-Iberian Inscriptions" page ,which was deleted (User talk:Iberomesornix).Plese,undelete these page.Otherwise,state all counter-arguments here."[[40]]
As long as I am aware the only possible libel is when the webpage of the FEGEL accuses of "fraude científico" to the standard translations of many ancient languages. And of course, in any case, this question should be discussed with the president of the FEGEL (Arnaiz-Villena).
All the material I edit comes from the own Arnaiz-Villena papers and book and from reputed experts who criticized his researches.
Unfortunately, probably, I will have to wait till next week to take it up this question. (Or fortunately, because there a questions much more interesting :-) )
Regards, and sorry if I sound somewhat too upset. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The claims that it is libel should not be a big concern to you. It was reverted, and we will hear what he has to say about the edits. If everyone is reasonable, the article will benefit from this discussion. If someone is unreasonable, this discussion will take a long time and wont be much fun. I don't think you will miss much if you do something else for a week. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are probably aware of this already, but Arnaiz-Villena, writing as user:Arnaiz1 seems to be addressing you directly in his comments on the page about him. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I am sorry to report that there are many problems in the Antonio Arnaiz Villena page. Arnaiz1 and Virginal6 show changing versions and reasons on the questions I can no more attribute to them any good faith. Some of their data (such as nowadays he has no relation with Alonso García) relies only on their word and is contradicted even by Arnaiz-Villena web page (and it is only the last version, the previous one was that Alonso web fwasa faked web made by me!!! when I refuted their falsehood they discover a different "truth"(and he did not apology for his accusation or his "bad memory").
Maybe the page should be protected and discussed any further changes calmly; and surely Arnaiz1 and Virginal6 editions (with his usual accusations against everybody) should be watched. I do not know what to do. Thanks. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A request

Hi John. I noticed you commented on my first RfA in December 2007 but didn't vote. I don't know if you frequent RfA, but I was wondering if you could provide some input on what issues I may still need to address before running for adminship again. If you have the time, would you mind giving me a short (or long if you want) editor review telling me what issues I may still need to fix before running for adminship again? Thanks. Timmeh!(review me) 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont participate in RfA often, but I am trying to frequent RfA more often these days. Sadly I wont have time to do an editor review. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I'm getting one from Anonymous Dissident. Thanks anyway. Timmeh!(review me) 02:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ching Hai

Is there a reason you made the protection on Ching Hai a month?? Although there have been disputed edits the article is generally moving forward with new editors getting involved and the main subject of recent warring (an external link) has been removed. 123.27.222.11 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The disruption was coming from wide array of IP addresses, so blocking wont help. If the disruptive IPs stay away for a week, I will unprotect it. Sorry that this affects you as well. I have no objections to another admin unprotecting it sooner. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. A break from editing is probably a good idea for all. 123.27.222.11 (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A misleading number.

