User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Is this right?

Hi. Is this editor meant to have talk page access? Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not especially, but unless they choose to abuse it, I don't see any reason to change it. The protection policy, oddly enough, says not to disable talk page access by default. If someone else wants to, they are free to do so. NW (Talk) 19:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see they'ere not banned, just indefinitely blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi, I'm wondering whether it might be worth scrutinizing this edit and user. The edit was made at a time when I was gone and without any internet access and I've only now started going through the history of the page to see what was done while I was gone. MathewTownsend also made edits to the page, [1], and the FAC [2]. Other similar Hemingway pages have been edited by Mattisse socks, here by Manny may, and this GA review as Xtzou. I don't know whether you know the history, but there has been much more between myself and MT/Mattisse between October and December. I haven't looked carefully at the Catherinejarvis account but the edit did strike a chord. Btw - I don't think we've ever interacted directly, so hello in advance, and thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper, nice to meet you. I am not sure if it would be fully justified checking the account simply on the basis of editing similar articles. The account seems fairly consistent with an infrequent editor and I don't see anything particular that links their editing behavior to MathewTownsend. They have also been editing for a couple years now, so a checkuser should have picked up on the account in other checks. Do you have any examples of behavioral similarities between Catherinejarvis and any of Mattisse's accounts? NW (Talk) 15:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I never interacted with Mattisse - was mostly before my time or when I was a new editor - so I wouldn't know. That's the problem to be honest, because I don't really know what to look for. All I do know are the few examples of Mattisse socks on Hemingway articles linked here, and those I didn't know about until they were blocked. I wouldn't have known about MT either. Anyway I thought I'd ask because I think the only way to control this is by some level of vigilance and I've found through dealing with other socks (ItsLassieTime for example) that sleepers sometimes get through. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tk, it doesn't sound like Mattisse to me. But I've been duped more than once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do continue to bring up any suspicions though; if I think there is sufficient evidence to check, I will be happy to take a look for you. NW (Talk) 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi NW,

I would like to apply for permission to quote your early Fb-profile screenshot included in the Wikipedia article on Facebook in my forthcoming book ‘A Critical Hypertext Analysis of Social Media: The True Colours of Facebook’. This book identifies the interrelations between technological progress of (social) media and innovations in users’ literacy practices. It is to be published by Continuum in London/New York.

I'm happy to attach you the relevant page of my manuscript via email,

Best regards

Volker Eisenlauer

volker.eisenlauer@sbg.ac.at

Shouldn't you be asking this on Facebook? (Also, NW? I dint no u wuz on fb!) KillerChihuahua 18:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait you're asking about the screen shot? It is probably under GFDL. Click the image and read the licensing on the file page. KillerChihuahua 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this image? NW (Talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

arbitration extension request

To NuclearWarfare and AGK: Per notice to me at User talk:Doncram#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence deadline approaching, I understand you are the drafting arbiters. I request more time and greater wordcount and diffs allowances, for the evidence period. I've been actually sick, and am busy with real-life obligations, and have been overwhelmed also by the complexity and unpleasantness of the case (though I have started a statement and could plug along with necessary support). The history/evidence for this case is vast and complex, and I am finding the process of searching for relevant diffs to be very time-consuming. Evidence for the case needs more time and space to develop, so that the arbitration conclusions can be effective. Also, Cbl62, who I hope will comment in the arbritration, reports he was travelling 10 days and unaware/unable to participate in this diff at my Talk. Also Lvklock was apparently incorrectly notified the evidence phase would run to January 24. Also I am outnumbered. For all these reasons I humbly do request more time, to January 24, and request space to be tripled for me. (I'll watch here for reply, and will notify AGK). --doncram 08:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Also I am very unfamiliar with the arbitration process, and am unsure what notice of the arbitration / what requests for participation are allowed. I have not made any requests. This is a painful process and I am unsure how to proceed in several ways. --doncram 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. I've had a word with my colleagues and the extended deadline (til 24 Jan) is okay as is the increased wordage/diffage you've asked for. Do keep it as concise and focused as you can though as that is the most effective way to make your points.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. I definitely want to echo what Roger said about keeping concise. While we are allowing your request, I would certainly appreciate it if you could keep to twice the normal limit if possible. Longer is certainly not always better. NW (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Old DRV of yours, apparently circumvented.

FYI I placed a speedy delete tag on Fort Hood terrorist attack. In Nov 2009 you closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 20 with request not to be recreated "..unless it is brought to DRV and recreation is permitted". It was recreated in 2011, and as far as I can see there was no subsequent DRV to affirm this. Do you know of one? Was there a side conversation somewhere? Tarc (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't, but I'm actually leaning towards "send it to RfD" again if you want it deleted. It has been several years since that incident and I think consensus may have changed substantially since then. NW (Talk) 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunno if they'd have much of a leg to sand on as officials have explicitly declined to label it an act of terrorism, but we can see how it goes if needed. Tarc (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not saying that the article should be titled that, but I think a keep argument citing WP:RNEUTRAL would do much better job in 2013. NW (Talk) 22:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Some time back...

In March 2010 you userfied the article Jami Floyd to me. I took the content off wiki and stored in on my harddrive... which died, causing me forever lose that early version. In working toward getting Jami back to mainspace despite an earlier article on her being deleted, my contention is that even if her private life is not well covered by media, her career in television meets WP:ENT and her awards meet WP:ANYBIO. While the new sandbox article is still a work-in-progress, I seek your opinion. Please take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd and advise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a stretch to me, but at least it is well referenced. The issue as I see it is that nothing has really changed since it was last deleted. The page just looks like a cleaned up version of [3], which while good, doesn't address the issues that were already decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jami Floyd. NW (Talk) 17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, showing that the new version is far, far better sourced than the old... to easily and properly support her meeting WP:ENTand WP:ANYBIO when the earlier, essentially unsourced, version did not. Had this new version been the one looked at by Sandstein back in 2010, I do not think it would have been sent to AFD in the first place. The last AFD might better been closed as 'no consensus' (sorry) with the instruction that the thing needed proper sourcing as a BLP. Toward the !voter's comments... THF makes no policy-based argument, PinkBull was incorrect to assert that she had not won any major awards, and Benjar was incorrect to imply that someone could be notable ONLY IF the GNG is met. A pity that the 2010 AFD did not have greater participation, and worse that I did not have the time back then to improve the article sufficiently so that those three might revisit to see their "concerns" addressed. Just wanted to let you know that I think it might survive a return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't meet WP:CSD#G4, but if you are thinking about bringing it back into mainspace soon, I would still advise going through DRV. NW (Talk) 04:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

After three years? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Curtaintoad/Userboxes

Hey NW. Hey, can you please cross my edits to User:Curtaintoad/Userboxes again? Thanks, CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 09:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom

You're doing a pretty good job thus far. =)

Keep it up! Kurtis ^(talk) 07:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

arbitration extension request 2

Hi Nuclear Warfare (and AGK who i will notify next) -- I am back to request a 2nd extension of the arbitration case. I have external obligations that have not allowed me to develop the evidence to support my statements in Evidence stage (scheduled to close soon, January 24th) and to participate at the ongoing Workshop (scheduled to close January 28th). These include obligations to meet work deadlines of tomorrow and several throughout next week and up to Monday, February 4, that I cannot set aside, that would prevent me for the most part from participating in the Workshop phase if deadlines are not extended.

I think the arbitration case is extremely important, not just for me but for about how Wikipedia will function, when there are valid perceptions of long-term contention amounting to wikihounding, though my presentation may not have gone far enough to be convincing about that. I hope you will agree that it will not be beneficial to cut this off with a too-early close on Evidence and then a perhaps less-well-informed decision. I do accept the arbitration process and expect it should work, but am simply unable to comply with too short deadlines given an extremely long history, and so many allegations raised over so many years. The main evidence I have yet to fully develop is difficult to present, because the point is that the following-type behaviors are so extensive and in larger context, hurtful and deeply incivil. A passing editor cannot see that from one or just a few diffs. There is other important evidence to consider too, also not yet presented. Also, I frankly don't know what to do about some new tangents brought up in some Evidence postings.

