User talk:Tznkai/Archive 3

Reinstatement

Hi. We've never met. I'm Rlevse and a current arb clerk and saw your thread on Raul654's talk page. I've emailed the current arbs (Raul is a former arb) about this. Since I'm not familiar with you at all, other than seeing your name on WP:AC/C before, I asked the arbs and other clerks about whether you should come back as an official clerk or as a trainee for a brief refresher time as official clerking requires arb approval. Welcome back! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're an official clerk again, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Current_Clerks and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#General_discussion. Please add your time zone to "Current Clerks". — Rlevse • Talk • 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back! Anthøny ✉ 11:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Allegations

You picked an unfortunate time to return; your reappearance at the same time that the Poetlist sockpuppet brigade has been unmasked has caused a few people on Wikipedia Review to conclude that you are also part of that sockpuppet ring. I hope you don't mind, but I ran a quick checkuser, to be able to refute this allegation if possible. For anyone watching, you are totally  Unrelated to those other accounts and editing from an entirely different continent. Sorry to barge in like this, but it seemed best to get this nonsense out of the way as quickly as possible. Happy editing. Thatcher 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you're wondering what on earth this is all about: [1] When your name popped up it was a definite wtf? sort of moment. rootology (C)(T) 04:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Christ almighty, if it wasn't so ridiculous I'd be offended. I was trying to talk a situation[2] down, or at least escalate it to more definitive action. Looks like I got caught in a Big Hairy Deal.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got no idea. Even after a couple hours, a dinner and drinks away, I'm still scratching my head at the absurdity of it all. So who are you really a sockpuppet of? Is this Jimmy? :P rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HA! You know, I think thats the second time I've been accused of that, and back when I started, people thought I was a sock because I was a very... uppity and competent newbie.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Errm, Thatcher seems to have beaten me to it. I can corroborate that checkuser result:  Unrelated - sorry about all the hassle - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that claim on ANI threw me for a loop too. I went huh? Glad it's okay. And yes, the timing was not the best, with a 2y 7m gap and all ;-) Glad it's cleared up though! — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at AN/I

Re: this [3], go right ahead. Be my guest. Regarding the issue of Kirker's block, it was a very bad block and I called it as such. If you cynically wish to view me as some kind of puppet for doing so, I guess that's your privilege. If, on the other hand, you choose to actually look into the situation that has aroused my ire so greatly, I'm sure you'll be somewhat more sympathetic. You are also more than welcome to look into my edits to see what kind of user I am. All 2400+ of them. Once again, be my guest. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 24.207.237.221

The edits by 24.207.237.221 follow an existing history that are purposefully have run counter to the guidelines established in WP:TVS -- he refuses to contact or converse with anyone about his edits, and when his edits are reverted, he shifts to a new IP number and begins anew. He is referred to among the members of the WP:TVS project as the "St. Louis Vandal," primarily because many of his edits are tied to St. Louis television stations. Recently, the St. Louis Vandal has been tied to BenH, who has also created an established pattern of abuse. There has been an ongoing discussion over time regarding his abuse on the talk page at WP:TVS. --Mhking (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, to me it looked like BenH. I could be wrong, but the edits, with adding "KMOV-TV/DT St. Louis, MO" to the call letters, looked like a BenH edit. If I was wrong on tagging 24.207.237.221 as a BenH sockpuppet, I do greatly apologize. - NeutralHomer • Talk 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...just let me know of the link to the AN-AN/I discussion and I will be glad to comment. BenH (and Dingbat2007 too) need to just go away. One of those new global blocks would do the trick. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

You requested a UBX for inviting people to improve an article on the IRC. Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to post this there, but I've just created one for you. Use {{User:UBX/improvepage|[[article]]}} to show the following:

Tznkai invites you to improve [[article]].

I know it's a little bland so feel free to change it and spice it up a bit if you so feel the need :)

Kind regards

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits on Template:Islam

Dear Tznkai, editor user:Enzuru removes the "Politics of Islam " and "Jurispudence of Islam" from the template of Islam. The view is shaped by User:Enzuru's understanding of Islam and based on his perception of Politics and Jurisputance rather than the factuality. Removing these issues (look at this edit [4]) or moving beyond the visible sight (look at this edit [5]) is a clear violation of POV. these concepts are currently, and correctly, represented by many sub articles in Wikipedia. The editor also accepts that removal of them is a NPOV violation (look at this edit [6]). The editor claims that NPOV tag can stay at the template forever. (look at this edit [7]) The editor claims that he will support only one link to these concepts. The articles regarding "Politics of Islam" and "Jurispudence of Islam" are not single articles (complex issues). They are not created by me. It can not be claimed that they are reflecting my point of view. Besides, there is not a single article regarding "Jurispudence of Islam." This editors activity is a clear violation of NPOV policy. As an administrator, could you guide this user to be more sensitive regarding to the policies of wikipedia. I tried to achieve this but I have problem in understanding why he is linking these major concepts to "Prayer." If he thinks "Prayer" is a major concept, he can add that to the template. I do not see the link between these issues. If he thinks the template is too big, the shape and size can be changed (format of the template). The content has to be true to the concept. Thank You--TarikAkin (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me Tznkai. What he said isn't true, I am the one who put politics in there, I said over and over that we do not need an entire section for each topic in the template. I am the one who put the link to politics in there. I said yes, the NPOV can stay in there if you want, but that won't make me budge my situation. He has repeatedly ignored what I have been trying to say: that we don't need a category for each section! If we had a section for each topic, we would have a very long template: we just need a single link. --Enzuru 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Its clear to me from the article's edit history that the two of you, and the two of you alone, have been fighting over this issue. There is no consensus, there is an absolute loss of good faith, borderline incivility, personal attacks, and fighting over the definition of policies over common sense I suggest you both visit WP:DR, but first take a multi hour wiki break. This message is cross posted to both of your talk pages--Tznkai (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping calm me down and avoid a possible block. I don't usually get into issues like that, I've been on here for years. To be honest, if we had a third-party voice from the beginning none of this would have happened (unfortunately we didn't, the people I tried getting before didn't come). Thanks again. --Enzuru 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User 76.117.6.149

Thank you; looks like someone else took action and blocked him [8]. Magidin (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerking

Do you feel there are any problems associated with leaving Wikipedia for two years, then immediately reassuming your role as clerk upon your return? I personally have some concerns about it—at the very least, shouldn't there be a readjustment phase, catching up on everything that's happened in the last two years and how things may have changed in ways relevant to arbitration? Everyking (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I gathered that from the first section on this page, and of course I realize it was approved; I'm just concerned about whether it's wise to hop immediately back into such a role after such a long absence. Everyking (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So you aren't going to explain it? The long absence, the desire to immediately reassume a position of substantial responsibility upon return? What about the concerns—are they valid? Did you follow Wikipedia issues, particularly arbitration issues, to some extent during your absence? In other words, do you feel sufficiently "up-to-date"? Everyking (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add that those who are used to seeing the usual suspects clerking cases may be confused when they see a new name suddenly pop up clerking. 30 months is an awfully long time on Wikipedia. As I said on AN, some degree of easing your way back in first would be good. Things do change, and you weren't around for the discussions involving Sceptre's block. Please don't take this the wrong way. Just consider that those who weren't around when you were editing two years ago will take a while to adjust to someone returning like this. Carcharoth (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Tznkai. I started nosing around to see if you were a renamed account, but then I did the obvious thing and looked here for the explanation. It might be a good idea to announce yourself at WP:AN and WT:RFAR to make sure the current regulars know who you are. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakhtun Tanoli

The vandal I reported is everything else but a confused newbie. Please check this guy and his vast list of suspected socks and you will see how all the edits are similar. Actually this is the fifth or so time an IP in that range has been spamming my talk page with some Tanoli tribe nonsense. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's a list of edits: [9], [10], [11] and corresponding admin action, [12] and [13]. De728631 (talk)

What is strange though, is that Pakhtun Tanoli has a number of confirmed and blocked socks, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pakhtun Tanoli, but his original account itself seems to be open. I'll move this to WP:ANI. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WB

Welcome back! My goodness, Tzn, I didn't think I'd ever see you again. This is good news. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I never encountered you the first time round, but you certainly seem to be the sort of person we need more of around here with all the sheer crap that goes on. Welcome back. Orderinchaos 18:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi thing

In the interests of disengaging, I'm not going to respond further, I'll let others decide what, if anything, needs done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin, oil and gas, and 99RR

You gots it? My spousal unit is looking neglected. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

At your service. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The edit was not exactly a revert - Books commented out my version, can you see the new "< !-- ... -- >".

Thanks & goodnight. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin stuff

Just FYI - if you're going to walk into the bear pit of the Palin articles, here is a rundown of the current memes. Yes, I know it's just a blog and not an RS, but it's a first introduction of some of the stuff that's been circulating, and has some useful links to real reliable sources. At some point or another, I have seen every single one of these memes pushed at the Palin articles. Thanks so much for stepping up. With respect, and best wishes - Kelly ^hi! 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of recurring memes, Tznkai, that ground rule against accusations of cabalism didn't last long. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. However, it would be difficult to call it "tag-teaming" if two editors didn't make the exact same edit as each other over and over. Kelly ^hi! 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are alternate explanations: for example, that jossi and I agree on that particular issue. That's where good faith can be useful. You seem to be moving in the opposite direction by adding a side of insinuations of bias. I'm not willing to discuss this further with you as long as you persist in ascribing all disagreement with your position to "cabalism" and "tag-teaming". MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the cabalism and tag-teaming are not my primary concern, I'm sorry for that. But I find it disturbing the identical edit is repeatedly inserted by both you and Jossi without addressing the BLP and REDFLAG concerns, in addition to the serious problems with the source. Kelly ^hi! 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If the two of you continue fighting on my talk page while I should be sleeping, I will be most displeased. For the record, this conversation should have gone.

• MastCell: "Tznkai, you may want to look at the talk page, it seems things are getting ugly again"
• Kelly: "I feel like I'm being ganged up on by Jossi and Mastcell"
• Mastcell: "I assure you I am not ganging up on you, I just agree with Jossi on this issue."
• Kelly: I still feel like my concerns are not being addressed, could you do so please?"
• Mastcell: "Certainly."

--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. :) Goodnight! - Kelly ^hi! 04:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

At AN, you said of Cenarium's post: A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. Not so. Only one was a proofing effort, and it was a bad one which moved the article from being inside the guidelines to being outside them. While drama reduction is good, best ensure one does not attempt it at the expense of the facts, especially as an admin commenting on admin actions. 86.44.28.222 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable Usenet personalities

Thanks for the offer to have a look at this page. I've summarised the issue in the discussion section, below your comment, in as few lines as possible. I think the issue was an over-zealous admin lockdown of the page associated with reverting to a version preceding the creation of a section about Doug Bollen, which had not been controversial and which seemed to have reasonable agreement in the discussion section. Lotaresco (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin page

I think your suggestions are reasonable. For my part, I'm happy to do other stuff, as I find the editing environment there currently untenable. I don't really have enough investment in the page to make mediation worthwhile; I got involved because I saw repeated and egregious violations of 3RR justified with BLP, and my involvement was focused on pointing out that a BLP exemption to edit-warring did not apply in this case. I regret being sucked in further than that, but when the attempted resolution met with aggressive posturing, I felt that a 3RR report was justified. I've already been on self-imposed 1RR at most on the page, and I think I'll limit my talk-page involvement to further discussion of the Washington Times article, if that. I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to deal with editors who are convinced they're at war, and some of the behavioral issues are bothering me to the point that I'm not sure I can edit effectively there. I do hope you find a solution to the ongoing edit-warring, and I'll keep an eye out; if the atmosphere becomes more tolerable, I'll probably resume editing, though again under self-imposed 1RR. Good luck. MastCell ^Talk 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the environment around those articles is not conducive to a healthy perspective or approach to Wikipedia, and I'd like to stop going down that path sooner rather than later. Experience tells me that the people who most need to take a break are the least likely to do so voluntarily, but the more cool heads there, the better. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock thing at ANI

Hello Tznkai. Can I give a character reference for a couple of people involved in this debate? I've only superficially looked at any new data, and it is certainly possible that people who've behaved well in the past could really be socks. I've interacted with AlasdairGreen27 on some sockpuppet cases, and his contribs were made in good faith, though I didn't always agree with his deductions. Rjecina has been involved in many controversies, and admits his limited knowledge of English. He's always seemed to me well-intentioned, though anyone can get carried away in the heat of a debate.

An additional quirk is that many of these editors have had sockpuppet cases filed against them in the past, or have filed cases themselves, and they by now are very familiar with the SSP and RFCU machinery, as well as ANI. The case that Rjecina has just filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc seems to me sweeping and excessive, though Velebit is a true sockpuppetteer dealt with long ago. Enter this realm only if you are willing to be very patient :-). EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I was told about that sockpuppet request too and made a comment there about how excessive it is (it actually needs the original sockmaster, per the instructions). As User:Rjecina told me, "Because of my "interesting" vandal revert policy I am always in contact with administrators and until now I am OK." Can you offer a suggestion how to make it clear that repeated sockpuppet allegations, especially on evidence like "he used the word 'we'" and "they supported each other", aren't going to help things along? I'm almost tempted to block Rjecina for repeated sockpuppet allegations against everyone who disagrees with them. Also, sorry you got dragged into this mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good night free of stalking sockpuppets! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You asked

... so here it is:

1. 03:34, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG per long-running talk page discussion")
2. 16:46, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ NPOV again")
3. 17:02, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Lobbyists */ section still NPOV, single source. See talk.")
4. 21:08, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ removing prayer mention per WP:BRD, undue weight - see talk")
5. 22:08, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ non-notable quote, not a political position")
6. 22:09, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Iraq */ non-notable quote, not a political position")

And that is only today/

—≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See

[14] — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the acknowledgment on my talk page.

You might look at this if you have time- need all the input possible (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

... would be best to leave semi-prot as per other US elections related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there Tznkai. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology block apology

I just made this comment on the Parapsychology talk page, and inserted it beneath my original comments, not at the bottom. As an apology it needed to be placed closer to my offending comments, I believe. I wanted to be sure that you saw my apology.

