This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Serephimblade: I understand that you recently deleted this page due to article is inappropriate and useless, and may contain significant copyvio. But from my understanding, people already came in and deleted most of the violation areas. And I really did not see the content being useless, there is third party references as well as book references. Moreover, people are suggesting to keep the page just improve the content. I am just wondering if it is possible to take it back and work on the content, add a warning on top of the page asking people to help with the content instead of deleting the whole thing. Please let me know, thank you very much. 2A00:FE00:BFFE:2201:0:0:0:200 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Having been stubbified at AfD does not prohibit editing of the article—indeed, the idea is to do so when the consensus at AfD is that a subject may be appropriate for an article, but the article there is essentially unsalvageable. While my job in closing an AfD is to interpret the consensus of the discussion rather than going based upon my own call, I did go and take a look back at previous versions when you made your request. What I see there is junk and marketese, pretty clearly written by those who have a connection with the company or are paid by them. (See the previous "Market Position" and "Ecosystem" headings, themselves marketese buzzwords and filled with glossy brochure material, for one example.) At this point, better to start over. I hope the AfD will raise its profile enough to get some neutral editors involved and drive off the paid ones, but at this point there was just nothing salvageable in that text. The old references might be used to write an appropriate article, though, and the history is intact for anyone wanting to go back and view them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick respond and explanation. I understand what you are saying and I do agree the previous content is really bad full of marketese. Is there any way we can call some neutral editors to help the page? As a encyclopedia， and when everyone agree there is no notability issue here, we really should have more than one sentence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.216 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to look for more editors, you could try putting in a request at the WikiProject for databases. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you shine some light about how to put a request in that page? I went there and I am so confused about what I should do to put a request. Should I put it under New articles? Should I talk to the participants? And I am not really sure this is the right place since I glance through the Categories and assessment and I did not see anything familiar. thank you thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.89.204 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, noticing you already have a section about SAP HANA, I will not start a new section then. First of all, thank you for editing my service pack part away from the SAP HANA page. But relax, I am not here to argue about reposting my section. In the end, I am really just starting to contribute to Wikipedia and not an expert to it. I just would like to know what is necessary for a database page to have. You see, the reason I started adding those lines was only because Oracle database has a section called version numbering and that seems ok without causing any concerns. Also you can see IBM DB2 has such section introducing their editions, Microsoft SQL Server has a chart on the right with the name: SQL Server Release History. What would be the best way to approach this if I want to contribute more? Should I start writing on my talk page and ask an editor to go over it? or something like that?VaStanley (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

With Oracle, especially, it's a bit different, since each release version of Oracle gets a huge ton of material in reliable sources. I would presume the same might be true for the others, but I don't follow them as closely since I mainly work with Oracle at this point. So, what I would focus on, is: Is each revision something that occasioned significant mention in reliable and unaffiliated sources? If so, what's actually better than a changelog is a prose version of what those sources had to say about those versions, i.e., which improvements in each version they focused on as significant, and whether the consensus of those sources is that they were successful, buggy, unnecessary, or whatever else they had to say about them. If the version changes weren't significant enough to occasion much mention, then they're probably not really significant enough to mention individually in the article.

With this article in particular, do excuse me if I'm a bit reactive. That whole thing was a glossy brochure when I closed the deletion discussion on it, and while there was no consensus to delete it, something definitely needed to be done. I've been keeping an eye on it to make sure it doesn't turn right back into the same. If you're looking to improve coverage of databases in general, it's something we could very well do with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am just wondering if you can come to my talk page and take a look at my notes for SAP HANA, if the content is good, I can move part of them to the "real sap hana" wikepedia page. Thank you! VaStanley (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit busy. I'll take a look at it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think I care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlameHorse (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't make you care. I can, however, block you from editing if you continue to deliberately upload nonfree content in violation of policy, and that I will do. I hope that won't be necessary, but that's up to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please take a look here [1]. Most of the time he has been editing on Wikipedia has only been reverts and disruptive edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit you showed me is Urməvi requesting citations for material which is indeed unreferenced. That's what you're supposed to do if you are challenging unreferenced material, so I'm not sure what's inappropriate about that particular edit? The only thing necessary to do at that point, if you don't want the tags there, is cite a reliable source, which is always incumbent on the editor wishing to add or retain material. I do still see some aggressive behavior, which is concerning, but it appears to be largely in regards to Persians, which lie outside the scope of the Armenia-Azerbaijan case, and it's not as bad as it was. I'll keep an eye, and you're free to bring any issues to my attention or at arbitration enforcement, but for right now there's nothing bad enough to sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So i need to show a source that Atash means fire in Persian when i am myself an native Persian speaker that can confirm that? By the way, about the Saib Tabrizi problem, i did what it said here[2], so i guess i didn't do anything wrong? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In this case, yes, since we would always write from sources, not personal knowledge. I've always been one to say that truly trivial facts are also trivially sourceable—if someone wants to question that the chemical formula for water is H₂O, I can find a dozen sources for that in five minutes. It would take me longer to argue than to just find the reference. I can't read Persian myself, but I would imagine if that's correct, you could readily cite a reliable Persian to English translation guide showing you're correct. I did, however, see some other disturbing patterns of editing, especially refusal to discuss. That will stop, one way or the other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright thanks, i found a source here [3], which states that Atash means fire. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Now he suddenly removed the Persian version of it and said: He is not persian.

That doesn't make any sense to me? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the November drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is user:Urməvi under a restriction that requires him to post on the talk page if he reverts someone? If he is, should I report him for these reverts[4][5] and where would I report him? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You just did, and that's enough of that. When I say last warning, I generally mean it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There I was, busy copying diffs, etc. and I finally managed to finish my AE request[6] and go warn him about it, and only after all that do I read your block above my warning! I've reverted myself at AE and his talk page of course. Thanks, he simply doesn't seem willing to pay any attention to sanctions - and of course anything he disagrees with is vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The request for clarification involving you has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 23:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you blocked Urməvi for disruptive edit warring. I think he is now using a sock puppet to continue his disruptive edits on Ateshgah of Baku. Compare [7] with [8]. I'm not sure how to handle this. Should this be added to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets? Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's not a sock puppet with a new name, but apparently Urməvi edited without signing in. Ecphora (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would ask that Seraphimblade protect these articles:

• Aylar Lie
• Ateshgah of Baku

And expect the same disruption to occur at some point to these articles:

• Saib Tabrizi
• Afshar tribe
  

--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Add another "anon" IP to the list:46.147.246.187[9] --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I briefly blocked a couple of the newer IPs. They look to be dynamic, so anything longer than a short block isn't going to help in any case. It looks like the activity is slowing down, so I don't think protection is necessary at this time, but if the block evasion continues it can certainly be considered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

DendroNaja once again posted his bizarre theories about Angelina Jolie's psychological development and kinky habits here. He came back and deleted it after another Editor complained but since you just removed a similar BLP violation only last month, I thought you should be aware that it happened again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is this choice bit here, also now deleted, where he describes (redacted). This after he said to you he would no longer write anything at all about living persons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Their unblock request was obviously not sincere. HelenOnline 05:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban is in order? HelenOnline 05:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for bringing this to my attention. I've contacted DendroNaja to find out what's going on here. As to a topic ban, while I cannot myself ban or topic ban an editor (except in a few limited topic areas where ArbCom has authorized such), the community as a whole certainly can do so. If you wanted to suggest such a ban be implemented, you would need to gain consensus for it at the administrators' noticeboard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we can bring up any sort of discussions in the talk pages, but I was wrong. I fully understand that Wikipedia policies and guidelines have to be followed at all times, especially with sensitive articles such as Wikipedia:BLP. I have read and understood Wikipedia:POV, Wikipedia:NOR, and Wikipedia:V. It was never my intention to violate any Wikipedia policies, but I removed my posts because I realized that it was not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am still a novice editor and I began to edit on Wikipedia because I want to expand and improve the quality of articles relating to venomous snakes. Herpetology is what I do and it is the reason why I am here. I am learning new things about the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia everyday, so I don't make violations. My unblock request was sincere and I have not edited nor do I intend to edit any biographies of living persons. Now I also know that such discussions are not allowed on talk pages either. So I am just going to leave such articles and their talk pages alone all together. --DendroNaja (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@DendroNaja: Until you fully understand what's going on and gain some experience, that may be the wisest course of action. While of course we want all of our articles to be accurate, reliable, and verifiable through quality sources, we must be exceptionally careful to stick to those principles when it comes to living people. Wikipedia, including its talk pages, are very high-visibility, so we must be very careful about what we say, and stick to well-sourced information even when discussing a living person's article. The things we say and do here could cause very real harm to very real people if we are careless. If you do in the future participate in BLP editing, please keep this in mind and be very cautious in your editing, including during discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I will not edit any articles on living persons, at least not unless I am certain that my edits are accurate, neutral and come along with highly reliable and verifiable sources. Like I have already mentioned, biographies are not the reason why I began editing on Wikipedia. There are many much better informed editors of biographies of living people articles than I, so I will just leave it those editors to work on such articles. --DendroNaja (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kashoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Startup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade. Just wanted to note that I reverted Hahc2's transclusion of your ArbCom candidate statement, purely because it wasn't totally clear whether you were ready to run with it, and it's entirely your decision to make. Please feel free to reinstate it as and when you're ready to face the music! :D Happy‑melon 21:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I was about to transclude it myself, so no worries. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply to my question. You seem like a really strong candidate. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm requesting that you interpret the decision you made on Doncram as seen here.

