User talk:Fences and windows/Archive 10

WP:RAILCRASH

I've returned the status to that of a proposed guideline. If you have any constructive criticism on the proposal, or suggestions for improvement then I'd welcome them. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I will have a look over it in more detail and comment shortly. Fences&Windows 14:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. v. Patrick

Hello, I'm new on Wikipedia and not too sure what you meant by "notability", and what sources are more reliable than the supreme court opinion? IPLawstudent 10:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link in my comment on your talk page and all will be revealed! Any time you see an editor linking to another pae using a bluelink, it's probably worth following it and reading the policy, guideline or essay they are referring to. Basically, Wikipedia is not written based on primary sources, it is written based on secondary sources: newspaper articles, books, magazines, scholarly literature. "Notability" is a Wikipedia-specific term; it means that a topic has been written about in depth in multiple reliable sources, so is probably worth having an article about (and in the absence of such coverage, a full article would probabably not be fully verifiable or neutral). A reliable source is a source with a reputation for fact checking (as opposed to blogs, forums, The National Enquirer, etc.). Writing using secondary sources means you avoid using your own original research or interpretations of the case and its significance. Fences&Windows 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love that tag

That drive-by-taggigng pseudotag on your User page is genius, sheer genius. Ring the bell and give yourself a coconut. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pinched the idea off someone else, I forget who. We should always remember to take the piss out of ourselves. Fences&Windows 22:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hobit might have originated it:[1] Fences&Windows 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block evasion by User:Yzak Jule / User:Zengar Zombolt

Since you were the blocking administrator, I figured I would let you know personally of this block evasion. It's also reported at AN/I. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?

Good finds in sources. Please to be adding them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but you do realise that nominators can also add sources to articles? Fences&Windows 14:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Fences and windows/Archive 10!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, just needs to be put in place. Fences&Windows 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for my recusal

I have considered and rejected it. As I understand it, you are saying that I should recuse because I have views on what policy says about the summary deletion of unsourced BLPs, a charge to which I plead guilty. Putting aside the fact that such a recusal standard would result in no arbs being unrecused, I'm curious as to what you expect arbs to base our decisions on in making rulings about the summary deletion of unsourced BLPs if not our views on what policy says about same? Steve Smith (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of BLP policy is plainly not what was meant by that wording when the policy was written. Speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs has been rejected repeatedly by the community, most recently in the BLP RfC, and you should respect the community. Only Jimmy and the WMF get to set policy by fiat. What you are doing is attempting to change policy by backing the unilateral deletion of unsourced BLPs by a handful of admins, which is an abuse of your position of responsibility in ArbCom. If you proceed with supporting the speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs I'll explore how to get you removed from your position. ArbCom does not set policy, it exists to arbitrate behaviour. Fences&Windows 13:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note your failure to answer my question. As for how to get me removed, there is no binding way, unless you can convince Jimmy that I should be removed. I do voluntarily make the commitment that if I am recalled as an administrator through WP:AOR, I will also step down as arbitrator. Steve Smith (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you to follow what policy actually is instead of following your own inventive interpretations. You shouldn't be wikilawyering to suit your own beliefs on this: policy does not allow the speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs, whatever you or the rest of ArbCom says on the matter. But if you back admins who speedy delete such articles en masse and sanction admins who act to oppose this, you de facto force a change in policy. That's abuse of power. Fences&Windows 20:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't really answer my question, either (which was, to remind you, "what [do] you expect arbs to base our decisions on in making rulings about the summary deletion of unsourced BLPs if not our views on what policy says about same?"). In any event, I've explained why I believe those deletions are supported by policy. You've argued that I'm wrong. You may accept it as the good faith difference of opinion that I believe it to be, or you may persist in your accusations that I am nefariously manipulating policy interpretations to suit some unspecified political end. In the latter case, my preference would be that you put up or shut up, but that's up to you. Steve Smith (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still argue that your position is and has always been policy? Big Brother would be proud, comrade. Supporting the speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs and arguing that policy currently supports it are two very separate things. I don't think it is possible to honestly argue that policy currently supports the deletion of all unsourced BLPs, your argument depends upon word play of the meaning of "contentious" and twisting the meaning of long-standing policies to suit your own purposes. That's classic wikilawyering. I believe that you have allowed your support for that position to cloud your judgement, which is why you should recuse - you are prejudiced in your position. As soon as you enact further motions that force a change in policy I will call for your removal as an admin, in lieu of any way to remove you as an ArbCom member. Fences&Windows 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I expect ArbCOM members to reflect the will and views of the people they serve. You (generic) were elected because it was believed that you (generic) would listen to and act in accordance with the views/perspectives of the community, not to reject those views and advocate a position that the community has explicity and repeatedly rejected. I don't mind people on ArbCOM having views, but I expect them to put their views aside when those views are clearly in the minority and do not represent the views of the majority of the project. If you cannot separate your personal views from your role as ArbCOM, which in this case you apparently cannot, then you should recluse yourself. To do otherwise is disingenous and a betrayal of trust. If you don't, then I suspect others will support a move to remove you from ArbCOM---nobody wants that, but we've already had one motion at the BLP-RFC criticize ArbCOM for passing their motion. Hell, Steve, you even have people who share your view on speedy deletion of unsourced BLP's challenging your statement.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wykked Wytch