There do exist disagreements among WikiProject NRHP editors and others about content questions, like what people would prefer to see as a starter NRHP article for example, which have been exploited in the past and maybe also in this arbitration. I am sort of surprised not to see more NRHP editors commenting in the arbitration, but this is partly due to many being a) fed up with long-running contention, b) having expressed themselves perfectly clearly in previous discussions not yet summarized, c) not wanting to take sides and offend Elkman or Nyttend or me. Some of these issues raised, however, could be settled by more participation by longterm NRHP editors. I don't know what I am allowed to invite or not, or how this participation can otherwise possibly be secured.

One other factor is that announcements of the deadline for Evidence, e.g. at my Talk page, originally stated January 17 as deadline and continue to show that. I think it is possible that constructive participation could have happened but some perceived deadlines as passed already, on top of general reluctance to get involved.

So, anyhow, I request a longer extension until after Monday February 4. I would be happy to explain more in a personal phone call perhaps or other contact if that would help; you could contact me by the Wikipedia email function to arrange that. I will watch here to see your reply.

sincerely, --doncram 21:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

NW, I would strongly oppose a two-week extension at this point. Doncram has a long history of declaring that he doesn't have time for a discussion, but throwing walls of words at it anyway, as he does above. Waiting until a couple of hours before evidence is closing and then jumping in to say "oh, btw, I need as much time as I've already had" is not indicative of good faith to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it appears to SarekOfVulcan that way, but I do have good faith about this arbitration and hope it will be successful, setting aside issues of naming of arbitration and otherwise. I do have other commitments, I don't have time for this now. I would regret to see this closed early. The better outcome for SarekOfVulcan even, and everyone, would be that I and/or others more fully document the longterm behaviors, and the arbitration decision sticks. I see no urgency to rush to decision, in 5 year long case. I'll see later what the current decision is, bye for now. --doncram 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We have decided to grant your two week extension. You are expected to do no other editing (aside from perhaps minor copy edits) before you finish your evidence section. Please let us know as soon as you finish. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Noted. --doncram 04:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Power of suggestion?

NW, I surmise that the reference to "uber alles" may have been suggested by a comment of mine that is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive223. So blame me for it! DC provided a very thoughtful and well-informed explanation of the usage, but he may have forgotten the subliminal suggestion of having recently read that noticeboard archive. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Case on Pratyeka

NW, I am requesting that you recuse yourself from this case due to our past history. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The case request is not substantially about you; it is about another editor and you happened to be the one to file the request. It could have been any of a dozen folks who did that. I am not going to recuse in every case that you want to provide evidence as a non-party, and I don't really see why this one is different. NW (Talk) 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think that I'll get a fair hearing based on our history. But it doesn't surprise me. GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You were the administrator who closed the fourth {{afd}} of Google Watch. I see that you blanked the {{afd}} discussion. Could you clarify why this was done?

I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Google+Watch and I see lots of activity. Repeatedly restoring deleted material would be vandalism. Even doing it once, if one was an experienced contributor, and knew better, would be vandalism. So I understand why the page needed some kind of protection.

Was any consideration given to leaving the revision history of the article intact and then protecting it from editing from anyone but other administrators? Is there a reason why ordinary contributors shouldn't be able to view the prior content? Not being able to view it makes it difficult to see how well any worthwhile content or references were merged into the Criticism of Google article.

I realize there may be good reasons for the blankings. If that is the case, could those reasons be made public? If there is a reason why the full explanation for the blankings can't be made public, could a discrete summary be provided?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I take it you mean this AFD? The article history is located here. I can send you a copy of the old content if you would like, but the bottom line is that there are very good reasons to let sleeping dogs lie on this one. NW (Talk) 04:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am reading Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 12#Google Watch now. If the reason for the blankings is to be found there, maybe the visible rump of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Watch (4th nomination) should contain a link to the DRV? Geo Swan (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that for you. NW (Talk) 04:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the DRV SMarshall wrote:

...editors who aren't familiar with Brandt may be perplexed at the outcomes which are not strictly consistent with normal Wikipedian custom and practice...

That is the position I find myself in. In that 4th {{afd}}, and the DRV, everyone seems to assume everyone else is aware of some kind of inside knowledge. It is mysterious, and it is disturbing.

If something terrible happened between the 3rd and 4th {{afd}} then is there a reason why all the edits up to the closure of the 3rd {{afd}} can't remain visible in the history. Presumably that version contained acceptable content?

Thanks for your offer of the deleted content. I am sorry if you received harrassment over your decision.

I assume this was a controversial article, that went through many drastic changes. I'd like to be able to step through the diffs.

Because we are all volunteers here, and you clearly seem to have long ago had your patience with this article exhausted, I won't ask you any more questions. I will accept your offer to email me the content. I will ask you to email me two different revisions however. Could you email me the version at the closure of the 3rd {{afd}}, and your judgement of a recent version that wasn't vandalized? Could you please include the timestamps of those two versions? That may be able to provide some explanation of what happened to make an article that survived three {{afd}} suddenly fail a fourth.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To understand the history of the Google Watch article, you'd have to hold your nose and dive into 14(!) AfDs for Daniel Brandt. The long and the short of it is that Mr. Brandt maintains off-wiki websites that "out" (or attempt to, much of the super-sleuthing is a bit wide-of-mark) Wikipedia admins and users, and used this as leverage to get articles about himself and his businesses removed from the project. Mr. Brandt just barely meets our notability criteria, but the project does tend to delete BLPs and relate articles if it is marginal and the subject requests it. The irony is that if one more reliable source is found that covers Mr. Brandt, that will likely tip us back into recreating an article on him, so he is effectively a silenced critic. So anyways, happy reading. :) Tarc (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

bug 32234

Over at User_talk:This, that and the other#bug 32234 I suggested using AbuseFilter to solve bugzilla:32234 (throttle account creation of newbies). I'd like to hear your thoughts on implementing it that way? I know a lot of people have complained about account creation throttling during workshops - maybe we could implement a better throttle using AbuseFilter, and raise the hardcoded software configuration so it has less impact on workshops. At least the edit throttle could be configured to work around a workshop. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've created an edit filter and it has a hit; see TTO's talk page for details. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

arbitration deadlines status

The current Signpost article states that Evidence is closed for all but involved parties. Is that correct? I thought it was going to be open to other parties during the extended period. Also, the evidence page header itself says that Evidence is closed January 24 with no exceptions noted.

It is possible that various NRHP editors and others who have relevant perspective and information to add, would have added evidence, but believed it was closed January 17 when in fact it was not (it was posted to be closed 17th, up to about the 24th i think), and would now expect that it is closed to them.

I am busy in real life, will check back later. --doncram 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We closed it to all non-parties unless they are given special permision. The delay was a special favor to you; we don't want this to drag the whole case out for weeks and weeks. If others want to comment, they can feel free to email us and ask for permission. NW (Talk) 21:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jami Floyd

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jami Floyd. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare's initial thoughts on the Arbitration Committee

So a couple of folks indicated that they might be interested in reading my thoughts on how it has been to join the Arbitration Committee, so I thought I might write a few words about that. As I say at the end, please feel free to ask me any questions you might have and I will do my best to respond.