Is Doncram topicbanned from discussing "the National Register of Historic Places and related areas, broadly construed", in all namespaces, or does the ban affect just mainspace? I was surprised to see this edit by Doncram to WT:NRHP, as in my understanding a relevant wikiproject isn't one of the "normal exceptions". Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As with any topic ban, the restriction applies to all edits in all namespaces, not just mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you asked HJ Mitchell at the TopGun AE whether they could provide examples of past similar behaviour relating to Darkness Shines and TopGun. I had already posted this diff, which led to various sanctions in 2012. There should be other meta-diffs available in other ANI threads. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

clean blade
Thank you for fighting for the credibility of the project, "free as in freedom", for cleanup, tighten, consolidate, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 December 2009, 25 July 2007: "I dreamt a dream! ... Guarded by a mighty Seraphim")!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On 24 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boulder Public Library, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first branch of the Boulder Public Library was built in 1906 with $15,000 donated by Andrew Carnegie? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boulder Public Library. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's back [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that's pretty clearly a sock. Semiprotected it for a week. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Project has been around five years, referenced by SANS Institute IT security courses, PCWorld reviews, Gizmodo reviews, CNET reviews, Softpedia reviews, PCAuthority reviews, Neowin reviews etc etc... You can find quite an extensive history over these five years via Google, the page should not have been deleted and should be restored to allow cataloguing this information about the project.

Here's some reference material for disputing the 'lack of nobility' and for supporting the undeletion request:
http://www.sans.org/windows-security/2012/05/31/process-hacker
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2031485/review-process-hacker-is-task-manager-on-steroids.html
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2009/08/process-hacker-is-a-powerful-task-manager-clone/
http://download.cnet.com/Process-Hacker/3000-2094_4-10971791.html
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-process-viewer.htm#Process-Hacker
http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/Process-Hacker-Review-193831.shtml
http://downloads.pcauthority.com.au/article/2224-process_hacker
http://www.neowin.net/news/process-hacker-229-released-the-best-task-manager-for-windows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.216.173 (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The previous article had essentially nothing of use in it, just a very brief description. It does look like there may now be sufficient references for an appropriate article, though. Since the article was deleted by community consensus, I'll decline to undelete the existing one, but if you can write a new one that addresses the concerns from AfD, that's perfectly fine. If you'd prefer not to create an account, my recommendation would be to use the articles for creation process, utilizing the sources you have. If you'd rather create an account, you could use a userspace sandbox instead. Do keep in mind that in order to show notability for software, some references would need to be from sources that don't indiscriminately review everything. Blog postings also would not demonstrate notability as they are not generally considered reliable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why delete information about his native language Turkish-Azerbaijani. ?

citation: wrote 17 ḡazals and molammaʿs in his native Turkish

Saib Təbrizi He is not a Persian. He just lived in the Persian Empire. In Təbriz, the Persians never lived. Persians live in Shiraz (Fars Province). And the Persians have always tried to assimilate the Azerbaijanis. They want to avoid such a nation. What now do ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.26.71 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the articles I protected recently due to sockpuppet edits, that has nothing to do with the merits of those edits, nor is it an opinion as to them. Blocked or banned users are not permitted to edit at all (except, in the case of a blocked user, to use his or her talk page to appeal the block), so a stop had to be put to that. If you think such an edit is defensible, I recommend discussing it with the editors there who do not agree. Remember that you'll need reliable sources to back your claim. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the December blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I read your comment. In fact, I just think that it is a big mistake to redirect or delete Visual History. The only problem was the English and maybe to change the name (History of Visual Culture or Histiconologia). But Wikipedia must know that it is impossible to have something about History of Art (which is a real problem because it is difficult to say that the European word "Art" has anything to do with Prehistory or Aborigine Culture) and nothing about the new global history of all the aspects of Visual Culture (Art, Architecture, Landscapes, Objects, Images, Medias...). I wont struggle but I am sorry to say that it is a historical mistake for our common Encyclopedia and this only because the main books and websites are written in French. In the 1930s, the Ecole des Annales made all their texts in French. So, would you consider that something new done in Mexico in Spanish has no interest for the Wikipedia in English even if it is completely new but made in Spanish by 475 authors from all over the World as the "Dictionnaire mondial des images" is ? Sincerely, it is a wrong and very outdated decision. ArgemediaArgemedia (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that most editors at the discussion weren't objecting to the concept of the article as such, but rather found it to be in such an unusable and unsalvageable state that starting over would be preferable to keeping what was there. Given this, perhaps you could find some references (or bring some over from another language version, and list on the talk page) and start an appropriate stub rather than dumping in what appears to be a machine translation? Machine translations are good for getting the general idea of short messages, but they are notoriously poor at conveying specific information that requires a lot of context. Also, content policies are different between each language's Wikipedia, so a perfectly fine article on another may not pass muster here, or vice versa. The AfD result was not that it is utterly unthinkable for us to ever have an article entitled "Visual history". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

... and condolences on your election. :) It's always encouraging to see an admin's hard work at WP:AE rewarded, rather than punished. MastCell ^Talk 02:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Add mine as well. Dude, you did good! I was shaken, to be frank, by Coren's resignation from ArbCom, and especially by his statement when he departed. I'm hoping the new incarnation can steady the ship. Best wishes! Jusdafax 00:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Congrats. Well deserved. NE Ent 23:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Congrats.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you once again, but this person has been making some disruptive edits, where he changed this to a Wikipedia title and named it Tahmasbi, which is not used by any scholars. These edits also removes the pictures of the article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the case for administrative intervention is here. If the editor made one edit you disagree with, discuss it with them, and seek dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Someone can't be sanctioned for a single edit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the Saib Tabrizi page needs to get protected a lot more time, it has once again been edited. How do i request an admin to protect the page and could you please do something with the edit, thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you interested in protecting Saib Tabrizi? The edit war has restarted. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not going for a edit war, i already wrote about the article to him if you take a look on the Another problem thread. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this has gone to discussion now, which is good. Please feel free to let me know if you see more IP activity on that, as that's very likely to be someone who's blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is hopeless to discuss it with someone who can't even understand a simple sentence. What do you think i should do? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't come to agreement with them, do a third opinion or a request for comment. If you're right, the other editors coming in will agree with you, and you'll have that consensus behind you. If they disagree or have other suggestions, those opinions are worth getting too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page! The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95 Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. I've responded there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Today I tagged Acupalpus carus for speedy deletion since it met criteria for CSD as A7. Looks legit, right? Like, no reference means no article (especially when it comes to one sentence stubs, which as I know not your cup of tea to look at). So, couple of minutes after the nomination it gets declined. Question: Is there is a CSD criteria for animals which are refless? If not, then we should introduce it, otherwise we will have plenty of refless animal related articles. Like, it should be verifiable, right?--Mishae (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

DGG was correct to decline your deletion request. A species of animal is not eligible for A7. A7 explicitly refers to individual animal(s) as eligible for speedy deletion, i.e., a person writing about his or her pet dog, without any indication such animal is notable. A7 would not apply to a species of animals. You could take the article to AfD, but generally speaking, species articles are not deleted there. I'd more encourage you to seek out quality sources and make improvements if you are concerned about the state of the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi SeraphimBlade,

I would like request your assistance to resolve the issue regarding the Philippine Military Academy. I have asked others that the issues surrounding the veracity of the claims made regarding the Philippine Military Academy be examined further but to no avail and was even hounded.

For more information regarding this kindly visit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippine_Military_Academy#To_My_Fellow_Wikipedians_--_Let.27s_Resolve_This_:.29

--Wiki Exterminator (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you've filed a request for comment there, so you'll now have other editors examine what's happening. I see several editors have asked you to provide reliable sources that verify the edits you would like to make. That is a reasonable request, as article content must be verifiable through reliable sources. If you have such sources, I would encourage you to present them for the discussion; if you do not, I would encourage you to find them or reconsider your request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade,

I am mbz1. About two years ago I was blocked by the arbcom during a closed proceeding I was not allowed to take a part of, and was not even notified about. I was blocked for an alleged harassment of an admin with no single, valid diff of the harassment.

I state:

• I have never wikihounded anybody.
• I have never threatened anybody.
• I have never made legal threats
• I have never posted personal information of anybody
• I have never posted private correspondence by anybody
• I have never engaged in user space harassment

I am not interested in editing any Wikipedia sites ever again, but I'd like to leave your project in peace. In order to do it one of two things should happen:

1. I am presented with valid evidences I harassed somebody. Then I would review them and apologize.
2. If #1 cannot be achieved I am unblocked and allowed to leave in peace.

Simple enough, is it not?

I wrote it to you because at least three other members of the ban appeal committee are involved with me, and because I am tired of corresponding with the list and be lied about and not be able to respond these lies. So what say you? 71.202.123.162 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, let me make an intelligent guess that by that time you were educated about my case and advised to ignore my request. You were probably told that somebody blocked by the arbcom and atop of that banned by the community is wrong all-around. OK, but those are only lies and rumors. Where are the facts? Where is a single evidence of an alleged harassment or even attacking an admin? Yes, I submitted RFC against an admin, yes I called her a bully, but each and every statement I made in my RFC were supported by at least one on-wiki diff.

Here are three situations from the RFC I submitted (not to stir up an old conflict, but to defend myself):

Situation #1

• On 26 April 2009 Gwen Gale blocked user Funguy06 with the edit summary "(Vandalism-only account: no meaningfully encyclopedic edits)". In her block message she provided neither differences to support the block, nor an explanation how to request an unblock. The user who started contributing to wikipedia in 2006 was blocked over this 2009 edit for "vandalism only". But please see the article. Funguy06 did not vandalize the article.He made a good faith, encyclopedic edit. As a result of the block the user is gone. He did not even bother to write an unblock request.

Situation #2

• User Nextbook was blocked at 20:56, 9 November 2011 after Gwen Gale was edit warring with him. Gwen Gale claimed BLP. Another admin questioned the block, saying in particular "I don't think BLP concerns are a carte blanche for disregarding AGF like this and especially not BITE since we can't expect newcomers to understand these complex policies within their first 10 edits. I would appreciate if you would be more polite and welcoming towards new editors in the future, and not be as quick with the block-hammer, if you feel you don't have the patience for giving adequate explanations to a newcomer feel free to contact me and I'll gladly take over", but Gwen failed to clarify her position.

• Here's an analysis of the situation with this user:

  1. A new editor made a few contributions.

  2. He is warned he has to use sources.

  3. So in his next two edits he tries to use sources.In this edit he provides not just one, but three sources almost for every sentence he adds, but he does it like this "(Marks, "Lost Paradise", page 292.) " because he is not sure what is the right way to list references. In his next and the last edit he inserts the external link to the article in Guardian, which of course is a reliable source.

