User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 25

RfA

I've responded to your comment on my RfA. However, in all fairness (you do have the right to your opinion), I'd like to ask, what does content building have to do with being an effective administrator in the areas I've mentioned in Q1? Was the oppose just based on the BLPs (which, I'll admit, were a mistake), or based overall on contribs and your question you asked? Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My oppose was almost solely based on the BLP, though I had some concerns about the other articles you created as well. Your contribs mostly look all right, and your answer to my question, while it isn't the same as my opinion, was fine. If you were sysopped, I wouldn't be horrified; I just think that it would be better if you gained some more experience first. If for some reason you do not pass this time around, do come back to me in 4-5 months. If I like what I see, I would be happy to nominate you for adminship. Best, NW (Talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-thought out reply, I really appreciate it. By 'more experience', do you mean in content building, or in admin areas in general? Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Content building would be nice, but I would really just like a clean track record. NW (Talk) 00:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OBVIOUS!

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Sorry to have bothered you with my last request - i understand if you do not want to have anything to do with the (ULTRA)vandal as well. Speaking of the title of my message...of course it had to happen, new account (contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yhnbvcxz098 - has very few edits in one week, i almost bet my life that he has another)...Pityful!

Cheers, thanks and take care - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Always willing to help (I didn't miss anything in the last request, did I?). Blocked this account as well. Take care, NW (Talk) 03:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• When i asked if someone (you or another admin) could use that e-mail found in the message to Satori to warn this person about his actions (if he did not answer it as he did not answer a single talkpage message in three years, we would be 100% SURE he was kidding and messing around with us all!), i did not get a specific reply (YES or NO), so i assumed you did not want to have anything do to with the vandal - i then added i thought it was understandable. You take care too :) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused who you are referring to (perhaps it is the early morning over here that's the cause). Is it User:Satesclop that you are talking about, or someone else? NW (Talk) 12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• No problem man, i'll elaborate again: i am talking about User:Pararubbas, please read the wikilink i already sent you from his message to User:Satori Son (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Satori_Son#Deleted_pages), where he gets all jumpy and asks Satori why is he deleting his "work", after three years of silence...In that message, there is a personal e-mail address (HIS mail address, that is him with one of his endless anon IPs), thought someone might do something out of it - again, i repeat i am not going to mail him, afraid i lose it and say something i should not.

Speaking about User:Satesclop, i already started a WP:FOOTY discussion (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Autonomous_football_teams), and told this user i was not going to insert any data without total consensus - still trying to reach one at WP:FOOTY i believe - although i was taking aback in his reply to me (yes he did reply), when he said "i am not going to ALLOW for the Catalonia autonomous team to be compared with a proper national team", verbatim my friend, he DOES NOT ALLOW.

But my main "beef" is, as always, with Pararubbas (to avoid any situation with Satesclop, as i told you, i have stopped inserting such data in boxes of footballers, if any edit wars "erupt" subsequently, it will not be me). Sorry for any incovenience, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem at all. Sorry for the earlier confusion, it was just too early in the morning for me, I suppose. It seems like the Football Wikiproject is handling Satesclop, so could I leave him with them? (Rambo's Revenge, who commented there, is an excellent administrator by the way)

I left a note in the section that Pararubbas opened. Hopefully he will come back and see it. NW (Talk) 19:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• 1 - Thanks a million for the note to Pararubbas. However, if he does return to Satori's page and reads it, will his very poor knowledge of English be enough to comprehend to the fullest the (excellent) contents described in the wiklink you provided? Hopefully!

2 - Yes my friend, you understood well, we'll leave Satesclop to the "masters" at WP:FOOTY (and yes, i have the utmost respect for Rambo's Revenge's inputs, glad to know he is also an admin), whatever comes out of the pertinent discussion i'll abide by. Take it easy - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, this is a friendly notice to let you know that one of your administrative actions is being discussed here: [1]. --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

IP trolls

Would you mind checking into the IP trolls posting at AN here [2]? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't, sorry. That's the AT&T /8 range (32.0.0.0/8). The software won't even allow you to block it unless you make 256 individual blocks, and the collateral damage from it would be quite a lot. NW (Talk) 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious stuff methinks...

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Please, please read this message i sent User:Active Banana (it's all here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Active_Banana#Quite_astonished...), i really need your input about this. I believe he has been on my case ever since i insulted (not correct on my part i admit it) some vandals on Francisco Yeste.

Cheers, please respond - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry forgot: please note i have brought the pertinent discussion at the pertinent place (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#POV_or_not_POV). Keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I dunno, I'd have to say that some of your edits were POV. The phrase I am thinking about in particular is "after a fine individual effort", which at best is not necessary. Others could probably use a citation, such as "where he became an instant first-choice" and "although having to battle for first-choice status with the likes of Ricardo Quaresma". WFC on that talk page has some great advice as well. NW (Talk) 23:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again, also thanks to WFC, have rephrased the article accordingly. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"No thanks"

NW thanks for your intervention. I'll comment here becasue WMC does not want me to remind him on his page of what pain he causes others. The comments WMC makes about me are really off point. The issue is any attempt I make to edit an article is immediately met with hostility and harangued by a select group of editors approaching with vested interests. Who may push into battleground mentality synthesis. I remain a newbie in the climate change articles and am continuly bitten, like you have just observed for a simple tag and removing unsourced material. It's not only me that get's bitten ... there is a persuasive patten of this behavior, lead by WMC's disruptions (which have received way to many pardons) and troll like followers. Frankly, I am considering filling an immediate motion at the Arbcom to have WMC placed on zero revert or topic banned until the ArbCom case settles. it's becoming increasing clear that WMC's disruptions are interfering with article progress.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, here is a diff to show the result of tag war WMC indignantly instigated before [3]. Warning, the further result was the admin was called to task at ANI by WMC and run off by a mob after trying to balance the sanction on WMC's infractions. Be careful. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, ZP5 has found some interesting stuff. Which shows that he edit warred, was warned, and was blocked for it [4]. His reaction was to accuse the blocking admin of corruption [5] (so much for "run off by a mob", unless ZP5 think he is a mob). His reaction now is "troll like followers" which is hard to interpret in a polite fashion William M. Connolley (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think something happened to your diff; it's linking to something completely unrelated. NW (Talk) 07:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't comment at the enforcement action, but I think both editors share some blame here. Zulu, you shouldn't have labled a new section "The Climategate Whitewash Continues" as it is provoking. Tarc shouldn't have attacked you for it that way. If I were an uninvolved admin, I think I would have given you a day and Tarc two days forced break from Wikipedia to reconsider how you acted there. I would have given Tarc more time because he escalated, rather than attempted to resolve his personal issue with your section heading. That's all I have to say about it, for what it's worth. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I think you might be referring to the other enforcement request concerning ZuluPapa5, which I don't believe this discussion was related to. We were talking about the thread right above the Tarc one. For what it is worth though, I mostly agree with you about the two, though I am far too much of a wuss to block any established contributor for NPA after seeing all of the dramas over the past several years. NW (Talk) 12:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. And I understand the reluctance of admins to block established editors because of all the grief that often is directed at them in return. I guess I could go into my "This is why a more structured approach to Wikipedia's administration is necessary!" but I think I've filled your talk page up with that enough. Cla68 (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

:) NW (Talk) 13:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1984 ghallooghaaraa DrV

I'll point out that, AFAICT, the !vote (ignoring IPs and new accounts just because) was 10 to 10 (and that's if you count the deleting admin endorsing his own action as a !vote...). Given that A) the deletion was out of process and B) the admin whose close was overridden objected to being overridden that's not "general agreement". Also, note that the vast majority of those !voting to delete showed up in the same 20 hour block. That's not an endorsement of an out-of-process deletion. Oh, and all the arguments to delete were technically off topic for DrV. Hobit (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even those working on the article commented that it was unsalvagable ("# I guess most of you who want the article restored/re-listed are concerned about the "process" (checkuser/deletion) here, and it can be argued that it was a procedural error. Just for the record, while I did start working on the article, even I believe that the article is a hopeless POV fork of Punjab insurgency, 1984 anti-Sikh riots and Khalistan movement. It was first created at SikhWiki, and then copied here. I started working on the article so that any salvageable content can be merged to the respective articles and then redirected to 1984 anti-Sikh riots. utcursch | talk 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)"), and most people arguing to overturn addressed the process and not the content issues. DRV is as much about content as it is about process, and I could not see anyone with a sufficiently strong argument to counter the points made by those who wished to keep it deleted. General agreement was probably not the best phrase to use, I do admit. NW (Talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion was to be about the process, some of us chose to stay on topic. You want all DrVs that _are_ procedurally broken to also readdress the content issues also? If so, I'll dutifully update the DrV directions to make that plain. It's going to make DrVs a lot longer though. _{struck as passive-aggressive} I'd remind you that not one person argued there wasn't a significant procedural problem and that DrV should only look at the content of the article as it relates to the procedural error. "This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early)." To fault folks for not addressing issues they aren't supposed to address in the DrV is, well, odd. Hobit (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURO, also a policy, applies in this case. There is no reason to believe that restoring the content would benefit the encyclopedia per the discussion (as in, the consensus was heavily in favor that the article was inappropriate), so I see no reason to undelete it only to send it back to be deleted at AFD. NW (Talk) 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your reasoning and it might well have been for the best. Or maybe a bunch of Indian POV warriors got there way. There is a real issue here: two different sides of a conflict have different names for the same things. One is more commonly used for various reasons, but the POV case is by no means open-and-shut. Only one side's arguments got heard because the other side didn't treat this as AfD2 and you closed on that basis. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare will be unavailable for a few days