I was surprised and flattered by the results of the results of the December 2012 election. When I first announced my candidacy, I did not expect to do nearly that well, and I want to thank everyone who supported me for doing so (or alternatively, curse you if you did so to make my life miserable). Results were first announced on December 18. Since then, I have made 270 edits, on par with my edit rate for 2012 but far below what I used to do. And yet I have spent more time dealing with Wikipdia than ever before. Some of the old-timers tell me that this month has been a pretty atypical month. Nevertheles, I want to summarize what has happened behind the scenes since I received access to the mailing list. This will of course be quite vague and incomplete, and I apologize that this is going to have to be the way it is.

I have received 2,147 emails on arbcom-l since I received access on December 21, as well as an additional 42 from the secondary mailing list, 221 from the BASC mailing list, and about 350 to functionaries-en and some unknown number to oversight-l and checkuser-l that I couldn't tell you about because I mostly autoarchive those. I actually do read all those emails, and unfortunately they are not all short as the emails I shoot off while at the gym. Just from a quick glance at the archives, this seems on par with or even less than how busy the list used to be.

The discussions on the mailing list are quite varied. The function of the ban appeals mailing list is obvious, but the primary mailing list handles an enormous range of topics. Here is just a brief sampling of them: users emailing us asking how individual arbitrators' statements and pronouncements onwiki, arbitrators discussing motions related to active cases, reports of violations of the child protection policy (which I am all too happy to let the other arbitrators handle), arbitrators giving brief status updates as to activity, arbitrators discussing whether to take a case and what direction such a case is likely to lead, whether a particular arbitrator will or should recuse, how the Committee should handle oversight of users with advanced permissions and special access, heads up on community discussions, sockpuppetry (far too much of it really), review of private evidence that cannot be posted onwiki, case extension requests and debate on whether to grant it or not, the conduct of particular users at Arbitration pages, and managing subcommittee membership, among many others.

Experienced editors might think they recognize what I am referring to when I say, for example, review of functionaries or sock puppetry. And indeed many of you might. But there is a fair amount that arbcom handles that never really makes it public. A fair amount is handled privately by mutual consent of all parties or is just us doing some preliminary research, investigating to see if emailed allegations actually have any basis in fact (all too often, the answer is no). Critics might say that this is nothing more than a star chamber, but I actually am somewhat happy so far with our handling of such matters—whether we decide to consult the community when appropriate (e.g. ban appeals that might be successful) or reach out for review to other functionaries as appropriate.

However, it is my opinion that the only reason we handle many of the things that we do is a failure of Wikipedia's governance. Handling advanced permissions is important and so too is discussing cases, but we shouldn't have to be the ones to handle much of the issues involving sockpuppetry, pedophilia, ban appeals, or even anything that has to be private. Users shouldn't be approaching arbitrators as if they were Wikipedia's governors, and I really wish there was some other body that could address that. But we have de facto arrived at that situation and I have no good solution for the issue, or even a bad one for that matter.

Lest you think that I dislike being on the Committee already, I do want to make it clear that that is not at all the case (yet). I have found it incredibly rewarding to help contribute to the different things we work on. The fifteen of us are certainly no hivemind, and oddly enough there are no real factions that I can perceive. Each of us brings a different perspective to the table and while I tend to agree with certain folks more than others, it seems that I can only go a couple days thinking I agree with everything someone says before all of a sudden they say something that I consider to be totally out of left field.

Anyway, those are some pretty vague first reflections I have had about the Committee. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here. I'll do my best to respond. NW (Talk) 18:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a really interesting take. I think that as long as ArbCom is the only well known body that handles private, high level matters, it's always going to have the child abuse and other private issues. The rest of the things you listed don't have to be on ArbCom's plate. We do have SPI, and while SPI does occasionally get backlogged, and it's definitely weaker for no longer having MuZemike, SPI still works. ArbCom shouldn't be afraid to divest from that area and just forward the SPI stuff to the CU mailing list. I also think that a lot of ban reviews could be handled at AN. Obviously in some cases private information comes into play, but from what I've gathered over the years, a lot of them could be tossed to AN without any real issue. The ban appeals subcommittee could be transitioned into the group that vets wheter requests should be handled in private by ArbCom or in public at AN, and then the moderators for the AN discussions. I guess that ultimately what I'm saying is that we've all gotten into the mindset that ArbCom is the be-all-end-all for advanced things, and it would be worth it to make an effort to try and break that mindset by giving the community and trusted subsets of the community a greater role. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that you get ban appeals from people sanctioned by the community who are appealing to us, or by people sanctioned through cases or arbitration enforcement. It defeats the purpose of a body of last resort a bit to toss it over to AN. SPI, well, I can't say more right now, but with at least one of the sockpuppetry allegations we are handling, it would be a shitshow it we did not handle it onwiki. The child abuse and other private stuff I think we should entirely not be handling at all; that should be the WMF's domain. NW (Talk) 19:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

AE question

Hi, I've raised a question about the intended scope of a topic ban you imposed, at WP:AE#Result concerning Sprutt. Would you like to comment?  Sandstein  21:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi.
Message added 10:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Need a little more before Cluetrainwoowoo is ran IMHO. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I was somewhat surprised to learn that Insomesia was part of a sock farm. Nice catch. However I've had suspicions about CTW for quite while; my gut feeling is that this is a sock of a different indeffed editor. As I have no hard evidence, I've held my tongue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [4]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ACN. Please feel free to poll the jury. NW (Talk) 14:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi there NW, AL "here",

i'd like your invaluable assistance on this matter if possible. In Luis Rubiales, one Spanish anon IP has been giving the time of day (months?!), doing the following: using google translator on the Spanish version then producing a piece of magic, which included (includes) removing the refs in text! I have messaged him once in the only anon IP i saw he used two different days (he has tons), to no avail, he says "talk to the hand".

Can't you do like you did in Quim (footballer born 1959) please and give it a lengthy protection (one year was what you gave to this page after i asked you)? I really don't know what else to do anymore.

Attentively, thank you very much in advance, happy weekend from Portugal - --AL (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you changed your username. Sure thing; semi-protected. NW (Talk) 21:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Heard about the dangers of editing with your real name, which was my last account name. Thanks for taking care of the "Rubiales files", improved the article a bit more, good teamwork! --AL (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected pages

you protected Milton of Campsie‎ and Banton, North Lanarkshire in 2010 with BLP concerns, the summary (at least the way I'm reading it) indicates that you meant for the protection to be for two years, but you set it as indefinite. Would you unprotect these articles if that is what you meant? Reagards, Crazynas ^t 00:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 01:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Crazynas ^t 01:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Transcendental Meditation...

... I was curious if you'd heard about the paper from Maharishi University that was pulled from Archives of Internal Medicine 12 minutes before it was set to be published. (Sort of a pre-retraction). The paper apparently remained under review for more than a year and was finally published in a different journal (whose editor was unaware of the goings-on with Archives of Internal Medicine). All of which is... highly unusual, to say the least (or, as the good people at RetractionWatch called it, "unprecedented"). MastCell ^Talk 04:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That is...unusual, though I could quite easily see how that would happen. I was surprised when I first discovered when trying to submit a manuscript for review that there was no requirement that an author mention whether a paper had ever been submitted for a consideration at another journal. Sure, it would be a little embarrassing to admit that a paper wasn't considered groundbreaking enough for JAMA, but I doubt the editors of Infection would really care about that. They would and should care that the JAMA reviewers thought that your blocking techniques were junk though. Considering that everyone asks you whether or not your manuscript is currently up for consideration elsewhere, would it really be too much to ask where it was submitted before? NW (Talk) 05:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's generally any expectation that authors disclose to a journal that a manuscript has previously been submitted elsewhere. In most fields, there's a subjective but generally understood hierarchy of journals, and editors of journals at the middle or low end of that hierarchy no doubt recognize that a number of the manuscripts they receive have previously been reviewed and rejected by more prominent journals. After all, PNAS is sometimes colloquially considered an acronym for "Papers Not Accepted by Science"... :)

