User talk:Coren/Archives/2012/December

My question at the election

Hi

I note from your edit summary that you felt my question was not just loaded, but "very, very loaded". You're probably right. It's something I feel strongly about at the moment. Nevertheless, I've had some responses I consider very useful, some of them quite unexpected and educational to me, which addressed the points I was hoping they would. I hope other voters will find them useful too. As I said to NW in his question section, I already knew the question was badly worded, but did not reword it because some candidates answered almost immediately, and I didn't think it would make sense to do so in those circumstances. Still, thank you for your answer anyway. I will endeavour to be less "loaded" in future questions. I realise you are busy, and I don't need an answer to this. Good luck in the election. Begoon ^talk 12:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've answered your clarified question there. — Coren ^(talk) 15:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. Begoon ^talk 16:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

F&A block

Just a formal request, I don't think that the block you did was correct. Don't take it personally, and in no way does this affect my ArbCom vote, but I (and a few others) would like it if you undo the block. Take it to SPI if you wish, and if diffs are provided I'll go with what diffs say, but I think we all need to AGF and say that he IPed a while before joining. It's not impossible. He could also have come from another project/wiki site. If you don't reverse the block, I don't really care. Just voicing my opinion. Please don't kill me. /sarcasm/ gwickwire^talk_edits 04:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I've no intention to kill you either way.  :-) The thing is, I work a lot at SPI and his behaviour rings all the "returning banned user" alarm bells; if that had landed on a case at SPI, I would have closed it in exactly the same way (It doesn't help his case that, in addition, he's pushing all the right "grooming for adminship" buttons right from the get-go). In this particular case, I'm going to trust my experience and the technical data and not reverse the block – although I remain open to an appeal from F&A himself, it'd have to be especially compelling to reverse my current appraisal. — Coren ^(talk) 04:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I know all too well about the ringing bells, and it did too for me at first. My first interaction with the user was in STiki or huggle or something where he beat me to a revert. That was, I think, the first day of his account. I found it weird, but didn't pursue it any further. My view is that he isn't causing so much trouble to deserve a block. I understand your not reversing the block, and I respect it. I'd be curious, even though its against policy, if we could AIR (whoops, IAR) and get a CU just for the knowledge he isn't a sock. Like I said, there's an IP starting with 7 (can't remember the full thing at this time) that edits so well, it could probably run a full RfA if not pass one at this time. Thanks for the reply, and not killing me to death. /redundancy/ gwickwire^talk_edits 04:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already done a checkuser; and its results are consistent with someone who knows checkuser and how to avoid detection (that is, the pattern is not consistent with a typical user). On its own, it wouldn't have been enough. — Coren ^(talk) 04:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser recall

As you are a checkuser with paranoia who ignores evidence that someone isnt a sock, and assert they are a sock, would you please hand in your checkuser bit. Consider this a recall request if you will. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you know that WP:AUSC exists for this sort of thing. --Rschen7754 06:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I sure do. I helped set up WP:AUSC. ;-) I'll go down that path if necessary, but I am kind of hoping that as the facts are all public Coren will sees that his continued use of Checkuser is not in the best interest of the project. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean, not taking into account that this was in no way a checkuser block? Or that – unlike you, I'm sure – I've never made any pretention of infallibility? Your posturing is amusing but unwarranted, and I've no intention of handing in any bit. — Coren ^(talk) 16:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added up the coincidences and arrived at the wrong result. The editor provided a pretty damn good explanation that matched. I've reconsidered, and undid the block with an apology.

I hope you'll forgive me for this heinous crime; but I'm afraid that your "request" is unfounded. — Coren ^(talk) 06:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, generally forgive Coren for the same type of hasty but understandable mistake for which admins and experienced users have been forgiving me all month. That said, CheckUser is a right that's handed out with very little room for error. I am aware that being the cause of this request for recall does not make my opinion any more valid that it would usually be, but, for what it's worth, I feel that Coren should be forgiven for this action, though I'd agree that serious discussion would be in order if something like this were to happen again in the near-ish future. The only immediate action I think might be necessary is to loop in the Electoral Commission - I think that once an administrator in high standing requests that an ArbCom candidate resign a bit conventionally given ex officio to all arbs, no matter what the result of that request is, it's worth asking the Electors if they see any problems. (Not that I at all want to sabotage your ArbCom run, Coren. I'm just thinking practically here, and clearly "looping in the Electoral Commission" could be as simple as MBisanz dropping by here and saying "nope, all good.") — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was very much not a checkuser block in the first place (something which jayvdb up here seems to conveniently forget in his zeal to punish me). — Coren ^(talk) 12:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct, this was not a checkuser block nor should his bit be handed in. Coren made an error in this event and should be forgiven for it. Yes, checkuser is a delicate process but the technical results lie to the CU's quite a few times. (Which doesn't relate as this was not a checkuser block) I hope this does not sabotage Coren's ArbCom run nor do I think it needs to be as complicated as talking to the Elector. If the Elector thinks different, he should comment saying what he thinks. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Just in my opinion, there's no reason to even continue this discussion here, as the "recall" (which I haven't heard of in terms of CU) has no merit (or little, if any). I agree that Coren should keep his CU, as this is honestly the first time I've seen anyone have a problem with his CU (and there isn't a problem). gwickwire^talk_edits 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There were enough behavioral socking indicators that CU was justified in this incident, IMHO. I don't see any impropriety in Coren's use of the tool. The block may have been a bit hasty; however, Coren was without a doubt acting in good faith to protect the project. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	The ability to recognise that one has made an error, admit it, correct it and apologise, is probably one of the most valuable qualities any admin can possess. Would that we had more like you. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, although in all fairness this barnstar should go to my Mum – she's the one who raised me to internalize the philosophy that fucking up now and then is perfectly normal; it's refusing to admit you did that's a character flaw.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick factual questions for you

Moving this here instead of my talk page because that's more of a debate, and I don't want to debate you but rather to ask a question.

You wrote: "Sven Bartschi" isn't "Sven Bärtschi" in english; it's just misspelled (and, in the 21st century of near-universal Unicode support, it's probably mispelled by someone who couldn't be arsed to find the ä rather than because the equipment they were using couldn't represent it at all).