Just a few days though. I'll do my best to catch up quickly when I get back. NW (Talk) 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to do a doubletake when "Nuclear warfare will be unavailable for a few days" appeared on my watchlist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess? -Atmoz (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way to win is not to play... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys are dating yourselves. Are all of us really this old? Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never dated Atmoz, and ChrisO isn't really my type anyway (sorry Chris). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I know that's a good movie even if came out a few years before I was born. :p It's on AMC every so often. Have fun, NW —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember wanting to date Ally Sheedy... sigh... -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you're old. :p —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@SHBH: Yes! It was my intent all along for that to happen, and I am glad that at least one person fell for it. NW (Talk) 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was my user page deleted?

Hi NW, Why was my user page deleted on July 8 when I only improved on other people's article, and even if other people also added to my contribution? Why was my user page deleted for "blatantly" advertising someone when the article on this someone I supposed advertised has been approved and continue to exist? I'm quite confused. (Much the same way I'm confused that somebody deleted the photo I uploaded even if I cited the name of the photographer as source and emailed his permission to the specified address given at wikimedia as instructed. I wonder if you guys coordinate with each other at all to avoid all these confusing policing one or the other is doing...) Thanks! Viajeratisima (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run in a very patched-together, hodge-podge way. Did you happen to send an email to a @wikimedia.org or @wikipedia.org email address for the photograph permissions? If so, I should be able to fix that issue for you.

And as for the userpage deletion, it seemed like it was simply an advertisement for Denial: A Memoir of Terror. Did you receive any email that said you could have it up? NW (Talk) 23:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

I see you lifted the original 1 year protection, I'm a bit curious as to the reasoning behind that; the page was hit be the vandal again. (now protected for 3 months, but I think we should restore the 1 year, the vandal has changed ISPs from what I can see, and is hitting some different pages now). I've initiated another WP:ANI thread. Connormah^talk 18:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think someone asked me to, but I am not sure why. The answer is probably in my archives somewhere. I will reprotect it. NW (Talk) 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help re: disruptive edits

Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

TWO, I am sorry but I do not think that I have the time to look into this at the moment. Perhaps you could ask User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who blocked him a week or so ago? NW (Talk) 23:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Internet censorship in Australia IP edit deletions

Hi, I noticed that roughly a week ago you deleted (not reverted) one edit each by User:62.178.233.96 and User:58.166.215.170 in the Internet censorship in Australia article, then blocked those users for "persistent vandalism". However, neither IP had ever made any other edits. Might I enquire as to the reason for the deletions and blocks, why the edits were not simply reverted instead, and why that particular justification was given for the blocks? --pmj (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Those two IPs were /b/tards, and I blocked/revdeleted them quietly to deny recognition to them. NW (Talk) 04:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't aware of WP:DENY; of course it makes sense, psychologically. Let's hope they never get into a contest to see who can have the most deleted edits ... Thanks for the prompt answer! --pmj (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Zzuuzz‎

Is there anyway you could RevDel those offensive posts on Zzuuzz‎'s talk page. No one needs to see stuff like that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 05:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It continues after Prodego took of the protection. Might be time to indef semi-protect his talk page and never take the protection off. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection has been restored and the posts RevDel'd. All is well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removals

Don't do this or this, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You really think that was anything but trolling? NW (Talk) 10:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they were both fair comments. Though I don't think the point is whether I agree with them, the point is that there's no reason to remove them. The IP is very familiar and not a very welcome person, as I recall. Good thing he's editing anonymously! --MZMcBride (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Familiar and not welcome, you say? All the more reason to remove them. NW (Talk) 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything you say applies to me. :-( --MZMcBride (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Watson unprot

See [6], a question for WMC. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected your talk page for a day

Hiyas Nuclear,

I just figured i forgot to send you a message about this - i protected your talk page for a day due to high speed vandalism from a large amount of IP's. The vandalism started right after your own 30 minute protection expired, and was definitely coming from the same person. Feel free to unprotect the page if you deem the protection is no longer needed. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 12:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@Excirial: Pretty standard 4chan stuff. Thanks for the revert/block/revdelete/protections :) NW (Talk) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@NocturneNoir: User talk:Shirik/IDA explains most of it. NW (Talk) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that it looks like a double semiprot, a day apart, both indefinite. I think I'm missing something. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The move protection is indefinite, the edit protection isn't. NW (Talk) 13:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Right then. Carry on and all that, admin chaps. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have been editing more than usual lately. How is the Glenn Gould work going? NW (Talk) 13:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you believe my editing qualifies, in any way, as work, you are gravely mistaken. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea

Now that I like. Wonder why no one thought of that before. Regards Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed that there was some special rationale for it, but I couldn't find anything when I read over the procedures this morning. I'll be waiting for the ArbCom SWAT helicopter any day now though ;) NW (Talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

The following: i reverted some edits which were wrong in Alejandro Campano, by anon 79.112.225.110, he re-reverted. I undid it and sent him a polite but to-the-point message - although the person is most likely Romanian, the content of my message is very easy to understand (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.112.225.110) - what did he do? Revert it again, without one word! He also "operates", at least, with the IPs 79.112.225.132 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.225.132) and 79.112.225.220 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.225.220).

Could you please protect the page or something? Would really appreciate it. Regards and thanks as always :) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the three external links, and I can't find any evidence that he is playing for either. Could you point me to a team roster or something similar just so I can double check? Thanks, NW (Talk)

• On the other hand, maybe just the heat of the moment, for the the second IP that i gave you that is, pay no attention to that one (maybe i was mislead by the similar IP). However, i would like for the A. Campano page to be protected, the first IP and the the third are definitely the same user (you have seen how he has shown a total lack of disrespect, removing true info). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looked into it some more, and decided that I can indeed protect it. NW (Talk) 02:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI

The IP troll from the ANI thread on Leland Yee left me a nice message [7]. Just FYI in case he shows back up on the thread. Also thanks for the removal of that one sentence, didn't even think of WP:DENY. Mauler90 _talk 03:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Do you deny the claim was controversial? Do you deny that it was self published? Your view that it was not a BLP issue runs 180 degrees counter to what BLP says explicitly about cases like this. If, for example, this were reversed and Marknutley posted a self-published critique from Richard Lindzen on Michael Mann's BLP, would you not consider it a BLP issue? Marknutley was admonished for using a published book as a source, this uses a professor's personal website. How do you explain this discrepancy? ATren (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer not to discuss this here. I will, however, discuss this on the RFE page if you wish to post there. NW (Talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've posted the question there. ATren (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to restrict myself to quick matters while online for now, so feel free to poke me if I haven't answered it 12 hours from now. NW (Talk) 13:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, there's no hurry. I've addressed some of the other admins there as well so it's not just directed at you. ATren (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hat on RFE

I noticed you colapsed a section begining with my comment. Just wanted to go on record. I believe my comment was a good faith comment condeming the nonsense on the page. Although the nonsense continued and happened to be indented under my comment I find it slightly troubling that my comment is lumped in with the rest. (Note slightly. Not troubling enough that i'm going to edit war about it or lose sleep over it, but enough to comment.)--Cube lurker (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll take another look and change the location of the collapse box. NW (Talk) 13:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No big worries. (Looks like someone else has disagreed with your boxing). Whatever happens i've said my peace and i'll leave the arena to the usual crowd for now. Best of luck.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I appreciated your fair statement about my actions on that page and didn't think that the boxing reflected poorly on you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hurling threats

Don't go hurling threats about on issues that you have not studied sufficiently [8]. Not a good way of doing things.Polargeo (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the entire thing and have followed the issue with Lar for several months now. I said what I meant and I meant what I said (that sounds like it is a line from Dr. Seuss...) There are times when to push the issue, and there are times to walk away. This is one of the latter. No matter who is right here, you or him, the outcome won't change, so best to keep it at the status quo to avoid the edit warring.