What's exceptional, and probably unprecedented, in this case is that the paper apparently was accepted by Archives. It apparently went through peer review and was slated for publication, and was pulled only 12 minutes before it was scheduled to go "live". The editor's statement implied that she recognized after the article was accepted that the peer reviewers were not supplied by the authors with all of the relevant data ([5]). That's really, really odd. I think it's an open question whether the authors should have disclosed that the article had been accepted and then "un-accepted" by another journal when they re-submitted it elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that the editor of the Circulation journal would have viewed the article very carefully if he'd known about the prior, very unusual history of the manuscript at Archives.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole thing, other than that there's probably a pretty interesting story behind it which will never see the light of day. The editors of Archives are ethically (and probably legally) constrained from saying anything about the internal results of peer review, particularly on a manuscript which they never ended up publishing. And while the TM folks aren't as litigious as, say, the Church of Scientology, they do have some history of going after people who publish critical material in the medical literature. So I think we'll probably never know, but like I said... it's really odd. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this

Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Where to log something

Hello NW. Since you posted the result of this unblock at WP:AC/N maybe you have an idea of where to log it in Arbcom space (in a place that won't be soon archived). See my question at User talk:Hahc21#New Arbcom restriction might be logged? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions would likely be the best place I imagine. Point Hahc21 to my post here please? NW (Talk) 20:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, NuclearWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Sensitive matter.
Message added 02:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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

Kurtis ^(talk) 16:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppet‎

Thanks for your edit. As you may have noticed, the template was revamped a while ago. I started a minor RfC about this on the talk page, mainly because I disagreed about the standard blue dot being used. If you have time left, could you provide input on it? Thanks, theFace 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected image on Main Page

I just wanted to remind you/point out that you forgot to upload the picture of Musharraf locally before putting it in ITN. -- tariqabjotu 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm It has been quite some time since I last updated ITN with an image blurb. I'll do my best to remember in the future. NW (Talk) 16:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It also doesn't help either that people putting pictures in the {{ITN candidate}} template often don't realize that either. Finding an appropriate picture isn't what's time-consuming; it's the uploading and cropping and copying and pasting. -- tariqabjotu 16:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Any file that's used on the main page gets added to commons:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en automatically. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say, didn't Commons take over the procedure some time back? I remember I originally obtained Commons adminship a few years ago for dealing with this precise issue, but I haven't thought about the project much since I resigned there. NW (Talk) 16:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not instantaneous, which is why it's still in the instructions to upload the file locally. Yes, it's only a short window when it's unprotected and it's very unlikely it will be vandalized during that time, but it can still happen. Note that NW added the photo at 16:29 (UTC), but it didn't get protected until 16:33 (UTC). I've seen it take 15 minutes [like when I forgot to protect an image] or even longer. But judging by how the bot has handled some of the ITN photos recently, perhaps it's gotten more efficient and four minutes is the norm. I'm not going to remove the instruction from the ITN template though because I'm not in the position to judge whether a few minutes of unprotection, and the risk it entails, is worth it for what amounts to convenience for admins. Also, most of the time, the image needs cropping anyway. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it updates every 15 minutes, so if you put a new image on the main page 14 minutes since it last updated, it will add it in one minute, and vice versa. And honestly, 14 minutes is nothing. I've woken up in the morning, on the rare occasion that the bot has done down, to find an image has been on the main page unprotected for almost ten hours and nobody's even noticed. --Closedmouth (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

CU Request

Could you do a CU on User:Do Not Delete, checking him against User:98.204.145.138, User:Hollisz and User:Zimmermanh1997, please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please file an WP:SPI report so the evidence you're giving for running a check can be centralized? I'll take a look after that. NW (Talk) 17:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI can by found here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing at Boston Marathon bombings

Hi there. I've replied on the article talk page to your comment about admin editing. I do have concerns. Thanks. GedUK  12:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replied there. NW (Talk) 14:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a thread at ANI too. I didn't start it, though I have commented. GedUK  14:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Awesome job on tightening the Lead. I got it in order but felt it was too long. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. NW (Talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI you are being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Remove_.22uncontroversial.22_from_the_policy., and to my surprise you don't seem to have been informed of this. ϢereSpielChequers 10:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And here. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

SOPA discussion question

Hello! I'm writing an undergraduate thesis on the SOPA blackout, and I have a quick question about your role as closing admin. How did you become designated as the closing admin of the discussion? Were you chosen, or did you volunteer? Are there any discussions or talk page archives that mention this decision? Edge3 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, I actually don't remember. I believe User:Risker asked if I would like to close the discussion with her, and we kind of just decided that we three would be closing it together. NW (Talk) 17:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hi. I have left a note for Arbcomm, at this page. just a minor suggestion. just letting you know. feel free to comment there if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

your request

per your request of "adminacct" .. I'll be working on sorting and organizing specific diffs over the next few days. Please don't feel that I am ignoring your request, but it appears that a more lengthy and detailed reply is justified in this particular case. I hope you will be willing to grant me a bit of time to organize my thoughts and rational in this situation. Kind regards, Ched — Ched :  ?  17:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to take your time. My initial thought had been "Wow, this block was way out of line consider that there was no personal attack, just reasonably harsh criticism (for what members of ArbCom go through). I wonder if there is some private info that I'm missing." I now realize I had misread things yesterday and that your block was quite defensible. NW (Talk) 21:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that NW, it is greatly appreciated. — Ched :  ?  22:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

request

I know that you and I have both been on wiki for quite some time. It is verifiable that at one point I did use my full name, but I did request that my last name be removed due to some real life harassment issues some time ago. I am aware that once something is committed to the internet, it is there forever, but in the spirit of wikipedia - could you please refrain from using my full name in any further posts? — Ched :  ?  21:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize; I'm sorry! Will do in the future. NW (Talk) 22:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was actually pleasantly surprised that you remembered me. (hopefully in a positive light)— Ched :  ?  00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

I see you're still watching the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article...but it has been expanded significantly since you stubbed it out in October 2011. I haven't been watching it, but its part of a flame war going on between User:WLRoss and User:Phoenix and Winslow...I see third parties are mostly responsible for the expansion...is it still meeting BLP and other concerns?--MONGO 03:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't really. I did some work on it; hopefully it's somewhat better now. NW (Talk) 04:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you've kept the worst referenced stuff out. No one is going to listen to a defrocked admin like me and since you took command of the article before, just thought I'd get your take on the situation.--MONGO 16:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi NW, I thought I would share that I lived in Omaha during this entire ordeal, and know people involved (Omaha is a small town, in many ways). It is with this context in mind that I suggest watching "Conspiracy of Silence", the result of a 10-month investigation by Yorkshire Television of England. It was scheduled to be aired on the Discovery Channel, but was pulled at the last minute. This fact is discussed here (I found this in a quick search, I have no idea about the book or author, but these facts are uncontested). With some digging, one could find the original TV Guide listing that shows this fact. I wonder if this would add some context to the article that may be missing? petrarchan47tc 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan47. I'm frankly not very interested in watching such a documentary, and including mention of a hacked-together Youtube version in the Wikipedia article about the Franklin case amounts to original research if there is no mention of it in an outside publication. NW (Talk) 21:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Here it is on another site. I haven't checked whether it is mentioned on Yorkshire Television's site or elsewhere. It was made for the Discovery Channel and is well worth a watch for anyone working on that article. As for what can be added, it might take the "way back machine" to find a write-up in the TV Guide, but it's available (the link to the book tells how it can be done). This isn't my area of research, I thought perhaps someone working on the page would pick this up. BTW, I never mentioned adding the youtube video to the article. I asked if context might be missing given that this doc was pulled from US TV and there is proof of that. That isn't yet mentioned in the article. petrarchan47tc 22:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources as to why it was pulled? I don't care to look into this if there isn't any reason for me to trust the documentary. NW (Talk) 00:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My bet is Yorkshire may have hoped the Discovery Channel would lease the program and they may have originally agreed to, but after seeing the final product knew that it was rubbish and so they backed out. I once searched for more info on this matter but nothing came up.--MONGO 02:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There are at least two possible explanations, and we should be aware of both in our efforts to protect the Wikipedia project. The first is the possibility of a libel action. Libel laws in the U.S. aren't very strict but in the UK, they strongly favor the plaintiff. Thus the suspects in the Franklin case may not have been able to sue the Discovery Channel successfully for libel in the U.S., while being able to do so successfully in the UK. The second is the possibility that some of the footage in the documentary, whether it's the video or audio portions, might be actionable as child pornography. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