How would you distinguish that argument from these three examples?

• "Munich" isn't "München" in english; it's just misspelled (and, in the 21st century of near-universal Unicode support, it's probably mispelled by someone who couldn't be arsed to find the ü rather than because the equipment they were using couldn't represent it at all).
• "Moscow" isn't "Москва" in english; it's just misspelled (and, in the 21st century of near-universal Unicode support, it's probably mispelled by someone who couldn't be arsed to find the 'в' rather than because the equipment they were using couldn't represent it at all).
• "Tokyo" isn't "東京都" in english; it's just misspelled (and, in the 21st century of near-universal Unicode support, it's probably mispelled by someone who couldn't be arsed to find the 東 rather than because the equipment they were using couldn't represent it at all).

I ask because I find your argument to be baffling and completely without merit, and yet I know you to be a perfectly intelligent and reasonable person, so my default assumption is that I must be misunderstanding you. Merely asserting (without evidence) that 'ä' is a character in English, and that to spell correctly one must use it, is contrary to history and near universal usage and understanding.

If you take that approach - and I grant that some diacritics do exist in English mind you, although rare, such as in 'fiancé' - then where do you stop and why? Can you tell me a principle that I might find persuasive? Characters that "look like" English aren't necessarily English characters, but is that the boundary line you are drawing? That since the 'ł' in Polish looks like the 'l' in English, that it should count as an English character? But since '東' doesn't look like English, it doesn't?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well, to address your first two cases: those are clearly English names; neither of those is about how you write down the name in Swiss German or Russian, but actually different names. This is common on very old place names for historical reasons, obviously, but something that occurs even today: up here in Canada it's almost always the case that places actually have at least two names: one in French and one in English (For example, the Ottawa River also bears the name Rivière des Outaouais; you can use either – they're both correct – though you'd obviously favour the French one in French text and vice versa).

  In other words, you don't write "München" as "Munich"; you simply use one name, or the other. (And I agree that most people would prefer to use the English name in English running text). The city is known by both different names in those languages (for extra fun also in Switzerland see, "Genf" / "Geneva" / "Genève" / "Ginevra" / "Genevra").

• Now – except for the case of people who have actually changed their names (as some people do when they emigrate) – people normally don't have more than one name. I'm fairly confident Mr. Bärtschi has never been named "Bartschi" by anyone – people still call him by his only name, only they sometimes write it wrong (replacing the ä with an a, for instance).

  It's kind of amusing, but have you ever wondered why I actually go by "Marc A. Pelletier" in most English speaking regions? I actually took the time to construct a different name to facilitate filling in forms in English. So, in effect, I do have two names in two languages, and you'd be correct witing down either "Marc" or "Marc-André" when referring to me according to preference. "Marc-Andre", however, would just be my French name misspelt.

• Finally, your third example (and, to a lesser degree the second as well) involve different scripts. That's different kettle of fish because of simple practical concerns: you can't expect readers to be able to recognize – let alone remember – writing in a script which they are not familiar with.

  In some cases, it's solved preemptively by having more than one name (東京 being also named Tokyo in English); in others, there is a well known and standard transliteration of the name into latin script (Tōkyō is the Japanese name of the city, transliterated using Hepburn romanization).

  So, you'd use "Tokyo" if you wanted to use the English name and either "東京" or "Tōkyō" if you wanted to use the Japanese name; though I suspect it would be wiser (and certainly more convenient) to use the latter in English text. "Tokyo" isn't "Tōkyō" with the macrons removed – they're just two different names for the same city. — Coren ^(talk) 20:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So, to answer the implicit question ("what is the rule?"):

1. If the topic has an English name, use that;

   ("Moscow", not "Москва" or "Moskva")

2. if not, but the original name uses the latin alphabet, use that;

   ("Lech Wałęsa", not "Lech Walesa" or "Lech Vawensa")

3. if not, but there is a recognized and agreed-upon romanization for the source language, use that; otherwise

   ("Gwangju"", not "광주")

4. wing it with some approximation that's reasonable. — Coren ^(talk) 21:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I still find this entirely unpersuasive. It sounds like if you personally want to write in English letters, you claim it's a different name, and if you personally want to write in foreign letters, you claim it's the only name. It's worth noting that Lech Walesa's official website writes his name as: Lech Walesa. Can we conclude that he made up a different English name for himself to make it easier for English speakers? That's pretty implausible. More likely, they write it that way because that's how you write it in English - using letters that actually exist in English.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this to Coren somewhere else a little while ago, but figured I might as well make the point here too: it sounds to me like you guys are crossing swords mostly over Coren's example 2, and on that one because you're coming from two perspectives of what counts as the concept of "Latin alphabet". If you assume the Latin alphabet to be something resembling the "classical" alphabet we write Latin or English with, the point Jimmy is making here makes sense - how is "Wałęsa" any different than "Москва", and why should we treat them differently when it comes to potentially transliterating? On the other hand, if you assume a definition of the Latin alphabet that's something more like the Latin-derived alphabet, then of course "Wałęsa" is different, and spelling it "Walesa" isn't Latinizing it, it's misspelling it. As someone who hasn't participated in the diacritic wars, I'm not sure which perspective is the "right" one by MOS standards, but I just wanted to point out that it sounds like that's the point at which you're talking past each other. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you insist on the classical latin alphabet then I'm affraid English doesn't even qualify: it doesn't provide for those funny "J" and "U" foreing squiggles English uses.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 22:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Proscriptae eligit lingua Anglorum, impuris lingua! I don't speak a lick of Latin. Yay google translate (or boo google translate, if it got that all wrong)! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)@Jimmy: No, it's actually very plausible that Wałęsa did exactly that; almost certainly for the same reason I did. In fact, if you can find a source that says he did I would support titling the article that way without reservation. Can you argue that "Moscow" isn't a different name from "Moskva / Москва"? I see no reason to posit that this is a random exception. — Coren ^(talk) 22:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(Or, perhaps even more to the point, "Gevena" vs "Genf". They both use the part of the latin alphabet that can be used to write English, yet they are different names for the same city. One in English, and the other in Swiss-German). — Coren ^(talk) 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have much opinion of this issue til being seeing Prolog's summary showing there is an existing, mostly-uniform practice among other reference works. So what business do we have trying to work this out on our own? If we're pretending to be a high quality encyclopedia we should follow observable best practices of other good encyclopedias, just as for article content through our labyrinthine WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH/WP:RS policy structure, we follow the facts and interpretations of existing works in the topic areas. Certainly any departure should build on the higher technical capabilities of our format and processes compared to theirs, rather than in the direction of stupidization. This logic might not apply to the Simple English Wikipedia, since it deliberately pursues a different goal than offering the highest possible quality reference material. But that's there, and this is here. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility?