When you addressed my question about the definition of "mass delinking", you stated that date delinking appears to be a "major motivation" behind my editing. I feel that statement is unfair. You only looked at edit summaries during a limited time. First, as I said in the noticeboard, the number is deceiving. I could edit the article one time and delink all dates, so it would look like one edit, but I tend to edit by section because I am doing it by hand and it makes it more manageable. But that increases the number of edits. Second, during many of those edits, I was also delinking common words under wp:overlink. Words like "farm", "car" and "love" don't really need linked and I think we both can agree on that. Jut because I mentioned that I also delinked dates in that edit doesn't mean date delinking was my "major motivation". Truth be told, I'm more motivated to get rid of excessive blue links, date or not, than worrying about dates alone. Lastly, you looked at a very limited date span and then extrapolated a "major motivation" to my editing. I engage in plenty of content editing and discussions about content on talk pages, vandalism reversion and AfD discussion. I think your characteriation of date delinking over a very limited time period as a "major motivation" for my being here is unfair and paints a very negative picture of me. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at 200 edits. yea, clicked each one, hence the delay in responding. I also saw that you dont do sets like that 200 often - you do different things for a while. My point is that the injunction notice you received was a good idea, because if you had kept doing date delinking, you would have been blocked unnecessarily. From your edits, I got the feeling that if someone contested your delinking, you would have entered into a productive discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Entering a prodcutive discussion wouldn't be a bad thing, would it? Basically, what ends up happening is that if I'm just reading articles, and not there for content editing, and I see the dates, I was delinking. During the particular set you looked at, I was reading about verious topics (a plane I saw in a movie, a person I read about in another article etc) and while I wasn't editing content, I delinked the dates per the MOS. It's a simple thing to do, sometimes tedious but not all that complicated, so I figured why not assist in clean up and do the "grunt work". With all the delinking I've done, I've never had anyone contest a date. A term, yes. Sometimes we discussed and they agreed. Sometimes we discussed and they didn't, so I just walked away from it. But never over a date. I wasn't even aware there was a dispute about it until the day I got that notice. I just felt like your comment made me look like some rabid delinking editor that did nothing else on Wikipedia besides delink. I do have another question though: Why such a long moratorium? From looking at the poll about the topic (yes, I know it's not a vote), it looks to me like a vast number of those who took the poll favor delinking non-historic dates. IIRC, something like 3 times as many as voted for all the other options combined. That's one of the most clear margins I've seen around here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I've never met a productive discussion I did not like. The core of the problem is that the community was in a state of flux - the previous RFCs were a useful to a point, but a shambles to conclusively indicate whether there was consensus one way or another. The injunction was put in place because excessive linking or delinking during the case would likely result in remedies against that person. i.e. it would be hard for the committee to ignore someone who linked/delinked while we were investigating that very problem, so we are more likely to strongly restrict someone who knowingly tried to change the status quo while we were trying to determine the status quo. To avoid this problem we put in place injunctions that prevent well meaning people from ending up in the spotlight. Luckily you took note of the injunction and altered your editing accordingly. When I say you had "date delinking" as your motivation, that isnt an insult. The rationale for date linking as given by Tony1 and MOSNUM is hard to ignore - (he is not insane!) - the cursed blue links are an overlinking menance and I am not surprised that any sane person decides to remove them. However the problem is that removing them means that we can not migrate from "the cursed blue links" to "the innoculous invisible links" or something else - who knows what else - the devs are magicians. The "linkers" want us to have a replacement strategy before we remove the metadata that we have, and they have proved willing to edit-war to demonstrate that they are not kidding. And it isnt just one or two fellows; lots of people edit-warred, but gave up because two or three notable Wikipedias reverted them. As a result, the injunction was put in place to tell everyone to back off and let us assess this messy situation. Your edits were "problematic", but only in as much as they broke the injunction. Once informed, you appear to have stopped (I've not looked..), which is mighty sane of you. Ryan asked to develop an RFC during the case, and we agreed to let it run its course while under "our" juristiction (to an extent), and the results of the most recent RFC are much less ambiguous as a result. As you point out, it is just a vote. We are still worried that edit-warring will break out again because that vote indicates that a sizable chunk of the community don't agree that all chronological links should be delinked. And the remedies are intend to prevent unnecessary escalation while WP:MOSNUM arrives at a stable form. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your response. I won't say I stopped entirely from delinking dates, but nobody could call the very occassional one I do now "mass delinking" by any stretch. Usually it is in conjunction with something else, on a couple of articles in the span of a week. I appreciate you clearing it up for me. I tried reading a lot of the Arbcom case, but my eyes started to cross after a while. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-attribution

It would appear that none of your edits at Jayvdb reattributed, you will need to ask Werdna nicely to do so manually. MBisanz talk 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was told by AD that they may take a while to come across. Should I keep waiting, or be stomping my feet on the ground? John Vandenberg (chat) 12:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice a similar situation some months ago and commented to Rlevse, who'd performed the rename, and he said something to the effect of days — and it did take days. User in question was Ikip. See here. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 12:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Del-sort suggestion

Hi John, I have a small suggestion for to re: a change to the Del-Sort tool. Could you change it so that the messages that it leaves are left at the "top" of the AfD discussion section? My concern is that when tool users come along in the middle of conversations that their disrupting the flow of the conversations that may be occurring there. Hopefully the above makes sense... Ω (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested once or twice. I think it should be discussed at WT:AFD. I'll be happy to make the change if there is consensus for it. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