I need to apologize to Tznkai. I have just now followed some links through various arbcoms, RFC, RFAs, etc., etc., and it is like walking through a war zone in Bosnia. Can't people just get along?? Based on the history between these two, of which I was not aware, I understand better your determination to bust in when you did. I apologize for saying that you overreached. --nemonoman (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre

Can you please indicate to me where the decision was made to revert the indefinite ban? Never mind -- found it here. Redelete on its way. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk template

I've created a template shortening the work for you, it is the same thing as used on your userpage, converted to template form. Cheers. —Sunday ^Scribe 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder this morning. Guettarda (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

and thanks for a different reason.[15] --Abd (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Look at the history. I didn't want to put a time limit on the semiprotect because that also limits the moveprotect. Feel free to remove the semi whenever you want. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sarah Palin

This seemed like a fairly clear-cut case of edit warring to me, and I did block him; however, I suppose I should have been more descriptive with my edit summary. I'll try harder on that in the future, thanks for the note. GlassCobra 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

locked page

Perhaps locking it is best, I have no desire to get into an edit war, however with 4 or 5 editors involved it might turn into one anyway. Let's hope this forces everyone to actually use the talk page and obtain some consensus. Sorry if I made your job a little harder. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

let me see if I can say this correctly without putting my foot in it.

I assume your comment was directed towards me regarding abuse of process. If it wasn't then I have put my foot in it, and please accept my apologies.

If it was directed towards me then I don't really understand. By the time I had edited that article for first time in my wikipedia history, the user in question had already made six reverts. She had already been warned for 3RR on that article by another user - she was well aware of 3RR. I'm sorry but I don't see it being my responsibility to warn a user who has already made six reverts, as they have already gone way over the threshold - if I was an ass, and goaded someone into making their 4th revert, then jumped straight to making a 3RR report, then yeah, I would agree with you.

I don't see her edits being within the exceptions to the 3RR rule, maybe 1 or 2 were borderline, but it certainly the vast majority were content disputes and in my inexperienced opinion, well within what the 3RR is there to prevent.

But then again, I may have totally misunderstood what you were trying to say, either way for my own curiosity I would love it if you could indulge me and clarify this. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, what you put on my talk page made sense. I think it is hard to count reverts, especially when they are different reverts on the same article and you are working on several closely related articles. It would be nice if the 3RR rule require a specific warning relating to the article you are about to/have just made a 4th revert on, before a 3RR report could be made. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(old stuff deleted and now new question)

Is it important to put in my complaint against Kelly her incivility and Kelly's insistence that her own research trump all published sources? Or should I just put in her reversions? (34 over 3 days and I honestly don't know how many of them fit the technical defintion of "reversion")GreekParadise (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have decided - on Doug's good advice -- not to file a complaint against Kelly and to start anew. But I am curious. Can you file a report on someone in general for incivility? Or for insisting that own research trumps published sources? Or just 3RR? You may respond on my talk page if you like and delete this.GreekParadise (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The committee acknowledge...

Read American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement for why "the committee acknowledge" is acceptable (as well as being the wording used by the committee). DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - we already had the discussion of it on the case talk page! DuncanHill (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly block

Since Kelly alleges that you're not a neutral admin in this situation, I've asked for someone to look into it at WP:AN. Cla68 (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw the ANI notice. Cla68 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, as a gesture of good faith, may I suggest that you to undo the block and let someone else impose it. I agree that you may not be an uninvolved admin in this case. You two seem to have been going at it for a while. Hope you accept this in the helpful spirit in which it is offered. Ronnotel (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I think consensus at ANI has turned against the block. Would you please unblock Kelly?--chaser - t 04:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Bstone (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to refrain from getting involved in these kind of matters so soon after your return. It is only natural that you'd need an adjustment period to familiarize yourself with how the community functions at this point. With regards to admin matters, I'd suggest sitting back and observing for a while. Everyking (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness! I would have to say that Tznkai, though maybe a little inexperienced, did a reasonable thing. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the community is currently divided over the concept of civility blocks. I for one think that civility blocks cause more disruption than they prevent, so they should not be used. It is better, I think, to point out incivility and get neutral parties to ask the editor to refactor. People become uncivil when they lose their cool. Pressurizing them does not help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, minus the part about "neutral parties". As I explained in ANI, I am not involved, I am "neutral." I operated only as an administrator, and used that discretion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If I can offer what I hope is constructive feedback, based on my observations and my own trial-and-error process: I think the ultimatum ("You have ten minutes") backed both you and Kelly into a corner. It basically left Kelly with no "out" - he could either grudgingly and humiliatingly capitulate to the threat of force, or defiantly force your hand. There was no face-saving way for him to back down or refactor at that point. Similarly, it painted you into a corner - you lost the ability to de-escalate and negotiate a better solution, because once Kelly disregarded the ultimatum, you had no face-saving alternative to blocking him. I'm not speaking from the moral high ground here - I've painted myself into similar and worse corners - but just offering advice as one admin to another. FWIW, the tendency for people to unthinkingly swallow and regurgitate the "involved admin" line is one of the more annoying idiocies which have recently come to dominate Wikipedia, but such is life. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Block is ok, IMHO. People should remain civil at all times. (I'm open to anyone explaining to me why the block would be wrong?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, yeah... I'm pretty busy, but still casually active. Thanks for noticing! David Bergan (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Debate

On the Abortion debate talk, I've proposed removing the "Church And State" section. As a contributor to the article before, I'd like for you to weigh in on the article talk page. Thanks. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk page

Tznkai, in response to your comments:

Danny, let it go. We can't synthesis Behe's views from various of his quotes without it being original research. Further revisions back and forth of the talk page constitute edit warring, and while I can't shouldn't block the people who are doing it myself, I have no problem wasting my time putting together a 3RR report that will probably end with two 24 hour blocks. Now, do we have a reliable neutral source on whether Behe is a creationist? (Note, Dawkin's as quoted in the Behe article doesn't count. He's an expert biologist, not an expert on creationists)--Tznkai (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to respond:

Please don't lecture and threaten. It's tedious and annoying. If you can offer suggestions that will improve the article or encourage dialogue then do so. This pointless diatribe is exactly the kind of frustrating, non-productive banter I was referring to in my comments which Dave Souza removed. - DannyMuse (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of historical editing history, I am including this additional comment on your post from Jim62sch:

Tznkai, who is even near 3RR on the talk page? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become MySpace

Hi Tznkai. I just noticed this mess. I just skimmed it, but let me get this straight - the block was undone because you aren't considered "uninvolved" re:FM? Granted, it was a couple years ago, but if my memory serves me, you disagreed with FM more than you agreed with him on the ID pages. I mean, not serious angry clashes, but fundamental enough differences. Or have I confused things? Guettarda (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This place has gone beyond crazy. As I recall, clashing with someone because you called them out on their misbehaviour wasn't considered "involvement". Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about FuelWagon. A good example of why simply agreeing with someone ideologically isn't reason enough to want them to stick around. Guettarda (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's half of it. If you want, look into the User:Moulton saga. After getting banned from Wikipedia he spent half a year on WikipediaReview building what became the "IDCab" meme. It got re-imported here in a fight a couple months ago. Actually it was more of a "perfect storm"...we (the ID editors) fell afoul of the image-deletion crew. One of them identified himself as being in the US military, and was editing pretty much all day...so Jim asked whether he had permission to edit on the job (Jim works for the government, knows the regulations for using government computers). Anyway, the editor filed an RFAR against Jim for harassment, and then quit Wikipedia. (He had posted his picture, identified his unit...probably realised he could get in real trouble for editing on the job.) OM, as a former officer, jumped in. Anyway, Jim has never been one to mince words. He got slapped around a little for incivility, said "don't threaten people", nothing too serious. But it earned both of them the enmity of that editor's friends.

Fast forward a few months, and OrangeMarlin was a bit too quick to assume ill intent on an edit to a vaguely ID article. And I managed to make things worse. Ended up on AN/I, we had a couple threads dedicated to us at Wikipedia Review, and User:Sceptre filed an RFAR, which grew into two competing RFCs. Oh, and then User:Filll sent out a few emails notifying people of an RFA by a WikipediaReview regular. So, Jim's incivility means that all ID editors are "highly uncivil" (and thus, you're free to be rude to them). Filll's canvassing (three emails apparently - in an RFA that hit 100 supports within a couple hours, and hit 300 supports before it crashed and burned...someone was canvassing supports) means that "all" ID editors canvass votes. Or some crap like that. I miss the old days when I was only getting hit with that sort of venom on talk:ID.

It's far too late to undo the mess, but it has turned into a real slur. A. Define someone as a member of the "IDCab". B. Use that assertion :) of membership (sometimes very tenuous indeed) as the reason to attack them. C. Use B. as a reason to dismiss all other arguments. Guettarda (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More than trust in admins...politics and the evolution of the community. Wikipedia has become MySpace. Too many people focus on becoming admins, or on trying to become someone on ANI. The community is just terribly fractured. Guettarda (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ay, reaching for my {{npov}} and {{OR}} tags for that version of the origin of the ID cabal meme and how it relates to civility on Wikipedia. Now, a balanced version might also account for how scores of hardworking FAC and FAR editors saw some distinct unpleasantness on a widely followed talk page and formed their own opinions, without ever going anywhere near WikiReview. But yes, the community is terribly fractured, not only because of admin abuse, but also because of IRC abuse (and other backchannel and off-Wiki cabalish forms of communication) and a failing and partisan ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust in admins at all time low?

• nod* Mostly due to RFA being wrong-headed. Actually, there's not much right-headedness left around here :-/ Still, gotta keep trying eh? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Issue

I think I agree with the above users concerning Wikipedia. anyway, I have a topic I would like to discuss with you. I would prefer to do that off Wikipedia, if you will oblige me. I can appreciate that you have a pretty good sense of humor. regards to you. Moonlight25 (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion

There is a related discussion taking place here--Domer48_'fenian' 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your actions on AE

I know that the topic probably has you tensed up, and you're probably reading ahead, waiting for the first inective so here it is.... F@*$ing well done. No joke. I've spent the best part of a year trying to get everyone to behave.. the fighting is pretty much non-stop (and the guy who asked me to look in on it has now left WP for good apparently. I didn't comment more then the base because well, at this point I was in so deep that you probably didn't want people who hadn't stepped knee deep into the muck trying to clean it out (Alison and I both qualify under that category). If you ever want background, or want to know my thoughts on working with various editors, please don't hesitate to contact me here, via email or (when I'm on it), IRC. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why I have been placed on 2 months probation for disruptive editing. I can not find any. Or will I just get the usual wall of silence that has been pervasive from admins lately.BigDunc^Talk 08:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Other notes

I have already made the comments on the board mentioned, apologies however i have only just noticed your comments to bring any further advice on the editors conducts be brought to your talk page; as follows:

Tznkai i think you have been very fair with a very difficult situation administering everyone here. Further to user Ryan Postlethwaite comments regarding the edit warring of user Sarah777 , I would also like to add that this user (Sarah777]] is less than civil on the talk pages with this shocking statement comparing British people to Nazi`s here [16] and a futher more worrying comment here [17] which was commented on by a admin as being racist here [18] --Rockybiggs (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

probation

What edit warring?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They call that ignoring all the rules. Leaving that edit intact rewards an editor for taking advantage of a block, she would have waited for the other two to wear themselves out, and then changed the article to suit herself. That is not the kind of behaviour that can be tolerated. aside from which, one edit disruption does not make.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not what is right, what my opinion on the content is largely irrelevant. The point is the behaviour was cynical and unacceptable. Also, that one edit does not warrant probation.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you TU and can you honestly say that I have edit warred on any article in the month of September. BigDunc^Talk 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't attempt to. There have been far more problematic months than this, it is a strange<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script> concept to try to clam a storm that has, for the time being at least, passed.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'm entitled to be shown the diffs for the "edit warring" you refer to? Please show them. Sarah777 (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

@Sarah777, I've posted a detailed analysis of your September edits on your Talk page. @Tznkai - I encourage you to take a look. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai; i believe this editor Highking should be considered for possible probation, as this user has a very long history of being involved in the `troubles` articles as well as removing the British isles from Wikipedia.--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a specific and recent diff, or don't bring it up at all.--Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tznkai. In fact, Rocky couldn't be further from the truth. I avoid all article relating to the troubles - I've no idea why he's trying to stir up mischief (or maybe someone else does....anyone?) --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tznkai. Your last edit on Sarah777's talk page was to say "I will reexamine the issue after I have responded to the other editors sanctioned". Can I ask how you're progressing with that as I think it's important that the issue is re-examined, and quickly. If it's going to take some time, I recommend that we use an innocent until proven guilty approach and lift the probation unless and until we're certain it's necessary and justifiable. I'm minded to lift it myself but don't wish to start a wheel-war. If in doubt, perhaps a discussion at WP:AN would be a good idea to see what the wider admin community thinks. Cheers, Waggers (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Email en route. Risker (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocks of Giano...

...always wind up at ANI, so I've brought this one there myself: [19]. Just to let you know. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I included the context I thought was necessary; I apologize if I missed anything material. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could add this Admins behaviour on my talkpage to the case? Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

...don't work. Jehochman ^Talk 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest in future you leave Wikipedia to those who wish to write it, and confine yourself to IRC, where you are doubtless more at home. Giano (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a very nice thing to say. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The truth seldom is. Giano (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this Admin/editor(?) realise that it's a long way to China if he insists on keeping on digging that hole he's in. Surely there is a limit even to where the 'Admin Community' will go to defend the indefensible? Or am I naive? Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense...

...but it's becoming pretty apparent that you're out of touch with how blocks work on Wikipedia nowadays. Maybe you should ease yourself back in - how long has it been since you wrote a quality article for Wikipedia? Kelly ^hi! 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, in light of your long absence and controversial record since your return, have you considered standing for RfA again, or opening yourself to recall? I feel that your administrative conduct has been unwise, and I also feel that an active administrator ought to contribute to articles at least occasionally. Everyking (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai: You're doing a good job. I prefer different methods these days, but your approach has results, and is not particularly wrong. Of course, by being forceful, you're also going to be questioned.

Do keep checking to make sure you're not making any errors, and do engage with others and explain what you are doing.

(Also, I'd love to convert you to the light side of course, but that's a different story :-) )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

CU case

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ubgatsby, interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Article

I liked the policy link you provided to no-no... Gave me my laugh for the day. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

UDR

Tznkai I have tried but Thunderer just comes out with the same tired accusations every time I edit and if you look at the history you will see that every edit I have made has been reverted by him. What am I supposed to do consensus was reached on the talk page yet content is still not in the article. Could you please give me some advice on how to proceed here because I really don't know if it is possible to work with a WP:SPA who doesn't WP:AGF with any edits I make. BigDunc^Talk 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:

Were is the edit war which prompted the page to be blocked. Please bear in mind the article is under WP:1RR.