  4. The user is blocked and never returns.

Situation #3

• Exactly at the same time, when I was being accused in harassing Gwen Gale the professor Timothy Messer-Kruse shared his experience in editing Wikipedia in The chronicle of higher education. In particular he recalled part of his exchange with Gwen Gale:"Explain to me, then, how a 'minority' source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong 'majority' one?" I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, "You're more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that's what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy."

The complete conversation is preserved here:

• Gwen Gale was also the one who "welcomed" the professor to Wikipedia:

"Did you make this edit while not logged in to this account? You may want to have a look at Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)"

• Professor Timothy Messer-Kruse who is a world famous expert on the subject was ordered to review "Wikipedia's civility policy" although he was civil, and "Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets" simply because he forgot to log in.

• Here's a post at Gwen's talk page concerning her involvement in the matter:

"Hello. I just want to point out that I recently read an article in the chronicle here: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ and it describes what amounts to an edit war that you were engaged in. I looked at the page and discussion in question, and it seems to me that you are boorish and a bully. I would like to suggest that you tone down your air of self-righteous authority, in order to encourage a more civil atmosphere on Wikipedia. It's especially ironic that when presented with what seems to be a very civil point by (presumably) the author of the blog, you ignored the substance of his argument and instead groundlessly accused him of being uncivil himself. If you're going to wear that hat of uncontested arbitrator of *TRUTH*, it would be helpful if you at least justified your claims in detail to those who go to the trouble of trying to actually discuss the truth in a balanced fashion using reliable sources. As it stands, you arbitrarily call seemingly reliable sources "unreliable", and other sources that support your preferred narrative "reliable," and this makes you an awful bully. Please consider changing your behavior and attitudes. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)"

Also the subject of my RFC Gwen Gale herself has admitted that she's no longer comfortable imposing blocks while involved: ":I understand, meanwhile, I don't feel ok about doing anything that might be taken as an admin action or warning in topic areas dealing with music. Other than dealing with straightforward stuff like 3rr and vandalism", and ever since my RFC she has never imposed a bad block.

Also Elen of the Roads who was an arbitrator back then has admitted in a few places that the members of the arbcom have never read my RFC " But equally, there never was an RfC, there never was a massive Arbcom investigation. Everyone Mbz1 mailed it to looked at it and said "can't see it myself" and left it at that, often I suspect without emailing their response back to Mbz1."

Seraphimblade, no matter what you hear about me, there's no single fact that confirms the allegations of harassment. You have to do the right thing:either prove I harassed somebody or unblock me. 71.202.123.179 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi SB! I just wanted to point you to a discussion ongoing about whether we should join with the EFF, Mozilla, Free Press (organization), and others to respond to mass surveillance on Feb 11.

You're somebody whose words carry a lot of weight in my eyes. It would be very helpful to get your thoughts on if, and how, we should participate. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a subject that interests me, but I would like to take some time to look over it. It will probably take me a few days to get to. Appreciate the heads up though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Seraphimblade. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Several accounts have started making disruptive edits on this article [11],.i think this article needs to get protected. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please give some more specifics as to why you think that's necessary? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple accounts which are removing edits [12] which was already discussed about here [13]. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any clear sockpuppetry there. There has been some edit warring, but I don't think enough to merit protection. It's good that there's a discussion starting there, but I don't see anything requiring protection. If the discussion can't reach consensus, I'd seek more input via a request for comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I found a copy of the original article on a Wikipedia mirror (www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Rabbi-Aharon-Moishe-Leifer), and it's hopeless in its current state. It would have to be rewritten from scratch, which I have no desire to do now. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oftentimes that's the case with these. Hopefully you can get around to it someday! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [14], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [15]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

Did ya'll (the arbitration committee) vote on that? NE Ent 03:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

On the particular block? No, though of course the Committee as a whole has been made aware of it, as is required with any block under such circumstances. If there's objection, there would at that point be a formal vote on that specific issue. As the block concerns conduct at arbitration, it is reviewable by ArbCom.

On the idea that standards of decorum are to apply at arbitration case pages, and that those who disregard them may be warned, barred from those pages, or blocked? Yes, of course, that's been in effect for a very long time. That's in addition to the community-based policies on edit warring which apply to every page on the project. Given how many editors were warning Giano of the likely outcome of his actions while Giano continued to undertake them, I don't believe that result was exactly hard to foresee. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Block is reasonable. It's the "don't unblock without contacting arbcom" part I'm inquiring about -- it's always been my understanding that arbitrators have no more authority than any other administrator, and that authority beyond that is only granted to the committee as a whole, in accordance with its procedures. So, more succinctly, the question is: Is there any policy based reason an administrator can't unblock Giano if they feel the block is no longer necessary to minimize disruption? NE Ent 10:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that ArbCom has jurisdiction over its pages and its cases; that's well settled (and formally ratified) policy. People can't really have this both ways: grumble about how chaotic ArbCom pages are and then grumble when something is done about it ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 14:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Seraphimblade is not "ArbCom", Roger is not "ArbCom." "ArbCom" is, depending on context, a majority of active or plus four after 24 hours except on Tuesdays or whatever votes, right? I don't think -- I certainly hope -- you're not saying any individual arbitrator can take unilateral action with the full force of ARBCOM behind it??? NE Ent 17:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not saying that, and neither is Roger. In this particular case, where the misconduct is during an arbitration proceeding, jurisdiction to review the sanction resides with ArbCom. I can't just go doing that wherever I want. In this particular case, however, it is true due to the circumstances. That's really all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So -- rephrasing your statement in the worst possible light for purposes of discussion and to illustrate how it comes across -- you're saying that any admin can impose a sanction in AC space, but only the committee can review it? Sort of a DS on steroids (can't even appeal to AE)? NE Ent 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The reality is that politics usually makes action by non-clerk, non-arb, admins impossible. Well, that and the certainty of drama when blocking a high-profile (and in some quarters, very popular) editor. The other reality is the committee can't act swiftly to deal with rapidly unfolding events. Because of SB's prompt action, the whole thing lasted less than 45 minutes start to finish...  Roger Davies ^talk 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(Roger) I will not waste your time by asking you to post of a diff of me complaining about arbcom pages being too chaotic, because no such post exists -- I generally think AC pages tend too much towards the bureaucratic. More importantly, it seems to me its ya'll that want to have it "both ways" -- nary a word when a non-arb, non-clerk admin blocks NinaGreen -- no problem with that being discussed at ANI [16] -- but don't even think about unblocking an editor without AC signoff. (Yea, I know this is starting to sound like pointy Kumioko et. al. bash AC whining, but does actually matter, I think. I hopefully have better framing for ya'll when I get a good chunk of wiki time to put it together). NE Ent 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, I'd personally be delighted if policing on arbitration pages was handled entirely by non-clerk, non-arb, non-functionary, admins. However, would it aggravate or calm down?  Roger Davies ^talk 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the "how" is often more important than the "who." To reiterate -- I don't have any issue with the block -- if anything it was slow -- I think G was up to 5rr. The issue I'm raising is I'm not aware of a policy justification for the statement "only arbcom can unblock now." NE Ent 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We've been using the formula "do not unblock without consulting ArbCom" for years. It alerts admins to the committee's interest; nothing more, nothing less, and encourages dialogue. In practical terms, it means the blocked editor's admin mates will think twice about unblocking immediately (which in heated situations they sometimes do). I don't see anything sinister in that.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"The most damaging phrase in the language is: We've always done it this way." Grace Hopper. (I didn't see it was "sinister" -- hard to imagine anything on wiki being sinister.) So what you're saying is we have admins who shouldn't be admins (because their judgement is suspect when unblocking); however, arbcom is unable or unwilling to address that wiki-wide, but it will simply exclude them (when unblocking, not blocking) from its spaces? NE Ent 03:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger is not justifying things just on the basis of appeal to tradition, and neither am I. He was only reiterating that this is not some novel thing made up on the spot. In this case, the message was just left to prevent any misunderstandings, and make it clear that ArbCom had an interest in the block and should be consulted before messing with it. Prevention of confusion or misunderstanding in no way is meant, on my part, to say or imply that we have "admins who shouldn't be admins". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It took 11 minutes from Giano's revert to your block; the accompanying message contained the words "I will be happy to unblock you at any time if either the case is accepted or declined ...". The fifth and decisive decline occurred on the case request page at 08:15, 20 February 2014, which is over 12 hours ago. You're pretty quick on the trigger to block but seem to be much more relaxed about restoring normal editing for Giano, particularly as nobody can pretend that the block at this point is preventative. If you want to make blocks punitive, then get community consensus for that. Time to extract the digit? --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The material which was being edit warred over is still present on the page. A decline is final once the case request is removed, and at this point, I've no idea whether or not Giano intends to continue the edit war if unblocked. If Giano would like the block removed sooner, I believe I did offer another option for that. Once the case request is removed, I'll certainly unblock as the block will no longer serve any preventative purpose. I may, however, as difficult as it may be to believe, not be available to do so right at that moment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"I may, however, as difficult as it may be to believe, not be available to do so right at that moment." Really? What's with the snark? NE Ent 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The snark is because I was less than reverential in bringing the news that the unblock - by the original terms - is long overdue.--RexxS (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't borderline and SB wasn't quick on the trigger. Giano was well past the 3RR bright line, making 6RR in 30 minutes.18:2418:3018:3318:3918:4918:54 Unblocking once the case pages are closed seems like a plan, before then is tempting fate.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain nobody said anything about borderline. But SB's words are right there on Giano's page and right here. Do you need me to repeat them for you a third time? "I will be happy to unblock you at any time if ... the case is ... declined". Five votes is a majority in this case and the case is declined - that's how voting works. There's no "partially declined" or "almost declined" and certainly no "finally declined". It's declined. We may assume then that SB has changed his mind and is now only willing to unblock after the request is archived. What is a person's word worth these days? --RexxS (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You can assume that if you like but it might be a bit unreasonable to do so. Ever since the dawn of time, the point at which a case is accepted or declined comes when the decision is enacted (ie either archived or activated). Up until that point arbitrators are free to change their votes, or become active or post a motion. All of which would change the case's status.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You know how I hate to appear unreasonable, so I guess I'd better give SB the benefit of the doubt about what he intended. I mean, I understand the theory, but it's just that ... well, recusals don't get changed and when was the last time that a case request with a majority to decline was changed to accept? --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To confirm, what Roger says is exactly correct as to my intent. A case is accepted when its request is moved and the case opened, and it is declined when the request is removed and archived. It may be headed for one or the other of those outcomes at an earlier point, but it's not final until that actually happens. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked Giano, based on your comment that they can be unblocked once the request is accepted or declined which it has been. Hope you don't mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not, and thanks for doing that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade! I saw somewhere that you offer assistance with users' questions, so I wanted to ask if you'd be willing to give me a little informal guidance:

This move request, which deals with the USPLACE convention, was recently non-admin-closed by an editor who participates in USPLACE debates and opposes USPLACE (1, 2). I was concerned about a possible conflict of interest and asked that the closer consider withdrawing in favor of someone uninvolved with no preset opinion[17], but with no luck[18]. I replied[19], and two others from the Mosquito County page joined the discussion (one disagreeing, one not), but the closer didn't participate. At this point I'm not sure if/how to proceed. Suggestions?