List of threads

You might want to look at this, User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads. It isn't up-to-date, and doesn't go back to the beginning, but I can update it if it is useful. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is great - I just wanted a bit more perspective on how AE is going, and your page does that perfectly. Lots of nasty reading for me to do. Cheers for that, John Vandenberg (chat) 13:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Shotlandiya's case seems to be missing from the list. Offliner (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

the "toxic personality" affair

John, methinks you invested far too much in that impending discussion: "This is an opportunity to establish whether the Founder is a meatball:FirstServant, meatball:GodKing, or something else." That may turn out to box Mr Wales in, rather than to resolve what should have been a contained and quickly resolved incident. Tony (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted. If this was going to be quickly resolved, it would be done by now. It is not done, to state the bleeding obvious.
Sometimes a court jester is the required to convey a point that would otherwise not be made. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
nb: I'll sit the rest of this out. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM stability

originally placed in a stale section

"while WP:MOSNUM arrives at a stable form"—I can't quite see what is unstable. There seem to be disputes about commas and spaces in large numbers, and at MoS main page disputes about quite different matters (tedious ones I have no interest in), but dates and linking? Tony (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your insight into the stability of MOSNUM, your assessment of stability is either overly optimistic or ill-logical. The date section of the page is protected, and nobody has edited the content since the case closed. [41] Whether MOSNUM is stable in three months is yet to be seen. There is a lot of opportunity for things to go pear shaped yet.
Also, you have edit-warred to bolster what you considered to be a "stable" MOSNUM, and enforced style issues on other contributors when the MOSNUM was protected due to disputes - you treated the protected page as if it was stable, when it quite clearly was not. This does not reflect well on your ability to understand what stability means.
Also, I don't appreciate you adding your views to stale discussions on peoples talk pages in regards to the date linking issue, as you just did on my talk page.[42] Doing that demonstrates to me that you still wish to dominate discussion of this style issue. Your constant involvement in every discussion relating to the date debate is the type of behaviour that prompted me to propose that you should be topic banned from discussing style issues.
John Vandenberg (chat) 11:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish Wikidrama

For your amusement (?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad

Still open YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

JVbot no longer necessary (perhaps)

After recent developments, it seems. Where are you thinking of going from here? See here and here. — Jake Wartenberg 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good news. We have had the same on English Wikisource for a while now.
At this stage I will retire the bot. There are a few different scenarios where automatic patrolling of new pages is possible, but I need to focus on other things at the moment.
John Vandenberg (chat) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

rollback

Thanks! V1t 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

thunking.....good!

In re this comment, and the discussion that followed. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed your comments re. the Editor Rescue Squadron at Peter Damian's page. I'd welcome an 'in general' discussion about some of the issue surrounding expert retention and the like. One of the main bugbears appears to be content disputes, particularly those of fringe theorists vs. academic consensus. I rather shied away in Peter discussion from talking about content dispute issues. Rootology has suggested in the RFC that maybe NPOV should be amended to include Users who repeatedly create deliberate violations of WP:NPOV in articles may be subject to editing restrictions. The trouble with that is, and I think the historic objections are, 1. How will we judge what is and isn't neutral? 2. Who will judge?

Further discussion somewhere between Peter and yourself revealed the problem. Content dispute is not always about sourced vs. unsourced material, but often, particularly for organised POV pushers, about the validity of sources. It's occurred to me that what's really needed is a discussion about a 'hierarchy' of sources. Such a hierarchy might inform uninvolved, in-expert editors and reveal who might be advocating the minority view in any dispute. As an example, WP:RS is amended to rank University Press highest, respected publishers in various fields next, and so on and so forth. Dispute over the origins of the Taj Mahal ensues. Proponents of the P.N. Oak argument (it was never designed by the Mughals, but is actually a Hindu shrine co-opted by them) find their sources only include the vanity press of P.N. Oak and little academic backing, whereas proponents of the mainstream view (it wasn't) find Prof. Ebba Koch, having made a lifetime academic career of its study, had papers published by university press and books by Thames and Hudson etc.