FYI...your statement about civility on your user page is seemingly at odds with your unsympathetic comments towards Orange Mike ("I guess I was stupid to bring this up"). As an independent observer, your wording comes off as unnecessarily harsh and displays a lack of compassion and identification with Orange Mike's POV. I think your attitude is the kind of thing that drives people away from this site. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

... wait, what? How in blazes did I disrespect him in any way? If anything, his comment that people who feel that bookstores are an obsolete business model are not "literate enough" to agree with his POV was highly unkind. He then dismisses contrary opinions by telling us that we "really [do] not pay any attention to what has happened to the book trade since circa 1980".

As I've explicitly said, I do comiserate that he stands to personally loose by the changing landscape of the book industry; but his protestations that he seems to be "alone in understanding the danger" simply bellitles those that clearly see and understand the shift and find it beneficial. I don't lack understanding of his POV – I simply disagree that it is correct (and yes, I also find it more than a little hypocritical and insulting).

So I suppose it's true that I lack identification for a position that presumes that anyone who disagrees is simply "insufficiently literate" or implies that being supportive of the way the book business is shifting is equivalent to supporting the KKK. — Coren ^(talk) 14:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

He did not say that. He said on Jimbo's page, "I associate free and independent bookstores and booksellers, be they left or libertarian or religious or genre-specific, with literacy and diversity of human opinion." So he's talking about the community of people who form around bookstores, and he referred to this on Village pump when he said, "Apparently I am alone in thinking that Wikipedians would be literate enough to understand that there is a difference between booksellers as vital sources of diverse information and opinions to the world, and the makers of tallow candles or laundromats." It is this community of booksellers and book patrons that is his central thesis, not the distribution model of books. That is related to his primary point, namely the centralization and monopolization of digital content by single entities. Your comments also show a great lack of understanding and sensitivity for the subtleties of Orange Mike's position and reveal a lot of misinformation on your end. Comments like "you are a part of a dying industry" and "I celebrate their obsolescence" shows that you don't exactly understand what he is saying nor have you really followed the threads. The community of book lovers is not a "dying industry" nor obsolete. Your promotion of the values of speed and convenience over the values of community and contemplation is one of the driving forces behind anti-intellectualism, a striving for the monetization of knowledge that often results in negative outcomes for individuals and positive outcomes for large corporations. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If Orangemike's concern is about community and contemplation, and not the economic viability of bookstores, why does it matter if Amazon is driving booksellers out of business? Why aren't the booksellers and book shoppers meeting outside of the bookshop and carrying on their community and cooperation regardless of whether the bookstore closes? If the value of a bookseller is independent of their function as an economic middleman, then it should be independent of whether their shops are being driven out of business by Amazon. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I celebrate the obsolescence and disapearance of an ineficient and controlling industry (that small booksellers never had influence over); and I disagree that booksellers hold some sort of unique position as "vital sources of diverse information and opinions to the world" that depends on the continued relevance of that industry. I value accessibility of books: more books in more peoples' hands is better than fewer books affordable to fewer people. Democratization of knowledge, not "monetization" as you unjustifiably ascribe to me.

I posit that the supposed "values of community and contemplation" never existed as propeties specific to bookstores in the first place, and they will not disapear from the reach of book lovers as a consequence of bookstores having been rendered obsolete. If anything, "anti-intellectualism" applies to those who would seek to restrict which writings are going to be sold and who will be to able afford the numerous profit-seeking intermediaries in order to acquire them. — Coren ^(talk) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Community and contemplation never existed as properties specific to smal bookstores? There's this surprising thing called history, Coren. I suggest looking into it. Small bookstores were the epicenter for every major social movement in the United States in the late 20th century, and for writers and artists who were part of those movements. Bookstores were the backbones of these communities, from the counterculture to technology. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Coren's point (it was certainly mine) is that they were never intrinsically exclusive to bookstores. That is, there's no reason that, should all the bookstores disappear, people who appreciate such a community couldn't make one outside a bookstore. They may have happened at a bookstore in the past, but there's no reason they couldn't happen somewhere else in the future. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. The history of social movements in the United States from the 1950s to the 1970s is a history of bookstores as meeting places for likeminded individuals, often encouraged and promoted by activist bookstore owners who allowed these spaces to flourish. Where is this going to happen when the Internet is turned off, as it was in Syria last week? See All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace for your answer. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, perhaps. In France, it was the cafés, and in Quebec, it was the Boîtes de nuit. There will allways be places where artists, intellectuals and the counterculture meet and flourish. To think that bookstores hold a monopoly to this because they did so during a period of one country's history is simple hubris. — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice straw man. I merely countered your claim that bookstores weren't central to communities in the United States. I never discussed anything about a monopoly. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I never made any such claim. I do claim that if there aren't bookstores, those communities will simply move elsewhere. I used those non-US examples simply to illustrate that other places are just as viable, and that there is nothing "special" about bookstores except by happenstance in your country in one period of its history. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bookstores were historically able/willing to direct more social and financial resources towards protecting intellectual freedom than cafés or nightclubs or their patrons could. City Lights Books and Howl is a famous example. Of course one could say this was only possible because the bookstores and publishers were inefficient businesses, but in this case the inefficiency did (some) good. Bookstores also make it possible to buy in books in relative privacy (paying cash to make tracking harder, though still sometimes creating a video trail that can be used against you). Buy anything from Amazon and the purchase event is forever associated with you in the planet's marketing and profiling databases. Not good. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't despise you, Coren: you do darned good work here; I don't feel angry at you; I just think you are kidding yourself about Big Brother's benign intent, and the eternal utility of a hunk of plastic, silicon and metal. I am grimly amused by people like you, who think you "own" the "books" which exist either as links to "the cloud" or possibly as files on your electronic devices, only just so long as various corporate entities deign to permit them to stay there; and the devices don't break, get lost or destroyed by EMPs , or get abandoned or outlawed. The codex is an incredibly powerful tool, which is part of why tyrants hate it so much. I don't despise you, Coren: you do darned good work here; I don't feel angry at you; I just think you are kidding yourself about Big Brother's benign intent. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And, conversely, I think that you underestimate both the technology and the people who use it. I certainly abide no DRM leashes on my books – digital or not. And the day they come to take them away from me, if it ever comes, it will be much easier to hide and protect a tiny storage device than a roomful of codices. I have no disrespect for your position, even if I think you are wrong. I do think that nostalgia colours it, but that's not a slur by any stretch of the imagination. — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So, civility all around, as it ought to be; thank you all. Coren: do you carry your "tiny storage devices" around in a Farraday cage at all times? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC) (who admits he would miss his Macs in the event of an EMP)