I really do not want to be a disruption, but at the same time my worry about conflict of interest remains unresolved... and the closer refuses to discuss it. Basically I just came to you for an objective second opinion from someone uninvolved in the discussions to see if I've approached this properly, and what (if anything) should happen next. (BTW, I should also say that even though I did express my disagreement with the closure, I'd be OK with a closure either way if it was handled by an uninvolved editor who hadn't already made up their mind on the topic.)

Thanks for any thoughts/advice! ╠╣uw [talk] 19:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I can take a look, but am afraid I've got my plate rather full right now. It will be at least a few days before I can get to it, and probably more. If you need help faster, you could try making a general request at editor assistance requests. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually got some input today from another editor which was useful in deciding how to proceed. Thanks for the response, ╠╣uw [talk] 19:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

for logging that. I've handed out another and logged it and blocked 3 other editors for violations or edit-warring. People don't seem to take these seriously. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That area has, unfortunately, been a trouble spot for as long as I can remember. It's good to see people willing to keep a lid on it; without a close eye, things would get much, much worse. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Will the discussion elsewhere on sanctions affect such warnings? I'm not keeping up with it, too busy. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly understand that all too well. The discussion probably won't change them all too much, except that it will be clarified that a notification of sanctions in an area is just a heads-up and not a "formal warning" or finding that the editor has misbehaved in some way already. Mainly, someone shouldn't be hit with a sanction without being aware that was even possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, sorry for bothering you, but i am kinda lost here. This user [20], and his other accounts [21] and [22], keeps removing sourced information and revert other user edits. He uses multiple account for his POV-pushing edits. So what should i do? Not only in Iranian-related articles does he do these kind of edits, but also in Armenian-related articles. Not to forget how he communicates with other users: If you are Azeri from Iran, then write about the "relationship" with the persians in a separate article, and go on to be a slave of the persians. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I agree what's going on there is problematic. I see that Dougweller has just notified this editor about the AA2 sanctions, and they have been separately blocked for edit warring. While they will hopefully improve following that, if they do not, any future inappropriate editing or behavior in that topic area could now be brought to arbitration enforcement for handling now that the editor has been notified that the sanctions apply. If you have good cause to believe sock puppetry, you could also request a sock puppet investigation. The details on doing that are at the SPI page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Az-500 seems to continue making these kind of edits, and i can't even have a proper conversation with him about these edits. I asked him a simple question, and this is what i got (i don't even know what he is trying to say but it seems to be clearly unrelated to our discussion):

I repeat once again: Iranian and Persian is not the same thing. You think Tajiks Persians? Yes? Excellent. And the Kurds and Mazanderani your Persians too? ... Iran and Persia is not the same ... Persians always steal other cultures. Ismail did not want to create the Persian Empire.

Medes also not Persians. The whole culture in Iran other Iranian peoples, but not Persians.

He was blocked because of these nationalistic slurs some time ago. Your opinion? --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not really have time to check into this in detail right now. As the editor has received the requisite notice, you could request that administrators at arbitration enforcement check into the matters if you believe there is cause for sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the puppet is but an account you blocked for WP:EVADE has created Wwefan2092 and Fray Blackout. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. We're certainly aware of what's going on here, and while I can't note all the details of what's being done, it will be dealt with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the April blitz! – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here. Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles. Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now! – Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a problem understanding why you rolled back a pending edit to the article about David Hasselhoff. The stated reason was "Not particularly notable in the context of a biography". By what criteria is it not notable? Is this the final word, or is it subject to further review? Apologies in advance for not knowing how this stuff works. GeoCohn (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@GeoCohn: An encyclopedia article is meant to be an overview of major points regarding the subject. A cutesy Internet game being created isn't really a significant event in the life of David Hasselhoff, and the article is not to put every drip of trivia regarding the subject. If you still disagree, however, you're on the right track. The way it works is that you make an edit, it is reverted or modified if someone disagrees, and then the matter is discussed, as you can find at the page describing the process. If you do still think the material belongs in the article, you're welcome to raise the matter at the article's talk page to get input from other editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Thank you that's very helpful. GeoCohn (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For dereliction of duty, endless delays and breaking numerous promises to post "soon" the proposed decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Nsk92 (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade,

I mentioned you on AN/I.

Duxwing (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't a major character in the Wheel of Time series get a page? You left this comment when redirecting his page to a list of characters, "No secondary sources added. Please ensure to provide substantial out of universe sourcing before restoring any fictional element article, else belongs on Wikia".

For a series of fiction books, what else is there to cite besides the books themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.133.45.255 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For a look at fictional character articles with good secondary sourcing, take a look at Buffy Summers, Luke Skywalker, or Gandalf. We would generally be looking for substantial literary analysis on that particular element of the work, or some other significant and well-documented out of universe impact it has had. If the only reference for an element of a fictional work is the fiction itself, it should be briefly mentioned in context of its parent work or a "list of characters", not as a full standalone article, as the full article would be to give it undue weight relative to the sources available. Most works of fiction have a Wikia set up where articles going into more minute and in-universe detail on the fictional work are allowed and encouraged. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that in voting you skipped proposed principle 11 as well as proposed remedy 2. If there's a reason for that, please let me know if there are any revisions that would help. If it was just inadvertent, you might want to go back to the page. Thanks either way, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a couple didn't make it in, but not by intent. Thanks for pointing it out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have never participated in or even followed one of these before. I am still digesting the proposals just added, but I do notice one thing. Will there be additions for findings of fact and proposed remedies (if any) re: Anythingyouwant and Hipocrite? Thanks for your time on this question and on the process in general. Editing is stressful enough; I can only imagine what behind the scenes on an ArbCom is like. Lightbreather (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think additional proposals are warranted, I'd encourage you to propose them in the Workshop. If you have some reasoning as to why, include that as your comment as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was past time for that (proposals by non-arbitrators). I thought as two of the involved parties,[23] they would be mentioned in proposals. However, I've never participated in or even followed an ArbCom before, so it's all new to me. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (You were a participant in a talk-page discussion given as evidence in this discussion.) The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't have anything to add to the discussion at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at some SPI cases, having just filed one and I'm puzzled by the outcomes. In this case, Ruhn950 had multiple accounts and received a one week block. I saw other editors who were found to have sock accounts who received similar blocks (1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month). But then there are many cases like Difulton where an editor receives an immediate indefinite block. When I've seen editors with these indefinite blocks for socking requesting to be unblocked, they are usually told to take the standard offer--no socking for 6-12 months and then try again. Also, editors receiving WP:DUCK blocks also usually receive indefinite blocks.

So, there is a great disparity between a one week block and, effectively, a 6-12 month block and I don't see that much different in the cases, there are two or three sock accounts, not a sockfarm. When considering how to react to a SPI that finds confirmed or likely socking, what factors influence the length of time of a block? I'm not arguing for leniency or harshness, I'm just trying to understand how SPI works. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In general terms, any given administrator may factor in several things to any given case, such as how abusively the sockpuppets were used and for how long, the amount of damage or disruption caused by it, and the history of the editor who's operating the accounts. A previous history of socking or other disruptive behavior may be considered, as may an otherwise positive contribution history. Also, very new editors may be cut some slack, since they may not have been aware how seriously we take socking, while those who should know better may be treated more harshly.

As far as reversing indefinite blocks, if the blocking admin made the decision to block indefinitely, it generally is considered within reasonable discretion to block a disruptive sockmaster indefinitely. As long as the block was not grossly disproportionate or unfounded, another admin probably won't unilaterally reverse it except through the largely accepted OFFER process.

By the time we get to the point that the DUCK test would come into play at all (i.e., admins are quite familiar with the sockmaster and their methodology), it's probably not the first time they've been caught socking, and they're behaving disruptively enough to stick in people's mind. That probably would lead to an indef.

This is all general of course, I can't speak to any specific case I wasn't involved myself with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for, Seraphimblade, I really appreciate it. I think that I am so used to seeing indefinite blocks for socking that, looking through SPI cases, I was surprised to see blocks of a shorter, limited duration. I didn't know that an editor could just get a week or two for socking, it seems like indefinite blocks were the norm. But I can see there are a lot of factors that go into deciding what the outcome of an SPI. Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully respond! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Seraphimblade. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Dr. Hoo (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone! Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here. Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've declined unblock on the grounds of NLT - I'll leave you to be the 'nice cop'... Peridon (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think any more "good cop" will work there either. But thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You've probably heard Felicia Sorensen. Her voice was a popular one among advertising agencies, for backup vocals and solo voice for hire. A remarkably talented individual, Sorensen has experience in these areas and more. She toured and recorded with her family as The Gibbons Family and has performed an impressive resume of studio work. She has worked with Donny Osmond, Marie Osmond, Lee Greenwood, Roy Clark, Michael McLean, Northern Voices and has appeared on the Especially for Youth recording series. She debuted her solo singer/songwriter career in 1995 with She Believes on the Deseret Book label. She followed up in 1998 with sophomore outing Without Disguise, which won the FCMA's PEARL Award for Best Contemporary Album. Both albums were later re-released on the Shadow Mountain label. Sorensen and husband Todd, a producer and percussionist, live in Pleasant Grove, Utah with two daughters.