Hi Fences,

Thank you for offering to find references for the Wykked Wytch article. It has been five days since you deproded the article. Do you remain confident that you will be able to find sufficient references to establish the band's notability?

Neelix (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and you could help. Fences&Windows 13:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fences,

I have attempted to find significant, independent, reliable sources for the Wykked Wytch article and have been unsuccessful. I am willing to hold out on putting the article through an AfD for a few more days in case you are more successful in the attempt to adequately source the article, however I do not believe that I can be of further help to you on that front.

Neelix (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Fences&Windows 14:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make constructive edits again. There are some quite unfair Administrators who rarely give blocked users a second chance. But I think that you have acted in a fair manner. Sansonic (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application

Re: 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application

PanchoS, Fences&Windows, JohnCD, hi!

Thank you for notifying me of the deletion discussion for 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application. Unfortunately, limited Internet access (sadly, still ongoing) prevented me from paricipating in the discussion (or even knowing of its existence). Dealing with the points raised during the discussion:

PanchoS: during the discussion, you said "...The "Libertas-cyclopedia" this author posted to Wikipedia has some 20 articles plus 10 categories plus a huge navbar, as if we were talking about an important party with a long history. In fact the party has little to no influence, few members and exactly one mandate in the European Parliament. Neither this nor the short history nor the few substantial information there is about this party grants a separate article for these sub-topics..."

My reply: The importance of Libertas.eu lay not in the party per se: its importance lay in the structure of, and evolution of, political parties at European level (aka Europarties). The reason why I spent so much time on it was by developing a structure for the articles on Libertas, we could have rolled out articles with a similar structure for the other Europarties. Libertas.eu was born, lived and died in a blaze of publicity, so each step in its development was signposted. By noting those steps we could have structured the present articles on the other Europarties using the same signposts and, as new ones emerged, done the same for future Europarties.

JohnCD: during the discussion, you said "...a single author is spamming Wikipedia with innumerable articles about a subject that deserves no more than one. This is a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to exaggerate its importance, contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT..."

My reply: As I said above, the articles were an attempt to develop a structure for articles on the birth, life and death of Europarties. That structure could have been used (hopefully, still can) for the other Europarties.

No violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT was intended - arguably, no violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT actually occurred. The relevant passage in WP:NOTE reads "...If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..." (WP:SIGCOV). The 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition article met this, in multiple news articles across multiple countries in multiple languages.

Fences&Windows: during the discussion, you said "...they are political geekery and trivia of the highest order..."

My reply: Guilty, and cheerfully so: I may put that quote on my homepage when I get reliable Internet access again...:-) More seriously, political geekery neither qualifies nor disqualifies article existence: WP:NOTE does, and I refer you to my comments above.

Summary: the Libertas articles were not written as a partisan gesture: they were an attempt to develop a stucture for all Europarty articles.

Summary of the summary: don't be so quick to WP:ABF, huh?...:-)

To all: The 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application dealt with an important point in the creation of Europarties: the relevant legislation mandates a minimum number of supporters, but previous Europarties had previously defined "supporters" as political parties: Libertas defined them as political individuals. The accompanying confusion had legal implications for the birth of Europarties and (by extension) the articles on those parties (when does an Europarty come into existence? What is its exact birthdate?). The points in the article and their sources were intended to be used in the political party at European level article. Given this, if the article (or at least the sources) could be resurrected and placed on my homepage, I would be grateful, although I appreciate that may not be possible.