No more, I expect, than you store yours in fireproof vaults at all times. The more books out there – whatever the medium – the less possible it is to remove them all. — Coren ^(talk) 23:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, you can still order books in print from Amazon; I do it all the time. No worries about DRM or turning off the Internet there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Only those books which Amazon condescends to carry, and are permitted by the authorities who guard any borders involved. I don't write erotica myself, but I am given to understand that Amazon is already cracking down on "obscenity" from self-published authors (as opposed to authors who "publish" through various Amazon tributaries and protectorates). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So much for that theory. That, mind you, is a genre that the FBI reserves the right to prosecute people for publishing, as it indeed has. Considering Amazon's hesitance in this whole debacle, if anything they're more lenient than we hippies here at Wikipedia. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't underestimated anything. I'm an early adopter of technology, and I've been reading e-books since the early 1990s. That has approximately zero to do with my patronage of bookstores and the reason I enjoy them. The day they come to take these books away from you already came.[1] Please try and pay attention. You don't own your digital content. Getting it yet, Coren? "The purchase and download of digital content from Amazon...including content from the Kindle Store, is associated with the Amazon...account used to make the original purchase. As a result, Kindle content cannot be shared like a physical book." Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that I care one whit what Amazon thinks I may or may not do with the books I purchase? — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Kindle is an evil device but you can have 10,000's of digitized books on your hard drive with no such controls for free.[2] Lots of non-free e-books are sold in unrestricted formats and the publishers prosper. Conflating e-books with the Kindle is misconstrued. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Respect

You're right, I do respect you and your opinions. I'll take your advice about Brad and stop asking him about the RfC issue until he is ready and willing to discuss it with the parties to the mediation. Thanks for taking the time to offer your well-regarded opinion. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD closing statement

Nicely put --Dweller (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the "quoted citations" MfD. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okip socking

Hello, I was somewhat confused about the Okip situation — you said that Dragdrag and Calendar2 were being used to disrupt XFD, but Calendar only appeared once at an AFD and nowhere else, and Dragdrag has never edited an XFD. Could you help me see what I'm missing? Of course I understand that they should be blocked because they're socks of someone who's been disruptively editing under a different account; this is purely a "help me see what I'm missing" request. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That grammar might have been better. I meant that (a) Okip was socking, and (b) Okip was disrupting XfD with a sock. I didn't mean to imply that all the socks were used around XfDs (although Okip also defended articles created by one other of his sock at AfD) – the problem isn't the XfD but the evasion of scrutiny. Although, to be fair, the level of disruption from the Spoildead sock was in itself problematic enough to independently attract the attention of three functionnaries and would probably have led to sactions on its own even without the other socks. — Coren ^(talk) 13:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, understood; thanks for the help. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

Coren, I want to apologise for over-reacting in my disagreement with your MfD close, above - I do still disagree with you, but my forcefulness was neither justified nor respectful. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Boing. Loosing one's temper happens to everyone now and then[3]. — Coren ^(talk) 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

super vote

You seem to ignored consensus of those participating in an AFD and cast a super vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albannach. Warden found and added two references to the article, and two other editors said that was enough to pass the notability guidelines. It should've been closed as no consensus, not delete. You aren't there to judge the references, but instead to judge consensus of what others think of them. The rules are quite clear on this. Dream Focus 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are quite clear: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. — Coren ^(talk) 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and policy gives you the ability (as closing admin) to say "X is rational" or "X is irrational". It doesn't let you go "X isn't a reliable source"; that's effectively the insertion of a new argument, which is an action for !voters, not closers. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well, the criteria I've always used to evaluate the strength of an argument at XfD is "even if it's entirely true, does it suffice to address the concerns" – i.e.: examine the argument is the most possibly favorable light. In this case, the sources added were so incidental that even if they had been of the highest possible reliability they could not have affected the debate. No matter how reliable the source, a mention in an article about an unrelated festival cannot possibly suffice to establish notability – even if 200 people had shown up at the AfD to say "did too"! — Coren ^(talk) 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SUPERVOTE sums up the situation quite well. Dream Focus 23:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it does. You might want to pay especial attention to the section entitled Advice to editors decrying a supervote close, where it a helpful link to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS is provided.