Since then she had vocals in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Oceans Twelve, and a number of other productions.

I was surprised to see that the page for her was first moved and then deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.216.134 (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted a broken redirect there many, many years ago. As to why the article itself was deleted, you'd have to ask the deleting admin (if they even remember seven years later), but it looks like an entirely appropriate deletion to me. Has Sorensen now, years later, been covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources not affiliated with her? That's the requirement for an article. If so, it may be that one can be written. If not, we can't sustain such an article. Regardless, no article would contain the type of effusive gushing like you've done above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You blocked User:Picknget for spamming. However, this user has persisted in advertising by posting the advertising on the user talk page instead to get around the block. Can access to the talk page be blocked too? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You deleted Villa São Paulo on my nomination of it as G11 and G12, for which thank you. It's now back, if anything worse than before. I've tagged it again with the same criteria. I wondered if you would consider salting it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Really

You do not act like one trying to serial delete Jet Naked Airlines even though reliable references were posted, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Company, The Province, National Post, etc.

It is not a joke.

I thought arbitrators were supposed to deliberate and do things carefully, not be destructive. By being destructive, you have stolen all of my energy to write a scholarly article today....will have to try another day..See, even if unintentional, you have committed vandalism.

Please be more thoughtful. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not acting as an arbitrator or on behalf of ArbCom when I process CSD nominations or any other admin task. I'm just acting as an administrator like any other.

Your article has been clearly indicated as inappropriate to you by several people. In fact, I'm not even the last one who deleted it, that would be Bbb23. I agree with their decision to delete the latest iteration; the article was still entirely unacceptable. Please take the time to learn how to properly write and format an article, do some minor and constructive work on existing first, and then try your hand at starting one. You are not writing anything that even approaches "scholarly". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I recently added a page to Wikipedia entitled 'Japanese knotweed claims' which has recently been deleted for unambiguous advertising. Firstly I would like to apologise for transgressing the Wikipedia's code of conduct and would like to have another opportunity to write a short bio about Japanese Knotweed Claims again, hopefully the second time will be more acceptable. I was wondering if a) it would be ok to do so and what are the things I should avoid doing so the new page doesn't get deleted. b) what can be done to make things as if the page had never been created, i.e. how to remove the message explaining the deletion and removing the search result for 'Japanese knotweed claims'

JapaneseKnoweed: There's already a perfectly good article on Japanese knotweed. Try to help out with improvements there. Trying to push a claims service is unacceptable; it doesn't even close to meet our standards of notability, and that article will not be accepted. As to the deletion log, they are public and permanent to maintain administrator accountability. It will be clear to anyone who checks there who deleted it and why, so that anyone who wishes to do so can question it, just as you did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you are an arbitrator should mean than everything you do must be with utmost care.

It would be like if President Obama smashed someone in the face, then said that he didn't do it as President but as Barry.

You should look to Bilby as a very constructive user. I am sorry to say that your actions have made me disappointed at Wikipedia. I do not call you an ass, I merely say that I leave WP today disappointed that a leader, like you, has not acted in the most honorable fashion.

I will still help WP, but not today or tomorrow. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

.

Please help me out from user Redtigerxyz's edit war.Each and every single edits of mine interrupted by him.long before he did the same. again he started.Really this is painful for me.He might be join with some other editor then my move is so pitty.before he did the same so said.if you see the history of mine and him then you come to know.please help me in this.thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 20:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific what you're asking for assistance with. Also, there's no need to spam this request to a dozen different places. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty weird, as I was editing the article to add references, it simultaneously was proposed for deletion. I do not know the proper protocol but I posted the following on the deletion page:

The references needed for this article were in a storage locker in PA. Unfortunately, the storage locker was broken into and the tote labeled "Memorabilia" containing my coin collection (my retirement contribution from my paper route as a paperboy), photos, diplomas as well as the folder containing promotional material and the references for this article. It sounds like "the dog ate my homework" but it happens to be true. I tracked down Larry Gould who wrote 3 articles in New Hampshire and got his articles for inclusion. I am adding them now. I need to track down Marty Weil in Chicago and see if he has copies of articles that he wrote and add them. I will continue editing this article as I locate the references. It is not linked to anything else. Please be patient.Maxhitchens (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maxhitchens: Sorry to hear your stuff got broken into. That's happened to me too, and it's damned unpleasant. Do you know where the articles you're referring to were published? If so, I might be able to help evaluate which would be most likely to meet reliability. If there really is sufficient reference material out there to write the article, that always beats deleting it. It'll need a lot of toning down, though, to reach a neutral state, even if it does turn out we can keep it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade,

I was in the process of creating an article for Veale Wasbrough Vizards but it was marked for speedy deletion by User talk:E Wing. I have added a comment to their talk page, but no response as of yet.

Could you shed some light on this?

"Hello E Wing,

Veale Wasbrough Vizards/draft was recently marked for 'speedy deletion' due to being 'blatant advertising'. I was quite shocked by this as I had used other solicitors wiki pages as a template, such as DAC beachcroft. I wasn't quite finished adding in references but thought that would be OK as still in the draft stages, but I have taken some information from the website - so maybe that is why it was advertising? I am still new to adding articles so any assistance/tips would be great."

Thanks

That page is puff and marketese. "...recognised for excellence in specified sectors...", "...established commitment to training, teamwork and approachability...", "...a long and distinguished history..." are just a few of the more egregious examples I find at a quick glance. Articles (including drafts or work in progress) may not read like a glossy brochure. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade,

First of all, thanks for your help in getting this page to the right place. Secondly, if you have any interest in participating in or organizing the event, I'd love any help you have to offer. For instance, the day before the event we'll be doing a general 'Wikipedia-How-To' session ment as an introduction to help people get started with editing, whether or not they attend the event. We're looking for any experienced editors to help out then, or on the day of the event. Let me know if you or anyone you know id interested.

Thanks,

Bibliophage01 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)bibliophage01

@Bibliophage01: I know I couldn't do it on a Monday. I do often work remotely on Tuesdays, so getting up to Fort Collins that day might be a possibility. I've had mixed results connecting to my work VPN from libraries, do you know if yours has any problems with that?

I'll certainly pass it along to our Denver/Boulder group regardless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Would like to offer for continuous efforts in keeping Wikipedia advert free. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ScottWillie (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@ScottWillie: I've already left you an answer to that question on your talk page. Did you review the guidelines I referred you to? If you need clarification on them, could you please specify in what regard? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'm wondering why podcasts can't be notability? I was trying to sepreate those podcasts because the top of the TWiT.tv says please improve this article because it said NO:TVGUIDE. How do I go about doing it then? If it can't be done on an individual Wikipedia page, then explain to me how I go about doing this. I'm new so please go easy on me. By the way, I can't figure out how to tag my images in the proper way. If you could tell me what tag I use, I will edit all of them to reflect it.ScottWillie (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@ScottWillie: What that means is that some of the guide content needs to be pruned and cut, not just placed elsewhere. To be notable enough for a standalone article, a given subject must be significantly noted by reliable sources unrelated to and not having a particular interest in it. Podcasts could be notable, but in this case, it doesn't appear the individual ones in fact are. In this case, those sources don't seem to exist, and we write articles only from sources, never from personal knowledge. Also, "You can listen to this LIVE at..." or "You can contact the show at..." is pure advertising and never acceptable. We describe and catalog, not encourage the reader to take particular actions. That violates neutrality.

So far as the images, working with nonfree images is complex, as we normally only allow them in very limited cases. For logos, we would only allow them in a standalone article about the subject, generally speaking. Since that's not likely going to be possible for at least most if not all of them, the images probably will have to be deleted. In essence, think of free vs. nonfree as a condition requiring asking for permission under circumstances. CC-BY-SA's restrictions are that a reuser must credit the person who created the work, and must not change its license. As long as a reuser meets those terms, they can reuse the work for any purpose with no permission required. Conversely, NC would require any reuser whose usage is potentially commercial to ask for special permission. That renders the image nonfree and means we generally won't accept it, except under the very narrow cases where we'll allow use of a nonfree image. I'd advise gaining a good deal more experience before you try to navigate nonfree content, even many experienced editors can run into difficulty there.

Finally, check for some guidance on how to write. Don't use "Leo" or "Leo Laporte", use "Laporte" (except for the first introduction in the article). Same with any other name. First time use the full name, anytime thereafter use the unqualified last name.

Your enthusiasm is certainly appreciated, but please do slow down a bit to get a feel for how we do things. Wikipedia is not "write anything you like", or even "write anything that's factual". We try very hard to stick strictly to neutrality and reliance on good quality sources, so there is a reason that's nothing to do with anything against you. I certainly am happy to explain things provided you're willing to listen, and to take it on board as you work with our community. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you Please unprotect Saravanan which has been protected since since October 2010 and you are last protecting admin want to create a disamg page for the various persons named Saravanan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: Certainly so, the create protection is removed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You very much for your prompt response.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Seraphimblade. I have recently been trying to create a page for an Initiative called the Carbon Tracker Initiative. During the night the page has been deleted and you commented saying Wikipedia is not a web-host for company materials. This was not intended to be the case. Carbon Tracker have coined new terms that are gaining a lot of traction and being used around the world in climate change groups. The page intended to give a list of definitions for these terms. I also linked the Initiatives reports where the terms arose and i realise this could have been the problem! I am willing to remove the reports from the page and leave it as a key term page but after a lot of work went into the page is it possible to get the page back to be edited after deletion? Alternatively will it be necessary to instead make a different page for every term? these are the terms we use and want to define for the climate change industry - http://www.carbontracker.org/site/key-terms

Thanks for any help. Ross

Hello Ross. I'm afraid the answer is "no", not "do it a different way". Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it is for information that has already been extensively covered in reliable sources unrelated to their subjects. It is not a place to help spread newly coined terms or provide information not already available through such sources. Wikipedia should be one of the last places something appears, never the first. If you need to provide information about what you're doing, I'd suggest using your organization's website to do so, as it appears you're currently doing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Our terms are not necessarily 'newly' coined but have been around for a while and have been written about in many reliably publications such as The Economist, The Telegraph and many other news publications. Our terms like the Carbon Bubble even already have a wikipedia page however when i try to update it with more accurate and in depth definition it gets removed. It Was removed as it was deemed as "org spam" but Carbon tracker are a non-profit initiative and are not a commercial entity so no advertisement has been intended. we are just trying to inform people about terms they may come across in the news. Can i externally link Carbon Tracker to the page at all? or is that why its removed?