In any case, at WP:RFAR, there is a section above the Arbitrators views called "Clerk notes". It is specifically mentioned there that only uninvolved clerks are to post there, but it is also where recused clerks make a statement about their recusal. So I see no reason why that shouldn't apply here as well. NW (Talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I am a step ahead of you and have also re-expressed my recusal. I hope you will defend this in similar maner with no wikilawyering. Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think it was really necessary, but sure, I have no problem with that edit. NW (Talk) 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When I previously edited in that section with regard to enforcement where I had no grudge with the editor and had never previously edited the article or it's talkpage my comments were removed. That was because you and other established admins did not have the balls to go against Lar. So you move Lar's comments back in with threats but when Lar moves my neutral comments out you are silent. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar moved your comment out? I must have missed that. Diff? NW (Talk) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Without taking sides, I believe he's referring to [9], or [10], or [11] - more on request, I think, but I stopped after 3. Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was a previous enforcement request outlined in the case [12]. Where Lar moved my comment out even though my comment was constructive and I had never edited the article or had any significant conflict with the individual. Lar seems to have defined who can edit in which section and you appear to be enforcing this with your blessing. Polargeo (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that. Can we just let bygones by bygones here? If it were May, I would defend you (I think I have learned a lot since then about this general dispute, and I would not make the same actions as I did then), but there is no use stirring up old disputes now. In any case, I read your comment as "Lar moved my comment out today". Is that the case? NW (Talk) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, it is not that old a dispute in the terms of the arbcom case at all (last three months). I wish I could so easily ignore everything. It all boiled down to me being Pointy apparently and this is used as ammunition against me on a regular basis, along with incivility against Lar. In fact the whole thing is currently being used to try to get me desysopped by JWB in the current arbcom case. Therefore I don't find leniency towards Lar as a good way of dealing with continuing abuse of privilages by him. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore it all. I know it sounds easy to say that from my position, but hopefully things will calm down after the arbcom proposed decision (speaking of which, JWB's proposals with regard to you have almost no chance of even being proposed in the actual decision). If the Arbitration Committee is unable to fix the problem, then we can work it out ourselves, but clearly the community has reached a standstill with how to deal with Lar's uninvolvedness at this point. NW (Talk) 15:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, I moved your comment on the RFE page per the discussion you linked me to that forbid you to post there for three months. Sorry about that, but I figure it's best to try to do this as by-the-book as possible. NW (Talk) 16:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry I seem to have triggered an edit war on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I made a good-faith attempt to fix the sourcing and wording problems others had identified (which I agreed with, by the way) but it seems Marknutley's disagreement with the content was deeper than that. :-( -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP

I see that you have blocked Marknutley.[13] Are you planning on blocking any of the other editors for edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP, or just Marknutley?

1. [14] MN reverts.
2. [15] WMC reverts.
3. [16] ATren reverts.
4. [17] ChrisO rewrites and readds section.
5. [18] MN reverts.
6. [19] WMC reverts
7. [20] MN reverts.
8. [21] ChrisO reverts.
9. [22] MN reverts.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this sequence is rather misleading without noting what the edits represent. Edits 1-3 concern the old content. Edit 4 (my first) is, as noted above, my good-faith attempt to resolve the problems that editors had identified over sourcing and wording. Edits 5, 7 and 9 are MN reverting under a new rationale that had not been discussed in the previous dispute. Edit 8 (my second) is my one and only revert. I had no previous involvement in this dispute. It is rather annoying to have made the effort to resolve the problems identified by others - which I agreed with - but then to find oneself being reverted for a new reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same basic material. I note that you did attempt to rewrite it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same topic, but not at all the same material (compare [23] and [24]. The previous discussion raised concerns about sourcing and wording. I agreed with those concerns. Therefore I rewrote the material to address those concerns and added Monckton's side of the story to provide balance. The material I added was wholly new - I dumped what was there already and started afresh. Weighting is an entirely separate issue that, as far as I can see, was not discussed to any extent. My impression was that editors were objecting to the sourcing and the wording, not the basic issue of inclusion. Apologies if that was not the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still supposed to seek consensus before restoring contentious material in a BLP. And even if we overlook the first time, there is no reason for the second time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't restore anything - I rewrote the thing from scratch, fixing the problems that others had cited in removing the content. I was under the impression that those problems were why the content had been removed - not because of any undiscussed undue weight issues. I then made one revert. That is well within a (self-imposed) 1RR. There's no 0RR on this or any other CC article, is there? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think NW's talkpage is the right place for this. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Blocks are preventive, not punitive. As such, Marknutley indicated that he would continue to edit war if not blocked so he was, to prevent further disruption. This is Nuke's point. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But the page has already been locked.[25] How can Marknutley edit-war on locked page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuke didn't know but it's been endorsed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 00:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see now that there was only a two minute gap. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line on CC

Just posted on CC evidence talk page: " Bottom line: If the users on BOTH sides of this would BEHAVE, SirFozzie wouldn't have felt compelled to try to stop the THIRD edit war in less than a week -- which is also the SECOND in 24 hours. Therefore, I'm telling the clerks to clamp down on this atrocious behavior by both sides. And yes, this is being discussed on arb-l but the edit wars are breaking out faster than arbs can respond. If any editors can't shape up post haste, as far as I'm concerned the clerks and other unvolved admins can take any measures necessary to put these fires out." — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Check mail too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Checked and forwarded as you requested. Don't forget to enjoy you travels :) NW (Talk) 00:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We're having fun. But I could do without CC edit wars. I'm around a fair amount today because we're using this afternoon and evening to recuperate ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good that you're away, bad that you're logging in on vacation. (Yeah, I'm one to talk...) Anyway full protecting every article or project-space page that contains the word "climate" or a synonym, broadly construed, would be a great idea. People are going completely nuts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

SB-hehe, yeah, that option might be coming but we'll see. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

sofixit ;) NW (Talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully protecting all the articles punishes everyone, not just the involved editors. A temporary topic ban on all the parties would be better, as it would allow uninvolved editors to continue to improve those articles. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This could also reveal just how many/few uninvolved editors there are. I wouldn't be surprised if there are darn few. This seems to be one of the areas on wiki that lots of people avoid like the plaque. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume you want "plague" and not "plaque". ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do suppose a buildup of some plaque or plaques are far worse than a buildup of other plaques or plaques... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 02:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A plaque on all your houses might diminish their individual value... -- ChrisO (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

[26] I thought the parties had accepted a voluntary topic ban until the case was decided? Cla68 (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you could point to where they volunteered. Secondly I was unaware of it and thirdly if it is voluntary they can unvolunteer. Polargeo (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope Cla isn't under the illusion that I'm the only one making edits. That would indicate a distinct lack of attention William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, no Cla *isn't* under any such illusion because he is making edits himself [27] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Protecting all the articles even remotely involved in CC seems to make the most sense. I'm surprised it hasn't been done. Topic bans on "the parties" is problematic as it raises the question "who are the parties?" I was away for a few days, and I read that there was a request from arbcom while I was away that people involved in the case not edit CC articles. I haven't been able to find that request, and I'd like to know who it applies to (specifically, if it applies to me). ScottyBerg (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo

In closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Shirley Sherrod (good call, BTW), you wrote

there really isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this will end up being closed as keep

Did you perhaps mean to write "... closed as delete"? No big deal. (I wish I was as good at spotting huge errors in my own writing as at spotting tiny errors in other people's work.) Cheers, CWC 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Thank you! NW (Talk) 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary indefinite semiprotection?

Hello. I see that on March 14, you semiprotected Joe Pasquale for 50 years, with the justification of preventing WP:BLP violations. Well, I looked through the history of the article prior to that protection, and out of the previous 32 IP edits, only three of them were vandalism, and all of those were reverted quickly (in some cases by other IPs). None of them were serious BLP violations of the sort that would seem to justify such a long period of protection. I recognise the importance of BLP, and understand that certaion biographies do have to be semiprotected indefinitely, but do you really think it was necessary here? I tend to believe our articles should be as open to editing as is reasonably possible, and judging from the history I don't think this one needs to be semiprotected. Would you be willing to consider lifting it? Robofish (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why put a silly expiry instead of just "indefinite"? Maybe this would be a good case for the pending changes trial? –xeno^talk 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The expiry was purposely chosen to be so far in the future. Normally, I would have done a protection of indefinite length. However, I have seen people search for old indef protections and then unilaterally overturn them several years after the fact at RFPP on grounds that the protection is no longer justified, or on the grounds that the protecting admin can no longer be found (who knows if I will be editing five years from now). I can't go into further detail because of the privacy policy, but there was an OTRS ticket involved with this where I gave my word that the page would be protected for a long time to come. Now, I am willing to consider this as a candidate for flagged protection, but only when the trial is over and we are assured all pages protected by FP won't be mass unprotected. NW (Talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the ticket #'s usually indicated in the protection log? –xeno^talk 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, but not always. The way I was instructed was to not add an OTRS ticket number if you can avoid it; apparently it helps minimize exposure. Never really understood it, but I have usually gone along with it. NW (Talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. –xeno^talk 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

He has been asked not to post here. [28] ATren (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. See my posts to his talk page to a thread entitled "Mark's talk page" or something of the sort. NW (Talk) 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Editer 67.142.130.39