This isn't going to solve all the problems for all cases, but as a rule of thumb, it might improve matters considerably. any thunks? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The quality of sources is immensely important, especially in this day and age where any idiot can find funding and a journal willing to publish their theories. So much so that research management is moving from quantitative measures, to qualitative approaches. In Australia, we started this with the Research Quality Framework which was replaced with the Excellence in Research for Australia which is due next week (keeping me rather busy of late). There is also the Research Assessment Exercise in the UK, and Performance Based Research Fund in NZ. Probably more elsewhere in the world; I've created Category:Research management to catch others ;-)

One of the key features of the qualitative approach will be to rank academic outlets (journals, book publishers, etc) not merely using an impact factor (which is dubious measure, and too coarse for middle of the field journals), but by importance within a specific field. For example, Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification defines thousands of fields of research (FOR), and every piece of research output is classified into up to three fields of research, weighted, and I can see us moving towards having a journal being given different rankings in different fields. The journal might receive "A*" in a field where their editorial board is strong, but only "A" in a related field, and B or C in fields outside of their strengths. Then when a journal article of one FOR is published in a journal which isn't highly ranked in that FOR, the journal article will viewed as padding rather than quality research. I expect that we will also start ranking book publishers in a similar fashion.

I guess where I am going with this is that while an internal Wikipedia structure for ranking sources would be helpful, there is progress on ranking research out in the real world, in the research management sector (redlink, sigh). For too long, journals have been only discussed in a limited fashion within the academic world. Endeavours like Wikipedia depend on academics, professionals, lay researchers and twits alike having a good understanding of the publishing outlets, as a first line of defense against crap. And that is why I set up WP:JOURNALS ;-) The underlying motive is that by documenting publishing venues, we assist everyone wishing to evaluate sources, both on and off Wikipedia.

I see architecture is a field you are interested in. Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/ERA HCA Astar lists about five redlinks for journals about architecture, and only two blue links. More info at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Excellence in Research for Australia journal lists. See also List of architecture magazines. Our articles about scientific journals are more developed than our articles about art and humanities magazines and journals.

To get back to your query, I would also like to see a tier based structure as a "rule of thumb" for critical analysis of WP:RS. I hope that this sort of evaluation of sources is happening at WP:RSN, but I dont watch as much as I would like to. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that John, very informative. Sounds like I need to go and do some reading........--Joopercoopers (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist notice for the date delinking bot RFC?

Hi, and sorry to bother you. Do you think there is any chance to get a watchlist notice for the full-date unlinking bot RFC? It would be good to get some larger community input, rather than just the usual suspects duking it out. The participation so far is not bad, but I would like there to be a clear community consensus, whatever it turns out to be. I asked for it here, but I don't there are many who watch that page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • As the leading Arb on the dates case, I would appreciate your comments about Ryan Postlethwaite's rather intimidating comments posted on Greg L's talk page. I believe he is acting on an unnecessarily broad interpretation of the topic ban and do not want such a warning. I too voted on the WP:DATEBOT page and do not feel I have violated the topic ban by so doing. However, I have pre-emptively removed that vote pending clarification. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Responded to both. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moto (programming language)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Moto (programming language), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cybercobra (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the prod. I doubt anyone will find significant sources about it, as it fizzled, and the code has rotted for a number of years now. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

struck text

John, mea culpa. It's a case of writing what I thought I recalled and forgetting to check before I pressed the button. I've now searched and searched without success. My apologies. Struck. Tony (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Easing restriction in baby steps

OK, I understand your post on my talk page. I have no intention of persisting at making edits pertaining to date linking (notably, the RfC on bot). It was not my intention to be testing the limits. I genuinely thought that “style guides and related discussions” meant MOSNUM and its talk page, where all that drama unfolded.

My point, which I made here on Krill’s talk page, is that I have made many, conflict-free contributions to MOSNUM on issues not related to date linking. It seems the project’s interests in avoiding conflict will be perfectly met by simply restricting me from participation in anything to do with date linking—regardless of where it is on Wikipedia. Period.

I have made many other, conflict-free contributions on MOSNUM projects as exemplified by the {{val}} template. Please note my collaborative work on {{val}}, It was originally called “Delimitnum” and had its functionality described here on Archive 94, and…

…it was extensively discussed and voted upon a bit lower, also here on Archive 94 on WT:MOSNUM, and…

…it was well received here on WT:MOS Archive 97 where its functionality tweaked to a compromise that received broad acceptance.