Thanks again. Ross

@RossCarbonTracker: If you could point me in the direction of some of those references, I can certainly take a look and see what can be done with them. The Economist would make a good starting point, but feel free to list any you think might be useful. So far as the links go, we generally try to avoid linking to organizations from anything but a page specifically about that organization, as otherwise we end up with a flood of links for organizations related to the topic. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Sure here are a few links to news publisher that quote us and use the terms im trying to add and edit on wikipedia The Economist, The Economist, The Telegraph, Forbes, Forbes, The Gaurdian, The Gardian, The Financial Times, The New York Times And there are many more. Any help with these is appreciated. As far as linking to our page what you say makes sense, thanks for clearing that up. Ross.

Thanks, there's a good bit to look through there, but many of them are indirect mentions. They're not really trivial, though, and I'm working out what we might be able to do with them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you edit-protect this article from User talk:109.76.254.114? See, he either adds pointless spaces in refs, which I utterly against, or ads Huffington Post ref, which in itself is a blog, which he uses for nominations. According to our policies we (as Wikipedians) can not use Huffington Post as an RS because its not, and I tried to explain it to him with no avail. He suggested a discussion on the talk page but so far he hadn't commented. Any suggestions on how to solve this dispute without being blocked??? P.S. I have reverted his edits 2 times and explained my reasoning.--Mishae (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: If you'd like to request protection on an article, visit requests for page protection. If an anonymous editor is edit warring and refusing to discuss, semiprotection is a solution that'd be considered. Please file your request there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did and Mike V declined it. Now what???--Mishae (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Try requesting a third opinion. Sometimes another set of eyes can help. Also, if your concern is referencing, is it possible you could find a better one for the information? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Seraphimblade. Just a headsup that I mentioned you here, because I'm not sure my attempted ping worked. The link looked odd; I had missed out a space and had to fix it afterwards.[24] Probably it did work, but the system seems to be awfully sensitive, so, well, just in case. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

Seems it did work, but thanks for the heads up in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed you speedy deleted this article as blatant advertising. I seem to vaguely remember creating it some time ago, probably to explain the awards it gives out. I have no connection to the subject and would have tried to avoid advertising, but the company may have later added marketing puff. It happens. By deleting rather than reverting to an earlier version, a lot of links have turned red. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Gold_Mercury_International. The subject is clearly notable. Any chance the article can be restored and then rolled back to an early version? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I always look for earlier versions to revert to in case of a speedy request for spam. You're correct that in many cases I find a version to revert to rather than doing a deletion, and I prefer that. Here's the problem in this case, from the first edit you made:

Gold Mercury International is a think tank and International nongovernmental organization (INGO) based in London, England that promotes international peace and cooperation and ethical global governance.

Gold Mercury presents "Gold Mercury Awards" to individuals and companies who have made outstanding contributions to ethical global governance.[4] The awards are valued by international public figures or organizations as showing international recognition for their achievements.[2] Corporate Vision Strategists, a leadership consultancy and think tank, is affiliated with Gold Mercury International and co-sponsors the awards.

That's puff and peacock language. If you'd like to have it restored to your userspace so you can use those references, I'm alright with doing that, but a mainspace article cannot read like a glossy brochure. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I do not see that as puff and peacock language at all. Breaking it down into shorter units, same wording:

1. Gold Mercury International is a think tank and International nongovernmental organization (INGO)
2. It is based in London, England
3. It promotes international peace and cooperation and ethical global governance
4. It presents "Gold Mercury Awards" to individuals and companies
5. These must have made outstanding contributions to ethical global governance
6. The awards are valued by international public figures or organizations
7. They show international recognition for their achievements
8. Corporate Vision Strategists is affiliated with Gold Mercury International
9. It is a leadership consultancy and think tank
10. It co-sponsors the awards

This just seems like a factual description. What is puffy? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

To go piece by piece: 1) Fine, though "international" should not be capitalized the second time. It's also implied from the name. 2) That part's fine. 3) What does that mean? I get no idea from that what they actually do, that's just fuzzy language, which usually indicates puff. 4) What's the significance of such an award? Are these awards recognized by anyone else as significant? If so, reference indicating so? 5) What's an "outstanding contribution to ethical global governance", and what's the rubric for that? Again, puff but no specifics. 6) What "international public figures or organizations" value or recognize the awards, and how? References indicating they do? 7) What recognition, recognized by who? References? 8) That's nice. Why does that, according to reliable sources, matter? 9) Words like "leadership" are generally marketese. What's that actually mean? 10) Why does that matter, reference indicating so?

I know you might have meant well with it, but reading it with those questions unanswered, it looks like every other marketese brochure put up by whatever organization it may be. To go through the "references", [25] is a directory entry, [26] is a directory entry and can't support a claim like that, [27] doesn't even mention the organization, [28] just leads to their homepage and is self-published regardless, and [29] leads to a broken page (and even if it didn't, how is "twelvestars.com" a reliable source?) That's the exact type of glossy brochure marketing that G11 is designed for. If you did that unintentionally, you still did do it. Are there sufficient unaffiliated and reliable sources to write a real article about this organization based not upon what they say but based upon what real sources say about them? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Every statement is covered by a citation, which may follow 2-3 sentences. What they say about themselves is relevant, although it does not indicate notability and should not be the bulk of the article. The United Nations page is now here. They have the UN stamp of approval, for what it is worth. It seems like a well-meaning little NGO that tries to promote good governance etc. though the carrot of their award. I imagine the worthy members of their board know what the criteria are. The article does not puff the organization, saying it is a wonderful leading-edge highly respected NGO. It just says it is an NGO that dishes out these awards. There are plenty of reliable sources. See Google Books search. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure they're very nice people. Are there reliable sources that cover them in some depth? The Google Books search looked to consist of passing mentions of receiving an award, and the URL is just an entry on a list. Reliable and in-depth references are not optional, and without that, what they say about themselves would be the bulk of the article, which is why it was not acceptable in the first place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I ask that you restore the article and, if you choose, submit it to AfD, giving your reasons. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've been very clear that I'm not restoring an ad. If you can find sufficient independent source material to write an appropriate and neutral article, you are of course welcome to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gold Mercury International. 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. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi I needed some help in opening a case against a member who has been abusive towards me on at least 3 occasions, over the years has has deleted a huge amount of content from the Cheema article which I came along and tagged for deletion as it was only 1 line of text and serves no purpose. I'm studying at the moment, but I believe an arbitration is required, as well as a sockpuppet check. The user in question is Sitush and his activity on the Cheema article, I did a little deeper into the article to find that some members in the past had been banned, so a sockpuppet check is in order in my opinion. He claimed Raj era sources aren't accepted but I have found articles where he has been an active editor where he has allowed Raj era sources to go unchallenged. With his last arrogant comment directed at me it raised some suspicions, due to the nature of the work I do as a student I find some discrepancies which are disturbing, there is no uniformity to his citation process. I will provide more evidence if you need but I am new to wiki and I am coming to grips with all the policies. To start with please see: [30], someone doing very similar edits as Situish was found to be a sockpuppet (user Hkelkar : [31], after Hkelkar was banned, curoiusily Sitush appeared arguing Raj era sources are unrealible, and similarly taking the sameline. For me personally, when Sitush made false accusations against me when I questioned why over a sustained period of time over 90% of the content went missing, he starting to be abusive and accused me of sockpuppetry, then kept reverting my edits I made to the article, saying Raj era sources aren't accepted yet as I have mentioned before he has actively edited articles in which Raj era sources have gone unchallenged. And mysteriously he refused to answer a reasonable question he is basically dismissing 200 years of historical references, in published books. My only issue here is, that there shouldn't be any historical revisionism going, since this hurts the credibility of wikipedia. By the way here is a source which shows my last edit on Cheema article was accurate: [32] that Cheema's are from the Jatt tribe. Syanaee (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Syanaee: My first advice to you would be that accusations such as the ones you've made above require evidence. The evidence you've provided does not on its own establish sockpuppetry; I imagine if you looked at any two editors' edits, you'd see some plausible overlap. For the content issues, I would suggest you use dispute resolution processes such as a third opinion or a request for comment. This can help get participation from previously uninvolved parties if the editors involved have reached an impasse. Also, while you're not explicitly required to do so for user talk pages, it's general courtesy to notify another party if you've opened a discussion regarding their conduct so that they have the opportunity to reply. I'll do so in this case: Sitush, but would request that this page not be used to continue the content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have CU rights (and the time) then please do the check to put Syanaee's mind at rest. That way, it won't poison any later discussion elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I will look into that, I personally don't want to post on Sitush's page as he has been abusive towards me, and unpredictable. You may go ahead and let him know, I already informed him I was going to start an arbitration process against him I felt this was sufficient Syanaee (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

While I am a checkuser, we don't run checkuser to "prove innocence" on English Wikipedia, as it can't prove a negative anyway. I wouldn't worry, there would need to be significantly more evidence than the above to make a convincing case for socking. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That's sort of what I thought, sorry. I'm just trying to be open with Syanaee and since they seem unwilling to accept anything I say, it is at least helpful that someone else says it. DRN or whatever here we come. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion between Littleolive_oil and yourself confuses me a bit. specifically the "knowing that a sandbox cannot be used to draft an clarification is another. If its a common mistake, I assume most editors don't know they cannot post a draft in a sandbox." bit. That seems to contradict the instructions in the pink template which says "This is not a discussion. You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private. Do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive."