How is this constructive? You blocked for three years! And you account creation blocked. May I ask why? AboundingHinata (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the (probably shared) IP has a long history of vandalism and blocks? NW (Talk)

Maybe, but at least let the IP create an account. AboundingHinata (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? NW (Talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because, I looked online and it is a big amount of range. Plus, you should have started at 1 year, not three. AboundingHinata (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a range; that's a singular IP address. Further, a three year block is equivalent to an indef for an IP; since there has been nothing but vandalism from the account and no unblock request, there is no reason to believe the IP will be beneficial in any way and thus should remain blocked. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be allowed to edit under an account. AboundingHinata (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Where it would do nothing but vandalize (as it has done in the past, repeatedly after bans? Why? A vandalism-only IP with no discernible intent to contribute value will only result in a vandalism-only account, which will further waste the time of reverters and admins. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Please check your spelling, I couldn't understand that. AboundingHinata (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Small tweak to discernible; I see no other issues. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Struck potentially confusing bit. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, goodbye got to go back to work. AboundingHinata (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Allowing account creation on that IP is just like saying "Here, create a sockpuppet to vandalize, make it harder for us to catch you." There's always WP:ACC, anyway. Pilif12p :  Yo  18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In any event, if said ip wished to get an account, I'm sure the folks at Account creation will look into that, also, if the ip wanted to create an account to contribute constructively, they can request the removal of the account creation block themselves without issues. Don't see the problem here, all kosher imo. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are invited

You're invited to my talk page to continue the thread started at the bottom of this section If you like, turn up there, we can copy your post and my reply to start things. If you don't want to, then say so here... I strongly prefer the discussion happen on my page rather than here though, although I'm persuadable I guess. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I copied over my post and yours, and left a placeholder for me to fill in later this evening. NW (Talk) 18:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to it. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Erh? Please explain.

This [29] seems strange. I do suspect that particular user, i have added hir to SPI[30], and i have even added hir to WP:GS/CC/RE#Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. Have the rules changed? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rules haven't changed (though I think tagging should be discouraged from now on; the false positives feel kind of annoyed about falsely being tagged, from what we have found at SPI). No, I removed that tag because I simply didn't see enough evidence for the sockpuppetry accusation. While you're right in that Scibaby has focused on that topic before, that single edit really isn't enough to justify a block for socking at this time, I don't think. NW (Talk) 20:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tag rarely - but that particular editor hits rather high on my scibaby radar, i would be very surprised indeed if CU turns up as a false positive on hir. [so much that i'd revise my internal list of things to check for]. I'm OK with not tagging, but since CU apparently has broken down - we have a problem... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe try poking Deskana? I can't really think of any other checkusers that are very active at this time. NW (Talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we down to that small a CU staff? Damn. Could you prod? I have had no interactions with Deskana at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Left Dan a talk page message. And yeah, I don't really think there is any one else on the list who do more than one or two cases a week (though I haven't been as active as I have been in the past, so I might have missed something). NW (Talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Additional: If you check the latest number of Scibaby socks, then you'd notice that current Mode of operations for hir is to use several one-use focused socks per day (ie. one per article/topic/edit) - we are not going to get more evidence from that sock, it will either go dormant, war if being reverted, or be blocked as a sock. So what is the current thing to do? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. I'm not really sure at all. Lar used to be involved with checkuser stuff (he's taking a year off because he is serving on the Ombudsman Committee), so maybe you could ask him? If you don't want to ask Lar, then perhaps you could try MuZemike or Tim Song, both of whom are active in SPI? They might have a better idea of what to do. NW (Talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm avoiding Lar, sorry. I think its a mutual "rub each other the wrong way" thing. But thanks for the comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley edit-warring yet again

I'm not raising this (at this stage) at the CC AE page because I don't want to set off yet another shitfit, but Marknutley is edit-warring yet again - two edits past 1RR, as before, claiming BLP exemption, as before. [31], [32], [33] ] It's not at all clear-cut whether there has been a BLP violation here - there is a discussion of the sources ongoing at WP:RSN (which Mark did not start). However, Mark is certainly not the right person to be trying to enforce BLP at this stage. Could you please have a word with him? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: [34] ATren (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris: I might not be the best person for this at the moment, sorry. Maybe ask LHvU or EdJohnston, the latter of whom I bring up because of a) his uninvolvedness with climate change and because b) he often participates at WP:AN3. NW (Talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuke just want to point out, my 1r is on CC articles, this one does not have a template on it and is not CC related, in fact the links i removed were to do with tobacco mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it has a template or not, "CC broadly contrued" or words to that effect for one thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Am i to be blocked again for following policy Rlevse? Removing blogs from a blp is a bad thing now? mark nutley (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The question here is whether these refs are RS/BLP vios. I don't know enough about these particular sources to say one way or the other. If they are vios, then edit warring occurred by more than one party, if they aren't vios, they could fall under BLP rv exemptions. The other point here is it looks like people were told to use the talk page and ignored that warning; that could change the whole equation and could be called disruption. I'll leave it to uninvolved admins to sort out. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I should note that the refs are being discussed at WP:RSN and on the talk page; it's not clear that they were or weren't BLP violations (I'm keeping an open mind). But you're right to note that people were told to use the talk page but resorted to edit-warring instead. This is unproductive behaviour, to say the least, particularly after Marknutley's just come off a 24 hour block for doing exactly the same thing. I was hoping that NW might be able to persuade Mark to desist without further drama but I guess that's not going to happen now. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to remove suspected BLP vios until the dispute is resolved. That's what happens everywhere else. But climate change is Wikipedia Bizarro World, where long time contributors with more than 30,000 edits regularly commit blatant BLP vios and nobody sanctions them. ATren (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please

Answer my question, as it seem you have failed to do so.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this relates to User talk:Duchamps comb#Climategate image. I've provided some policy pointers for DC. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have left you a note on your talk page. NW (Talk) 22:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

hank you for the comment. Can you also answer me as to why you deleted the image (in 13 min.) with no discussion from other editors? Best,--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a violation of policy that I happened to see right at the top of my watchlist. When I checked and saw that it had already been deleted in November, I figured that a formal WP:FFD wasn't necessary. NW (Talk) 22:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

  — Jeff G.  ツ 04:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax and Jeff G.

Hey NW,

I restored rollback to Jusdafax and Jeff G.. We shouldn't go removing those userrights because of a simple misunderstanding. Jeff G. is a longtime contributor and well aquainted with rollback, and Jusdafax interned for the WMF and was mentored by Cary. Simple, good faith mistakes should not be admonished or punished, but educated on what went wrong. There was no need to remove the rollback flag (it's not a big deal, right?). You know where to find me if you have an issue with my reversal. Thanks! Keegan (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Arg, there goes my secret identity... ;) For my part I bear you no ill-will, NW. The irony is that WMF has had me deal with types cases of this sort before. My mistake was not looking deeper, and assuming that those reverting in front of me were in the right of it. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to mend fences. Best wishes, Jusdafax 05:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Keegan, you're probably right. I wasn't thinking the most clearly last night, and for some reason I totally ignored the simple method of "talk to them on their talk pages". The rollback removal was intended to be very temporary to get the two of them off Huggle so I could deal with the issue at hand. NW (Talk) 13:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

HG whitelist

Did you totally nuke it? I think that's a good idea. It was at 26k+, I'm surprised nobody's proposed or done it before (maybe they have, I haven't seen it if they have). I'm thinking about readding all admins and rollback users to it, as a matter of convenience. Do you have any opinions on that? Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that admins/rollbackers are automatically exempt, and don't need to be manually whitelisted. The list is usually rebooted once every few months; I had to edit it manually anyway so I figured now would be as good a time as any for tabula rasa. NW (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't thought about doing that... normally I just clean out any IP's that manage to sneak their way in there. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Not entirely sure if this is relevant at all, but user you blocked is seeking advice on Y!A. sonia^♫♪ 08:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've just gotta know...how in the world did you find that? Mauler90 _talk 08:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the Wikipedia section of Yahoo Answers on a RSS feed, because so many first-time sockpuppeteers seek advice there from more experienced trolls. It's not something I'd recommend others do, though, because it is scum. At times burnout-worthy scum. sonia^♫♪ 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, don't think it is necessary to do anything. That's pretty clearly someone making 10 useless edits to get around autoconfirmed and then acting disruptively on a Wikipedia-space page. Grounds for an immediate block, IMO. NW (Talk) 13:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence closed?