George Tiller

Hi NW, would you consider changing the indef semi of George Tiller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to PC protection? At least for a little bit to check if it's possible. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I took the protection off entirely. Looks like I accidentally set the move protection to expire instead of the semi-protection way back in 2009. Oops. NW (Talk) 04:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

can you please check [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MezzoMezzo this]

can you please check [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MezzoMezzo investigations/MezzoMezzo]Ghulam Mehar Ali (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Joshuaforest

Hi there NW, AL "here",

unfortunately, the reason's the same, vandalism (or the sorts): please take at this message i sent to a fellow user about this chap above (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Struway2#User:Joshuaforest). Consulting Mr.JF's talkpage you will see he's been warned and blocked several times, the latter including for what appears to be sockpuppetry.

Talks to noone, directly or indirectly, writes zero in summaries to top it. What can be done in your opinion? Attentively, keep it up. --AL (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for bothering you. --AL (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't worry; I have mostly been dealing with Arbitration Committee matters the last few days and haven't looked here very much. Still want me to look into this? NW (Talk) 14:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Has been blocked for one week it seems. Thanks for the reply though, all the best in and out of the wikispace. --AL (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK. Don't worry about bothering me ever; always please feel free to request my assistance here. NW (Talk) 02:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Akuri

The user has recently resumed where they left off editing as an IP. I filed an SPI[6] but the circumstances are such there's not much more they can do there. I'm alerting you so that you might convey this to a more appropriate venue should you agree it's warranted. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have commented, though likely not to your satisfaction (nor my own). NW (Talk) 02:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no easy end to this available but I knew better than to expect one. Thanks for looking into this though and helping chip away at the problem. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Has Akuri been checked as a possible sockpuppet of Captain Occam? Peter James (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have my suspicions, but I don't know if anyone has stored CheckUser information about Captain Occam. After all this time, it would certainly have been wiped from the records. NW (Talk) 19:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The most recent edits were on 26 March. According to meta:CheckUser policy#CheckUser status information is stored for 3 months. Peter James (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason the usual IP from the US would not have been used. When editing as Zeromus1, Ferahgo the Assassin claimed to be editing from China. But they also apparently edited from the US. There were similar problems with Mors Martell. Besides, during the R&I review a year ago, Captain Occam made one edit on his talk page to try to prove something or other. In much the same way the Mors Martell account has reappeared out of the blue, both here and on wikipediocracy, trying to prove something or other. It is the fact that they're trying to prove something or other that's the problem. Akuri's use of last year's IP range contradicts his story about his employer's computer network. Why would they use two different webhosting services? Yfever was no different. He claimed to edit from NZ but also edited logged off from the US. Zeromus1 said she knew him off-wiki. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Captain Occam/Ferahgo also recruit meatpuppets off-wiki to convey their own handiwork here (copy/paste failtrail [7][8]), so we know they also take pains to conceal themselves through the use of their recruits' IPs. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Avatar

NW, in your close of the previous RM discussion on Avatar, it appears that you did not give serious consideration to the idea of having no primary topic. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: "In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic." This is one of those cases. Shouldn't the obvious lack of consensus mean no primary topic? Anyway, there's a new RM open at Talk:Avatar if you have any words of wisdom... Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh, that was two years ago wasn't it. I'll consider commenting, though I don't think much has changed in either the consensus realm or the real world since I closed that discussion then. NW (Talk) 03:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also a discussion related to it at WT:D#Is there a primary topic for Avatar?. It looked to me from your closing statement that you didn't take "no primary topic" to be a viable option, or at least didn't give it consideration as the default option when the different criteria diverged and there was no consensus for what to select as primary. Maybe I'm wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to recall my thought process then based on the little I wrote, but I believe I did take that into consideration. I reread the old discussion last night. I would have closed it the same way today. NW (Talk) 19:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Protecting Talk Pages

I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but isn't this an extremely drastic and conservapedia-like measure that makes it all too easy to shut down all debate? There was also no vandalism in the talk pages recent history (let alone "most severe") which is the only reason given on the Protection Policy article for such a measure. (I am of course talking about the race and intelligence talk page.) 110.32.199.135 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That page contradicts itself: in the "Guidance for administrators" section, "Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption". Sock puppetry, including block evasion, is a form of disruption, and if you are User:Akuri should request to be unblocked with your account, and not edit logged out. Peter James (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Akuri. Problem solved? 110.32.199.135 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? The "Akuri account" claimed the edits in exactly the same range from February 2012 were by them. It started with a blanking of a section of the lede and comments on the talk page that started like this.[9] "Apart from this statement, has this organization done anything remotely to do with this debate? If not, should the statment even be mentioned, and if so how many times. (At present the number is 3.) Also, the statement seems out of place. It's located above the framing of the debate and summery of possible positions, which are surely vastly more important." Your own comments were almost identical.[10] "I don't think the APAA statements should be in the intro, as as far as I can tell, this organization has had absolutely nothing to do with the debate apart from this statement." The problem is that whoever is writing this is forgetting to use Australian spelling ("organization"). Mathsci (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Akuri account" (which I had never heard of until 2 days ago) is lying. Can't someone just perform checkuser on him to see if he has the same IP? 110.32.199.135 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Akuri used the same range of optus IPs in February 2012. At this stage per  Looks like a duck to me every indication is that this is exactly the same person. They have made almost identical edits to the same article talk page, with the same IP range and the same type of inconsistent explanations. If the article talk page is semiprotected, then the straightforward thing to do would be to register an account. No reason has so far been given for not doing so. Why would a new user even know what a "checkuser" is? Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear I did make the Feb 2012 edit to the R&I talk page. While having different IP (bar use of a proxy) proves that two people are different, having the same IP does not prove they are the same. Just registering an account does not grant me access to protected pages. I know what checkuser is from reading about Conservapedia.

On a (slightly) different note, not one of the stages of the duck test have I been shown evidence that they fit the me/Atari situation, bar Atari being blocked. "For example, consider that "User:Username" is engaged in a heated dispute with someone else," Where did this happen? "and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after," When did Atari get blocked? Was it just before my recent R&I edit? "a "User:Username reloaded" registers on Wikipedia" I haven't even registered. (Just included for completeness's sake. I know it's not important.) "and continues the dispute right away, saying the same things" You haven't even linked to Atari saying he wrote my edit, let alone proved it. "and in the same tone." How about some comparisons between my tone and some of the edits actually made by his account? 110.32.199.135 (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I have a better idea. Can't someone just perform an ip-block and draw the curtains on this week's episode of Jerk the Wiki (Transparently contrived ed)? Professor marginalia (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Or we could stop this censorship and have a constructive discussion. Has that option ever occurred to either of you? 110.32.199.135 (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Akuri claimed to have made those edits. His enablers have supported that statement. In particular Akuri mentioned his edits to Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel on multiple occasions. He even did so during his unsuccessful unblock request. In 2012 he claimed he hadn't registered an account because he couldn't think up a suitable username. The arbitration committee are at this stage familiar with the circumstances around Akuri's editing, or as much as they want to be. Just more  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. A template I rarely use, but which applies to the comments at 06:30 above, is WP:DFTT. How does the IP even know me? The mind boggles. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And this Occamesque "stunt"[11] resulted in a block. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

G13 is 6 months, not 12

See Wikipedia_talk:CSD#G13_-_The_discussion_for_the_official_criterion. No worries, it's a new criterion... --j⚛e decker^talk 05:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. NW (Talk) 10:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Request close consideration

Hello NuclearWarfare, could you consider closing a discussion or recommend an administrator that might? The article discussion is for moving Avatar located here. Thank you. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I should be the one to close it again. It appears to be properly listed at WP:RM. Just sit tight; someone will close it eventually. NW (Talk) 21:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Thank you for your interests in Freedom of speech and Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.