Show me, by way of diff’s what and were I have done something which warrants a Page/Troubles ban?

On the talk page, could you show me were I may have been uncivil or disruptive in your opinion?

On the Article, could you show me by way of diff's were I may have breech sanctions or been disruptive in your opinion.

I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Rather than address the questions I put forward here, you went to the AE and posed some for me, which I have now responded to here. I hope I addressed my self to the questions to your satisfaction. Could you now please extent a similar courtesy here, and address my questions in a similar fashion.

You have again proposed sanctions on me without first illustrating the reasons why? In your comment on AE you say quite clearly that you have not even started to catalogue them, and yet you propose sanctions. How can I respond to your accusations, when I don’t know what it is I’m supposed to have done? Please with respect, answer the questions above, and then allow me the opportunity to respond, thanks in advance, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Linked discussion here. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross posted from my talk

I haven't attempted to, nor do I attempt to impose anything. I have been engaging in discussion and making proposals: more than you or anyone else has done to attempt to address the problem. You have a better idea, go right ahead, thats part of the wiki way.--Tznkai (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously your research has let you down since you do not have access to my e-mails to parties in this dispute, nor have you noted my contributions to AE over the last 2 weeks, my comment to Domer48 on their talk page, messages to the Thunderer to slow down and a detailed proposal to try and facilitate a resolution through a detailed RFC on the article talk page. Nor have you noticed the big red away sticker at the top of my talk page pointing out that I have been unavailable for most of this week. I'm sorry if my e-mail offended you but you must admit that you do have a history in imposing solutions without first obtaining consensus and I took your recent comments to parties on their talk page to suggest you were planning further intevention. I'm sorry if I misread that but right now we need more discussion and less action until we have an agreed plan. sticking plasters do not work in this case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

Tznkai could you have a word with this editor. Is he supposed to be neutral if he is too become a mentor for The Thunderer with comments like this he is staring off on an antagonistic vein and I will not stand for accusations about tag team partners any longer. As this was a cry of the Thunderer and now his mentor is echoing these cries. Thanks. BigDunc^Talk 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

will look at it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty and homophobia

I have to disagree with you on that last one. It is a well known fact that throwing child sex accusations into the face of homosexuals is a homophobic slur. That editor's consistent reduction of age-structured homosexuality (a phenomenon that ranges from legal to illegal, and from sexual to chaste) to child buggering is an attack on a legitimate homosexual practice. Having said that, what is your suggestion regarding dealing with an editor who gives proof of racism, chauvinism, or homophobia in his edits? Haiduc (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See my response at my talk page. Haiduc (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

yet another Irish Brushfire.

See discussion at Talk:Flag of the Republic of Ireland. Wonder if we're going to have to step in there, generally. SirFozzie (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert

The solutions to both problems, vandalism and stupidity, is very often the same. Treating them differently could lead to one becoming the other.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When does this stop?

[20] and [21]. The amount of abuse this editor is willing to hurl at me, not to mention other editors, is seemingly limitless. I don't really know how to begin to address this. Nandesuka (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Hello Tznkai. As I feared, the discussion at AE over this editor was eventually archived without resolution. It appears you may be busy, which I understand because I am also at the moment, but did you ever make any progress on your proposed solution? I ask, because whether on purpose or by accident, Vk has not got himself involved in another article on a geo-political conflict that would, by the original intent of the restrictions, have been off-limits. See Talk:ETA#Revisit terrorist discussion.

While I actually agree with his take on the subject, his comments on that page illustrate perfectly why those sort of articles should be off-limits to him indefinitely. He is aggressive, confrontational, rude and immediately personalizes the issue by accusing others of bad faith editing. This is exactly what we don't need when discussing contentious subjects, and this is why it was roundly agreed that Vk could continue to edit only if he avoided these subjects. I was going to inform Vk that this page was off-limits to him per his conditions. However that would simply cause more diversionary bleating about bias. Therefore would you mind having a look and addressing this however best you see fit (I have pointed a few other admins towards this also). Thanks. Rockpocket 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You really are an obessed little man arnt you. Havent you got anything else to do with your life but follow me around wikipedia? Please do explain how the ETA could ever be off limits to me? Is it an Irish/British geo-political dispute? Or is it a Baronet? No and no! nice to see you running to Tznkai where you know you will get a warm reception.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As this was also brought to my attention, I have responded here. Risker (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unified discussion is good, so I will be responding here as well.--Tznkai (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually British geo-political disputes includes Falklands and Gibralter. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Heart warming!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama talk thread on race

Would you please consider refactoring your set-up of the Obama race discussion,[22] and not being such an aggressive traffic cop in favor of your set-up?[23][24] I'm afraid that when you close an AN/I thread to restart a perennial discussion with the accusation that other editors have engaged in "ridiculous behavior" you are blurring the line between administrative work and content editing, and doing yourself exactly what editors are not supposed to be doing on the Obama talk page: accusing other editors of bad behavior. It may be unwise to begin with to star the discussion with a threat that it should not be archived. The RfC process is possibly better suited. But in any event, the bolded statement that other editors engaged in "ridiculous behavior" will probably act against consensus and goodwill. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to cause problems but I strongly believe that he was calling me insane, not you. I would appreciate if the very top of the thread did not refer to me as having sanity issues. I don't guess it's a big deal but I'd like to see it removed. I'm not all that offeneded, but it is a personal attack no matter how you spin it. Landon1980 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was never meant for you; we edit-conflicted. I have now moved it above yours so it is clear. Hugs and kisses and ice cream for everyone now? Tarc (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter who it was directed at? I'm the one with a POV now aren't I? Peronal attacks are personal attacks and should not be tolerated, you are even willing to edit war to keep it there. Landon1980 (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom statement

Your statement was well over 400 words, and I've removed it pending trimming.--Tznkai (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"You stated it was +650 when it was 629 words (according to MS Word). Thats 3,620 characters including spaces spaces. -- Cat ^chi? 04:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also why did you even blank it? Bishzilla was kindly warned, I wasn't given that courtesy. -- Cat ^chi? 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My word counting software said 651, but either way its over 400, and Bishzilla's was more questionable since it was a gif, and it was initiated by another user. At any rate, just trim it and put it back, or link to something in your userspace.--Tznkai (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You do not count the invisible words like the one in links that are not shown to the reader. :)

Giving me the courtesy of a warning before blanking wouldn't hurt you know. I created a sub page as I am not going to compromise from the meaning over a mere 129 words.

-- Cat ^chi? 05:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal details

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The Arbcom have very conscously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my personal problems can prevent them from abusing their "secret knowledge" about me. I shall refrain from saying what I think of them for that trick. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc

This is directly contradicted by the quotes that I provided at the bottom of the page. He clearly took the section out of context, and is trying to say 100% opposite of the source. This needs to stop. He needs to be banned from these pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Setanta747

Sorry, we edit-conflicted. I don't think this is a controversial block - can you suggest why it isn't a simple violation of the arbitration? Black Kite 19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Any article in which edit-warring occurs involving the insertion/removal of the Ulster Banner is automatically included in the probation - that's why it was specifically included in the Arbitration Probation statement. It was one of the main loci of the original problem. To be honest, if I'd seen S747's edits without the AE thread I would've blocked without a second thought. Black Kite 19:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Please don't remove it from the page until they answer my question about AfDs. Everyking (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's please wait for further comment. Everyking (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Googlean and User:Avinesh. So shouldn't the related SSP case also be closed? --vi5in^[talk] 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, ok! Thanks! --vi5in^[talk] 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Section_break_2 This should help you to understand the real facts !-- Tinu Cherian - 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

In case you hadn't seen it, Haiduc stopped by the noticeboard. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude

I'm not claiming you're wrong, but revert-and-protect always looks bad. You might want to reconsider. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements

Please undo your protection immediately. Not only were you in an edit war on that page, you reverted the other warrer (with rollback no less) immediately before protecting, thus violating protection policy. There's no reason to keep hiding that thread pretending it never happened. Please undo and leave it be. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can supress the truth and Jimbo and tha Arbs wil admire you for it - but you can't stop it coming out! Giano (talk) 23

08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suppressing the truth? Its like, everywhere on the wiki by now, just not on the withdrawn candidates talk page which has, I'll wager few users that are not in common with Jimbo's talk page. You've got your message on the public forum.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protection on ACE page

(Originally a response to How do you turn this thing on)

Not all edit wars were created equal - In this case, there is blatant drama mongering. The standard course of action would be to block Giano, but since I am trying to control the forest fire and reduce drama, I obviously am not going to do that. I am not enforcing a content position, I am stamping down on disruptive editing. Giano can, and has taken the issue up on Jimbo's page, RfAr and a number of individual talk pages, none of which I particularly care to do anything about, as those are logical places to take up the argument.

And no, there wasn't harm for a while. The previous Scott v. Secret argument was shut up after I shut the thread down the first time, Giano brought it back up, but the argument had essentially stopped, so no big deal. Giano's last entry however, was inflammatory, and as I have stated, drama mongering. That takes the thread out of useful/harmless to disruptive, thus the action.--Tznkai (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Gerard's block was out of line, as has been acknowledged by admins, arbitrators, and checkusers alike. Let someone else be the judge of whether it need protecting or not, since you're part of the dispute. And why oh why did you use rollback to your version, and then protect? Really really bad idea. I'm not the only who thinks this, I see. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment on Gerard's block on the off chance he comes to Arbitration and I clerk the case. When that is no longer a threat I will gladly share my opinion to anyone who wants it. Until then, I have no comment, and will not respond to any points on it, except for pointing out the obvious as I did on Giano's talk page.

As for the rest... this isn't a content dispute. This is a thread causing disruption, and me taking administrative action. You disagree with it? Fine. Find an administrator to override me. But in this case, rolling back Giano's rollback and page protecting was the best option to remove the drama mongering edit without causing far more meatball:forestfire prone drama.--Tznkai (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a word?

Hi Tznkai , I believe I may have made a mistake yesterday, when I suggested that Thunderer be unblocked. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However today, despite our unblock requests and their undertaking, they have gone and reverted five times on the USC Article, [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. Now I gave a very detailed rational on the talk page here so there is no reason to be consistently reverting me. Could you please ask them to stop now, because its getting ridiculous. Now Jehochman suggest I contact you or WP:AE, I came here hoping for less drama, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai could you possibly have a look at this here. Dunc, Sunray and myself are discussing this very issue of reverting at mediation here, as it is an issue of major concern. Since leaving, Thunderer has made fifteen reverts, including an edit war with the Mediator. On the North Irish Horse article, it’s the very same issue which resulted in seven 3RR reports and a trip to AE. In fairness, AE did offer advice, none of which is heeded. My main concern now, is that this recent revert spree will disrupt the current discussion at mediation. I’m eager to get moving on it, and build on the progress made. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Point of order

When you drop a link into a block log [30], could you please use a permanent link? I am trying to check this out, and man, I've got to search the ANI archives. Jehochman ^Talk 10:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me any evidence that Googlean = Avinesh, such as a positive checkuser result? The ANI thread is not convincing me. Jehochman ^Talk 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to mediation participants

Thank you for your note to the participants in the UDR mediation. They managed to get many people involved in their squabbles. You hit on concerns that the mediators have been trying to get across, such as the need each to be responsible for his own behaviour and not that of others. Hopefully your words will sink in. Things are quiet for the moment and I hope that, if and when they return to the mediation, they will mediate seriously and in good faith. Sunray (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Thanks for the note. Anything to smooth the process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving clerk notes for cases

Hi there. I was linking from somewhere to this comment, and I was trying to find out whether it had been archived on the Cold fusion case pages. I've been looking but can't find the clerk notes there. I notice some cases have clerk notes, but some don't. Do you know what the usual practice is with regards to archiving clerk notes or not? Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sure I'd seen them on some pages, but maybe I was misremembering. Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, do you have Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration watchlisted? I asked some questions there, but it seems to be a slow day today on some pages. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The blocking, unblocking, blocking etc etc; of Giano II

Hiya Tznkai. Forgive my naivety, but why is there always a 'high drama' around blocking/unblocking Giano? I've no problem with G personally; but I'm perplexed with the 'stay away from him' aura. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'm just a curious bloke, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not contact me regarding RfArb/Cold fusion

Please do not contact me on my talk page regarding RfArb/Cold fusion. I would like to receive no notification of any decisions at that location. All further communication regarding this case should be done over e-mail. I will no longer be discussing anything related to the arbitration above board on Wikipedia.