I'm puzzled by AM's deletion of evidence [35], apparently on the basis of an edit comment from you. The case is still in progress. Why is evidence closed? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Per [36], I don't think that the arbitrators want to accept major amounts of late evidence, except when it directly relates to the exemptions they laid out (unlike their usual policy of accepting but not necessarily reading evidence even if they are in Workshop phase). I actually followed the lead on Amory on this one in my actions, as I'm the newest of the ArbCom clerks. NW (Talk) 13:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Note my comment on Armory's talk page. I had a parallel concern about the Workshop. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That was done per direction of Risker; see the Workshop talk page. NW (Talk) 13:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See my reply there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Thanks for the explanation on the mechanics. I wasn't aware that the decision itself was discussed. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You've pointed me to a diff containing nothing by Risker, and a deadline that was, I think, ignored. Where is the real deadline written down? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[37] closed the evidence pages (except for the one or two exemptions given afterward). If it was ignored, it probably shouldn't have been, as it was the last official deadline. This is the post by Risker which I was referring to. NW (Talk) 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was it ignored? I find this kind of behaviour one of the primary reasons ArbCom is held in such contempt by the community. There were over 300 changes since that "deadline". Verbal chat 16:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Contempt" is far too strong. But with deadlines that aren't really deadlines and evidence limits that are routinely disregarded, the arbs are sending a clear message: "Only chumps follow the rules." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You confused me with the Risker stuff; I now see that was about the Workshop pages. And I agree that there is less added evidence than I'd thought (there is a pile of stuff by Nsaa that broke the deadline; presumably no-one cares). This all seems a little odd, but no odder than the rest William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring the very important permission given regarding recent edits, given here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What has that got to do with Nsaa's edits? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Amending evidence

Following the thread above, I have just discovered I'm referred to 9 times in the evidence despite not being a party, informed I was referred to, or invited to comment. Three editors that refer to me have made factually incorrect statements that should be corrected. How do I go about doing this? Verbal chat 16:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not really sure, actually. Perhaps you could ask Amorymeltzer for advice? He is a much more experienced ArbCom Clerk than I am. NW (Talk) 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You should ask on the evidence talk page, but in your case it would probably be easiest to email the arbcom mailing list. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be able to do something about such? I thought it was just accusations - i wasn't aware that it was possible to defend against these? How? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Expand (just before vacation): I thought the format was for pure assertion - and i didn't reply since we'd end up in the usual "he said/she said" kinda discussions - which just doesn't make sense in a arbitration that is supposed to stop that sort. Oh - well. Guess i'll see the results when i return in a week. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I knew there was something wrong with that sentence... thank you for changing it! Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Remember this message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive_23#New_kid_for_the_block)? Well, the Danish "user" continues - pretty standard IP isn't it? - removing good stuff from infoboxes (i.e. in Guillermo Amor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guillermo_Amor&diff=next&oldid=373663664)). He has already been warned, to no avail. He also writes NO summaries, comprehensive or not, ZERO!

What can be done? Thanks in advance, take care and happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. He seems to be making some good edits as well though. Are [38], [39] both OK? NW (Talk) 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• No they are not, and i'll explain: when a player plays with a club for only a few months, we don't use the entire season (i.e. 2008-09), just the months when a player is with the team (for example, if a player signs with a team in July 2009, and leaves for another club in December, we only write 2009 - when he joins a new club in January 2010, even though he played in the 2009-10 season, we only write 2010).

Hope i was clear enough, "whistle" if you have further questions. In a nutshell, this "user" vandalizes (removing stuff from boxes without one word) and, although in a less serious level, misleads readers with wrong info (years with teams). In my opinion, if not a block, he deserves at least another warning. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I left him a message here, and will block if this situation continues. NW (Talk) 20:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, well, well...did not respond you, as it's clearly seen, and continues his "contributions" after your request, at Mido. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• See for instance what he did here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andoni_Zubizarreta&diff=372555730&oldid=371701630), removing a "footlong" worth of true material, just because, without one word. If he has only this IP, we'll be safe, if not... Keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I blocked him for a week, it can be undone if he wishes to communicate. NW (Talk) 23:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert on Aang

I noticed that you recently reverted a mention of Katara being the mother of Aang's son based on a lack of evidence. I have reverted several such edits myself. But I would like to point out that user:ChaosMaster16 recently found an interview with the creators that verifies Katara is the mother. You can find the reference on the main Avatar page. Despite this, I think the page should be split up into two sections: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra. The part about the two having a child should only be mentioned in the latter since he wasn't conceived during the first show. I've actually commented on this already on Talk:Avatar:The Last Airbender#Legend of Korra. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense to me. Thanks for following up on this issue. NW (Talk) 03:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple reverts at Mass killings under Communist regimes

Do the multiple reverts at Mass killings under Communist regimes violate the 1RR restriction that you placed on this article? Bobanni (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically no; I cannot see that any one person has made more than one edit, although BigK HeX came pretty close. I'll continue to watch the page. NW (Talk) 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have some experience with one of the editors in questions, so I'd like to ask whether you agree with the comments regarding User:Marknutley and myself here: User_talk:Marknutley#Unproductive_editing_at_Mass_Killing? Pretty clearly, I've been blanket reverted, to include even edits which just flagged a questionable RS. I wasn't aware that "changes thoroughly detailed in policy are easily blanket reverted without even looking at the edits or citing a single policy objection" was actually valid. Without any useful reasoning given, the behavior seems to be on it way to becoming WP:HOUNDING. Thanks for any advisement. BigK HeX (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You made several WP:BOLD edits to a controversial article. You yourself have categorised these as "bold" therefore a reversion of these edits should send you straight to the talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But, obviously, I already have you view on the matter, and was not looking for it again here. (I still find it interesting that you advise that his blanket revert should send me to the talk page, and that you offer no advisement to Marknutley.) BigK HeX (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should not shop around looking for advise and live with the fact that your bold changes to a contentious article did not meet approval mark nutley (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this is the first advisement I've asked for, the charge that I'm "shopping around" is asanine. I most certainly did not post a comment on YOUR talk page with the expectation of being lectured by someone who (I believe) is expected to recuse himself in some of the official matters where you've been concerned. Now ... maybe you two will allow me to get the response I *did* ask for. BigK HeX (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not ever been asked to recuse myself in any matters concering Marknutley. In fact if anything I would be considered by most to be in opposition to Marknutley. Although this is ridiculous in this case and I am clearly not involved. Polargeo (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mark undid all your edits, yes. It doesn't really matter if he gave a reason or not, for the correct action is to take the issue to the talk page. If he was wrong, then consensus will swiftly establish that fact. NW (Talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a fluke of the Universal Laws, but I don't think the concept of consensus is allowed to show itself on that article's talk page. In any case, thanks for the response. BigK HeX (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Inception move

Hey there. I noticed that you swapped Inception and the dab page, which had formerly been at that title. Were you aware that a move discussion had occurred at Talk:Inception#Requested move, which resulted in no consensus to move? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of that discussion. I guess the page can be moved back if you really want it to be, though I really do not agree with many of the arguments on the talk page. However, since for the next few weeks at least, the movie will be what most people will be looking for, do you think you could hold off on moving it back for a month or so? NW (Talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you really must move it back. Moving it was against consensus. If you don't agree, then bring it up on the talk page. BOVINEBOY2008 03:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Did I not say you were free to move it back? In any case, I have done so. NW (Talk) 12:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check

This edit - it appears as a copy/paste to a wrong page. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to have the discussion there to get a wider audience. However, if that isn't how things are usually done, I'll be fine with moving the discussion back to T:TDYK. Would you like me to do that? NW (Talk) 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case, a hook should be returned to T:TDYK, with a comment why (otherwise it will simply disappear for a possible re-promotion). If you wish to start discussion on that at WT:DYK, that would be fine, but usual practice is to post a note, not the entire review thread. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Another one!!

Hi there NUKE (man i wish i talked to you about different matters :)), again...

What can you make of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Borimirov&diff=235768561&oldid=220963882), at Daniel Borimirov? Please "scroll" up the edit history after this one, this ADORABLE person still has four more "contributions" in that article, each worse and more vile than the previous one!

Yes, almost two years from that attack, but this "user" has a standard IP. The more recent contributions, totally unrelated to soccer (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.103.112.125), do not seem vandalic, although two, in Dhole (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhole&diff=next&oldid=355565233) and Kodiak Bear (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kodiak_Bear&diff=next&oldid=356594737), were immediately reverted, no "questions asked".

Found one "funny": in Heckler & Koch, an entire chunk was removed, without explanation (i.e. without ONE WORD) and duly reverted (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heckler_%26_Koch&diff=next&oldid=327686104). I have made up my mind on what this "person" brings to WP, i pass the ball to your court now...Ah, and they have been substantially warned to stop with this behaviour. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the person has not brought anything good to Wikipedia. However, they have not edited since April, so perhaps the IP has been reassigned to a different person since then. I think any block should be held off on until they edit again, so we can be sure they the same person still has access to the account. NW (Talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tommy45

Tommy45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hey, we got an email on unblock-en-l from this user. I noticed that you put their appeal on hold, but did not see any message on Elockid's talk page requesting comment from him. I'm not comfortable taking any sort of action on this appeal (either accepting or declining it) while the on-hold template remains on his talk page. Can you shed some light on the current situation?