I have limited Internet access, so I may not be able to read your replies for some time. Neverthless, please feel free to reply on my talk page.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your reply

Hello, Fences and windows. You have new messages at Anameofmyveryown's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aganippe Fossa

Hiya F&W, I was wondering, I'm not certain that you can, but is it possible for you to restore the old version of Aganippe Fossa (which is supposedly available) and history merge it back into the current article? It looks like User:Jimmarsmars originally created it last March, but it was then speedy deleted as an A1, and then Jim thankfully came back to it and recreated it in order to finish working on it. I was just thinking that it would be nice if he could receive credit for the whole history. It's not real important, but if possible it'd at least be a polite things to do, you know?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the initial version from 2 March 2009 is now available. Fences&Windows 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks. I'll leave a little note on his talk page.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sticky prod workshop

Hi Fences and windows/Archive 10 ! I'm pleased it looks fine to you, and now is the moment we need your support. The workshop is losing interest fast now that there is very little left to argue for or against. I have split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on its implementation can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finchley Central

Would you be so kind as to forward your scan of "A Pandora's Box of non-games" to mail@losethegame.com if it is still in your possession.

Thank you. 61.90.42.112 (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm edit

Hi Fences and windows,

Thanks for the heads up on the rules; I'm reading over them now. It still seems like relevant info for the page, but I'll leave that to someone else to work on. How should info like that be posted, without seeming to be advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew J Whittle (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been posted by someone else, and there's even an article at SarcMark. I doubt this really deserves a whole article to itself, but I'm not minded yet to merge it back to the main article. Fences&Windows 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R&I mediation

there 's a draft of an outline at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#Proposed_outline. You have not yet commented on it, and I am preparing to give the outline to David.Kane (per current agreement in mediation) to enter a draft of the article in mainspace. There will be a review/revision period after the draft is entered in which any issues can be addressed, so if you have no immediate comment, or can't get to the mediation page to make a comment, you can participate in the review and we can address any concerns you still have there.

sorry for the bulk message. --Ludwigs2 11:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence, new draft

A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. I am posting this notice to mediation participants in the hopes that those who have not contributed recently to the mediation will come back to review and comment on the draft, and help discuss any revisions that need to be made. You may make any reviews or comments at the mediation page, and we will discuss any revisions that need to be made.

I'd also ask you to leave a note for David.Kane (talk · contribs) on his talk page. Whatever your opinion of the draft itself, I think he deserves thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into making the revisions. --Ludwigs2 18:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ship year categories

Re your recent edit to List of shipwrecks in 2010, Category:2010 ships is for ships launched in 2010. This applies to all ship year cats. Mjroots2 (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removals response

You assume I haven't searched for sources, which I did for the Vans article in particular, in addition to several other articles where I removed unsourced material. If there's absolutely no source that can be found, it shouldn't be there. You specifically were angered regarding the Times Article as socialists always want to silence the truth and spread left-wing propaganda ... that's a problem on Wikipedia, it's a major problem on the Lockheed Martin page as well which I and several other users monitor to ensure that leftist Wikipedia activists stop adding lies and false information from fringe websites. But thank you for your rude comment on my talk page anyways, it speaks volumes of your attitude regarding fellow Wikipedia users who do not conform to your biased socialist European POV. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London meet up

Fences, there's a meet up this Sunday over at Holoborn. I hate to ask at this time as I know youre a fellow progressive and like me youre probably very busy in what looks to be an agonizingly close campaign where the stakes are ahigher than any other election back to 45 when Churchill stood for Friedman's mentor Hayek while Clement promissed progressive Keynesian policy. But its just the encyclopedia seems to be in the middle of a sea change that could see a lasting shift in an elitist direction. Certain actions by the foundation are central to this, and are going to be raised in the appropriate on wiki venue this weekend. It will be great to have the chance to maybe follow up with some face to face discussion with the foundations director Sue Gardner who will be attending the meetup. An academic like yourself would really add credibility to the balanced view. And of course it would be great to meet you socially! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Comrade Andrew Landeryou

The following appeared today on Ex Comrade (that's because he's no longer a member of the Australian Labor Party)Andy Landy's blog Vexnews that should interest you Fences

Study: 52 Percent Of Bloggers Consider Themselves Journalists

by Leena Rao on Apr 1, 2010

According to a new study released by PR Week and PR Newswire, 52% percent of bloggers surveyed consider themselves journalists. This is an increase from 2009’s study, when just one in three had the same opinion. However, despite this, only 20% of bloggers obtain the majority of their income from their blogs; which is an 4% increase from 2009.