Perhaps Littleolive oil is misinterpreting your statement, but as an outside reader I am quite confused. Could you perhaps clarify for me (and the others who lurk in the Arb area)?Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you take a look at the page in question, User:Momento/sandbox, it's been maintained several times since the topic ban was originally placed in 2012, including updates to counts of the number of editors to the article and records of previous appeals by other editors. A topic ban means to leave the area entirely, not keep tabs on it in userspace.

I think what confused Olive was when I said "as recently as this month", and somehow that was interpreted as only this month. Quite honestly, if the only issue were composing the draft in a sandbox, I wouldn't worry at all about a violation that hypertechnical. But that page is being used as an archive of material during the ban and a way to stay on the perimeter of the banned subject, and that's much more concerning to me, especially given essentially no editing in any other area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a fair clarification. What I would suggest is that editors have to know they have transgressed if they are going to suffer for the transgression. I know that many editors do not understand all the nuances of sanctions as I mentioned before. This isn't a punitive environment, but should be an instructive one.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC))

Thanks. Since it seems that you are saying that even a pure/honest clarification/amendment draft in user space is a violation (albeit hypertechnical), we should probably modify the instructions on the page to avoid encouraging people from violating their bans. For example, I had composed this clarification request in my userspace in April(but never submitted it) User:Gaijin42/GunControlArbClarification - was this a violation of my TBan? Should I request that the page be deleted? (I don't have any plans to submit it at this point) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

At least my take on it would be that it'd technically violate the letter (the exception is to appeal or request clarification in the "appropriate forum", which userspace is not), and we generally do construe topic bans pretty strictly, but unless someone's deliberately using such a draft as a backdoor to disruption, I don't imagine action would be taken. Keeping stuff related to the subject in userspace that's not immediately needed probably isn't the greatest idea. If you've no plans to file the clarification and you'd like the page deleted, say the word and I'll certainly do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional clarification. Yes, please do. Due to your clarification, I reiterate my suggestion that the instructions on the page be updated to clarify that making drafts in userspace is a violation of topic bans, as the instructions right now explicitly tell people to make drafts in userspace. I will make a post in the WP:ARCA talk page to start the ball rolling. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you have deleted the page. Thanks. While you are playing in my user space, User:Gaijin42/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents and User:Gaijin42/GunControlArguments should probably go too, both old pre-ban pages I had created. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And also User:Gaijin42/Holding which is a post-ban violation I hope you will grant leniency for. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I took care of them for you. -lurker Dreadstar ☥ 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone! Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Gold Mercury International went through an AfD which led to a non-admin closure. I confused the issue by moving the article to Gold Mercury International Award in the middle of the discussion, since the award and the winners are the main topic. Talk:Gold Mercury International shows the closure, but the moved article still shows as in AfD. Perhaps you could sort it out?

• Someone else fixed it. I was not sure the rights steps. Done now. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

On a humorous note, see User talk:Aymatth2#Gold Mercury International. I left a stern reply at User talk:LudwidNDes, but am not optimistic. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I doubt that Eric will ever file something like this, and I regret starting something that I thought could be short and sweet. Later, Drmies (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: your statement: "I'm just not convinced the issue has reached the point of intractable and hopeless for community resolution at this time. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks it is already at that point, and why."

Can you give a little more detail about how there might be community resolution? It seems the community has already rejected this. I have left a lengthier message on Worm's talk page, and there is a conversation at the closing admin's page as well. You will note that the !vote was not allowed to proceed, but the ANI was closed (twice, by the same admin) while comments and voting were just starting. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I knew it was a longshot appeal, I felt important issues were at play, even if Carrie was hardly a sympathetic example. You were kind to put in time, and I will continue to try to help the project without being thin skinned from the attacks by ideologues. I truly appreciate your time.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Hi, it's been a while, hope you're well. Regarding this edit, it's my postion that pointedly ignoring the victims (including myself, twice) enables the bullying behavior. Please see for instance User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#I_know_you.27re_busy.2C_but_.... I know that's not your intention ... and no matter what anyone does, I'll be fine, but then, I have a strong and secure position here. Other victims aren't so fortunate. Please at least use wording that doesn't give the impression that you're not sure whether this happened more than once. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe that there's more than once, but I chose the most obvious and indisputable example. I did use the wording "at least one occasion" to account for that. Quite honestly, once is one time too many. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, if I understand you right, there was some debate, and you believe it happened more than once but you don't want to press it. Believe me, I'm not looking to get my name up in lights in this or any Arbcom case, but it's just depressing that Arbs can look at the evidence, including "I see, you're the dishonest cunt I always thought you were"[33], and shy away from considering that an instance where he called me a cunt. Perhaps they think I provoked it or deserved it; if so, I wish I had been given an opportunity to rebut that impression. Well, hopefully, it's not important to the outcome. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly not my opinion that you provoked or deserved that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gentle, supportive, collaborative, entertaining, - you guess of course about whom I said that. He (and a few others) retained me - a woman - for Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't think Eric to be a bad person. If people do nothing but bad things around here, they get swiftly indeffed and no one bats an eye. It's these types of hard cases that really get difficult. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I like your approach on the talk. I hope you don't mind mine (earlier today). I remember that a year ago a friend was almost banned, who went on to write 30 DYK articles and win an honourable mention from JW. He was "saved" by one arb changing his vote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I recently sent you a message through your Wikipedia email. Please keep an eye out for it.

Thank you for your time,

Craig

Answered by email, timestamping for bot archival. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I have removed my previous post here, and I would like to publicly apologize for posting it. I have several reasons for removing it. For one thing, I now believe the reason you have not removed it yourself or one of the other arbs has not removed it is because of the ongoing case, so I am now the only one who *can* remove it. Also, I find this edit offensive, as I found the edit it linked to offensive. Two offensives do not add up to one inoffensive. I also do not know where you edit from, so I do not wish to create any NSFW issues for you.

I understand there might be good reasons for your edit, but I am requesting you remove your own edit as well. If you have not yet looked over the Reeves v C H Robinson case, I would recommend it to you. The article is NSFW, but the objectionable language is below the fold when you open the URL. The language is necessary to understanding the case, and how the two women involved in the situation had to either change the situation or leave their jobs.

I hope you can understand how difficult I found it to return from the hospital and find not only that there were unanticipated findings for me in the proposed decision, that had not been discussed during the workshop phase, but that my watchlist was flooded with heading after heading containing this inflammatory word, at a time when I was in need of narcotics and rest, but NYB was pressuring me to respond quickly. I believe the barrier to participation that the use of this word represents for editors more than makes up for any loss of preciseness if the word is not specified. —Neotarf (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

While I understand what you're saying, I'd ask you to consider that both the article you linked me to, and the court decision itself, used the explicit and uncensored term rather than dancing around it. While I'm always loath to compare ArbCom to a judicial process, I would say the use of the term in the PD is much more closely analogous to the court ruling than the actions of the coworkers. I do appreciate your apology, and also want to make clear no offense was intended by my proposal. Your posting was hardly the most venomous thing that's been slung at me on this page. While everyone participating in the case right now is well aware of exactly what term is at issue, these cases are long term records, and someone reviewing it a year or two down the road may have no idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

One issue addressed by the court case in the article, that has been repeated frequently on WP as well, is the assumption that it is fine to use gender-specific slurs as long as they are not addressed directly *to* someone. The court case makes it clear that is not the case; the issue they found relevant was whether being in the presence of the hostile language was a condition of employment. I believe the finding you introduced makes that point as well. In the situation of the link I gave you, you had the choice of opening it now, opening it later, or not opening it at all. No matter your choice, you would still be an arb tomorrow and still participating in WP tomorrow. In my situation, I was named as a party to the case, and had little choice whether to participate, and when. And even though I stated that I wanted to have time to go through the diffs, and look for some diffs of my own, the voting still started without my evidence. The people who presented diffs against me have been collecting them since September; I had only a few hours to prepare.

If the committee wants to make the terminology clear for the long term record, the most valuable place to do that would be on the case page, where the final case decision will be posted after the case closes. Some considerations for doing that might be that it be "below the fold", where someone will have to scroll down to see it after opening the browser, and that it not have an element of surprise or unexpectedness, by placing an NSFW sign (which I honestly think would be overkill here) or some indication in the headings that indicate some "offensiveness" of the material under it. I would also like to see the word in question encased in "quotations" (not sure whether this is recommended by the WP:MOS) as recommended by the MOS.

It might also be informative to have the committee record the reasons for what they did, and what issues they tried to balance. Using the word while the case is in progress I think creates a "chilling effect" on the proceedings, especially if it is done by someone in a position of authority or public trust. As you may have seen on NYB's talk page, I had to step away from the keyboard and go outside for a while. This is the whole point of "provocative" language, is that by "provoking" it raises the temperature of the discourse and changes the possibilities for productive deliberation. And that's the whole point of course, to throw an adversary off balance. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand you wanting to stop to the "bickering" that broke out. Nevertheless, hatting the thread hides my original post from view, thus effectively covering up the important issue it raises about the application of a key principal underlying the eventual decision(s). Would you be willing to redo the close using, say, the archivetop/bottom templates so that my comments are at least allowed the same visibility as others all over the page that don't even begin to address the relevant topic? Writegeist (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your concern is noted, but I see no purpose to reviving the thread. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Keeping it under your hat eh? It's curious that you say you "see no purpose to reviving the thread" when you know perfectly well that I did not ask you to revive the thread. I asked you to reclose it without hatting, to leave my opening post visible. As for the purpose of closing the thread by this method, I made that crystal clear for you.

I note you're an arbitrator active in the case, and that you voted for the proposed decision to siteban Eric Corbett. So it's interesting that you insist on using your hat to cover up criticism of the way the arbitrators constructed the foundation for the decision(s) regarding him; that is to say in a way that disregards one of your agreed principles and serves only to prejudice the decision(s). Writegeist (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Quite honestly, once is one time too many. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)" Words by themselves are neither good nor bad. It's the intent behind their use. (That idea isn't new. I heard George Carlin say it best. He was a very intelligent guy. ["Foul-mouthed", yes. But he crafted his presentations that way, very conscious of the words he chose. Just as Eric Corbett is skilled w/ words and in control how he does/doesn't use them.])