Thanks, --Chris (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it was a block based on checkuser evidence, I put the unblock request on hold and advised Tommy45 to email the functionaries mailing list. I do not think that any non-checkuser administrator should overturn this block. NW (Talk) 12:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well they referred the user to unblock-en-l. Bureaucracy FTW. --Chris (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point...

I was not sure when the pending changes trial ended, so I just went with both. If you see any edit-warring on the page, feel free to shut it down, relocking the page, and blocking any/all edit warriors SirFozzie (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Pending Changes trial ends around August 15. Hopefully it will be judged to be a success and we can start bot-adding it to all of those un/barely-watched BLPs.

And I will be sure to do that. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question - I noticed that you removed semi on the Monckton article but left pending changes in place. The article has been frequently affected by problematic editing from IP addresses and some sockpuppets. Which is the better way of dealing with that, pending changes or semi? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably semi, with use of level 2 pending if necessary. I'll make the change to that if the issue comes up again. NW (Talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll notify you if it does come up. Hopefully it won't, but I suspect it probably will... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long for the IPs to turn up and start deleting things. I think we do need semi again - the article has been semi-protected for most of its history, but has been severely disrupted by IP editors during the relatively short periods of its unprotection. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(added) FYI, the IP is now adding accusations of fraud against living persons. I've raised this at WP:AN/I#Accusations of fraud - oversight needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. I'm surprised that SirFozzie reprotected the page, I didn't think there was any need to do that. His choice though, I suppose. NW (Talk) 02:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Can you please semiprot Public opinion on climate change? Our old friend has discovered it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reblocked the new sock and semi-protected for two weeks. That can be lengthened if necessary. I'll keep an eye on it, but just pop me a note on my talk page if I miss anything. Cheers, NW (Talk) 03:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy service! Expect a little something extra in your next pay packet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Know any free way to get access to the journal articles listed here? It would be rather annoying to download them all at work and email them to myself. I can remotely login to my work account from home, if that would help. NW (Talk) 03:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of my domain, sorry. MastCell or Tim Vickers would know about the medical literature. Can you download them at work and put them on a USB stick or something like that? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably could do that, but I'm not sure if I'll have the downtime to do that over the next few days, might be rather busy. It would be much easier to just do it from home in the evening if possible. I'll drop a note on MastCell's talk page. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of the best answer for you. I have proxy access to the library of an academic medical center, so I can log in to the library proxy from home (or elsewhere) and then access the library's online catalog of journals. That probably doesn't help you much, though. You've probably already noticed, but Chuh et al. is freely available through PubMed Central ([40]). I can email you the others if you'd like, but it sounds like you've got access from work so I'm not sure that would help... MastCell ^Talk 04:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Sent you an email, though after re-reading MastCell's comment I may have mis-read your request. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell: Nah, it's all right. I was hoping to be able to download them from home somehow, but logging into to the website and poking around doesn't seem to get me anything. I think the computers hooked up to the servers at work have access to all of these journals though, so I should be able to find 10 minutes during the day some time and download them all. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda: It's much appreciated, thank you. That should save me some time tomorrow. NW (Talk) 04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I was ref-hunting anyway when I stopped by to see if there was anything exciting going on over here. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I would comment. In google scholar under scholar preferences tab you can enter institutions you are affiliated with and if you have the right password assess literature from home. If you are unaware... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all a bit new to me, and that piece of advice is certainly very helpful. Thank you very much! NW (Talk) 22:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A sad day?

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

From what i have read in his page, Satori Son has retired from WP (there are two seemingly contradictory templates joined, one - the old - saying he was an "on-and-off" editor, and now the new one, saying that he left :().

Being the latter the case (as it obviously is), don't take it so bad if i "over-harass" you with Pararubbas-related issues, you know what they are :) In the meantime, i have found nothing "connecting" to him, but he still has not left any comments in Satori's talkpage either (as if he would!).

Now, for a little technical favour man: can you please fix an error i made in my user page? For aesthetical reasons or to scare off the vandals (still dunno which!), i tried to insert the "rollback" template there, and failed miserably...Could you have a look please? Many thanks in advance.

May the WIKIforce be with you, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. And it's such a shame to hear about Satori, hopefully he will be back soon. Of course, you are always free to ask my help on anything. NW (Talk) 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can be a sad day indeed! Reporting:

About this Portuguese user (as i) Pitadodocu: clearly a S.L. Benfica fan, who will add nonsense in articles even when boxes and links say different (like in Nélson Oliveira, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N%C3%A9lson_Oliveira&diff=prev&oldid=375034526; or in Artur Futre, a player which was now playing in the regional leagues of Portugal, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artur_Futre&diff=375721700&oldid=375036359), only to make a given player look like Cristiano Ronaldo - i bet he, as anon, was the one who created Futre's article, with the results you can see in the article's history...He also has no English skills whatsoever, and writes no summaries. Some of his behaviour is thus, clearly close to vandalism IMO.

You were warned, you said i could "harass" you ;) Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I asked for it, didn't I? :)

I left left the user a note on his talk page. I agree with you, and will block him if his behavior continues. NW (Talk) 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen

This? Just letting you know mark nutley (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He knows [41] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mhmm, WMC got it right. I wasn't sure on my judgment call on this one, so I decided to step back entirely and let another sysop who is experienced with sockpuppets handle it. NW (Talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

I'll ask that you take a look at Mass Killings again. User:BigK HeX is serially removing multiple reliable sources, with vague comments about NPOV and Weight - the only problem is that there are no opposing POVs to weigh - the obvious solution is for him to add his favorite RS POVs, rather than remove RSs.He is also editing my talk page comments, and accusing me of violating 1RR (on my talk page). Any help keeping order appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have limited time at the moment, and I am afraid I simply don't have the time to look into this situation. If the situation is as bad as you claim it is, I suggest you kick the matter up to ANI. NW (Talk) 01:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Work at Wikipedia

...forever. They still haven't learned, have they? NW (Talk) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

International Journal of Hematology

thanks for correcting the category on International Journal of Hematology. However, why are you creating such minimal stubs (not just this journal, others, too), that could be challenged by people that want to delete them? They are barely definitions, so they could even be speedied (no indication of notability). It should not be difficult to flesh them out a bit. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide for some tips. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that is a terribly crappy stub for one so experienced as you. Come on NW :) Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would rather create substubs than have the journals be redlinked in my article. I want people who wonder "what kind of journal was this published in" to be able to click on the journal article and see the publisher's name, which society organizes it, and a link to a website. I possibly could write more, but I'm just not interested enough to do so. It's a wiki after all, maybe someone else could do it one day.

Also, these could not be speedied under WP:CSD#A7, as that criterion does not apply to journals or any sort of published media. NW (Talk) 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• This particular one indeed cannot be speedied, but if it were an Internet-only journal, it could be speedied as a non-notable website. And I disagree with what you say about redlinks. If I see a redlink in an article, I may be incited to create the article. If I see it bluelinked, I may not even click it to get to see the "article" telling me that "Foo journal is a scientific journal", which hardly is helpful info at all. We have problems enough convincing people of the notability of well established journals, without needing to complicate those discussions with substandard stubs. --Crusio (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI clerk bot

Δbot has been approved, so I can say this now without prejudicing the request. Sometimes at WP:BOTREQ you have to be persistent and ask multiple times. It might be that the first time a willing bot op was on wikibreak (I was, back in December), or it might seems that someone else is taking care of it (at the discussion there was talk of someone getting and running the code for the old bot), or a willing bot op might just have missed it the first time. If Δbot ends up blocked or deapproved, I would be willing to have AnomieBOT take on the task. Anomie⚔ 11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the message, I will keep both your advice and your offer in mind. Best, NW (Talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TheNeutralityDoctor

In case you didn't see this, TheNeutralityDoctor is asking if you would unblock them.[42] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. As I explained above to Mark, I handed the role of reviewing admin off to Prolog, who I forwarded Avraham's email to. If hu wished to, then hu was free to unblock TND. He chose not to, as did MastCell later. NW (Talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Illusion

In the past, you seemed to have some concern over the use of The Hockey Stick Illusion as a source. A scientific organization, the Geological Society of London, just gave the book a positive review. Since the voluntary topic ban appears to have collapsed because of the new delay in the ArbCom's decision, I am going to resume using the source as a reliable source in climate change articles. I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Errr... I'm going to be the fly in the ointment here. I would stop short of saying, or implying, that the book was endorsed by the Geological Society. It received a sympathetic review in the Society's publication. According to that publication, books are advertised for review, and any fellow may sign up to review the book ([43]). I don't think that the Geological Society can be said to place its official imprimatur behind every opinion expressed by one of its volunteer book reviewers.