Now what we both got the snark out of our respective systems, let's return to the substance. I evaluated the strength of the arguments in the discussion, saw that the arguments for deletion were not actually addressed, and closed accordingly. — Coren ^(talk) 23:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You ignored consensus, and decided to judge the sources for yourself. Dream Focus 00:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care enough to go to DrV, but yes, of course this is a supervote close. There was a lack of consensus over whether the sourcing meets GNG or not. Even two of the delete votes were pretty close ("Probably falls short of being sufficiently significant for an encyclopedia article"? That's a crappy argument for deletion! Another one said "Notability requires significant coverage and I've yet to see any"-which means he didn't look beyond what was there. And DGG, while inclusionist, took the time to point out how bad one of the delete votes was.). It was listed at ARS, so Coren probably felt concerned about vote count being of no relevance. Here's the deal: it was a borderline article, and they often fall at a whim. Or get kept on a whim. But let's all not pretend its a scientific thing in these borderline cases, its simply not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I had no idea whether the article was listed at ARS or not; I don't think I've ever looked at what was on there. What I do know is that the article was listed for a month at AfD and that it ended with no sources of significance. Honestly, if no sourcing could be found despite the ARS's effort over such a long period of time, then it's pretty clear that the article wasn't salvageable, wouldn't you say? — Coren ^(talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I was giving you some slack for that. Anyway, to me, the long AfD told us the subject was borderline with no consensus regarding whether notability existed. I didn't spend too much time on that one (and did not !vote), I just looked at the discussion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, that's another way to look at it, I suppose. Either way, I would have been happy to userify it so that someone else can take a crack at it, but Dream Focus went the DRV way. — Coren ^(talk) 13:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Albannach

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Albannach. 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. Dream Focus 04:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soot (software)

• Although it is probably of no consequence, I'm unable to parse your closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soot (software) as anything semantically related to the discussion that happened there.
• Could you however, please undelete Jimple and ping User:Stuartyeates to perform the merge as he offered to do.

Cheers, —Ruud 23:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll gladly userify it for him. I thought I was clear on the rationale, though. Which part confused you? — Coren ^(talk) 23:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"it seems like a plausible destination for redirects", not really sure what that it supposed to mean. —Ruud 23:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, out of context that's really opaque. I didn't realize the rest of the logic is in another AfD. Basically, the company is just marginally notable enough that its products would be best covered there and redirected (which I had just done on Jimple, which is why the comment was transparent to me)  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD close

That wasn't "no consensus" by a mile, it was an overwhelming "Keep". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Taking account the posturing by both sides, the arguments were no stronger either way; and many of the keeps were on procedural grouns (i.e.: MfD of the list is not the way to go about it, use an RfC or MfD on the project itself).

Having two "camps" battle it out is the epitome of "no consensus"; it means that no amount of discussion will reach common ground – the numbers who show up to the fight has very little value. — Coren ^(talk) 17:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That was the correct close for the additional reason that about half of the keep votes were from project members. One cannot discount the reality that project members are very likely to show up in droves to support keeping their pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't look up membership, but I did give very little weight to discussion mostly based around "OMG, ARS is teh evul inclusionsists and must be destroyed" and "OMG, ARS is being victimized by the evul deletionists!!1!". — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No! MfD decisions are *not* made on *who* comments, but on *what* people say. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry Coren, but I think what you showed there was your inability to cancel out and ignore all of the non-policy "warrior" contributions (from both "sides") and judge it on a policy-based consensus of those who are neither strong deletionists nor strong inclusionists. I won't contest your close, because the practical effect is as good as a "Keep", but I think this is a good example of why I didn't want to support you for ArbCom - you acted as a conventional real-world "Manager" and did what you personally thought was best (and that's admirable in a real-world management context) rather than accurately yielding to the consensus of the community, no matter how combative it might have been going forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and "many of the keeps were on procedural grounds" actually means "Keep" - it doesn't mean they should be discarded! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, that's actually exactly what I did; and found that what's left couldn't be tarted up to look like consensus if you dipped it in gold. Hence, "no consensus". — Coren ^(talk) 17:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree, then - I find it sad that you do not seem to be open to re-examining your judgment when challenged, but instead respond by entrenching yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did you pull that out of? The first thing I did at your initial objection was to reread the entire discussion to see if there was a trend I had overlooked (although, admitedly, I skimmed a lot). That I remain confident in my assessment doesn't mean I haven't reevaluated it, and I rather resent the accusation that I did not take your objection seriously! — Coren ^(talk) 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You cogitated for an entire five minutes!? Give me a fucking break! I challenged your decision - you came out fighting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the membership status of many keep voters is just about pointing out that the overwhelming number of keep votes is not compelling in itself. One has to also consider that partisan inclusionist types are more likely to view the list page and join the discussion. Just because there were a lot more keep votes does not mean they should be regarded as representing a high-level of community support.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And nobody is arguing for that - consensus should be decided on what people say in line with policy, not on *who* is saying it. It is *you* who is suggesting that some people's inputs should be discounted simply because of who they are - shame on you! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Less weight is often given, rightly so, to people who have a conflict of interest regarding a discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

When it's a discussion related to policy and practice, *everyone* gets a say, and opinions are judged on what people say, not on who they are - that is how consensus works. Besides, if pro-ARS people should be excluded from the consensus because of their opinions, then so should anti-ARS people like you, shouldn't they? Consensus does not work by "People supporting X get less say than people opposing X", and you really should be ashamed of yourself for trying to claim that you should have more say than other community members. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• What I notice is that the discussion was closed after 4 days rather than the standard 7. This extraordinary action seems inappropriate when Coren is, at the same time, prosecuting Okip/Ikip at WP:AN. Warden (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You don't seem to understand me so I shall expand. I'm fine with a no-consensus result — this seems much better than the bogus consensus which was claimed at an earlier case of this kind. Early closes might be ok too — I often call for speedy keeps at AFD. But at AFD, we don't actually get speedy closes very often and I can't remember this ever being done to snow close as no-consensus. It's much more normal there to extend a discussion in the hope of obtaining a consensus rather than closing it early. So, my main perception is that this action is extraordinary. I'm not understanding why you went out of your way to do this and so suppose that it has something to do with the parallel discussion of Okip/Ikip which you started at WP:AN. This gives me a general impression of you being too involved. Further clarification of your position might therefore be helpful. Warden (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah! Hm, well, the short of it is "the heat is rising, and there's no way in hell this will reach a consensus given the entrenched positions so there is no real value in keeping this going".