  I really don't understand your conclusions and actions, "quite honestly", they seem very shallow to me. (For example, how is "cunt" as a name-call, any worse than "Dick" or "asshole"? To me I hear the identical insult. The fact that a crowd of people might say "but but but that word, that word ... is worse than all the rest" ... how does that become an actionable fact?! Just because a crowd says the sky is falling, doesn't make it true. Now, if one would want to look instead at intention behind use of any particular word, then wouldn't that be where a case would be made or not, re whether extreme incivility were present or not!? The deal is, to banish a word ["one time too many"] would not be thought of as a very intelligent plan ... neither by G. Carlin, nor the English-speaking world as a whole [who will end up witness to any decision]. So I really do not understand the choices you have already made, that they are wise ones.) p.s. I don't expect a reply really, since I really do not want to open a discussion point that has already been debated elsewheres numerous times with differing depths. I guess I'm wanting to render my dissatisfaction with the direction you have proposed and acted on ... since if your view wins the day on WP, I know I'm gonna feel sickly every time I think of putting fingers to keyboard and doing any edit work on articles in future, and I do not look forward to that time. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know how you're going to receive the above, of course I like it to be in the spirit it is given (request to reevaluate your thought process and decisions/actions). That aside, for the heck of it, consider this ... Let's say WP software was smart enough to bleep out "cunt" and replace it w/ "****" each and every time it was used as an insult on the WP. And leave it alone where appropriate (e.g. in Talk or article about the word, etc.). Three questions: 1) Do you think you'd be proposing banning Eric Corbett because he used/wrote "****" insult? 2) Do you think Eric Corbett would quit WP in frustration, because some word(s) he wrote (or others write) is being bleeped by WMF software upgrades? (The latter Q is entirely hypothetical and anyone's guess, but my guess, is that he, Eric, wouldn't be too perturbed about being "censored". [He would have the sense of freedom to type any word. It's not his doing WMF has decided to jump in w/ software and bleep him.] Life goes on. Everyone is happy & contented. 3) Don't you feel bad, for recommending what would effectively be a permanent ban on a highly productive editor, only because WMF software isn't yet up to snuff and sophisticated enough to do the above?! (Because if you aren't, I think [obviously] you should be.) *End of thought-experiment* Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think an arb should be asked to publicly deliberate on these issues at the moment, and I'm sorry to jump in here, but the following is relevant (from my comment at the decision talk): 'every fluent speaker of English knows that "cunt" is the most taboo word available, and we also know that many editors find its gratuitous use to be offensive. That tells us that such words should not be repeated in areas where they are unwelcome'. Therefore, the question of whether a string of letters should be a problem is not relevant.

    Having said that, I want to observe that there has never been a systematic approach to dealing with the problematic behavior—sanctions handed out by individual admins are often over-the-top or based on a misunderstanding of what occurred, and that leads to unblocking with much drama. The proposal currently at the bottom of the decision talk would provide a systematic and reasonable procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think my time would be better spent looking for the best solution to this issue than addressing hypotheticals extremely unlikely to ever actually happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  See, I had thought your proposed solution & !vote were already your best idea for solution. (Glad to hear it wasn't. How about redacting that destrucive proposal/!vote then!?) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind if I dump this warning [34] out of the log? Briefly, Darkness Shines has been identified as a sock, TopGun feels like they got a raw deal, and there's sort of a vague consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reversing_of_warning.2C_past_sanctions_and_past_blocks. I don't think it matters in the big scheme of things one way or the other but it matters to TopGun and don't see any harm. NE Ent 02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As that is currently under discussion at AN, I would prefer to avoid any unilateral actions during the course of the discussions. The discretionary sanctions process does provide for an AN discussion to be able to reverse sanctions, but that would require closure on the discussion as such. As I placed one such sanction, I of course would not close it, but will defer to the finding of the person who does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted a motion at AN. NE Ent 10:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not wish to create another shitstorm, if you look here [[35]] I opened a SPI, it was rather a cut and dry case and I asked for a checkuser for a sleeper sweep to make sure another farm wasn't started, the reviewing admin didn't comment on the evidence and stated because it was only one edit it was likely meatpuppetry. I think it was way on the agf side but if you look at the original evidence found here [[36]] and the consistencies in the statements with the new account found here [[37]], [[38]], [[39]]. I reverted under WP:EVADE and this was in turn reverted [[40]]. It's my understanding that according to WP:MEATPUPPETRY when there is a doubt if it's meatpuppets or sockpuppets it's ok to treat them the same way. The only issue is can a person take responsibility for a talkpage afd comment? This is a different situation then when I had the issue with Tarc and I don't think the user is acting in bad faith but am I still justified to remove the comment as block evasion? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Different solution nevermind thanks anyways. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In your vote for Eric's 2.2 remedy you said it was your second choice to 2.3. 2.3 appears to pass. When arbs have stated something is their second choice, and the first choice passes, how is the second choice vote normally counted? (As 2.2 is currently passing (due to the abstentions), but would not pass if your vote didn't count) I'm not suggesting a course of action, I'm just genuinely interested in the process. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

When a "first choice", "second choice", etc., are done, it's essentially a transferable vote. If someone's first choice passes, their votes on any choices "below" that are discounted. So my second-choice vote on 2.2 only is counted if 2.3 fails. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that this edit went into a commented (sample) section and didn't have the effect you intended. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Editing on a phone can certainly be an interesting experience. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes very interesting... I just recently (finally) figured out how to disable the rollback link when viewing on my phone. A couple of frantic self-reverts were needed before I learned that lesson. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

While a majority has been reached any activity seems to have stalled. I'm really not familar with these but this seems very odd. HalfHat 17:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

clean blade
Thank you for fighting for the credibility of the project, "free as in freedom", for cleanup, tighten, consolidate, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 December 2009, 25 July 2007: "I dreamt a dream! ... Guarded by a mighty Seraphim")!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 650th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Look ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, PD looks cleaner now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of that piece before. I may have to take a listen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Seraphimblade. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone You were not clear why the matter you raise requires private handling. Please either send another email making this clear or handle it on-wiki. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the ((copy edit)) backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone! Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade. Many of us are having trouble with the Jeff Smisek page. People keep deleting seemingly valid contributions. Can you please investigate the situation and possibly consider locking the material if the bandits don't stop deleting information without going to the talk page? Thanks for your consideration!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.191.46 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll have to be more specific. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for more information about this band and I was surprised to see no article on this band that is well known in Contemporary Christian music circles. It was deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloverton (band) which you closed as delete in a close !vote. I wish that I had known about the AFD at the time. The comments about Billboard Christian Songs and Billboard CHR not being a national chart are wrong. They certainly are national charts. At that time, Christian Songs chart was based on total air plays on radio stations across the United States. I have used the deleted content of the article and added a bunch of sources to the article in one of my sandboxes. I ask that you review it to see if the problems noted in the AFD were addressed. I added a citation to their chart appearance on Billboard as Google Books has archived and added a bunch more. Royalbroil 04:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Royalbroil It's sure not the strongest sourcing I've ever seen, college papers and a few "event notice" articles in local rags (the rest being non-independent, radio stations will of course promote who they play, etc.). While for me I'd generally want to see a good deal more than that, it'd be sufficiently different that I wouldn't say it's eligible for G4. Whether it would survive another AfD is a different question, it really doesn't look like the sourcing exists to sustain a real article. But I won't object if you want to give it a shot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I was expecting that directing citing the Billboard chart so that everyone can see that it did indeed appear on the chart is golden (meeting WP:MUSIC #2). WP:MUSIC states that national genre-specific charts are included (note 4). I'm going to wait until I hear one of their songs played on KLOVE to cite. Then I will have cited appearance on a national program to strengthen the claim under WP:MUSIC #11. I don't understand how deletionists can expect to need so many sources and I appreciate the insight on how someone interprets an article. I usually only will start an article when I think that I have at least double what I feel something needs to survive AFD. There's no sense posting something iffy just to waste time and the heartache of defending it at AFD. Cheers! Royalbroil 02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Guild of Copy Editors Late December 2014 Newsletter Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! Happy holidays from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my bot's correction of that mal-formed message? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Because I shouldn't check my watchlist on a phone, apparently. Didn't even know I had done it, else I would've self-reverted. Sorry about that! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, was hoping I didn't introduce a second syntax error that would need more cleanups! Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2014 Annual Report Our 2014 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Review the election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2015. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd consider this. Two parties actively argue the editor that started the thread was banned and ryulong consistantly enforced his own 1RR. Revert once: Warning. Revert twice: get reported. Many AIV reports are about a user belong to a blocked user without any supporting evidence.

Tarc collapses part of the thread in an apparent attempt to support 'long's argument. It's time to face the music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.195.253 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Before casting your vote in the Wifione case, please be sure to have read and understood this thread. If you have any questions, please ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone! Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This question depends on an WP:AE statement you made fifteen months ago, based on this arbitration case.

I've accidentally discovered User:Doncram/Articles, a huge list of pages that Doncram created, together with his comments on some of them. Lots of these articles cover places on the National Register of Historic Places, and many of them specifically name the NRHP; just have your browser run a search for "national r" and you'll get over a hundred hits. The earliest revision is from a couple of weeks ago, so it's long after the ban was imposed, but it's basically generated from some automated tool. So my questions: (1) Do we consider this a topic ban violation? (2) Is the source a mitigation, i.e. do we give Doncram leeway because it's probably impossible to get this kind of list without posting it on-wiki? If it's proper to permit list-making with an automated tool, it would be needless hassle for him if I went straight to WP:AE — thus my coming to ask here. I'm not trying to go tattletaleing, getting him blocked without knowing that his actions are being discussed; if you think it not proper to permit list-making with an automated tool in this context, I'll file a request at WP:AE where he'd be able to respond. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Technically, it probably is a violation, but seems unintentional and not in any way to be disruptive or skirt around the topic ban. I imagine it's just content that's inadvertently part of the dumps. Unless it's somehow problematic, I'd tend toward leaving him do that process (though not anything else with NRHP) in userspace. Drafting articles, having discussions, etc., would remain off limits. Any objection? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, i.e. no objection. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)