I created a main testing sandbox is here on a subpage in my userspace, which I made for the template writers to use. This is all examples of the kind of work I do when the topic isn't the vitriolic date linking/delinking. Greg L (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the proposed decision page, note that restriction 13.2 to prohibit you from editing templates was rejected. So you can still edit those.
But I dont believe it is in the projects best interest to lift the restriction that prohibits you from making comments about style.
I will be happy to consider lifting it if you accept this restriction and find other ways of contributing productively.
John Vandenberg (chat) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please clarify your last sentence. It presently reads that you will be happy to consider lifting the restriction on my being able to make comments on style if I accept the restriction on my being able to make comments on style and do something else that is productive. Am I to interpret that as “you will be happy to consider lifting it at a later date if I stop making a stink about it now and let the sh*t have a chance to drip off the fan blades?” Greg L (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That is not quite what I meant, but it is in the same ball park.
    I would phase it as “you have been throwing shit at the fan blade in one room in the art building for a while now. That room has been white washed, and we are inviting everyone back into that room. As we are so full of good faith, you may go into any other room in any other building, but you are barred from the art building for a while. There are fans in the other buildings, and we hope that you don't start throwing shit at those fans in other rooms. You do have the option of sulking outside the art building, and throwing shit at people entering and leaving, but that will likely result in you being removed entirely and thus no longer any of my concern. I will be interested to learn that you have settled in another room which has an active fan, and that you have refrained from throwing shit at the fan (we accept that the occasional shit in the fan happens, but recidivism is not an endearing quality). If that happens, a review of your ban from the art building will be justified.”
    Some places that I recommend you visit are the engineering, the science, and I.T. building, the computer lab, or the library. There is also a beautiful indoor garden with a complex ventilation system, and some of the plants badly need watering, and carefully applied manure is desirable there. Enjoy the stroll. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Now I’ve been alerted on my talk page that someone has an ANI on me for that damned vote. Wikidrama brings out *odd* behavior in people.

    My problem is with the indefinite length of “indefinite.” I want to remind you that my “civility issues” were not enough to get me blocked for incivility to any editors on the date linking issue during the course of that dispute. Not one… single… block. It was rough ‘n’ tumble on both sides and what passed for “plain-speak” there that both sides took on the chin ended up being looked at months later with a 50-power retrospectoscope. The result of all that: what amounts to “Well… we can see you weren’t ever blocked for incivility, but taken as a whole and looking at a pattern of conduct, we find you to be a poopy-head and Wikipedia needs to be protected from that.” I’d rather it was amended to a specific time period—like three months. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  • "Indefinite" means there has to be some visible change and, as there is a bit of an unwritten rule about indefinite, an appeal in one year is the "worst case" timeframe. Early appeals would be appropriate depending on how well you have integrated yourself into another area productively. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps another unintended analogy are the "art room" and the "whitewash" - Greg has been defending his point of view and telling people not to mess with the art; as you know, "whitewash" is another commonly used word for censorship. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

your user page

Hey — I just made a few tweaks to your user page related to your rename; cat sorting and iwlinks. I also fixed the corresponding inbound iwlinks. It seems you've more to do — your account is active on a lot of projects. Let me know if I can help further. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Divbegin

I suspect that you may not have thought at all about this template recently, as it was more than two years ago that you created it. However, I'm hoping that you might be able to help with a problem. I recently discovered the template, and applied it against one of my subpages. Another user has now applied it against the participants list for the Radio Stations Project.

I'm usually editing on a Mac using Safari, where the template displays as intended. However, I'm noticing today at work — where I'm on XP using Internet Explorer — that the template isn't working at all; it's simply displaying everything in a list rather than in columns.

Are you aware of any reason this would be happening? Mlaffs (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The technology used by Template:Divbegin is not supported by Internet Explorer or Opera. I've dumped some info into the page Help:Columns, loaded a question on the talk page, and I'll keep an eye on that talk page for a while.
Sorry for the delay. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits to the US Section of Titles and Forms of Address

I teach titles and forms of address, and found the US section full or error. I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protocol DC (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits look great. Let me know if you need any assistance. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Vandenberg/Archive_8&oldid=1089856872"