        The Okip bit is accessory, in that I noticed it while keeping an eye on the MfD (and not the other way 'round), and I really don't think that it has any bearing on the MfD itself (one of his sock had been commenting there, but as one of nearly 50 the actual impact was not significant). If there is an influence, it'd be in the other direction: that the MfD was that volatile had the potential to poison the discussion on AN/I about Okip (already there are a number of comments there that mirror the inclusion/deletion factionalism at display at the MfD). — Coren ^(talk) 20:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• There had already been 42 votes, as well as a few non-voting participants, and 28 of those votes were from non-members. It is not as if the discussion was closed without there having been significant participation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• So first you're complaining that too many "involved" people took part, and now you're saying it's fine to close it because lots of uninvolved people took part? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no inconsistency. ARS members discounted, the vote is 2:1 in favor of keeping the list, without considering the validity of the given rationales. A no consensus decision with a 2:1 split is not inappropriate when there is a large base of opposition.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• And where does it say that ARS members have no say in it? Sorry, but all you are saying here is "I'm right and those who don't agree with me shouldn't have a say" - and that is misguided and arrogant in the extreme -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Folks, its not really worth grumbling over "no consensus" vs. "keep," the discussion speaks for itself. It was closed after 4 days because there was no way it was going to go delete. Indeed, it was very heartwarming that the editors coming to the discussion after the first 48 hours were on a huge keep trend. The vast majority of editors on wikipedia don't frequent AfD that regularly. Kudos to Coren for putting an end to an MfD that should have never been made.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  You've just contradicted yourself, Milowent - if it was "an MfD that should have never been made", then it should have been a snow Keep - "no consensus" should never even have been an option if the MfD should not have been made. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see how that's a contradiction; that something may not have been producive or wise to make doesn't mean that those who made it did not do so in good faith. I see you're jumping on TDA above saying he's simply trying to discount those who disagree with him; isn't that exactly what you're saying now? — Coren ^(talk) 18:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  Firstly, Milowent did *not* say it "may not have been productive or wise", the claim was that it was "an MfD that should have never been made" - please do not distort what people are saying, and please stick to discussing what people actually *are* saying. And secondly, no, I am not remotely suggesting that people who disagree with me should have less say - TDA explicitly claimed that ARS members should have less say, and I explicitly said that all should have equal say - open your fucking eyes and read my words! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Boing, yes, it should have never been made. It wasn't a "snow keep" because rationality doesn't always reign on wikipedia. My personal opinion is not meant to denigrate the nominator's good faith.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's all just a matter of trying to read more into "no consensus" than there is. "No consensus" doesn't mean "we keep it, but it's weaker than keep" it means there is no way to reach a consensus on the matter. I.e.: general agreement. It also happens that, in basically every case, we simply don't delete pages unless there is consensus to do so. There isn't. The page is not deleted. Why in blazes is it important if the close was done because I chose to note the lack of consensus rather than count the majority of commenters for keeping? It's not a vote, remember? It's a discussion. And it didn't reach consensus (and could not, given the entrenched positions). — Coren ^(talk) 18:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Had you responded thus when I first challenged you, I expect we could have quickly reached a practical and friendly (dis)agreement. But instead you chose to lie and say "The first thing I did at your initial objection was to reread the entire discussion to see if there was a trend I had overlooked" - you managed a proper reflection on all of that, including the time to write your response, in five minutes? You're either a genius or a liar! You then chose to attack me by accusing me of trying to discount the opinions of some contributors, when that was the exact opposite of my thrust - my position is that *all* members of the community should be treated equally, regardless of what project they may or may not be members of or what project they may or may not oppose. So this has turned, in my eyes, from a discussion of the ARS list to a discussion of abuse of power, yet again. At the very least, you should apologise for lying about having "reread the entire discussion", and for having accused me of doing what I am railing against. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC) modified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That... what? First of all, have you read my closing comments where I actually write explicitly that "there isn't going to be consensus regarding the list itself"?

Secondly, I am sorry if I misconstrued your position: it seemed to me that you were saying a snow keep was appropriate, and those are only reasonable when there can be no reasonable argument for deletion or the nomination was in bad faith – you can see why I'd see arguing for one to be arguing for the other.

Thirdly, I obviously will not apologize for "lying" when I have, in fact, not lied. If your criteria for "genius" is the simple ability to revisit a discussion one had already examined in detail minutes earlier, then I suppose I am one – but your bar is low indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I accept your apology for having misconstrued my position, and I accept that "snow keep" was an exaggeration (though it was only a hypothetical response had Milowent's "an MfD that should have never been made" claim been accurate) - though I really do see it is a clear "Keep". But I'm sorry that I cannot accept that you genuinely reread and reconsidered the discussion and properly considered my challenge, and replied, in just 5 minutes (and no, I don't think you are a genius any more than I am - that was sarcasm). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (Updated)-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have. And while I was waiting for a response from you I succumbed to curiosity and reread the entire discussion (threaded commentary and all) whilst timing myself. It took me just a hair under six minutes (although my first read obviously was much longer given I followed diffs and refs).

I'm guessing the quick reread I did skimming over the threaded responses must have taken under three; reconsidering my position ("No, the numbers aren't telling given the rethoric, the positions are entrenched and no consensus is possible") after having reviewed the comments certainly took not much longer than typing the response did – I tend to formulate my thoughts as I type, and it often shows with broken grammar as I rejigger statements midstream.

I may be known for a number of flaws, but lying is not amongst them. If I told you I have sincerely reevaluated my assessment it's because I did, and if I did not alter it it's not because I dismissed your objection, but because I disagreed with it. — Coren ^(talk) 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That really comes across to me like a rather arrogant "I'd already decided that people who might disagree with me are wrong, before they even speak", and your response was a very long way from what I'd expect from someone in authority here. Also, I hope you appreciate that I let you away lightly with your accusation that I claimed it should have been a snow keep - you are welcome to reread the discussion and see it was only conditional on Milowent's claim that it was "an MfD that should have never been made". Anyway, the issue is moot in practice - I'm just disappointed by what I see as your authoritarian response, which I see as one of Wikipedia's problems at the moment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: It's late where I am, and I'm off to bed - goodnight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I had responded to that as you were editing it. Yes, I realized when you pointed it out that the snow keep bit was an hypothetical; that's why I apologized for having misconstrued your position. I obviously had not properly understood it as such when I wrote my original response to it.