A few other stats caught our attention as well. When it comes to using blogs and social networks, like Twitter or Facebook, for research, 91% of bloggers and 68% of online reporters “always” or “sometimes” use blogs for research. But only 35% of newspaper and 38% of print magazine journalists surveyed use blogs or social networks for research purposes

The stats are even more interesting when it comes to using Twitter, which is often a place for breaking news and consumer trends, alone for research. 64% of bloggers and 36% of online reporters said they use Twitter as a research tool for stories. But only 19% of newspaper reporters and 17% of print magazine reporters use the microblogging network as a resource for research. Newspaper and print magazine reporters also source Twitter less frequently than their online counterparts with 19% and 22% saying they have used a Twitter post in a story, respectively. This is in contrast the higher use of sourcing Twitter for stories for bloggers (55%), online magazine/news (42%) and even TV news (48%).

Here at TechCrunch, we rely on other blogs for research even more than traditional news outlets. And we use Twitter as a tool not just for breaking news, but also to evaluate the sentiment of consumers about a particular product or service. For example, my colleague MG Siegler used the breaking news of Tiger Woods’ car accident to show the inherent value of Twitter when it comes to the speed of reporting news.

I don't know where Comrade Andy fits into all this.

But I know one thing. According to the anti-Landeryou Slanderyou2 site ASIO (that's the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and also the CIA use Andy Landy's Vexnews as their news site of choice for Australian news.

I wonder if there's any truth in that!!!!!!!

I'll be following the British elections with great interest.

124.176.175.135 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My, Mr Landeryou does stir up opposition, doesn't he? I have no real interest in following anti-Landeryou blogs and have temporarily given up on trying to ensure that Landeryou's bio is neutral and unsanitised, but I will revisit at some point - there's no good reason why his being voted out as MUSU president after five months and his bankruptcy should be suppressed, and the selective use of a quote needs correcting. Fences&Windows 14:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Politics UK

Hi Fences. I saw from the project page that you're involved there and as a name I recognise (couple of law-related AFDs and your RFA) thought I'd try you first. I was over at David Waddington, Baron Waddington (Tory Home Sec 89-90) and saw it urgently needs expanding as it contains no info at all on his year's tenure. I'm happy to have a go at this and intend to start asap but was wondering if you had a pet resource you could recommend or if there's maybe an editor at the project who you know to be especially knowledgable/interested in dismal barristers who became undistinguished Home Secs? Thanks! Plutonium27 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just use what I can find on the interwebs, I totally fit the "ZOMG they only use what they can find on Google" stereotype. Google Books and sometimes Google Scholar can bring up good material on politics and politicians; I trawl all the hits I get on Google, Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books. Someone more expert would be User:Sam Blacketer. Fences&Windows 09:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Game

no problem, got a lot more pages to make. althought everytime you listen, you loose the game XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nudity in music videos

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nudity in music videos. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in music videos. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 00:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny of the unevangelized merge

Can you do the merge proposed between Destiny of the unevangelized and Fate of the unlearned? They amount to the same thing as far as I can see, and no ones objected to their merger. 166.137.8.199 (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD RFC

I note your comment here. Could I ask you to consider refactoring the second sentence? It seems to unnecessarily personalise the discussion; if you look at the past discussions, you will see that there have been several editors over time who have supported the concept of including contributor names on the main page. Thanks. Risker (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova is the main actor here, her constant ownership of image processes is a real issue. So I will let my comment stand. Fences&Windows 16:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Could you please clarify your opposition to topic ban Mathsci? Specifically these 2 questions:

Did you give Mathsci a license to use WQA as a battleground (by importing unrelated disputes about uninvolved users) as he has here?
Were you of the view that Mathsci is not the worst offender and should not be the first/only user sanctioned? Or were you of the view that everyone except Mathsci should take a break from the dispute? Or were you of some other view?