In this case the book was reviewed by Joe Brannan, who appears to work in oil exploration and production for Shell Oil ([44]). In terms of the actual official viewpoint of the Society, it seems to believe that "the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels caused by the combustion of fossil fuels must be corrected", which is rather different than the message conveyed in the book review. I'm not saying the review is irrelevant, only that it should not necessarily be presented as "the Geological Society of London gave this book a positive review." MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is not labeled as an advertisement, and otherwise carries the society's implied endorsement or editorial control, since thy have placed no disclaimer on the page ("This review does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Society"). I will reword the statement in the article, however. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As a fellow of the geological society of London (FGS) who has recieved the Geolsoc magazine (Geoscientist) for a number of years and who personally knows people who have written book reviews for it I can categorically state that this review is in no way a geolsoc endorsement of anything the review says, that is not the way book reviews in the geolsoc magazine work. Polargeo (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, which articles specifically do you plan to use it as a source in? The only recent edits of yours that I see to climate change article or talk pages are to The Hockey Stick Illusion and Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. NW (Talk) 01:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working through the book, but it has a lot of details which would be of benefit to expanding the Hockey stick controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on several times before, there's simply no need to cite the book for general background info. That info will be reported elsewhere in other, indisputably reliable sources. A pragmatic approach would be to use those sources rather than this book. If we're talking about specific scientific details, the book is hopelessly unsuitable as a source - it's written by a non-scientist presenting a fringe POV based around a collection of inaccurate, quote-mined, speculative or disproven claims and conspiracy theories. This review by an actual climate scientist should give anyone pause before they consider using it as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the number of positive reviews may have bolstered the case that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not based on the reviews that I have seen. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How many have you read? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the three Marknutley presented and they do not reinforce the source becuase they are book reviews and therefore have a less rigorous method of fact checking than the book itself. So therefore cannot be used to verify the fact checking credentials of the book. Polargeo (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Polargeo, the "reviews" presented to date show such obviously incorrect or fringe views that they undermine any suggestion that the book has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. As they're by lay reviewers with no claim to expertise in the field, it's not surprising that they don't notice this and instead are enthralled by the rattling good yarn. . . dave souza, talk 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've been struck by how the reviews of the book appear to be largely from people who have already expressed support for the denialist POV. It strikes me as a kind of mutual masturbation process - denialists giving positive reviews to a denialist book. The outcome is no more meaningful than, for instance, creationists praising a creationist book, or supply-side economists praising a supply-side economics book. You only really get interesting reviews from people who come from a different perspective and have sufficient expert knowledge to critique the work in question. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the book reviewers' expertise in a field, this is a 'nice to have', but certainly not a 'must'. As for the book reviewers having a POV, that's fine. All sources have a bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem would only arise if the book were to be used to cite a matter of fact rather than opinion. Since the book is unreliable. it should not be used as a source on the facts. The fact that the reviewers have opinions is to be expected, but the fact that the reviewers and the author know absolutely nothing about the science and are presenting a very slanted and inaccurate history of paleoclimatology is what disqualifies the book's use as a source on the facts. --TS 22:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily true that none of the reviewers know anything about the science. One of the reviewers is a petroleum engineer for Shell Oil, and a surreal discussion is underway on the talk page of the book as to how much of that affiliation we should disclose to Wikipedia readers. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TS, in Wikipolicy terms the book is a reliable source for the views of its author, however the author and the book are questionable sources for facts. They're also promoting a tiny minority view on the relevant field of science, albeit a view with significant minority political support in some areas. As for slant and inaccuracy, the inexpert reviews shown for the book clearly indicate that it's inaccurate or misleading.A more informed review has been published in a blog, but although the author is known as an expert in the relevant field he posts under a pseudonym and in my view it doesn't meet WP requirements as a reliable source. Nonetheless interesting, particularly if you want to look at the use of statistical techniques in the field of science.[45]
ScottyBerg, the Shell Oil chappie describes himself as a layman about paleoclimatology in another of his reviews, so his expertise is questionable. . . dave souza, talk 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thanks. As a layman, his employment at Shell is of even greater importance in identifying this person in the context of his review. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen (and possibly even contributed to the comments thread at RealClimate) Tamino's review. I agree that we probably can't cite it as is, although his identity isn't exactly secret. --TS 23:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Having read the Climategate emails and studied the context in which they were written, especially the ones that disparage McIntyre and Climate Audit with fairly strong language, I think I understand why no one at RealClimate has issued a formal, signed-with-their-real name, response to Montford's book. Anyway, Montford's book provides details on the controversy I haven't seen anywhere else. Any information I add to the article using the book as a source will be presented in neutral language. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, please retract your baseless slur on the people who run RealClimate, all of whom are identified by their names and occupations on the blog, and who have long been openly trenchant in their criticism of McIntyre's statements. Montford's book is essentially an apologia for McIntyre, and Tamino (who was a guest blogger at RealClimate) added nothing that has not been discussed at length on RealClimate and other science-based climate blogs. --TS 17:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Several of the Climategate emails from RealClimate contributors display a good deal of anger and resentment towards McIntyre and Climate Audit (I remember one email referred to the site as "Climate Fraudit", although I think that email was written by a CRU staff member, not RealClimate). The emails appear to confirm what McIntyre and others had publicly suggested, that it appeared that a conscious effort was underway by the RealClimate and CRU staffs to keep their research data from being given to McIntyre. Remember _____'s email, "DO NOT share information with this guy. He is the enemy." So, again, it's understandable that the CRU and RealClimate staffs would now not want to confirm what the emails seemed to indicate, which is that they're taking Climate Audit's criticism a little too personally. Thus, no formal denunciations by any of them of Montford's book will be forthcoming, at least for now. Just my opinion. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddd1600

As you're the one who blocked him, I'm bringing it to your attention. HalfShadow 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Looks like PeterSymonds endorsed the checkuser already, so now it is time to wait. I agree with Peter that it is probably best not to do anything until we hear back from them. NW (Talk) 18:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Some time ago you made this edit at Talk:Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The banner now displays "BADINPUT" in big red letters. I was going to delete the template as it seems pintless, but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to fix the problem first. Regards. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Banner removed. NW (Talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

that was an ec

• I replied

Feel free to remove it, though. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not a big deal. I will probably end up blocking them or their range (all of the University of New South Wales, unfortunately) if it continues though. NW (Talk) 22:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this cloud, but there are more. It's prolly not Drew ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Here's that SPI I was chatting with you about the other day [46]. Be warned that it's a bit on the long side, but this guy is good at covering his tracks CU-wise, and he got off last time because I didn't present nearly enough behavioral evidence. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Will try to take a look soon. NW (Talk) 13:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspected Sock

I`m probably wrong but i suspect this guy [47] is a sock of the guy you blocked the other day [48] Just going by the editing styles and the ranting at Carol mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the sock indef, reblocked Ddd1600 for one week with a warning that the next block evasion will merit a full ban. NW (Talk) 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: The IP user that you blocked a couple days ago [49] resumed as soon as the block expired. I extended the block another 72 hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor has replied to your 3RR complaint

Your complaint received an answer here: WP:AN3#User:Bllasae reported by NuclearWarfare (Result: ), though hardly courteous. Maybe this is his way of offering to stop the war? He has not reverted since the report was filed, and he doesn't appear to have received a 3RR warning. An uninvolved admin might be tempted to close the report with no action, or with a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't reverted since because he "won" the edit war. He never responded to my last message on the talk page, and simply continued reverting. That's when I brought the matter to AN3. It's your call, but I would think that a block for general disruptive and anti-collegial behavior would be warranted. NW (Talk) 00:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun

Shouldn't the article be unprotected since it's the main page today? Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why I protected it. I purposefully made the protection length so short. It should be expiring any minute now. NW (Talk) 00:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a policy strongly discouraging protection of TFA's, but it was abolished a couple of months ago: Wikipedia_talk:TFA#RfC:_Time_to_dispense_with_WP:NOPRO.3F —Soap— 09:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Rollback rights

Thank you for granting me rollback rights. I will make every attempt to use it correctly.Cgoodwin (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's a shame your RFA didn't pass. Any thoughts about running again in the future? NW (Talk) 12:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

tagging sanction

What a good idea. Tagging wars have been silly for months. Polargeo (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. I've kept well out of them, so I'm not sure why NW contacted me, but I agree that it's a good idea. Ridiculous though that it should come to this. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, while I'm here, do you think a 1RR on the Mann article would be a good idea? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, though I am not sure if it is necessary just yet.NW (Talk) 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. We'll see how it goes, but please do keep an eye on the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's it, find a friendly admin to lock down a friendly BLP from criticism, so you can have more time to add self-published sources to skeptics like Monckton. Typical. ATren (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't stopped beating my wife. Next question? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "regular" editors lately trying to use RealClimate, DeSmogBlog, or ExxonSecrets (or Watts Up, Climate Audit, or Bishop Hill) to add negative or pejorative information to a BLP . If they do, report it immediately to the BLPN or the enforcement board and the admins will take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[50] I don't recognize the editor's name so I'm guessing they don't know about the restriction and are probably unaware they've just walked into a mine field. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I notified them of the existence of the restriction. I figured that most people wouldn't know of it, and therefore ought to be informed of it first before any sanctions can be taken. Anyone is free to revert that edit, but no one is free to revert a second time. NW (Talk) 22:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[51] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Alerted, but feel free to give people a neutral notification about the existence of the sanction in the future; it need not come from an admin. NW (Talk) 22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Username

I've previously asked about your username and you indicated that you plan to change it when global renaming is possible. bugzilla:14862 looks quite stale, I wouldn't hold your breathe.