Good night to you, then. — Coren ^(talk) 19:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I for one appreciated the rationale for closing the ARS MfD. I hope to avoid such silliness in the future. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:People self-identifying as substance abusers

I am curious about this deletion. When and why was this category depopulated? And where is the record of the CFD? I would like know what the reasoning was for the deletion. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Give me a moment to look it up, IIRC I'm not the one who closed the CfD I just deleted the category once it had been depopulated. — Coren ^(talk) 17:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah. there is is. For the record, I wasn't the one who closed the discussion but I agree with it. The problems with WP:BLPCAT were unsurmountable. — Coren ^(talk) 17:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I did manage to find it after I left the message above. And, having read the discussion, I agree. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification on WP:ARBSL

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment for clarification on the scope of the topic ban placed upon Brews ohare in the Speed of light case. As you have recently participated in an arbitration enforcement request regarding this case and precipitating the clarification request, your comments would be welcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Jiffman

Hi, can you tell me your reasons for blocking Jiffman (talk · contribs)? I went over his contributions and everything seems fine, he seems informed of WP policy and was attempting to improve the project, but you claimed he was using Wikipedia as a dating service and accused him of exhibitionism. An image he uploaded is actually currently in use on Autofellatio, and is improving the article. Thanks NYSMmau5 02:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Coren stated in the block log that it was a CU block. I can't tell you the reasoning or his findings, but that makes me think this user was vandalizing or something else while under another account or logged out completely. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is long ago that I can't remember the details, I'm afraid. Gwickwire is correct, however, that having marked the block with {{checkuser}} means that this user was abusing multiple accounts (or was a block-avoiding account).

The interesting question, of course, is why you would feel compelled to ask details about a two-and-a-half year old blocked editor with less than two dozen edits? — Coren ^(talk) 02:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If I see a user blocked with no reason that I can see then I ask why. Thanks though. NYSMmau5 08:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Mentioned you here NE Ent 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement search

I was browsing Wikipedia the other day and stumbled on Neoconservatism. I found a sentence that I was skeptical about and I went to look at the source. I was disappointed to find out it was true (according to the source) but I also found out that the sentence was a direct copypaste of the source. Then I found another sentence in the same paragraph. I had to set it aside for a few days, I came back today and took a look at the lead and I found more close paraphrasing or exact copies of text. My question is this: other than CorenSearchBot, are there other investigative tools available that I can use to run a search on this article? I would like to know which sentences copy sources but I'd also like to know who is to blame. Any help?--v/r - TP 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If the source is online, then the duplication detector does a fair job of it. — Coren ^(talk) 22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything like your bot that will search the sources on the page or crawl the internet?--v/r - TP 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not that I know of, but the dupdetect tool that he linked to only requires two links, then it pulls the text and searches for duplicates of at least "x" words. It's really good. However, with a lot of links to do, it isn't ideal, I understand. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not for pages that have been around for a while. The CSBot code is fairly good at spotting copypasta on new articles, but isn't very good at older pages since they tend to get mirrored around a lot. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(Somewhat related...) Google now can search by date, and it's good at finding pages that pre-date our articles when you use this feature. I don't think Yahoo has this capability. If I remember correctly, we can only use CSB with Yahoo and not Google, correct? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As of last time we checked Google's terms. The foundation did try to speak with them about some sort of arrangement for copyvio hunting, but that didn't work out. In the end, we're using Yahoo's custom search API which is decent enough but doesn't provide for that capability. — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A new presentation of an article

You may recall your action of 6 December 2012 userfying my essay on formatting citations appearing inside quotations. I would like to present this article again in this form with the title WP:Citations inside quotations, putting it in WP:Namespace, which allows a variety of types of essay. I've added an under construction template in addition to the guidance essay warning box to emphasize further that this article is not written in stone and anyone can edit it.

The original deletion discussion was enmeshed in a dispute that this article was a ploy by myself for use in an argument with MachineElf over the formatting of such citations in Mind-body problem. Maybe that concern of Blackburne and Hex has died down by this time, and the article can be seen from a calmer perspective.

In any event, their argument presented for userfication was erroneous, and I have summarized why on the article Talk page.

Of course, I expect further protest from Hex and Blackburne, for whom I occupy a very special place on WP, but I don't think they have a point, and other contributors to the deletion discussion disagreed with them. I also have removed the shortcut allowed by the Guidance essay template, as that seemed to be a source of irritation to some.

Would you comment? Brews ohare (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you really should keep that essay in your userspace for the time being. Project space essays are those who express positions which are representative of at least a significant fraction of the editing community, and are traditionally constructed collaboratively. What you should do is invite comment and participation in its editing, and after it has gotten some visible "mind share" (read: editors other than yourself cite it as persuasive), then it has matured enough to move to project space. — Coren ^(talk) 18:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've begun this process by requesting help at the village pump with a Request for feedback. Please take a look. Brews ohare (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Congrats Condolences

...and good luck moving forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully blame you for this!  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I will admit I played a small role in talking you into running. That will teach you to listen to me, it will get you in trouble every time. ;-) I do think you needed this. You weren't writing, not sure what to do. Now you can spend the next two years pulling your hair out. That will at least be something to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You really did impress me during the WP:V closure discussions... You well earned my support (well, neutral, but you know what I mean : ) - and I am glad that others saw the value of you on arbcom as well. Congratulations. - jc37 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that Dennis Brown made a small typo in the header, I've duly fixed it. :-) Enjoy your return to the asylum. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations, you poor sucker. I thought you'd gotten enough of the insanity and blowback that can be part of ArbCom, but apparently like NYB you're a glutton for punishment truly dedicated to the project. I, for one, rejoice at your loss of sanity willingness to serve yet again. Kudos, sir. KillerChihuahua 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Albannach

You deleted Talk:Albannach while an AfD is pending for Albannach, and I am reluctant to add the same talk page again without understanding your deletion. I have created thousands of talk pages, adding appropriate Wikipedia project templates with ratings. Please explain why this talk page was deleted. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was deleted as a result of the first AfD; since another editor has brought new sources to consider the article was undeleted and procedurally relisted. There's no reason the talk page can't be undeleted as well – I'll go do that now. — Coren ^(talk) 01:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re TFA

What I would argue for is that there should be some awareness of the exposure value of a front page appearance, and that editors should take care that no particular commercially or socially entrepreneurial entity ends up receiving an undue amount of such exposure on the main page. The same thing goes for Gibraltar or the Michigan Wolverines. It's unavoidable that articles on businesses that feature on the main page generally benefit the business concerned: but they should not do so unduly. That's all, actually. Andreas JN466 14:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make any sense to me; or rather, the idea that an "undue amount" is simply measured by frequency. What appears on the front page is driven, in the end, by editors' and readers' interests and I'm certain that – for instance – Disney occupies a disproportionate place on the front page because of the impact it has had on culture (regardless of one feels about that impact). Likewise modern professional sports, one of the most obscene excesses of our society.