I've left some explanatory notes at Talk:Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.

Hopefully this is helpful to explain the citation for you. — Cirt (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! NW (Talk) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Perhaps you'd consider my invitation, below, to join WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech? :) — Cirt (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hope you'll give it some thought, it's a worthwhile venture to improve articles related to Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. I'd love to collaborate with you on a quality improvement project in the future, — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I will definitely keep that in mind in case the next time I get the urge to write an article it turns out to be related to freedom of speech. NW (Talk) 03:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great, thanks so much! :) — Cirt (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Akuri

Is there anything more you can add? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I will be the first to admit that I am not the most experienced with CheckUser, but that's why I asked two other CheckUsers for their opinion before taking any action. The CheckUser evidence is suspicious, but by itself it wouldn't be enough to block. What really tips it over the edge is the large number of disruptive editors in the past who have jumped straight into Race and intelligence disputes. Akuri is following essentially the exact same pattern as those editors.  It sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone. That's how I saw it anyway. NW (Talk) 03:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I had declined the request on procedural ground and in the interest of thoroughness wanted just a little more info. That helps. Thanks. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations. Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hunting for embedded outlines

I'm looking for outlines embedded in articles.

I've run across a number of these over the years. One example is the Outline of fencing, which used to be part of the fencing article.

If you know about or spot any structured general topics lists in articles, please let me know (on my talk page).

Another thing you might find are articles that are comprised mostly of lists (without "List of" in the title). If you come across any of these, please report them to me on my talk page. I'd sure like to take a look at them.

Happy hunting.

I look forward to "hearing" from you (on my talk page). Sincerely, The Transhumanist 07:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Defamatory comments on bio talk page

Hi, I hope you don't mind me raising the question of these extensive comments by an IP on the talk page of a BLP article in the climate change topic area. While it covers a reasonable point that probably merits brief coverage, the IP is putting this in a wall of text with extensive comments that look defamatory. As I'm sure the IP is not going to accept any advice from me, I'd appreciate your thoughts on where I should take this. Thanks, dave souza, talk 08:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine that WP:BLP/N would be the only place where you are likely to get a decent response from anyone. I think that you honestly might be best off just continuing to dismiss the IP's long posts until they start providing sources, and edit the article yourself to minimize the Nobel Prize mention (if you indeed think that is the right course of action). NW (Talk) 13:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add it to my to-do list! . .dave souza, talk 14:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentine history case: Principle 3.1 Oppose vote

Hi NW:

I've copyedited the principle and I believe this now removes your concern.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this edit and Tim made it,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Switched my vote. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 12:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentine history

I have some final questions about the Argentine history case. Do I open a request for clarification, or is it acceptable if I simply ask you? I don't want to break the ban by asking questions out of place, but I wouldn't want either to generate even more bureaucracy if it wasn't needed. Cambalachero (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to just ask me; if I feel it is something that should be addressed by the rest of the Committee, we can go through the formal process then. NW (Talk) 21:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to know (with an actual explanation, not with just generalistic principles) why my evidence and comments in talk pages have been rejected. Specially the parts where I pointed that the current use of revisionist sources (and even before the whole discussion) is minimal and next to zero, and when I pointed the lack of relation between the historians criticized by Lecen and the the historians actually used in the article. I also want to know why all the simpler solutions have been ignored, going straight to the most severe one; I have never been blocked or sanctioned before ad I may have easily followed any condition imposed.

Argentine history is not the only topic I have been editing, but it is the one I'm most interested in editing, and I would like to be able to do so again some day. I understand that if I stay editing other articles I can appeal the ban the next year, but with a speedy 0-10 vote against me in this case, do I really have a chance in such appeal, or would it be a waste of time? Which is the rationale to decide which appeals are accepted or rejected, what exactly do I have to do to be able to edit in Argentine history again? Also, would the appeal process involve the 3 users, or just me? Are the arbitrators the same, or others?

Are modern politics included in the ban? And if not, how much back in time can I get? What about biographies of modern people, such as the current Pope or the current president?

In any case, this message is not to start any discussion. I want just those clarifications, and then I will consider the case to be over. According to the answer I receive, I will decide if I try to work for a successful appeal by working in other articles, or if I simply leave wikipedia. Cambalachero (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, the bulk of the first part comment I think is best not for here but should be laid out at WP:A/R/CL so that other Arbitrators can give their input if they need to. To summarize: I think the simplest answer though is that your comments were read but that Lecen's argument was simpler taken to be more credible. As to why we didn't vote on a narrower sanction, I don't know. I am recalling that there was a particular reason for it, but I cannot come to it except for the fact that we worried that any intersection of you and the topic area wouldn't be beneficial because of your tendency to point-of-view push, knowingly or not.

The full Arbitration Committee is the only body that hears sanction appeals.

Until January 2014, the membership of that body should stay the same; the membership list can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members. Appeals are done onwiki at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Any user may comment, including Lecen and M., but it is not as adversarial a process as this last one unfortunately was. I usually consider appeals de novo, with the qualification that I do not have the same time to spend on reading evidence for appeals that I do for reading cases. For a case like yours at this point in time, what I would be willing to support the most would be exceptions for individual or a small set of articles that you would want to advance, perhaps with a mentor attached. Should you appeal the full sanction at a later date, what I would want to see is evidence that independent reviewers agree that your work is clear of neutrality issues; writing content reviewed by other editors is often a way to do this.

My person opinion would be that anything in the last 15 years is fair game, especially the more non-contentious it is. Pope Francis or President Kirchner would both be fine to edit, but that you want to avoid any of their actions regarding the Dirty War. Try to clear the articles you edit with an Arbitrator before you do just to avoid any misunderstanding, at least for the first while; I would be happy to do that for you. NW (Talk) 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Popped on my watchlist

The most recent posts on your talk popped on my watchlist just as I am making a probably useless attempt to catch up on a number of issues, and I feel terribly about the Argentine history case. I know I should have found time to weigh in, regret that I simply didn't and don't have the time, and feel terribly about the amount of evidence wrt Lecen's ongoing disruptive behaviors that was not brought forward. I'm reminded that the arbs can do their job best only when editors bring forward evidence. I didn't. At least Lecen got a reminder, and hopefully that will be enough to lessen the egregious behaviors I've witnessed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, nice to see your name around again. It's a shame that you weren't able to contribute to this particular case, but hopefully I will continue to see you around the project. If Lecen's name comes up at Arbitration again, would you like me to drop you a line? NW (Talk) 04:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate that, although I can't say it would have made a difference this time. I had relevant diffs to bring forward, there has long been an aggressive, disruptive, vituperative, POV, and OWN issue, but I just didn't have time to get involved. I can't promise I would either if there's a next time-- the best possible outcome would be that the reminder/warning leads to a change in behavior. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I do understand ..