Now that you are representing the Arbitration Committee in an official capacity, I'd suggest you reconsider whether continuing with this username is appropriate. –xeno^talk 13:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes keep it. I am not concerned in any way. Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with the username. He is not advocating for nuclear warfare, and it would be far more disruptive to change it at this point. KnightLago (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be particularly disruptive (any moreso than other users established users who change names), though it might place a bit of a strain on the job queue. We'll have to agree to disagree on the propriety of the username. –xeno^talk 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting he start a new account? How would the rights importing and other nonsense work? Would he abandon this account in favour of the second one and have all of the rights switched into the new one? How would his contribs be noted? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 14:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting he consider renaming via the usual means - on a global project, we should keep in mind the impressions our usernames may have (even if they would be erroneous). This is something with which I have some personal experience (I hadn't considered it until someone brought it up at my RFA). Though it looks like I may be in the minority here. –xeno^talk 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

← Facepalm. Please tell me you have better things to do xeno? Tiptoety ^talk 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But I was expecting something better on your user page, given the name William M. Connolley (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone had a problem with his username, they should have brought it up a long time ago. Also, renames where someone has more than 5K edits can be, but are not always, problematic. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did bring it up last October... My comments here are informed by the assumption (borne of that thread) that the NW had already decided to change his username, I was only suggesting that he reconsider the timing. –xeno^talk 18:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• @WMC: I had a picture of this on my userpage a while back. The existence of that thing is so bizarre.

  Holy mudhead -- "a range of about 1.25 mi (2 km)." Did anybody really think it would be clever to set off nuclear explosions that close to their own lines??? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I like the pic I ripped off here - if all else fails, you can just crash it into the enemy William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• @Xeno: I had thought I was going to change it then, but I am not really sure about it now. I can't really think of anything better, and would prefer to stay pseudonymous at this time. NW (Talk) 19:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. Since no one else (including a sitting arbitrator) seems to be concerned, I'll just have to assume these concerns are simply talking points for RFAs... Best regards, –xeno^talk 19:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  If you're going to worry about this type of thing (not that it really matters), I'd focus my attention on Bongwarrior, personally. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Glass rods and apples make very poor weapons. ~ Amory (u • t • c)

@Xeno, there are far more important things to worry about, like BC backdooring his rename at BN, that NW's name. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly worried - it just reminded me of the note I left for NW some months ago when I first saw Arbitration Committee ordinance being delivered by way of NuclearWarfare. –xeno^talk 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I too see no problem with the username, though my perspective (and indeed that of some of the participants in this discussion) may of course differ from Xeno's. I would also echo William's comment above :-). AGK 00:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a reviewer now?

Thanks for upping my ability to do things, even if I didn't apply for it. ._. While we're on the subject of reviewing, can you review and pass through the pending changes I have for Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin? I don't want to just pass them through myself...since they're my edits and all. Silverseren^C 22:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

They would have been automatically accepted if I had given them to you before you made those changes, but I'll go ahead pass your edits to that page. NW (Talk) 22:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Could you be so kind to change André Saraiva's page to one that bears his fullname? I made a "poopoo", wrongly moving page. But, in all fairness, the other title - André Martins - was not totally accurate, as there is another footballer from Portugal who has the same name (André Renato Soares Martins), the striking similarity being the "ANDRÉ MARTINS". Thanks in advance.

User:Pararubbas has been strangely absent from WP - to the best of my knowledge that is, good news indeed. Have a great weekend, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to "André Filipe Saraiva Martins". I hope that's what you wanted.

And that's very good news. Perhaps he has finally moved on :) Best, NW (Talk) 17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Orange Elephant

Shouldn't you first allow a new account to become disruptive before blocking them indef? This new user has made exactly 1 comment on that account. And his comment wasn't even disruptive. I am not saying that this person won't eventually deserve to be blocked, and may very well be a sock of someone, but this smacks of abuse of admin privliges. Arzel (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to respond to this, except with "I disagree." The user is pretty clearly a disruptive sock/SPA, and I see no benefit to letting them continue. NW (Talk) 23:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How can you back up either of those statements? He/She hasn't made enough comments to justify any pattern of a SPA, hell they have made only one single edit. They may be a sock, but even you said that without a user to key on it is probably useless. Sorry, but this is heavy handed and without much cause. Arzel (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with NW as this is a post by an obvious sock/SPA. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is obvious then it should be easy to identify who it is. Arzel (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the most obvious person to check it against would be Niteshift. Silverseren^C 02:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say who it is is obvious, but what it is. Comes from years of working at SPI. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

J1mj4m ‎

Has he offered any explanation why he happened to zero in on one of Light current's socks and post a fake "unblocked" message? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He claims to have been pointed to LC's page by another editor over IRC and was just experimenting when he ran into the issue. I am AGFing and hoping we simply made a mistake with the block. I am sure he will be watched closely; if he turns out to be a sock and/or is disruptive, then he can be reblocked easily. NW (Talk) 03:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

about User:Silenceplace

zh:User:Silenceplace is a normal contributor in zhwiki, however his account with the same name was blocked indefinitely in enwiki few days ago. May you doublecheck that puppet investigation to see if there was some mistakes? You may be awared that some pages of wikipedia are blocked in mainland China, I believe that User:Silenceplace had used a specific proxy which caused him to be blocked. --阿pp (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There might have been a mistake made here (in fact, there probably was), but could you ask J.delanoy about this first? He was the original one to make the block, I don't want to overturn it in case he had more information from checkuser. NW (Talk) 12:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a message too, waiting for reply. thx anyway. --阿pp (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If he doesn't reply in a few days, do tell me. I'll handle it then. NW (Talk) 15:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't replied yet. Can you look into it? --阿pp (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect of Danielle Staub

I respectfully request that you undo the redirect of the Danielle Staub article. The AFD was closed as no consensus, if I recall correctly, and I had just added references from reliable sources to the article. Redirection without discussion on the talk page so soon after both an afd and additions of good source is not a good thing. Please reconsider your actions. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me why you feel Staub meets our notability guidelines? As there is little if anything to merge, I would have said there is a pretty strong consensus to merge already from the AFD. NW (Talk) 19:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, she's notable for three things--her appearance on the reality show, the sex tape she may or may not have seeded to the public, and the controversy regarding her criminal past. She's received significant coverage by reliable major news services for all three, and there are lots of local articles from the daily news in NY and NJ.com. There's also some coverage of her based on her book, see for example this article from the AP in Business Week. I think she meets the basic general notability guidelines. Do I think that the fact that she's received such coverage is an indictment of our culture here in the USA? Yes. But as sad as it is, she meets the guideline. What I would suggest is to revert the redirect, bring the issue up on the talk page, and give it a couple of weeks. If consensus is to merge, I'll have no objection. Nuujinn (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that, in the situation of a no consensus decision at AfD and a user afterwards adding in reliable sources means, at the very least, it should be discussed on the talk page before being implemented. Realistically, redirects and moves should always be discussed on the talk page before being implemented, unless some other discussion makes them, like AfD, though this one didn't. Silverseren^C 21:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to undo it then. NW (Talk) 13:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 16:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You should probably call the police

over your latest vandalism. It was likely using a proxy or something, and probably some dumb moron who didn't mean anything by it, but you never know. That kind of shit shouldn't stand and I suspect someone is doing it to make a point. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's JarlaxleArtemis/Johnny the Vandal and their army of /b/ and /v/tards. I doubt the police would do anything, to be honest, although it would be nice if they were at least banned from the Internet. It doesn't really bother me, there are much worse things in life than a thirteen year old trying to act cool by cyberbullying people from their parents' basement. NW (Talk) 19:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize this was a long-term problem. I suppose trying to backtrace the connection has its own inherent social dangers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In search of images

I added an image request for pictures of the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf in this category four days ago, but haven't gotten any response yet. The article is going to be up in the DYK section within the next few days and I think an image or two would really improve the quality of the article before then. What is my best option in terms of getting a proper image? Silverseren^C 19:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried looking through Creative Commons Search or Flickr? If those don't pan out, you could always try looking through Mountaineering forums and send out some emails of people with pictures to see if they would be willing to freely license their material. NW (Talk) 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was sent to this, which is actually one of the references used in the article. In terms of the image, it even says that it is "courtesy of the Fish and Wildlife Service". Does that mean that it's not copyrighted? Silverseren^C 19:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that would fall under {{PD-USGov-Interior-FWS}}, so you should be able to use that image. NW (Talk) 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for all your help. :) Silverseren^C 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I made some important changes. Whenever you upload an image, adding a source is extremely important. If an image does not have one, it may be subject to deletion, no matter what the copyright status is. NW (Talk) 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)