I would very much rather have the main page featuring basic scientific concepts, or history, but you'll have a hard time finding as many editor fans of Robespierre as you would of Bieber, or as many people interested in writing about the intricacy of optics as you will of popular culture. What you bemoan as undue promotion is just a reflection of what people want to write about. — Coren ^(talk) 15:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Coren! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Clean start

Why does the Arbitration Committee have the ability to unilaterally prevent me from editing from a different account, when I am under no active editing restrictions ? I'd like to discuss this openly. --Claritas § 23:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather baffled about this, myself. While user conduct is certainly in the committee's remit, it is not in the committee's remit to enforce sanctions that have not been approved, and I'm seeing no sign that it has been. Or is there a sanction that's not viewable due to non-public information? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Every editor that returns under conditions is under sanction (albeit a very simple one: abide the conditions). Allowing a clean start prevents the community from being able to ascertain whether the conditions are followed – in effect, it'd just be an end-run around the conditions. — Coren ^(talk) 04:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, there was an unblock with conditions. Yes, that makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There were no formal conditions. I am under no editing restrictions whatsoever. --Claritas § 07:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the committee is rather partial to enforcing sanctions that have not been approved, and indeed stamping their imprimatur on said sanctions. But nonetheless I do agree that for anyone who wants to follow the rules, CLEANSTART seems to be a near dead-letter, and was historically little more than the acceptance that if editors returned unidentifiably, they could not identified. Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC).

Two questions about Clean Start.

I see that Claritas tried, one, and executed it badly, but that's simply background.

I infer that Claritas was informed not to attempt a clean start (Based upon your post).

When I read Wikipedia:Clean start, I get the impression that editors have broad discretion to use the option, with the specific restriction:

A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account.

Claritas asserted that there were no active sanctions, although I see that list is not intended to be exhaustive, and Claritas apparently did agree to some limitations, which may well be deemed sanctions.

First question: Was the request denied because A. in fact, Claritas was subject to a sanction, and therefore ineligible? Or B. was it denied because it is within the remit of ArbCom to deny such a request, which happened in this case (or C. something else?)

Second question (moot if the answer to the first question is A.): If ArbCom has the authority to deny an editor the option (under the " authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors,") should this be noted in Clean Start?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Kinda-sorta A; the point is, an editor who is allowed to return under some restriction can't do a clean start because that would just be an end-run around the restrictions (by preventing others to insure that the restrictions are indeed followed). I honestly don't believe it's reasonable to expect that ArbCom should take it upon themselves to monitor editors under restrictions this way.

As a rule, though, every policy can be affected by an editor being under some sort of restriction – whether from ArbCom, AE, or even a community discussion. Every policy could be said to imply "[...] but specific editors may be under additional restrictions because of [X,Y,Z]", but I doubt it's worthwhile to add verbiage to that effect everywhere. — Coren ^(talk) 04:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The point, though, is that an "end-run around the restrictions" will fail, because either it is causing a problem, in which case the accounts will be linked, and the cleanstart negated, or it does not cause a problem, in which case the restriction itself is flawed. All this assumes bad faith of the clean-starter anyway (in that they will break the restriction that comes with a clean-start). Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC).

IPBE grants

Sorry to be so long responding to your message. I saw it Christmas afternoon, then went away and only just now got back online.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that at some point I would get a message like this. As you probably know, I've done this bit of IAR for quite some time now. And till now no one has had a problem.

From now on I shall probably desist from reviewing such unblock requests. Hey, I've always got a lot of editing I want to do, and housekeeping tasks like AIV, UAA and RFU take up so much of my time as it is. I'm sure less of my time devoted to that would be a net benefit to the encyclopedia.

Perhaps in the future to avoid this problem we should do as we've done with username unblock requests and create a separate template and accompanying category for them. That way they could be handled by people more familiar with the underlying issues than us regular unblock-reviewers.

But I cannot take these steps without explaining myself on these. Yes, we should consider the underlying blocks ... but also the underlying edit history of the user in question. Vi2 has been editing intermittently for six years without incident. Nahald has edited with a similarly clean record for even longer. They certainly didn't start out editing via proxies; yet one day they find they're behind one or what may be one, perhaps through not even any indirect fault of their own ... and we have to subject them to the full run of bureaucratic hoops to jump through to get what they lost back. Somehow, if we weren't admins, I doubt you or I or any of our many other well-established users would be subject to this.

I have some reasons to be skeptical about the existential panic some people feel our editor numbers engender, but I do think this sort of behavior on our part isn't conducive to editor retention. I wouldn't be surprised if some people have just not even bothered to post an unblock and given up. Especially if they find out part of the process involves coughing up your IP address for public inspection ... so much for our commitment to users' privacy.

End rant. Bonne Année. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Claritas

Hey Coren, I've added a comment to the Claritas Clean Start request at ArbCom. I'd like to reiterate that you are reading his action under a new name incorrectly, he mentioned going this route to me beforehand, he was not attempting to sock around sanctions... He wants his old name and the baggage associated with it to go away. I suggest you and the committee grant him this request, combining it with ban on AfD nominations, which seem to be the cause of the problem. He combines positive editing contributions with a need to attack what he sees as cruft at AfD — which is like poking a stick into a bee's nest. Limit him to the former and keep him from the latter. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to respond there rather than here. — Coren ^(talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)