Thank you.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC removal

Hi Tznkai - I don't think that removing the RfC on date linking was the best option. A lot of editors have made useful comments there without any personal attacks, and I don't think those contributions should be lost. If any action is necessary to stop incivility, I think it would be better to target it at the editors and not the discussion (or if at the discussion, in a way that it can continue). I agree that there is little to be gained from the discussion other than peace and quiet, but that peace and quiet is badly needed given the number of separate arguments going on over this (AN/I AN/EW1, An/EW2 AN/EW3 AN/EW4, User_talk:Tennis Expert, Master of Puppets, Colonies Chris, Tony1, HJensen, Ohconfucius Rambling Man on Tour...) - if that isn't evidence that this needs sorting I don't know what is. Unfortunately, I can't see anything other than an RfC on this matter being accepted as a binding expression of community consensus either. As painful as it is, I think there's more to be gained by doing everything necessary to get the RfC through to some final decision. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't have the time... I doubt any one has the time, to sort this particular piece of nonsense out fully. I recommend bringing up your complaints on ANI, I've just posted a diff to your complaint there. Your points are very sensible, I'm just afraid I am not at this point up to doing it. Doing it fairly that way would require hours of work that I don't have time for. I've tried my solution, and that solution doesn't preclude a better, saner RfC replacing it. Good luck.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

True, what this needs is attention from someone with the admin tools. I think the most profitable solution would be to try to find someone willing to reopen the discussion and supervise it. Knepflerle (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask around and see if I can find someone willing to do it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to delete the RfC discussion. If you think that it is unproductive, then archive it. If you think there are incivil actions or comments, revert or refactor those individual trangressions. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM currently states "Autoformatting: Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable)." If this situation cannot be commented on, that will be the final rule and editors will be following guidelines if they engage in a campaign to remove date autoformatting markup. I hope you have forseen this consequence. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM is a guildline, not policy. Not to mention of all the things relevant to Wikipedia's importance, it rates under list of tree species. But most importantly, just file another RfC and make sure you don't collectively act inappropriately while doing so.--Tznkai (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of it (though since you blanked it, maybe you are) but an RFC was already being worked on when Tony decided to hijack it. That RFC, which has yet to go live, is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. And I agree, the discussion is an utter waste of time, but those pushing this change are doing so by automated and semi-automated means (basically forcing it on the rest of us). To be absolutely clear, the language at the subpage RFC was worked on by multiple editors and had mostly come to agreement. The language in Tony's RFC at WT:MOSNUM was created entirely by Tony with no input from other editors. Attempts to balance the RFC with additional information has been reacted to aggressively by Tony and his supporters (the "big green box" fiasco; and for what it's worth, the big green box was my addition, an attempt to address concerns that the questions/topics were being changed by showing that the messages were clearly separate from the original wording). At any rate, you're brave to have set foot in there. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note the repeated efforts, as here, to refactor the discussion of the question. (The text is still elsewhere in the long discussion; but not where it was written.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea blanking the RfC, exactly what I would expect a totally clueless admin to do. Now I have no idea if Tznkai fits that description, as I don't know what else he does on Wikipedia. I hope this was a one-time mistake, not to be repeated.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AE clerking

Sorry if I threw a wrench into your attempt to clerk the AE page. I wasn't sure what "comments after reblocking" was intended to address, since no reblock had been made, and comments were being put into another section about the proposed reblock... Avruch ^T 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All good.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bryce Connors

This article is a hoax. Not sure what the procedure is though.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that the guy doesnt exist - well I am sure he exists but I would say he's some 15 high school guy - but he isnt a boxer. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest :Hoax and :afd. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, Vintagekits. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi Tznkai could you have a look at the USC article Thunderer has come back from his 3RR block and has started reverting again. And leaving edit summaries like remove POV opinionated rubbish from the Republican cabal. He has inserted images that I removed as they were fair use violations. I don't want to remove them again as this will lead to an edit war thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I find this all very annoying disappointing and as I feared the mediation has been effectively scuttled. Progress was being made and was working, with David, Dunc and myself. The icing on the cake for me was the arrival of the “new” editor, and Mooretwin’s reverts on the RUC and then saying there was not two when I asked them to self revert. To be honest, I’m totally pissed off.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tznkai I just wanted to update you on a possible problem here. If you would prefare I go to AE I will totally understand, as this is going to get seriously out of hand, with three "new" editors. To avoide any problems for myself I'd welcome any advice and suggestions, and would have no problem with my edits being monitored. Is there no way that the mediation could be re formatted and put back on the rails? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lengthy evidence

Hi Tznkai,

I just posted evidence on the Cold Fusion case. I understand that you have to cut things down. I have presented evidence which goes well over the word count, though not the diff count. I ask that you leave it. I believe that the limits exist so that people will be succinct, while still having enough space. But that is for the average party to an Arbitration Committee case. However, ScienceApologist is not an average party. There is much, much more evidence concerning him. I believe that the sections are succinct, and all of them are relevant (several were already cut). Also, the quotations will make it easier for the arbitrators, because often the relevant quotes are hard to find in the diffs. Durga's Trident (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock user:werdnawerdna

Indef blocking for talk page rants (both user and article) is I think excessive. Andries (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano II

Hiya Tznkai. Is the Giano blocked or unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: Perhaps I was too subtle: this entire situation could have been avoided with an unblock message and summary that didn't attract drama and bring up unnecessary issues.--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Should that be interpreted to mean that your primary dispute with WJBscribe's action was the unblock summary he used? I have a hard time believing that is your major problem with the action, but your comment certainly does leave that impression. Given that Will discussed the issue with Deskana, Deskana acknowledged that his action was taken without the required approval and then declined to reverse it himself... It seems to me that Will took the best action, an action that to my mind is superior than posting his concerns and waiting for a consensus develop over a period of hours or days. If he had done that, I feel sure that the situation would have escalated far more than it has at this point - to another arbitration case, perhaps censure of Deskana, etc. Avruch ^T 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be thorough

I see you chose to delete part of a conversation, but left the offending false statement in place that started it. Any particular reason? I have no objection to deleting it, but ask that you not take sides and that you be thorough. It is also normal practice to leave a note and diff in place. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/141.154.12.190 <--- User:Moulton. rootology (C)(T) 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Watch out, you'll be accused of violating Mesopotamian law or some such thing. rootology (C)(T) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Elections templates

Reply for you at my talk page. (Feel free to delist this message once read.) AGK 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

clerking

Hello, Tznkai, I come here to ask you a favor. Since you're an ArbCom clerk, could you relocate a discussion under Ryan Postlethwaite's comment on this vote page just like others discussions on other voter pages were moved to their talk pages. Thanks.--Caspian blue 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Have a good day. :) --Caspian blue 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please review the candidate's comment here. [31] Postlethwaite's comment was followed by a number of editors voting and citing Postlethwaite's comment. A link to the discussion in tiny type doesn't seem appropriate when Postlethwaite made factual corrections to much of what he said. CHL has asked that at least Postlethwaite's comment be restored, and I'm inclined to do that myself, but it would be better if you reviewed the situation. Please take another look. -- Noroton (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I boldly reverted your move, because I think it sliced the discussion in a way that was unfair to Luke, especially since part of what was moved was actually Ryan's own clarification of his original statement. If the length of the discussion is a problem, I suggest moving the entire claim (Ryan's original voting note plus responses) to avoid leaving the wrong impression on the voting page. ATren (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your solution is workable, but my read was that Ryan was mostly standing by his own words, and I didn't want to remove the rationale outright. For now, I'll wait for Ryan to speak up as to what he thinks.--Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk

Okay, but I don't visit Wikipedia very often and I'm not really interested in talking much more about the arbcom elections. I've pretty much made what I think clear and I'm just not going to change my mind about it. Grace Note (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping.

[32] rootology (C)(T) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

This looks like a job for WP:SHUN, in my humble estimation. MastCell ^Talk 05:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

UDR

I intend to edit this article again as the mediation has ended due to The Thunderer refusing to take part. Nowhere does it state here that I can't, but I wanted to run it past you first for your opinion. BigDunc^Talk 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

The vote pages/talk page have not been vandalised, more an unperson of your making made some edits. Please provide more accurate protection summaries next time, and read up on what WP:VANDALISM is, since you appear to misunderstand what it is. Majorly ^talk 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you unlock my questions page? Voters deserve to ask questions about me (and I would like to answer without using admin functions). Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you unprotect my questions page as well, please? I know it is "only" semi-protection, but I want even the newest editors to be able to ask questions, even if they don't have suffrage in the elections. If at some future point you feel, as a clerk (are there any official election clerks? I've only seen unofficial ones), that semi-protection is needed again, could you place a notice directing non-autoconfirmed accounts people to a place where they can ask questions if they find they can't edit my questions page? Carcharoth (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

indents

stop please. You're indenting wrong, you need to use a #:, not a :. The latter messes up the numbering. ST47 (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PD RFAR

Hi Tznkai, I know you blocked within the terms of PD's 'conditions', but I wonder what harm might come of Peter Damian contributing to mainspace - so I've lodged a request at RFAR to see if we can get ArbCOM sanction to do that. (not sure if I should list you as involved party, the action is not about your block, but potential future blocks for the same thing - please advice) Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for checking over my withdraw forms, eh? WilyD 15:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Notification

I've responded here. My remarks are necessarily brief. If you are searching for more, you might let your own note to the three participants on each of their talk pages be your guide. You have shown exceptional diligence in dealing with this matter. Many thanks. Sunray (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

Hi, could you remove the threaded comments from the Scientology RFAR please? Another editor left a slanted question beneath my opening request. I replied at his/her talk and asked him/her to remove it, per RFAR convention. But the other editor hasn't complied. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion note

Jumped the gun on the implementation note. :-) 5 votes for several proposals that you marked as passing. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine RfAr

Hi Tznkai - was the issue with the possibly compromised account resolved when Daniel archived it as having passed? [33] Avruch ^T 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was - see Durova's comment one hour after Tznkai's. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Party animal

Good heavens, is that party still going on? It must be the mother of all festivities. Don't you ever sleep? Bishonen | talk 15:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

thanks

Re this. I actually reread a lot of this stuff, since I genuinely do like both of them, but damn... nothing else will work but a forcefield at this point. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion case closed

Should this be noted on the cold fusion page? I was going to do it but thought it might not be my place. All the best, Verbal chat 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"rescued"

Was this [34] a typo? :) Sticky Parkin 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Freud would probably say not quite--Tznkai (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

PD

Tznkai, you are awfully prickly at the moment - I'm frustrated with the length of time the RFAR took in general, not by you not stepping to attention the minute a motion passes. So I'm sorry if you thought it was a dig. Peace. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio??

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete you say it's probably a copyright violation. Can't you explain that by pointing out a book or a web page or the like that you think it's copied from? Why would you make such an accusation without doing that? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Single Revision Delete

Want to try to figure out how to get this implemented? Let me know... ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) As far as I can tell the only major hurdle will be block log item deletion, which I'm learning about the technical details now. If there is enough transparency there, or we can establish that transparency/accountability, I think we'll be set.--Tznkai (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My concern is more how to shepherd this through the approval process so that consensus can be demonstrated to the developers... once you've the technical details sorted to your satisfaction, let's strategise on whether to take this to VP first or what... ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much, if any experience with VP - Although something that has worked surprisingly well is what Rootology did with his BLP survey. I think a brief, at a glance of what SRD is would help a lot, then launching into a consensus building/demonstrating process.--Tznkai (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re block of Abtract per ArbEnforce

Hi. I note your block notice on Abtract's page - but cannot see a block logged at WP:RfAR/Abtract-Collectonion#Log of blocks, etc. If this is a different ArbCom involving Abtract (I am aware of one) and you have already logged the incident I apologise for querying the matter, although I would suggest that a link to it on Abtract's page might help a reviewer of any unblock request. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)... or I could look in your contrib history and see the Haines ArbCom discussion (but since Abtract has more than one ArbCom under his belt it may still be worthwhile noting the context on his notice). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My corn chowder recipe

As requested, my corn chowder recipe (approximately, I honestly make it up as I go once I buy the ingredients, and its pretty hard to screw up). Warning, it's a pretty rich meal:

Ingredients

1. 1/2 pound to 1 pound salt pork
2. "handful" of slices bacon
3. 1 white onion
4. 1 yellow onion
5. 1-2 green onion
6. about 7-8 cloves of garlic (seriously)
7. flour
8. table salt
9. ground black pepper
10. 1 can whole sweet corn
11. 1 can whole kernel corn
12. 1 red bell pepper
13. 2 boiling potatos
14. 1 good sized container vegetable stock (salt-free, if you can)
15. butter
16. 1 pint container heavy cream
17. cilantro
18. oregano
19. cumin
20. hot paprika (Hungarian if you can)

What to do...

1. "Finely" dice up (I prefer by hand with my wife's massive cutlery) the onions, red bell pepper, and half the garlic. Set aside.
2. Same thing with the green onion, potatoes, and the rest of the garlic. Set aside separately. I like it all very finely diced, so it doesn't become chunky in and of itself--the little "bits" make up the texture.
3. Cut up the salt pork (a pain, with it's high fat content) into cubes about 1/2 inch across.
4. Cook up the bacon in the same large pot you will cook the chowder in (this is key). Set aside the bacon when done to drain on paper towels and solidify more.
5. Brown the salt pork in the same pot under medium heat--this may take a while, you're just browning the outsides a bit, not cooking it through. If the bacon grease has burned off somewhat, no worries--the salt pork has plenty more. You need to keep moving it around so it doesn't stick.
6. Finely crumble up the bacon while that cooks. Set aside.
7. When that's almost or nearly done, add in the onions, red bell pepper, and half the garlic. Cook till the garlic is about "done" and very slightly browned. Shouldn't take long.
8. Dump in the potatoes, green onion, and the rest of the garlic. Immediately add the vegetable stock on top. Add water if it seems too little, for broth. Some will burn off, of course, and you may need to top it off a bit.
9. Bring to a boil, then turn it down. My simmering time is usually an hour, covering it when I'm not stirring every couple minutes. We aren't in a race.
10. Add in the corn. I don't drain the cans usually.
11. Add the crumbled bacon. Stir it in.
12. Stir stir stir. Don't stop.
13. Add in the cilantro, cumin, oregano, and paprika to taste. I like it moderately "warm"; perfect for a cold day.
14. Add in about 1/2 the container of heavy cream, to where you think it looks chowdery enough. I usually end up using 2/3 of a pint, I think.
15. Add in a bit of butter. Trust me. There's a reason chefs use this stuff like they do air. Add in some more later.
16. Stirring still?
17. Start adding in flour. A few not-overflowing tablespoons to start, stirring it down.
18. Now the fun part, where you get to play balance with cream, extra broth/water, and flour, to get the texture and thickness you want as it simmers. There's no right answer. I like mine a bit runnier than your typical New England clam chowder, but I've had some of these that are like soup or porridge that also tasted great.
19. Don't add the flour all at once. I like to spread it out over the simmer time.
20. Salt and pepper to taste.

I think that's all I basically do, but I usually end up pitching a bunch of other stuff in there depending on my mood, like a bay leaf or two, or maybe some tabasco, or whatever weird thing strikes my fancy. A finely diced stalk of celery is good sometimes, too, for texture. My whole thing though is to super-finely dice up the veggies, so the focus is the broth, salt pork, and corn, with the rest for flavor and texture only--if you look at the photo, you can hardly tell what veggies are in there! It's not the, er, healthiest of meals, but it hits the spot on a cold day. :) rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Review board

Hi Tznkai - I notice you commented on the review board - it's customary here at wikipedia to sign talk page posts with 4 tildes ~~~~. PS I have a great recipe for chicken breast with olives, cream and white wine with pasta if you're interested. :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I will look forward to working with you in the year to come.
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi, Tznkai - thanks for your kind message on my talk page. Happy New Year to you, and let me take this opportunity to apologize for my part in our disagreements last year. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Tznkai,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Got your email

I got your email. I voluntarily requested the removal of my administrative tools a couple months ago, because I realized I was spending too much time in working on disputes and not enough time on content. At the present time, I'm not interested in taking on additional tasks related to handling disputes, so I am definitely not interested. GRBerry 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Maria Thayer

See RFAR and new post at Clerk board. Then archive some of your talk page.;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

GM Cupertino was caught socking, see RFCU. As he's in a RFAR now, we've decided on a conditional unblock. I posted this on his talk page: "You have been unblocked by arbcom but are limited to participation in your arbcom case pages, own user page, and own user talk page. Edits to other pages during the next two weeks will result in immeditate reblock from that point for a full more two weeks." — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Protection of "住田多蔵"

Thanks! That page was getting annoying! Hopefully the editor will get the hint this time!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Commune

I wanted to create an article about this group - www.thecommune.wordpress.com - who emerged from a split in the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. The AWL article references them and has a red link to the group.