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, who are you and why should I answer your questions? Try again while explaining what you actually want from me using plain language in prose and I might reply. Fences&Windows 10:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm sorry for being unclear. I came across this WQA dispute and commented as an uninvolved user that both parties (Mathsci and Ludwig2) were at fault. Mathsci disagreed and suggested his conduct is fine, and cited administrators who commented at this discussion as supporting his position. I've asked you to clarify your view because I did not have the same interpretation of your comments as Mathsci - but of course, you're not at all obligated to answer any of my questions, or to clarify your view if you don't want to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that Mathsci has never stepped over the mark on Wikiquette, but I don't think a topic ban is warranted. Ludwigs2 has stepped into a dispute while claiming to be a neutral arbiter and has shown himself to be nothing of the kind, and has made matters worse by enabling POV pushers and slinging around insults and hyperbole. I hope that suggesting that Mathsci go to WQA in response to this was constructive. The context here is that the Race and intelligence article suffers from a collection of dedicated single-purpose accounts with the strongly-held POV that black people are genetically inferior in their intelligence to white people pushing research funded by the controversial Pioneer Fund. Most other editors get driven away by this (I very briefly engaged on the talk page just as the mediation was starting, but didn't have the energy to keep up with the tactics of civil POV pushing), so Mathsci sticking to his guns is no bad thing. I honestly think this is only going to end with an ArbCom case. I view the hereditarians much the same as other disruptive SPA POV pushers like Scientologists, alternative medicine advocates, climate skeptics, and Creationists. Fences&Windows 11:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree that topic banning Mathsci is not the right solution here, and that he should stick to his gun - but if it is coming to the point that his own conduct is showing more signs of deteriorating, a temporary voluntary break would be for the greater good (not to run away from the problem, but so that he can come back refreshed, and more in control of his responses). I'm in agreement with the other users who commented at the WQA (Dolphin, JamesBWatson & Gerardw) and I think we've tried to say the same thing: all editors involved in that article should take that sort of break. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone is heeding this feedback - and it becomes especially frustrating when the user who filed a WQA is being unreceptive to the feedback received because of feedback he's already received at ANI. This may be the reason why WQA generally does not look into comments made (or incidents already) at ANI; it can make things more messy than before, and editors and admins responding at ANI should be managing personal attacks and incivility in the appropriate fashion. Arbitration does seem to be the constructive option available, and it would certainly make all parties pause, but I note that no user is paying heed to this community feedback either. None of the involved users or parties are helping this situation; at the moment, battles are being moved to more venues (with less control in commentary [2], as well as more battling, including new unrelated battles being inflamed [3]; I've experienced tendentious problem editing, but the declining standard of conduct does not just cry out for help, but is inviting more problems - it needs to be addressed). It's up to responding administrators, semi-involved or otherwise, to make something happen (arb), or fix it (ani) before it is too late. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:traimb

is obviously NOT a new user. A new user's first edits are tendentiously speed-categorizing dozens of articles using an assist script? Give me a break. I don't recognize the particular edit pattern but a sock suspicion is more than justified. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have evidence that this is a user abusively using another account to avoid scrutiny, to provide a false appearance of consensus, or to circumvent a block or ban? Fences&Windows 10:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatantly obvious that traimb is not a new user, so labelling him/her as one was clearly an error. That plus the battleground nature of the affected editing areas is enough to suspect socking. Acting on the suspicion (i.e. sanctioning the user for socking) requires concrete evidence, but suspicion itself (as grounds for looking into a situation further) only requires a plausible opinion based on having seen this sort of thing before. Separately from socking it's appropriate to proactively monitor whether traimb is going to turn into a persistently disruptive single purpose account. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigotsgate

Over at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident the original deleting admin stated there was no prohibition on recreating the article with a less problematic title and better sourcing. So there doesnt seem to be any justification to speedy my impeccably sourced and neutrally written article. Accordingly, it may be an idea for you to undelete. Anyway I've commented at the review. Suppressing the article doesnt seem a net positive per the BLP concerns for the woman involved, the projects reputation, and the many thousands interested in reading / contributing to an encyclopaedic treatment of the incident. It wont help Gordon as he now has no chance even if by a miracle the media stopped referring to the incident. About 40% of his supporters have turned against him, and this includes many of his best performing activists who worked round the clock for him as theyd been deceived into thinking he was for the people. Now we know he is secretly an elitist and holds ordinary folk in contempt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole incident is becoming notable for coverage, at the very least enough for a redirect from "Bigotsgate". I agree that "Bigoted woman incident" is inappropriate as it begs the question. But Bigotsgate is less problematic and focuses more on Brown less on the "woman". See also Bigotgate. –xeno^talk 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't expressing any opinion on the validity of the article topic, I was preventing you riding roughshod over consensus at DRV. Another admin can restore the article without it being wheelwarring, so I will let them do that if they believe it is appropriate. You might want to read WP:EVENT again for tips on dealing with writing about events. I failed to find any news sources calling Brown "elitist" due to this incident - don't get carried away with your own interpretations of events. The fact that your motivation in writing the article is to clearly to badmouth Brown and you think that others are censoring it to help Brown shows your battleground mentality. You shouldn't be editing with that mindset, please drop the pitchfork and put back on your Wikipedian hat. Fences&Windows 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key point here is rather simple – the deleting admin specifically stated at the DRV there was no prohibition against an article on the subject with a better title and sourcing. Its not battle ground mentality if one doesnt consent to deletionist opinion from folk who clearly have very little real world experience of the matter in hand. Its not the best manners to assume you understand anothers motives without good evidence or to accuse them of witchhunting! Please do try and express a little less hostility when you respond to civil comments. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 30#Bigotgate. Not quite your deletion, but related enough (I commented on the deletion of Bigotsgate there). –xeno^talk 15:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia doesn't deal well with news events, does it? This is Balloon Boy Mk II. The problem is a clash of those who think every news story needs to be written about right now and in tedious detail with those who think no event should be covered unless it's in a history book. I'm quite in favour of a redirect from 'Bigotgate' to the notable incidents section of the 2010 general election article, but as this discussion is now going to generate more heat than light I'm staying out of it from now.Fences&Windows 15:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia seems to be a "go-to" place for readers to get information on current events and it seems we cater to them. *shrug*. Poor Wikinews... –xeno^talk 15:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a flaw of Wikinews is its insistence on timeliness and breaking news. If the story isn't written very soon after it breaks, they don't want it. That doesn't encourage original reporting and investigative journalism, instead it makes it a poor copy of the headlines in the mainstream media. Fences&Windows 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Some editors are confused about that. Apparently some readers are confused about it too. That's not our problem. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Since "Bigotgate" is a breaking story, wikinews should be fine with it. Note that wikinews's sourcing requirements aren't so much different from ours, making original reporting difficult there too. It's ok, there are some things that are just beyond the scope of any of the wikimedia projects. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not a newspaper - but people still tend to prefer to write about incidents with encyclopedic notability when they happen - when it is fresh. –xeno^talk 19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's true, and it's not too big a problem most of the time, but when there are issues of soapbox editing affecting people and events outside wikipedia, that takes priority over recentism. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently 12 to 3 in favour of overturning the Bigotgate speedy over at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 30#Bigotgate. An arbitrator has asserted the BLP concerns that justified early deletion of bigoted woman incident dont apply to bigotgate. So theres no credence in the claim that consensus justifies the speedy.

I also note you havent apologized for your very insulting ABF that I want to badmouth Brown. Few Wikipedians will have done more for our PM than me. Here I am heaping effusive praise on Brown for some of his great IR work over at the Telegraph. I was among those advising Brown on economics and public relations when he was facing revolt in summer 2008, which is why I was able to predict he would lead the Keynesian resurgence even before Lehman, as you can verify by going to the number 1 google result for "farewell to capitalism", I also have a letter of thanks from him. Im writing a book that will help Brown's place in history; it includes the untold story of how he was one of the individuals most responsible in ensuring the crises didnt become the 2nd great depression.

Im not taking this to DRV or discussing it further as you remain one of my fave wikipedians and I dont want to trigger a chorus of folk saying you were wrong. But its only fair to ensure you have the opportunity to make amends, which would be for you to unprotect Bigotgate per the consensus at DRV, and redirect it to a restoration of the latest version of my article, perhaps using an even more neautral title such as Open microphone incident (Gordon Brown). FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't wish to attack Brown, you shouldn't have said "Now we know he is secretly an elitist and holds ordinary folk in contempt." I wasn't assuming bad faith, I was commenting on your own statement. I apologise for wrongly believing that your statement was characteristic of your position on Brown. You don't need to take this to DRV as there are already two open DRVs on this topic, another would muddy the waters even further. I've endorsed an overturn of the speedy deletion of Bigotgate. Wikipedians need to reach a consensus on several things: 1. Do we have an article on the topic, in addition to United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April? I don't think we should, but the DRV is the place for that discussion. 2. If we do, what title does it have? ("Open mic incident" is a horrible Wikipedia invention, it sounds like something that happened at a pub music night). 3. Is "Bigotgate" a valid redirect, or is it an attack page? (I think it's valid). We won't reach a consensus if we discuss it in too many places. Fences&Windows 13:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]