but I disagree with this — Ched :  ?  18:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• also .. the "sig" is missing from your decline .. just letting you know. — Ched :  ?  18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Added the sig, thanks. And as for the other part of that edit, fair enough. Kumioko was clearly just making a big fuss out of nothing, but when I skimmed Beeblebrox's talk page and saw something like twenty posts in the last few hours, I figured that it things might be easier (if less just) to do things this way. NW (Talk) 19:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is that letting the baby have it's bottle will only encourage further temper tantrums in the future, but I certainly don't intend to make any further fuss about this, more than enough has been said already. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful my comment was at Arb, but since I was involved in the last action that lead to this Arb case, I felt like I was obligated to say something. Same with Kumioko, not sure my comments had any effect, especially now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 01:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for every Arb, but I do read every statement before voting at minimum, and I make sure to keep an eye out for the people I consider clueful. You're certainly on that list, and your comment seemed spot on to me. NW (Talk) 02:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• follow up. I wasn't trying to "stir the pot" or anything, in fact I wouldn't have even mentioned it had I not stopped by to note the sig. thing. And actually, it was more a "personal preference" note than an objection or saying it was "wrong". — Ched :  ?  13:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20

Dear NW,
I would appreciate if you could answer (all or some) the following questions (non-elaborate responses are fine):

1. Is it a coincidence that the arbitrators replied after Lecen made a "plea" at the requests noticeboard for a sanction based on alleged editorial inhibitions due to harassment?
2. You write that "Lecen's argument was simpler [sic] taken to be more credible". How was credibility determined?
3. Why were the comments of non-involved users so easily dismissed? Was weight given to Lecen's claim of WP:CANVASS?
4. Lecen has been warned to follow the behavioral guideline, but nonetheless has (and more than likely will continue) to exhibit the same behavior. What steps should I take once further evidence has been gathered in this regard?
5. If, according to most arbitrators, I "baited" Lecen into making brusque comments, what made the topic bans better than an interaction ban?
6. Why is it that I have been stamped with "tendentious editing" and "battleground editing" supported by admittedly weak diffs? What made these accusations, and the attached topic bans, better than a simple WP:TROUT (warning)?
7. What should I do (if anything can be done) to demonstrate these accusations were excessive and clean my reputation? If I can demonstrate it, will the arbitrators make a clear amendment of it in the case file?
8. In a month, as you recommended, may I seek an amendment that narrows down my current topic ban to topics concerning the history of the Empire of Brazil? How likely is this proposal to work? What would the arbitrators like to see (perhaps something such as my recent FA with Pisco Sour)?

These other set of questions concern article content:

1. Lecen's recent edits in Juan Manuel de Rosas have focused on adding an image featured in Pacho O'Donnell's unreliable work (discussed in the arbitration case) as well as removing sourced information about Rosas' career as a Miguelete (soldier). He plans to "in short time" nominate the article for FA status. Although I do not disagree with the inclusion of Lynch's point of view (that Rosas was "probably absent" due to illness), his current edits indicate he plans to continue pushing for a negative-POV of Rosas in the article (inherently breaking WP:NPOV). The question: Will the arbitrators keep an eye on any further important developments in the JM Rosas article (mainly an FA review)?
2. Lecen's contributions have been accused of exhibiting content excessively favorable to the Empire of Brazil. What is the appropriate noticeboard that would devote greater attention to this matter? Can I discuss these matters with other users in Wikipedia without fear of being accused of canvassing? What would be the optimal way to approach this matter (aside from talking to Lecen, which is practically impossible) in a non-confrontational manner?
3. Who is the man that would risk his neck for his brother man?

Thanks in advance for the answers. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what you are talking about, so it was probably a coincidence, yes.

2. There's no real formal methodology; it's mostly a "we read the content, we looked at the diffs, and this is what we came up with."

3. I mostly didn't pay attention to who gave what evidence; I just read the page and evaluated the points raised on its own merits.

4. Nothing. You are theoretically at liberty to file requests for administrators to look over his behavior, but leave it to other editors to deal with it (like SandyGeorgia below apparently).

5. Because the primary concern was that you were POV-pushing, not that you were uncivil. That was at most a minor factor in my eyes.

6. See 5; they are connected to an evaluation that your editing was not in line with our neutrality policy.

7/8. Yes, bringing an article about a slightly-more-controversial topic than a beverage to featured status and having well-established independent editors evaluate the sourcing in particular would be a good start. It is unlikely that we would vacate the case entirely, but if you are able to present a strong case, we would note that the topic ban has been altered on the case page. I cannot speculate as to how likely this would be to succeed.

1. No. That is up to the community to handle. As far as we look at content matters at all, it is only for what we consider to be egrigious violations of the neutrality policy. Incidentally, I take it you are referring to File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi oval.png?

2. WP:NPOV/N, but keep in mind that your topic ban extends to all namespaces. I would advise that you not open such discussions and only ask one or two longstanding editors whom you trust for advice before moving ahead.

3. Never seen the movie, but it looks neat. Maybe I'll watch it when I have some free time (hah!).

NW (Talk) 04:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

NW, yes, I was referring to that image. There was even a short discussion on this at the article's talk page not long ago (see [12]), where again we find Lecen making unwarranted insults ("No wonder this article sucks") when nobody had done anything that could be considered baiting. The image Lecen has included looks like a distorted version of Rosas with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation (compare it with the others in the Wikimedia page [13]). My personal favorite (from the available options) is the black-and-white one (see [14]).

This aside, thank you very much for the advice. I will focus on cleaning my honor as an editor. I think that Falkland Islands is a reasonably controversial article that I can bring to FA standards. Since the article's history section is partially mixed with Argentina, could I please get a minor exclusion to work on it?

There's no such thing as free time. I do, however, believe in procrastination. ;)

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that there was also an image deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons (see [15]), where considerable points were raised in favor and against the image (although there is consensus that the eyes are completely unnatural). I just noticed this discussion. I did not use it in the "evidence" section of the Arbcomm case, but (after reading it) again find Lecen making excessively aggressive comments for no good reason. However, as mentioned by Sandy below, hopefully the warning is enough for him to change his way of interacting with others.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands seems like a good choice. I think the best way to go about it would be to first work on the sections that aren't related to the history of the article, then identify someone who would agree to be a "supervisor" of sorts, who you agree would have the power to immediately re-restrict you from the article. After that, you could apply for the exemption from the Committee. I don't have the power to grant that on my own, so you have to ask the full Committee. Some members are rightly skeptical of modifying decisions so soon after they are issued, but I think that this progressive approach should be enough to mollify them. NW (Talk) 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Prize

I noticed some assumptions on the talk of SandyGeorgia, where I am not welcome, that I would ask you to correct there: The PumpkinSky Prize is NOT given by PumpkinSky, but by me. (He took the picture.) It was created - in continuation of the "Awesome Wikipedian" by Phadriel, Rlevse and a few others - when PumpkinSky was blocked, January 2012. At first I didn't call it by that name - it seemed not appropriate then ;) - I am proud that people from different sides of arguments fall in that same category of Precious. On a daily basis I look for some achievement and so far always found it, sometimes large, sometimes small, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, and for the compliment and the awards that you give out. I have clarified my post on Sandy's talk page. NW (Talk) 18:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

question:

I noticed a post of yours on Sandy's talk page: "Ched's modified RfC". Is it in reference to my draft on Infoboxes? (which I have pretty much abandoned after researching and seeing a huge problem that I doubt it could have solved). Or is it in reference to the RfC Doc James started? (which I still need to post to, but I'm still working on my wording for that.) re: Fragmented conversations hurt my brain. I would have posted there, but I do try to avoid interacting with people that I frequently disagree with - and Sandy I think is usually pretty respectful to me in that way as well. (not that either one of us would hesitate to inform the other of something we thought was important, just an "oil and water don't mix" type of thing.) — Ched :  ?  13:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a reference to this proposal of yours. My initial thought was that proposal would essentially be a carefully drafted RFC/U to allow James to better figure out where the community stands on actions he has taken. I don't think that is necessary any more (per some of Sandy's comments), but it was a good proposal. NW (Talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, ok - thanks for the clarification. I noticed that you were pinged in the current discussion]. I may put the official "RfC" tag on that - your thoughts on that? (the tagging rather than your thoughts on "protection") — Ched :  ?  16:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"there is no current problem with James' admin actions"...uh, you can't be reading the same RFAR and evidence as many others, because that is not what people are saying at all..PumpkinSky talk

Any proposal that didn't allow for that option would be construed as inherently biased, prejudging that that conclusion was impossible. IE: It is a bureaucratic necessity. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 17:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis, so you're saying NW said that out necessity?PumpkinSky talk 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I understand why Ched made that one of the options in his comment [16], which is what I thought you were referring to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, my quote is from what NW said on SandyGeorgia's page. Go check it out.PumpkinSky talk 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ched, that seems good to me.