So I wanted to create a piece here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commune

But after repeated deletions it is not possible. The group, also called the International Communist Group, has been referenced in other left-wing media, e.g the Weekly Worker (www.cpgb.org.uk) and has produced its own newspaper and held several meetings.

So I wondered how to unblock this 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I've added a response to your question on journalist notability here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Journalism#Notability_guidelines 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PhysicsEng

This user has 2 edits in December 2007 prior to the contributions on the evidence page of the Fringe science ArbCom case. The wording ("pro-science" right wing) and style is very similar ot that of MaxPont on the evidence and workshop page ("pro-industrial" right wing); it looks like the evidence of User:Durga's Trident at the cold fusion case. I wonder whether you or one of the two clerks assigned to the case could check whether the two users are connected in any way (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry). (I am asking you because you came to my talk page to request a change in my evidence, which I made although you don't seem to have noticed.) Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Same applies to this anonymous IP 81.131.6.201, who has just added similar type of evidence. Mathsci (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is PhysicsEng, and I can assure you that I only use one account, this one, when posting anything on Wikipedia. It is the only acct I have ever created on Wikipedia. I have no idea who Durga is, or any of the other users mentioned above...

And yes, I probably did make some edits way back in Dec.07... since ScienceApologist was clearly in the wrong and violating numerous standards, and yet, he seemed to get away with it just because he was an editor, and even threatened that he 'had friends in high places', and would get you banned if he wanted... meaning that he knew some sysadmins or something. Why do you think its been so long (Dec'07) since I've taken valuable time to contribute anything??? Because I was so frustrated with the havoc caused by SA, and the fact that the CF page was reverted back to the 2004(?) version. What a friggin' travesty. I AM one of the uninvolved, but SELF-INFORMED, persons who HAS read many of the papers on CF, and how a miscreant like SA can push his editorial weight around when he hasn't even read any of the latest papers is beyond me. So much has taken place since 2004, that the CF page has still got a long way to go to be current... Fortunately, I see that there is now an Arbitration case against SA, and I hope this guy is banned forever. The damage he has done by driving good people away from Wikipedia, far outweighs what editorial contributions he's made. It's about time that some one of higher authority seriously investigate this guy... PhysicsEng (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban of Pcarbonn

Tznkai - regarding ban of Pcarbonn notice posted by you: "Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee."

I am writing a news story on the ban of Pcarbonn. Can you please explain/show me the reason for the ban? StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai. Thanks for getting back to me. Please provide me with the press POC.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You got reverted again

ArbCom clerks vandalising? What next? Sceptre ^(talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this. I apologize for my part in it. --InkSplotch (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AN comment

Hi. Would you mind if I de-indent your comment? It pretty much cuts to the heart of the matter. If it was in continuation of the thread and so directed at me, then I must confess that I have not assessed the RfC, my comments merely reflect implementation in case of a consensus for usage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looking for some clarification

I wonder if you can help. As someone involved in the topic bans on User:Vintagekits I was wondering if you could shed some interpretations on something. User:Vintagekits has recently opened this Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:Northern_Irish_people to change it to People from Northern Ireland under the grounds of Northern Irish not being a valid demonyn. Now I'm not interested in a debate on the right or wrong of the claims, but I'm just unsure as to the interpretation of the topic bans and whether this would constitute something that falls within the prohibited topics for this user. I'm uncertain about the geo-political dispute bit, as it could be interpreted by some that it may come under that is, by their own admission, very Irish-Republican and anti-Northern Ireland.

I'm uncertain about any interpretation, but feel the query may come up at some point in the discussion, so wanted to head any uncertainties off at the pass. So thanks for your time. Canterbury Tail talk 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Block

Hi, blocking is boring. I think I have a better idea [35]. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Forsena

The only reason the warnings were removed is that they are from Angelo De La Paz. If you gave me the warning, I would have never removed it, but I do not need any warnings from a person who insulted me six times [36][37][38] and openly expressed his Albanian extremist opinions on very delicate topics [39][40]. When I answered on his insults one of the administrators used it as a main argument to block me. My duty was to answer you for the injustice. --Forsena (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of ANI

That looks really bad. Further division between admins and proles is not going to help the situation. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AN/I protection

The majority of the people commenting are admins, is the protection going to do any good? –xeno (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I don't see how the protection will do anything. Most of the people commenting are administrators anyways, so discussion won't really stop. Secret ^account 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I see, it was a subpage you were forming. My apologizes. Secret ^account 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Bishonen-FT2

"Phew"! Thank you for that! Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW you cut some of the later comments out. Majorly talk 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out which? There was a lot of traffic--Tznkai (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And it's till on the main ANI page ... Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's transcluded... –xeno (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka's, for one... –xeno (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like she restored it. Anyone else?--Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops :) Thanks for fixing that. seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My block of FT2

I'm sorry you didn't like it, especially since my inspiration came from your block of Martinphi. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

I remember seeing that title and cringing. Let me ask you though: did the block accomplish what you wanted it to?--Tznkai (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Me as an anon

I understand why someone might feel I am a previous editor, given that I show knowledge of wikipedias inner workings. I have been 'lurking' for quite some time but have only just now felt imformed enough to comment. I would never call myself an editor simply because I do not edit. I understand the benifits to having a log in name and have contemplated it. I'm just someone who watches... and sometimes questions if I feel there is something that should be said.198.161.173.180 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. We were all IP and/or redlinks once.--Tznkai (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A quibble you had with me on Giano's RFC

In agreeing with Shoemaker's Holiday (I doubt he expected my name to go so early there - so much for factionalism), I said "The fraction of the community that is upset about Giano's behavior is also a significant cause of the behavior that is complained about, and this mess will only go away if both sides change their behavior." You agreed with Shoemaker's Holiday but quibble with that comment of mine. The primary thrust of what I was mentioning was the administrative noticeboard culture. See also my endorsement of Sam Blacketer's view.

Those who are upset with Giano are largely denizens of the administrative noticeboards. (Those who don't read them are largely unaware of Giano.) Unfortunately, I keep seeing more and more evidence that to get anything done using the noticeboard, one must create drama there. (At least one Wikipedia Review commentator has described our goverment structure as a Drama-cracy (though I think they spelled it differently).

If things on the noticeboards were attended to and dealt with before drama, then editors wouldn't feel a need to cause drama in order to accomplish something. The only way for that to happen is for there to be a lot more diligence in attending to things where no drama exists. I don't know where the need for drama came from; it far predates my regular reading of the administrative noticeboards. But the readers of those noticeboards need to change their behavior so that causing drama is not a method that is advantageous. Recent history has been reinforcing a belief that causing drama is the best path to getting a situation attended to. GRBerry 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The culture that pervades AN and especially ANI is pretty horrifying, yes, and I'll admit I've been tempted to cast wild aspersions on WT:Review Board just to get people engaged in the conversation. Drama gets people interested - everyone suddenly wants to add their two cents, and conversion rates later, occasionally we get some real money (worst metaphor ever). I actually cited your endorsement of Sam's view on the talk page and I agree that you've once again struck upon one of the core problems in Wikipedia governance.

There are people who read AN and ANI who try not to cause, encourage, or feed off of drama, (I include myself and you in this category), but most people who dislike the drama culture get demoralized quickly. The remainder tend to go crazy, or with some luck, become very selective about what AN/ANI thread to respond to. Again, I'm not really sure how to fix the problem - from where I sit its blindingly obvious that a calm and civil Wikipedia culture is better for all its participants (bad for the press and peanut gallery) so I find it difficult to create a convincing argument for a point of view I find self-evident.--Tznkai (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proabivouac

Any chance you could move this from an artical to a user page? Bihco (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hi. User:Pcarbonn has posted a considerable amount of information on cold fusion on his user page, including a link to a supposedly "better" version of the article. I don't know if this is a violation of the letter or only the spirit of his ban, but I think someone official should look at it. I'd prefer to avoid getting in the middle of this so please just reply here either way. Thanks. --72.70.28.2 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look it over - but is there any sign that there has actually been some impact on the article?--Tznkai (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

After PC's dismissal a number of other editors—including an anonymous one—arrived to take up the pro-CF banner. Whether this was prompted by the info on his user page—the first page linked to by the CF talk page—I don't know. Either way, a user page is for info about the user and his/her interests, not a soapbox for alternate versions of WP articles. And it's not just a line or two: his whole page is about this battle. If he needs to vent there are several free blog hosting services available and I wouldn't complain about his having a link; just not on Wikipedia itself. Anyway, thanks for agreeing to look into the matter. --71.162.81.64 (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

#Question at AC/N

I didn't entirely understand your comment. Is there something I can help with? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Expand the statement on WP:AC/N a bit, do you mean? Or add another one about it closing? (Sorry, I'm being very dense today.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to do a reminder that it's closing at WP:AC/N in a couple of days, with a copy to the proposal page. Now let's hope I remember to do it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to self (and the two or three readers I've got)

Wikipedia's coverage of journalists sucks.

• Ed Gordon of NPR and BET fame, related to the current bluelink. Will need to set up disambigs
• Ted Koppel
• Most of the NPR personalities articles are substandard
• Most of the NPR journalists and correspondants don't exist - probably should be fixed if only by list.

--Tznkai (talk)

Isn't "NPR personalities" an oxymoron? :P MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey now! they have personalities. Just because they aren't screaming at the audience, or outraged/enthusiatic - hey, they're NPOV. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Peter Sagal, but he's funny, so who cares?--Tznkai (talk)`

The enemy's gate is down

nice job explaining my somewhat obscure ref. I was a little dismayed this plot element isn't in the article. thoughts? (or is my memory failing me; did these personalities not emerge until the shadow books?) –xeno (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

some advice

could you give me your opinion on something?

If I were to edit an article slightly related to Korea right now, would that be a real dumb idea considering what is currently going on in ANI?

I was not considering anything controversial just a few edits to this article [[41]] as the way things are going I am not going to be able contribute on that article for a while.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• If my comments with anger are not helpful to clarify the dispute, I apologize to you. However, I consider "Roux is an invloved editor" givne history with him and me, so the topic ban proposal is not what I believe "fair" and "neutral". If I have more time to explain why the proposal is not proper one, I would. I initially raised for "conduct issues" not "contents issues". I felt that longer block on Sennen or topic-baning him would be appropriate given his recent two blocks. However, I think "civility sanction" is more than necessary. Content disputes can be resolved by discussion and reliable "sources". However, the disputes with him and me are mostly civility matters.

• As I want to ask you about the topic-ban since you will be enforcing the unfair ban proposal initiated by the "involved party". I've reported many RFCU(now SPI) on block evading editors from 2channel who have been harassed me (ask the matter to Future.Perfect), and most of them are confirmed as such. However, I wonder I can still report their abuses to SPI or ANI? Besides, I've have ongoing issues to be dealt with discussion for Japan-Korea related matters. Can I be allowed to edit "talk pages" of Japanese related articles? Can I notify editors of erroneous edits from Japanese related articles?

• Sennen goroshi has been using "sock IPs" to evade to get him block sanction, so if I suspect that some IP users/accounts linked to him, why I can't report him by myself? In many cases, deferring to others would take times, and then any problems that he would likely make would be said "stale". Since this "topic-ban" would be operated by "puntitive blocks", I don't want that. Your clarfication would be great help.--Caspian blue 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• In the end the origin of the topic ban proposal doesn't matter - enough uninvolved voices stepped in and supported it.
• I will get back to you on the sockpuppetry stuff, but the short answer is, if you're being legitimately harassed by socks, you can complain - if they're tooling around on articles you're topic banned on, you'll have to leave that alone.
• No talk pages of articles you're topic banned on.
• Can you notify other editors of errors you find? For the time being no. I'll mull over this a bit, but the best thing you can do is pull back from the area entirely, thats the whole point.
• And you're specifically banned from starting ANI threads about Sennen goroshi and vice versa because when you have done so, you have been disruptive. You'll just have to find an admin who's willing to field the complaint.

I will set up a subpage for your topic ban later tonight, and further clarification can be done there.--Tznkai (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, but blocking to use "talk pages" is not reasonable. I've also seen that "topic-banned" users under ArbCom rulling are at least allowed to leave their concern on changed edits. They can voice their though, but can't edit articles directly.

When I notified to admins of errors made by sockpuppters, they just were too busy to handle it or said "Sorry, I can' read either Japanese or Koreans, so I can't verify the contents" or "they're now quite now" or "file SSP or RFCU". Therefore, if I find something errors in the banned artricles, I want to notify it to editors who would likely be interested.

I need more clarification on RFCU. Essentially, I can't edit Japanese related articles and even Korean articles including Japnese matters. Even if I can edit Korea related articles, almost all of articles related to Korea have the presence of Japan and China in history/society/politics/culture etc. Why can't I report socks editing the banned area? --Caspian blue 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As I just created Yeonguijeong, I also find another "many problems" with the topic-ban. If you see Six Ministries of Joseon which is related to Yeonguijeong, it has this contents

In December 1895, after the First Sino-Japanese War and as a part of the Gabo Reform, a cabinet of seven ministries was modeled after the Japanese one, which had been established only ten years earlier

The article just briefly mentions about "Japanese things" but according to the ambiguous strict rule, I can't edit the latter article at all? Even though I would not insert contents regarding Japan to the article but just add "related entries" to the "See also" section, I wonder whether I edit the article of Six Ministries of Joseon. I really think that the topic-ban is ridiculous (what good would serve for such non-debating articles). When Roux was restricted by his probation, he was not disallowed to edit his disputing articles. I really ask you to reconsider the "topic ban". If you modify it to "1RR/2RR restriction per one article" or "civility restriction" just like others do get from contents disputes first, I would really appreciate that. I have disputed with Sennen goroshi for "10 to 20 something articles (including Chinese matters such as Nanking Massacre/American things eg. Anti-American sentiment), not all of Japan-Korea issues. (besides, my taking offense from him was mostly for his "incivility" not for contents) I have not always disagreed with Sennen goroshi's edits (recently, I rather reverted to his preferred version at South Korea twice) More importantly, the ANI was no relation with "contents disputes", but I really don't see why the broad topic ban is applying to me. If specific articles such as Comfort women or heated articles are banned from editing, I can live with it. However, I don't want to risk myself when even editing Korea-relate articles. Caspian blue 03:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also when citing more with "English sources" for Yeonguijeong, can I use book sources titled like " Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations"[42] which includes the word "Japan" (yes, I'm really getting paranoid with this obscurity from the ban)--Caspian blue 04:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference title should not be a problem. I'll get back to you on the rest.--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing is cleared. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

topic ban notice

Should I have something displayed on my user/talk pages stating that I am subject to a topic ban? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll make a subpage and post something on WP:Restrict, but it does not need to be displayed on your userpage.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read the above questions by Caspian Blue, I am one easy question - I am not allowed to edit articles that are Korea related - I am not allowed to edit references to Korea/Koreans/anything to do with Korea - but am I allowed to edit articles that have contents connected to Korea, if I do not edit the Korea content? ie. If I were to edit the Manchester United article, I assume that I would not be able to edit anything to do with their Korean player, Park Ji Sung - however as long as I was not editing anything to do with him, would I be allowed to edit the article, for example to reflect a new player signing or Championship win? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's correct --Tznkai (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Notification of temporary injunction

Thanks for the heads-up on the delinking injunction. TJRC (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rootology RfA

This was just beautiful. Have you ever read any Richard Holloway? I read his On Forgiveness recently and I am so glad to see you take a similar stance to the one I believe in. Good wishes to you, --John (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment you expressed in the referenced edit and with John's assessment of it as well. We could do with more forgiveness around here. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both.--Tznkai (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

my only response

Well as long as the topic ban is not modified or another silly ANI report is not made against me, all I wish to say is:

1. "Sennen goroshi has been using "sock IPs" to evade to get him block sanction, so if I suspect that some IP users/accounts linked to him, why I can't report him by myself?" No, Caspian I did not use sock IPs to evade anything, I edited a few times with an IP, and never tried to hide the fact that it was me, stop trying to make more drama.

2. I am not going to respond any more as the topic ban was put in place because of the continual drama on ANI, I consider taking the drama to an Admin's talk page instead of ANI not to be an acceptable alternative - make a sandbox page dedicated to all the editors that you dislike and outline every single detail there instead. The topic ban was supposed to be an end to the drama, not just a reason to take it from ANI and move it somewhere else or involve anyone else. I consider this to be very very finished. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

response on my talk page

if anyone is interested, I will respond on my talk page. I refuse to fill this talk page with more drama. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on the topic bans (Caspain Blue and Sennen goroshi)

I'm going to address this to both of you for the sake of convenience.

• The terms of your topic ban will be put into a subpage at User:Caspian blue/Topic ban and User:Sennen goroshi/Topic ban. You do not have to advertise this page, but if any administrator asks, you should tell them where it is located.
• The topic ban will also be listed on WP:RESTRICT
• Just so we are crystal clear, this topic ban is a community ban - I am the enacting administrator, and will likely become the point of contact for dealing with it, but I do not have the power to lift or significantly change the topic ban without going to the community for approval. (Or I might, but am unwilling to use it. Same thing)
• Likewise, any administrator may enforce the ban, without my blessing or even over my objections.
• You are expressly forbidden from starting threads on the administrator's noticeboards about eachother, especially about the topic ban. If you feel that there is egregious violation of the topic ban, you may e-mail me using the e-mail link, and I will do the best I can to get back to you within 24 hours. If I do not respond, I invite you to notify another administrator, but you will be in their hands, not mine.
• Escalation (ignoring the topic ban because the other person topic banned also ignores their topic ban) will not be tolerated in the slightest.
• I will review the topic bans in one month. If I am satisfied you have followed the restrictions in good faith, and have reason to believe behavior has changed, I will ask the community to review the topic bans with an eye towards suspending or modifying the terms to allow more editing freedom.
• I will post my view of the bounds of the topic bans in detail on the talk page of the subpage (User talk:Caspian blue/Topic ban and User talk:Sennen goroshi/Topic ban).

Please reply here if you understand what I have written above.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

understood, accepted and agreed with. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I understand you point, but I need "more" clarification on RFCU filing and using talk pages in the banned areas. Besides, there were only two options at ANI: to ban one editor suggested by me and to ban both editors suggested by Roux. The topic ban is modeled from the suggester, Roux's own topic-ban (much intensified of his in length and range of articles and sanctions without looking into the reported "disputes" on "incivility" not contents). I'd be grateful if you make a clarification on that as well.--Caspian blue 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

In my view, a crucial concept needs to be introduced into this "tipping point" moment; and more importantly, this constructive notion needs to be incorporated in whatever process ensues.

George Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Wikiquote expands on this theme by explaining that the well-known observation has produced many paraphrases and variants, e.g.,

• Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
• Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
• Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
• Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

I've posted Santayana's image so that the reiterated caption may provide deliberately redundant emphasis. As you may know, receptive learning skills are sometimes enhanced by engaging more than one of the cognitive processing modalities. Studies of learning English as a Second Language (ESL) have shown that enhanced comprehension and retention are reported when language comprehension centers in the brain are engaged in a context of simultaneous visual stimulus. It is my intent that Santayana's salutatory saying is underscored in an exceedingly plain and non-controversial manner. --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've missed your point.--Tznkai (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Tenmei's point that nobody appreciates

Tenmei (talk · contribs)'s point?

Tznkai, this would be the background for the intention of Tenmei.IncidentArchive456#Personal abuse_and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei[43][44]IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks His unhelpful essay does not belong to the above header. Tznkai, I'm not banned to report if somebody who happens to be Japanese has been hovering me for his certain agenda and past. Isn't it?--Caspian blue 01:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My comment was carefully neutral. In an extremely cautious attempt to produce "measured" prose, I erred in seeming too vague. Nevertheless, Caspian blue construed this mild observation as a provocation, as an affront, as justification for counter-attack.

Without factual basis, Caspian blue imputed "intention" and "agenda" to what is otherwise a non-controversial statement; moreover, he reiterated the implication that "Japanese" is a deserved epithet. In choosing to use a few familiar words, this toxic "long-term warrior" speaks volumes.

Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum). --Tenmei (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tenmei (talk · contribs). Unless people judge you "neutral", do not self-claim as such based on your unsubstantiated and discredited insistence. Let me share you with a valuable assessment from people whose background are neither Japan nor Korea have observed you. I'll heed the people's advices; "Do not to deal with him" and do not even think of replying to his "unintelligible Engrish" as possible because of his "uniqueness". In the current context, the point that you're Japanese should be mentioned, because I'm not banned to report disruptive wikistalkers or harassers with crooked agenda who happen to be Japanese. Moreover, you've constantly attacked my ethnicity ever since the first encounter with no reason. Your failed attempt to erase valuable articles were criticized. Go editing before you're making another mistake as usual like this in which your rudeness was pointed out by two admins that you invited. Dekkappai that you quoted said about you with a very interesting evaluation on you. Wanna know about it? Ask him.--Caspian blue 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Again Q.E.D. -- a derogatory, inflammatory, provocative series of diffs. Caspian blue's tactic resists being construed as anything other than an intentional escalation. I refuse to respond in kind. At the same time, I'm mindful of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus.

In this telling context, my continuing restraint should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). --Tenmei (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, Tenmei, the series of disruptive derogatory, inflammatory, provocative campaign with the snobbism is enough. Since your Engrish is "so perfect", I let you entertain yourself more with the Latin as well as this valuable lessonSo, what is your point????--Caspian blue 02:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

More clarification?

Tznkai, I need your clarification as you promised in order to concentrate on editing articles. I believe if Sennen goroshi would apologize for his outrageous personal attacks and not harass Korean editors, the drama did not even start "again" at ANI.

1. I was informed his 3RR violation with socking IP by another user who had to deal with him at that time. He used sock IP again when he accused somebody. When he also said "LMAMF (Lick My Ass Mother Fucker)" to me, he used the sock IP. Since he has posted comments on his user page that made about one year and 3 months ago after his mocking my ethnicity and English.
2. His new suggestion regarding making a sandbox to put "people that I supposedly dislike" is I can consider another unhelpful provocation to make the things getting worse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so editors would not forget about the basic principle.
3. Unfortunately, he encourages Tenmei to file against me[[45]] after Tenmei followed me here and posted the same messages to many editors and admins. I wonder what this action means in our topic-ban.

Thanks.--Caspian blue

I was asking you. The page is not for question.--Caspian blue 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you answer my (old/new) question to the page? --Caspian blue 02:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

proposed addition to the topicban

1. Caspian is not allowed to discuss my actions on the talkpage of any admin. 2. I am not allowed to discuss Caspian's actions on the talkpage of any admin. 3. Caspian is not allowed to edit ANI/any similar board, unless invited by an admin, who is aware of the topicban. 4. I am not allowed to edit ANI/any similar board, unless invited by an admin, who is aware of the topicban. 5. Neither of us are allowed to solicit other editors into making a report against eachother.

I consider this to be necessary as I don't want the drama transferred from ANI to Admin talk pages - when I am accused of something, I have the natural desire to defend myself - and the point of the topicban was to remove the drama, rather than move it elsewhere - neither will it be productive if we concentrate our attentions on other editors.

There are enough editors/admins on wikipedia to report socks/vandalism/etc without Caspian and myself getting involved - in the event of something not being noticed by others a quick E-mail to an admin would be far less dramatic, and unless action was taken, far less likely to invite a response from other parties.

Perhaps the ability to contribute on the BLP board etc would be useful as this is more content related, than editor related.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to extend the topic ban unilaterally.--Tznkai (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I was just a little disappointed as I hoped the topic ban would be the end of this whole situation - I am not about to have someone accuse me of attempting to get other editors to file a complaint them, using sock IPs to make personal attacks or anything else and not respond. I personally am a little embarrassed at having this on someones talk page. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock?

I notice that you were the blocking admin here. I have left a comment and diffs on Elonka's talk you might find interesting. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Hi, re your note, I have no problem abiding by these guidlines, although I have had difficulties with certain editors. Would it be possible to get some neutral arbitration on some articles to avoid the need for edit wars? In particular the Dunmanway Massacre, which is still a work in progress.

Thanks.

Jdorney (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I already did ask for a Third Opinion but got accused of 'canvassing'. [46]. Without wanting to get into something that might be contstrued as a personal attack, I just haven't been able to find any common ground with one editor in particular. However I think this article should work itself out over the next few days. And if not I'll ask for mediation. Cheers Jdorney (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Philosophy and cartoonists

Anyone ever read Zhuangzi Speaks: The music of nature, by this guy?: [47]--Tznkai (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc blocks

There's an ANI thread ( [48] ) on the blocks of BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'm notifying both Deacon and Tznkai ...

In my opinion, the reblocking for longer time period violated existing policy that we let blockees vent on their user talk page. I agree that what he posted in the talk page and edit summary was indefensibly rude and uncivil. However, the duration and degree was short and moderate, not extended and extreme. If he'd kept it up for days or made more vicious or more personal attacks on individual admins then the situation would be different, but what happened so far does not to me justify the extended block.

I am all for making Wikipedia more polite, and I deplore BigDunc's conduct here. But we have to be realistic - people object to being blocked, and vent about that. Reblocking people who vent leads to a vicious circle where a single minor incident spirals out of control into destroying someone's relationship with Wikipedia. That violates the intent and policy behind blocking.

Administrators need to be sensitive to not abusing people in the process of enforcing policy, particularly blocks. I believe that, well intentioned as the reblocks may have been from a civility standpoint, they were ultimately a mistake and counterproductive.

I propose to reduce BigDunc's block to the original 48-hr duration later tonight, after discussion on ANI. I am notifying both of the admins who reblocked him (Deacon and Tznkai) to allow discussion and get your input prior to any action being taken.

Please contribute your comments to the ANI thread to keep things centralized...

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion on ANI - I have reduced the block term to the original 48 hrs from initial blocking, and unlocked his ability to edit his talk page. I will continue to monitor it for excessive responses etc, in case he escalates beyond what he's done so far. If you feel that he gets significantly worse I recommend reporting it on the ANI thread but leaving it alone yourself... Someone else who wasn't involved so far can make a less conflicted determination if the abuse escalates and justifies another response. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this; you'd handled the AE thread quite well I thought, and I'd hoped you would continue to do so in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Essay

I think I will take you up on your idea to write an essay about punishment with regard to blocks on Wikipedia. The proposal I created is going to fail, and the reasons people keep giving for opposition continue to state the same fallacies I've had to repeatedly explain. I think a detailed essay covering all of the issues might be better. Thanks for the advice. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I'm just messaging you because you offered some support in a rough patch not too long ago. I just wanted to bring to your attention my own talk page, and the talk of Dunmanway Massacre. It seems the actual edit itself is no longer important, certain users haven't read the post, but one users determination to silence my very legitimate point and paint me as a troll is simple a blast from the past. Can you take a look? Its really pissing me off. Thanks. NewIreland2009 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking it over now, sorry it took so long.--Tznkai (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

I really appreciated this. Thanks, and keep up the good work. --John (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

You may recall that we butted heads quite a lot several months ago over troubles related AE threads and I now see that that was all mostly my fault. Since I abandoned the area, I have been watching your contributions to noticeboards and the like and have been more and more impressed with the value of your input and your worthwhile practical commonsense approach, so I just wanted to say sorry for being a dick and thank you for being so sensible. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For high quality and practical contributions to resolving disputes that always puts building the encyclopaedia first. Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Spartaz, I truly appreciate it. Sadly, I've mostly abandoned AE myself - that place is a hellish, and its no surprise we butted heads, and I'm plenty stubborn myself. Thanks for the appreciation.--Tznkai (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note

I've noticed that you have reverted a change I have made to my personal Arbcom section. If I understand the Arbcom discourse structure properly, it is not allowed for editors to interfere in each other's sections and leave long comments, let along, provocative insults on it. Is this correct? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the talk page of the case.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Tznkai/Archive 3's Day!