Rlevse, I am saying that there is no immediate (current) problem with James' actions and desysopping is not required. As such, events ought to proceed in a way that allows James to adapt to community expectations of best practices in the simplest way possible. NW (Talk) 18:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My name's not Rlevse. And that's not what you said. Keep backpedaling. So what do you call many involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, one as recent as 10 days ago?...all showing a pattern 3 years back? If that's not current, I don't know what is. So James is allowed to adapt while his innocent victims suffer his abuse and the victims get squat. Why am I not surprised?PumpkinSky talk 20:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2". And NW, for you, you should have recused from this and from all future Jmh649 AC cases. PumpkinSky talk 21:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Meat puppetry

This has just happened: [17] As I expected, one of MarshalN20's friends, an usual editor of the troubled Falkland Islands-related articles[18], with no previous history of editing on Juan Manuel de Rosas[19], appeared to make one edition obviously on behalf of MarshalN20: [20] Is it all a coincidence? Making the exact same assertion as MarshalN20 about the eyes of a portrait? And replacing the old image with the very exact image MarshalN20 told you that he liked the most? ("My personal favorite (from the available options) is the black-and-white one")[21]

This behavior is unnaceptable, it's a clear and obvious violation of the ArbCom sanctions. When I warned that this could occur[22] it was because I was well aware of how he acts. The complaint doesn't even make sense. Sources describe Rosas as blond haired, with "iceberg-blue eyes"[23] and "piercing blue eyes".[24] It's clearly a trap for me: he expects me to revert it. Then his friend will complain about it and there you'll have it, a strong proof that I have problems with article ownership, that I am troublesome, etc, etc, etc...

Should I file a formal complain at the arbcom or here is enough and you'll do someting about it? --Lecen (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To MarshalN20: "While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Wikipedia as if it does exist."[25] Please, stay away from me. --Lecen (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Langus to comment here. NW (Talk) 15:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been really busy IRL. Let me set some facts straight:

1. I'm not a friend of MarshallN20, although I do have a high respect for him because in more than one occasion he took a step forward and successfully mediated at the Falkland Islands-related articles, which is not a minor task. I've had no more interaction other than that, especially not outside of Wikipedia. As such, I wasn't instructed to do that edit, nor he asked me anything at all. I've had that article in my watchlist since more than a year ago. I reckon I heard of the discussion about Rosas' picture (remember: watchlist), but I didn't pay too much attention to it, certainly not enough to know that this image was "Marshall's favorite". I just made a search and took the one that I thought would fit best for the infobox.
2. I left your numerous[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] edits to the article in place. So I have to ask, am I allowed to disagree with you? Does a disagree over article content (I repeat: article content) warrant for an ArbCom request?
3. (content) Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR). I recognize that I'm not an expert on the matter, but at any case we should be discussing this at the article talk page, not here.

I don't know if there's anything more to respond to. --Langus (t) 18:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll let WP:AE handle the end of this. NW (Talk) 00:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a limit to how far I can go. And I've reached it. MarshalN20 doesn't seem to understand that it's time to move on. He is acting like he could go on around forever and ever. When AGK called him a "civil POV-pusher" he was more correct than he could've imagined. MarshalN20 is "superficially polite" but "may... recruit meat puppets", "repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing" and "hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors". This new post he made is one good proof that he hasn't given up. Writing on your talk page, asking his friends (who never edited "Juan Manuel de Rosas" nor have shown any interest in it before) to edit on his behalf or to back him up on talk pages, or saying that the "ArbComm ruling has been a mistake. Lecen was given credibility despite he lied about events" (see link provided), going around repeately talking about "Lecen's bad behavior", and, finally, asking "I hope the administrators here finally see through the façade put up by Lecen" is enough for me. He is ignoring the ArbCom case resolution, and wants to continue the matter as far as he is allowed to. I really can't persist with this. It takes too much of my time. It's unfair. --Lecen (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, after reviewing this, I don't think that there is sufficient evidence to call Langus a "meatpuppet". If there is still further editorial dispute between the two of you, you can move discussion to the article talk page. Langus seems like a long-time, independent editor; I hardly see any reason to conclude that Marshal is whispering in his ear or anything. Treat this like a good faith disagreement and I'm sure it will resolve quickly. With respect to Marshal, I don't think that you or he need to engage further, so just avoid him (as he should be doing to you) and that will be the end of that. NW (Talk) 00:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am at loss here. I seeked the legitimate procedure to deal with user disputes. One administrator said that I "should be warned against battleground and ownership conduct". So far MarshalN20 hasn't stopped going around talking about me, telling everyone about my "bad behavior". As shown above, he called me a liar yesterday.[52] Today he wrote on Cambalachero's talk page: "How many more warnings does a troll need before it is stopped?"[53]

Here I ask: honestly, what do you believe I should do? Should I just sit and let him go around harming my reputation? Telling everyone that I should somehow be sactioned? Because if I seek the appropriate channels I'm warned not to. In fact, I'm blamed for doing it.

That administrator I mentioned said that "note that here too he fails to provide any actual argument for his choice, while a decently-argued prevalent opinion of others in that thread is clearly against him". "[D]ecently-argued prevalent opinion" were his words. Let's see what were them:

1) MarshalN20 said on this very talk page: "I'll keep searching until I find an even better one. I'll add (to the discussion) that Rosas' hair is obviously brown."

2) Langus-TxT said: "Your rejection of images based on your own interpretation of how Rosas really looked like is, a priori, contrary to WP's policies to me (see WP:OR).[54]

As you can see, those were merely their personal opinions. None based on actual sources. Now reliable sources say:

1) John Lynch's Argentine Dictator (regarded the best biography in English about Rosas): "Rosas was... fair with blue eyes".[55]

2) John Armstrong Crow's The Epic of Latin America: "Rosas was a blond with blue eyes and clear-cut Spanish features."[56]

3) Nicolas Shumway's The Invention of Argentina: "A handsome man with piercing blue eyes, not only did Rosas mesmerize Buenos Aires..."[57]

4) Michael E. Geisler's National Symbols, Fractured Identities: Contesting The National Narrative: "....generally attractive (blond, blue-eyed) figure of Rosas,"[58]

5) Donald S. Castro's The Afro-Argentine in Argentine Culture: "Rosas... was fair skinned and blond."[59]

6) Or see a good quality painting of Rosas in Argentina's official website.[60]

Don't worry. I don't want you to discuss content with me. What I'm trying to show you is that I'm having the very same problem I had with MarshalN20 before. He goes saying things based on his own opinion and not on sources (see the ArbCom case Evidence page for a good example). Then I bring reliable sources but no one listen to me. Then I try and I try to show what sources say. No one listen to me. All this while MarshalN20 claims that I'm a liar, that I should be "punished" for my "bad behavior".

What do you expect me to do? What should a legitimate, well-intentioned user should do? Because I don't want to be accused again of what "appears that Lecen has been longterm edit-warring on that article to push this or some other decidedly ugly portrait into the article for several months" as the administrator did. "Ugly portrait". "longterm edit-warring" Should I simply ignore sources, then? --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)