User:Tznkai/Archive 3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tznkai/Archive 3's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tznkai/Archive 3! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tznkai (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your eyes needed

As the person overseeing Caspian Blue, could you please have a look here, and inform him that bringing his antipathy towards me into unrelated discussions is completely unacceptable? Thanks. //roux   18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have tried to do and say "the same thing" to other users. My criticism on your repeated behaviors has nothing to do with my Sennen goroshi and you know that. likewise, I'll ask an advice from Tiptoety who had overseen you, Roux.--Caspian blue 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and do so. I've done nothing wrong here. //roux   18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your retaliating "forum shopping" to the admin for irrelevant matter is very disturbing.--Caspian blue 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What? Tznkai is the person keeping an eye on you with your restrictions and as such is the best person to bring your questionable behaviour to. It's not forumshopping; I haven't tried raising this problem in any other venue, apart from asking you directly to remove your offtopic, personal, and incivil comments. So go ahead, try and get Tiptoety to do something. I can guarantee to you it won't happen, because I haven't done anything wrong. //roux   18:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai is only watching me and Sennen goroshi for the "topic banned area" proposed by you based on your long-term antipathy toward me. That means "only Japan-Korea matters", so do not distort the restriction. I don't think my criticism is neither unacceptable nor breach of "incivility". You have made sharp and uncivil comments toward people, so they are wounded by your attitude and drastic unhelpful suggestion. Why couldn't you heed other people's criticism? Aside from Sennen goroshi, I'm free to point out on anything uncivil or inappropriate behaviors of any editors including YOU. Your behaviors is a really a childish retaliation. I suggest you refrain from making more drama and help people from good faith.--Caspian blue 19:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. I'm not distorting anything; Tznkai is watching you for other things, is familiar with you, is already involved with you, is therefore the person to come to. And yes your 'criticism' is totally inappropriate--you should have commented on the proposal only. I didn't make any sharp or uncivil comments. The suggestions are not drastic--note that an admin said the next time he sees Rjecina make an accusation of sockpuppetry, s/he is getting blocked. I'd really love to know what my 'childish' (that's a personal attack, by the way) 'retaliation' is... what exactly am I retaliating for? I'm suggesting restrictions on two editors who are unable to coexist, two editors who I have had zero interaction with. Oh wait.. you mean I'm retaliating for your attacks and unfounded criticism. I'm not, I'm asking someone else to take a look at it and have a word with you. I'm done with this. It's actually far better for me to let you write all this nonsense and let it go unopposed, as it really is beneath paying attention to. You go ahead and try to 'get me' for doing... whatever it is I'm supposed to have done. Have fun with that. //roux   19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you can't see what others can see through your behaviors. Many people have been hurt by your sharp tongue and some of your uncivil behaviors were well pointed out on your RFA. In my observation, ever since you had been topic-banned, you suddenly began to suggest a similar probation to editors at AN/ANI. I clearly said the inappropriateness of the proposal and your usual expression like "we are sick of...". How many times I have to see the exaggerated unhelpful comments at ANI? If you think "Grow up" is not a "personal attack" but a criticism along with your uncivil behavior, then you have to acknowledge the definition of incivility. You're not an admin and don't give a stress to peope who desperately need a help. The more problem is that before making such the ban proposal, you don't investigate the underlying matter. (you said such many times like "although I don't spend time in investigating the matter..."). I wonder you did investigate their issue.--Caspian blue 19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly you're retaliating for? Your visit here to report me for the unrelated matter with my banned area is a retaliation. Anything uncivil in your proposal? Remember whenever people come or are summoned to ANI, they get enough stress and frustration already. You know such feeling but why you add more stresses to the people?--19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(out)Indeed I did begin to suggest similar things at ANI. Because it works. Any editor on Wikipedia may propose solutions on ANI, so there's that dealt with. Also, can you please show me where in that thread I said I hadn't investigated the matter? I'll be waiting. I have not been incivil; the 'grow up' comment was a short form for 'Grow up and take your antipathy towards me somwehere else, because it doesn't belong here. You may be upset that you are currently restricted by sanctions which I proposed, but it's worth noting that those sanctions were pretty much unanimously supported by everyone else who commented at the time. It's further worth noting that the reason those sanctions were imposed by Tznkai--the straw that broke the camel's back--was because instead of actually defending yourself, you did exactly what you are doing here: you began attacking me for absolutely no reason. So grow up, suck it up, recognise that your behaviour is totally inappropriate and you were lucky to get away with only a topicban. Your renewed antagonistic behaviour towards me is only likely to add more restrictions to your editing, and isn't going to do you any favours.'

I didn't say all that at the time because it wasn't necessary and would have only created the drama you seem to think I enjoy creating. I don't. I look for quick and effective solutions to problems. You don't; you would rather argue, as evidenced by the fact that you started attacking me here and at your topicban discussion, and indeed at the MedCab case I attempted to mediate between you and Bukubku (I think it was Bukubku; I can't be bothered to dig it up). You have absolutely no interest in looking at your own behaviour or even trying to understand how there is a problem with your behaviour--even when (if memory serves) everyone who commented on the topicban proposal agreed with it.

And as for your statement "Your visit here to report me for the unrelated matter with my banned area is a retaliation". No, you're quite wrong. I am well aware--as I said above--that this isn't part of your restrictions. I should know; I wrote them. What I did say is that because Tznkai is already overseeing you, s/he is the best person to talk to about this. I'm sorry that you misunderstand; it's probably because English is not your first language. And no, that is not an attack; I certainly wouldn't understand anything you said in Korean or Japanese or Urdu for that matter.

The reason I propose such solutions is that they are both fast and effective. Dealing with problem users often drags on for a ridiculous amount of time, wasting everyone's energy and sucking up volunteer resources. Quick and effective--but thought-out--solutions are best for the people involved because they can move away from their dispute, best for the other editors who have gotten sucked in because the dispute ends, best for the project because less of our finite volunteer time is eaten up by dealing with twits who have nothing better to do than snipe at each other.

So. I have done nothing wrong here, but you have. I really strongly suggest that you re-examine your behaviour before admins get involved, because I have the feeling it will not end well for you, given what Tznkai said at your topicban discussion about why s/he imposed the restrictions. I tried requesting that you remove your off-topic and personal comments, and you have chosen not to do so. I have tried explaining to you what is actually going on, and you refuse to listen. Instead, you follow your usual pattern of attacks and accusations. That's your choice to behave that way, and you will eventually have to face the consequences of continuing such behaviour. If you would actually like to enter into a dialogue of constructive criticism with me, you are more than welcome to. If, however, you would rather persist in attacking me and making ridiculous accusations, then please consider this your final and only warning before I seek to have a prohibition on interactions with me added to your general editing restrictions. I don't need the stress you cause. //roux   20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you're threatening with the totally unacceptable personal attacks. Tell me what exactly your proposals get a success. You think your own topic ban was working well, why you got the many badges in just few months? You said your blocks were "just from topic ban" at your RFA. That contradicts your rationale for your constant topic-ban proposals. If the new topic ban roosa by you at this time is approved, that would be your "second" successful one. The others were "ignored", but you can show me the aedged success with by your proposal.

If many people perceive your behaviors "uncivil", that's who you're and your inappropriate behaviors are well documented in your RFA as I already said. So don't make more fuss about my valid criticism toward your incivility. That is nothing new and you have done as such to me today again. "Grow up" means I'm acting like a child. that is an "insult" to any adult. Why don't you practice it to yourself and then don't produce such contradictory comments? I commented to the repeated pattern of your behaviors and you are very upset at the criticism. Don't you remember your own comments regarding your investigation? Search your comments toward me. As for your proposal to ban me, other two editors pointed that your proposal is "unfair" and unjustified" and "unrelated" to the ongoing issue. There was no other suggestion except "topic banning the one or the two altogether". Do not distort the situation. The only big mistake I made is I should've brought it to RFC if you're active. Therefore, I don't want to see another victims who do not know about DR methods are trapped into your ban-setting.

I have antipathy feeling toward you? Oh, I only don't respect people who play "dual standards" and are only generous about "their fault". Open your eyes and see yourself. One thing clear is that your long term antagonistic behavior toward me leaded "the ban" and you're now threatening to pledge for more restrictions. Even when I was harassed by indef.blocked socks or trolls and reported by them, you commented only against me. Then you're complaining that I don't love you? Funny. Besides, do not derail the main issue, however, since you mentioned your abandoned meditation by your grand departure, I must response. You did not meditate anything related to me at all: All you did is you just simply oppressed me to yield into your "own rule" with your incivility. You're the one to make me feel really a deep frustration on the MedCom system. Fortunately, after you declared to leave Wikipedia, a civil meditator with good faith gave me some hope. Ever since you came back to Wikiedia, I've seen many dramas around you. Then you said you've been not uncivil and done nothing wrong to people. Don't be kidding any more.

I've done nothing wrong about the criticism on your behaviors and the proposal. Here you're not only forum shopping for the unrelated matter (but related to your own behaviors) but also threatening me with the unwarranted manner. As soon as you realize who you're and how people evaluate you, that would be a chance for you to start treating people nicely.--Caspian blue 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Encore

Extended content

Tznkai, this thread had grown quite a bit while I worked quietly on the following: A. In the archived Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Sennen goroshi Caspian Blue, please allow me to refresh your recollection, not so much about what you wrote, but why did you write it? What you were thinking at the time? -- see here: The final nail in the coffin is Caspian blue spending his time attacking roux instead of anything productive, or even an affirmative defense. Request for topic ban Accepted, Caspian Blue and Sennen goroshi are restricted as described by the above topic ban for the duration of six months.--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) [emphasis added] B. You probably overlooked the final diff in this WP:AN/I-thread before archiving. As I construed Caspian blue's words, what struck me was the absence of any sense that Caspian blue could have or should have handled anything differently -- no remorse, no regret, no reason to abate a campaign to denegrate Roux, albeit in the coded language which Wikipedia policy defines as civility. -- see here: Roux, I've brought up not "content issue", but "behaviroal issues". However, you seem to ingore the fact and exaggerate your "own" feeling stemmed from our history.(your abadonment of meditation for your "retirement).--Caspian blue 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC) C. In a context inspired by "A" and "B," you may recall that I posted a cautiously neutral comment on an iteration of this talk page (which has since been archived). My muted message was so cautiously inoffensive that you wondered what was the point; and Caspian blue responded to my intolerable temerity with serial, escalating, exaggerated comments while I sought to avoid exacerbating any incipient conflict -- see here: In my view, a crucial concept needs to be introduced into this "tipping point" moment; and more importantly, this constructive notion needs to be incorporated in whatever process ensues. George Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Wikiquote D. In the context now created in this newest thread, please allow me to remind you of a tidbit of conventional wisdom that roux and others misunderstand -- and Wikipedia is ill-served by this continuing misconception. The fact-of-the-matter is this: It is demonstrable that it does not take two when Caspian blue is involved -- see here: Do us all a favour, okay? Address your own shortcomings and stop attacking others who point them out to you. It takes two to tango, and Sennen Goroshi is your favourite dance partner. If you're capable of doing so, address the topicban that we are here to discuss and stop bickering with other people. //roux   21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) [emphasis added] In the rhetorical sense roux used above, I too have been Caspian blue's "dance partner." The ordeal engendered a string of bitter lessons learned the hard way. As an over-bearing dance partner with me and others, Caspian blue has learned that derogatory, provocative tactics work very well indeed, usually causing ill-informed observers to presume that "it take's two to tango." While, I still refuse to say very much, I'm mindful of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. As I tried to explain earlier, my continuing restraint should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). To whatever extent I can affect what develops from this newest incident, I would oppose ascribing any kind of "benefit of the doubt" in whatever process unfolds. I am offended by the heedless harassment of roux by Caspian blue, but it represents only the tiniest part of the parade of harms which are documented in Caspian blue's edit history. Bluntly, Caspian blue is a "toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing which makes Wikipedia possible. What bothers me most is the likelihood nothing will happen which encourages Caspian blue to reconsider strategies and tactics which ultimately profit no one. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've washed my hands of this mess. I hope that Tznkai has a word with CB, and should CB continue to act towards me in this way I will attempt to have restrictions placed on him from interacting with me, period. //roux   21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux, if you continue to behave toward me in your usual way, I believe you will get the consequence. --Caspian blue 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Q.E.D. --Tenmei (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei again

So Tenmei you can't stop hounding me and making such attacks rooted on your deep grudge. Now let go of the report on your extreme incivility right after an admin accused you for your incivility. At that time, another you-know-who admin who has watched you for a long time suggested me to take your unwarranted attacks to ANI, so I did. You have gotten frequently lectured how you offend people, so this attacks Bluntly, Caspian blue is a "toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible. is just mirroring yourself; "Toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible.". That is you, Tenmei. Oh, you also attack "Roux as a heedless harasser". Well, Tenemi, I believe when you say such thing much out of line, you're all responsible for your action.--Caspian blue 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Q.E.D. --Tenmei (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

Tznkai, per this edit by Caspian, I would appreciate it if you would restrict him from interacting with me in the future. I have no problem not interacting with him, seeing as I don't interact with him anyway. //roux   22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux, the retaliating request means you have to be restricted "again" as prohibited from interacting with me together in the future. Since that is your intention, I have no problem of the proposal.--22:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no I don't. Because I don't interact with you. You showed up to comment on my proposal and started attacking me. You. Not me. You. I did nothing. You need to be restricted from coming anywhere near me, because I do not need the stress you cause. //roux   22:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you ask people's opinion on the proposal? That was not "sudden" since you expected anyone's comment at the public space. So I left my opinion since I think your constant ban proposal/incivility toward people at ANI give stress. You need to think about your behaviors not producing unhelpful comments toward people. I perceive your "encouragement" comment toward Tenmei's personal attack is very improper too.--Caspian blue 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion

Despite the length of the discussion, I actually did in fact, read it a few times, and I want my talk page back. Between the three of you you've written some 3,579 words, and I cannot imagine this is remotely important to justify the time expended or the rancor. Its bad enough that you can't remain civil to each other (bickering, however restrained in vocabulary, is still uncivil or at least unproductive on all sides), but do you really have to drag a non participating party's talk page into it? I didn't get a word edgewise, but that didn't prevent this free for all. So, put yourself in my shoes, and ask at what point do you all start looking like idiots? I will not answer any questions raised, because they are not important. What is important is you all stop bickering.

Request for intervention  Declined. Get off of my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Caspian blue shows up out of nowhere to attack and harass me, I asked you politely to have a word with him. At which point he continued to attack and harass me, as he does with every single user who has ever criticised him in any way. And you're going to do nothing about it. You do realise that this just enables his behaviour, yes? You do realise that he's just doing precisely what caused you to enact his topicban in the first place, yes? //roux   17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And what did you do? I'll tell you what you didn't do: you didn't ask for my help, and then leave it alone. Nor did you try to make peace - though you might be excused for that. Instead, you ratcheted up the drama level by continuing to argue with Caspian blue. I am not an administrator on demand - I have no obligation, and no particular desire to play cop in disputes that are entirely personal. Tell me what intervening will actually gain for the project? What tangible effect will exist here? Short of handing out indefinite blocks, I don't see a way to stop the lot of you from continuing your personal feud - nor am I interested in apportioning blame - the fact is, no one is willing to step back and shut up instead of argue.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a personal feud, Tznkai. I don't interact with him--unless he shows up to harass me. I stay away from him, because I don't like getting sucked into this crap. What I hate more, though, is allowing lies about me to stand. So yeah, I'm going to defend myself. All I want is for Caspian blue to stay the hell away from me, enforced with blocks if he continues this ridiculous behaviour. //roux   18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for you to defend your honor - and administrators are not empowered to intervene with blocks just because you don't get along with someone. It is a personal feud in part because you have allowed it to become one. Not only is "defending yourself" unnecessary, it is actively harmful.--Tznkai (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't get along with him. It's that he takes opportunities--as he has done here--to attack and harass me. I just want him to stay away from me. I do the same to him--we don't edit in the same areas, I stay away. I just want him to leave me alone. //roux   18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that and I'm telling you to just ignore him. Or perhaps try out WP:DR, but whatever it is, my talk page is not the place for it.--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please. This is intolerable. He won't stop. I'm begging you to do something here. //roux   19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, one thing is clear to me that if Roux had not come into my affairs totally unrelated to him (how many times he being as a busy-body to my matter? too many), my wiki-life would've been much happier than now. look who's talking about harassment and incivility? Roux should look back on himself.--19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux's typical drama again. You harassed me with the threat and the gross incivility. Roux, you are forum shopping here because you can't bear any criticism on you conduct unlike your behaviors toward people. I also noticed that Roux contacted to Nihonjoe via offline[49] for this matter (I know exactly why he did that). His disruptive behaviors including forum shopping should be stopped for now.--18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want any more from you either.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tznkai, although I do think Roux get some admonishment from you for what he has done to me, I appreciate your analysis and calm demeanor. Sorry for the drama.--Caspian blue 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

James Arbuthnot

Please would you check out this article for WP:UNDUE etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Will look at it tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is in relationship to the things you've posted on the talk page - those look like editorial pieces? Its hard for me to tell without a link or a copy of the papers - but generally speaking editorials don't qualify as reliable sources. Could you be more specific what you're looking for?--Tznkai (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Test case

To answer your question, no I don't want to be a test case and doubt I would enjoy re-running RFA. But I think it is important to be accountable, and if that means every now and then a frivolous recall request and the process works like it should, just to ensure that if I did ever mess up, I'd hear about it loud and clear, I'm willing to accept that. Thanks for the sentiments though. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk page banner

Re the banner at the top of Talk:Cold fusion about a ban, that you posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee: As far as I remember I've never had any interaction with the editor mentioned; I started editing Cold fusion after the editor was banned; but every time I come to the talk page, I feel embarrassed to see that sort of prominent notice about a specific individual. It seems undignified to me. I would prefer to have the banner removed: I think it's unnecessary and that enough people know about the ban. Note that a brief, low-key mention of another editor's ban was recently removed from the same talk page as a personal attack: [50]. If it's not possible to remove the banner, would it be OK with you if I move the name of the editor into the hidden part, and/or move the banner to the bottom of the collection of banners on the talk page? Thanks in advance for considering my request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the banner myself, but it seems to be our SOP. It is important to have some sort of record of the ban easily accessible - I have no particular problem with you shrinking it, or moving it or making it less conspicuous but still present. I'll try to get an Arb or two to opine.--Tznkai (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've moved the name to the hidden text and moved the banner lower in the collection of talk page boxes (just above the archive box). I considered adding "modified by Coppertwig (date-time)" since it states that you posted it but you didn't post this precise wording; however I figured that would only complicate things unnecessarily so I didn't. (Maybe I should have.) I changed "is banned" to "has been banned" because, once I had changed the name to "An editor", I thought "An editor is banned" didn't sound quite right. I'm satisfied with it as it is now. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Canon 1398

This particular canon says : “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” [51] [52] This is what this story is about, in the article José Cardoso Sobrinho. In truth, the vast majority of excommunications are automatic (latae sententiae), and they don't even need to have the opinion of a bishop. All abortionists and their friends are de facto excommunicated, this is a taboo that the media do not really understand because they are not specialists in the laws of the Church. Also, many abortionists were originally Jews because it was forbidden for Christians to practice in that field. I also think that Canon 1398 would deserve an article unto itself (or at least a stub), along with other controversial or misunderstood canons. ADM (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this, I will get to it but probably not a for a couple days. ADM appears to be a new user, anyone reading who wants to show him the ropes?--Tznkai (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerking request

Heyo Tznkai,
Best I can see, this 'timeline' section is evidence presented by MeteorMaker and should be marked as such. If you agree with my perception here, I'd like to request that you fix it.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon 2

I reverted your closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon 2. The last comment (mine) was only a few days ago. The dispute is ongoing and unresolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thirty days, that's all that RFCs are supposed to run. Tznkai closed this one a few hours early. Frankly, if nobody else has commented in 4 days, and your addition was 18 days after the previous one, I don't really think you have much to complain about; your concern is more about content than contributor. I'll be reverting to Tznkai's version at 15:17 UTC tomorrow, unless you revert yourself first. Risker (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, time is given for other editors to read and endorse any new views, but a few days is sufficient in this case as so much time has lapsed. In effect, although I agree with Risker, I would ask that unless WhatamIdoing self-reverts, that there is no revert to Tznkai's version; I intend on re-closing it with a few adjustments. This will take no longer than 48 hours. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to join the discussion at WT:RFC#RfC.2FUser_time. It might help to first read the long-standing instructions for closing RfC/U pages first: you may notice that "because a magic 30-day timer elapsed" is not on the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That list is not exhaustive with respect to every single norm; particularly those that have outlived your presence at the venue. Once again, WhatamIdoing, I suggest you stop beating a dead horse and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapse

This section has become unreadable (at least in Safari 3.2.1/OSX 10.5.6). All I can see when I uncollapse it is "{{2}}" (disregard quotes and nowiki tags). The discussion may have stopped but the section is still referenced from several other sections, due to the Google search arguments there. Could you look into that? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

used the hat template instead.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Komondor

The Komondor article is usually edited wery seldomly indeed, but lately I had a lot of trouble and discussion and also asked for third oppinions on its size and appearence. This breed being fairly unknown, not many people check that article, or try to defend it from bias. I think it is strange that suddenly four newly created accounts which do not edit anything else but Komondor related topics, all of the sudden appear one after the other, and start working in the same direction, trying to modify the impresion of the breed size, supporting each other in all ways.

All this started because of one picture taken of an (appearently small) Komondor at Westminster Dog Show and used at the lead of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ article.

And all of them are referring to this certain Komondor dog, called Quincy, (which is said to be the one in that picture). All accounts try to adjust the Komondor dog article to make it sound like the breed is smaller which means, to look more like that dog in that picture.

A dog the accounts and IP might be related to (thoug they deny this), or like this dog, which the accounts all call Ouincy, could be this dog here, http://clubs.akc.org/kca/theshow.htm a Komondor dog with a longer body than the international standards calls for (body lenght should be max 104% of the heigt at the dog at the whiters).

User(s) repeatedly removed relevant and sourced facts about size and body type..

Combined IP adress :70.121.204.57 and red link User:Meoconne assisted by User:Lynovella, repeatedly reverted edits at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ and Komondor dog breed articles, and removed facts from the Komondor article, such as: the dog breeds average height (30 inch), the fact that no upper height limit is given. leaving only minimum height and even other relevant and sourced breed caracteristics like square body (a dog term for a dog with short back) too.

Both average height (sourced) has been removed, (several times), [53] [54] [55], [56] [57] [58] upper limit height (sourced) [59], [60] mentioning other similar Hugarian sheepdogs [61], which all of them are relevant information for this encyclopaedia article on this dog breed, and when I (and even ClueBot) [62] [63] [64] [65] put them back he keeps removing them again [66], and makes quite a few unhelpful edits instead [67], removing reference title, [68] without any consensus. This is both Wikipedia:Edit war, and disruptive editing [69], [70].

This edit was also copright violation, an exact copy from the FCI Komondor Standards [71], poorly formulated edit added upper case The above mentioned newly created new red link user accounts are all editing the same articles, Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ Komondor and nothing else.

They are all concentrated on the same issue at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ and Komondor dog breed, trying to adjust the article to show that Quincy is a perfect dog according to the breeds standards.

User(s) were editing the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ and the Komondor dog article as an IP adress, IP adress 70.121.204.57, than under one username, User:Meoconne [72] He or she probably also edits the Komondor article and talk page as User:Lynovella and continues in the same time as IP adress 70.121.204.57.

First they were trying to ignore breed standard, other sources and pictures presented in argumentation on the talk page . It is also possible that the account User:Goldie102 has been created to support this issue around this Quincy dog, now, after a heated debate, claiming that the dog has perfect appearance, size, proportion and weight all according to the debated and well sourced International Komondor standards see edit [73].

I know sockpuppets are not allowed on Wikipedia.

I strongly suspect these are socks, can you check them, please?

Warrington (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CU\OS Ineligibility

WHAT?! I am ineligible to vote simply because I haven't made 150 edits?! This is crazy! Aren't my opinions as valuable as everyone else's? Does the fact that I'm new here determine that I have less ability to choose the right CheckUser? This is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous. I refer you to WP:DONTBITE. E. Novachek (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagine that the United States had refused to allow people to vote unless that they had improved the nation 150 times. Wait, that would be a good thing, because then Barack Obama wouldn't be President. This is unthinkably ridiculous. My opinions and I are just as important as the Wikipedians who have been here "forever." Let's stand up and change this discriminatory, unbelievable rule. Huck2012 E. Novachek (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to reply or just ignore me? I would call you a coward if I hadn't been brought up to be polite and respectful to my fellowman. E. Novachek (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Hi Tznkai,

Could it be that you forgot to notify NoCal100 (talk · contribs) of the opening of the case?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 06.03.2009 08:37

Looks like it - good catch.--Tznkai (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re this edit: Since I've borne the brunt of the allegations on the evidence page, I'm naturally a little worried that essential rebuttals may go unnoticed, and that's why I feel that direct links are helpful. I agree the location in my own evidence section might imply ownership. Could the links perhaps simply be given their own section? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I will probably create a separate section.--Tznkai (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently using a notice right above the TOC, do you feel this is sufficient?--Tznkai (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be handier if direct links existed, but I'm OK with that (having seen your note below that the arbs have assured us they do read every word). MeteorMaker (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll experiment with a collapsible navigation box, will try to get to it tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Length

Hi Tznkai -- I notice in the Judea/Samaria arbitration that you moved a comment of mine from the evidence talk page to the evidence page, but then later flagged my evidence section as surpassing the word limit. I didn't mind it being moved, but I'm hoping now I don't have to delete it since it takes me over 1000 words. I added the section in talk because it was an issue raised in several evidence sections, and it seemed to me that discussion was appropriate. Please let me know if I need to do something in any case. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The word count I just ran on my evidence submission reported 1002 words, including all of the "edit" buttons and so on. Maybe that's wrong, I'm not sure. Otherwise, I suppose I would rather have just left my comment on the talk page. There's a lot of fluff on the talk page; I try pretty hard to avoid fluff, but if the result looks too much like evidence I'm not quite sure know how to respond. Isn't a section on the talk page easy enough to ignore for those who want to? Maybe you'd have some way to collapse it, if you think that's necessary... Thanks in any case, Mackan79 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've received assurances from most of the arbs that they read every single word - my job in part is to keep those words properly organized. The word limit is in part to force you to focus your evidence on your most important points. I'd like you to take a crack at shortening it, but if you're unable to, I will assist you.--Tznkai (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Sorry! I thought it had been by refactored by your cutting it off at ~1000 words. I didn't realize you wanted me to rewrite the whole thing. I'll do it today – thanks for your note.--G-Dett (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, I would quite like to do that. I had sort of thought you and other arbitrators might be tired of my formulations and reformulations.--G-Dett (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence page

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but since you've been doing clerk actions on the page I wanted to let you know, in case you were wondering, that I would like the diff provided by Nishidani to remain in my evidence section. [74] Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok.--Tznkai (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

I'm thinking another review on the size limitations of evidence sections is in order so that editors will have the opportunity to correct this rather than having their notes chopped up arbitrarily. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking Martinphi

Martinphi has requested an unblock. As you were the blocking admin (a million thanks, BTW), you should be aware that it is being discussed at WP:ANI. Skinwalker (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Help me help you

To anyone who's asked for my help or otherwise had an inquiry, I've been uncontrollably busy with outside concerns. Please leave a brief message here or by e-mail reminding me what you needed and I will try to get to it tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

I'm thinking another review on the size limitations of evidence sections is in order so that editors will have the opportunity to correct this rather than having their notes chopped up arbitrarily. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll address this tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to do this midday Monday EST--Tznkai (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCase Del/res

WP:ANI#WP:OUTING. Perhaps I overstepped my bounds, but this needed to be quelled, in my opinion, as soon as possible. OVERSIGHT was informed, so the arbs know about it. -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Missed the point

Aeons ago (in our wiki-time frame), you seemed to solicit an explanation for what I'd hoped would become a constructive contribution:

(diff) I'm afraid I've missed your point.--Tznkai (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless, you will not recall my oblique comment in the now-archived "Note on the topic bans (Caspain Blue and Sennen goroshi)" -- here, nor are you likely to have remembered the responsive sub-thread. In that context, my mild voice was drowned out:

• 9. (diff) 20:34, 31 January 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) m (18,514 bytes) (→Comment) (undo)
• 8. (diff) 20:33, 31 January 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (18,492 bytes) (→Comment: toxic) (undo)
• 7. (diff) 20:26, 31 January 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) m (18,393 bytes) (→Comment) (undo)
• 6. (diff) 20:21, 31 January 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (18,391 bytes) (→Comment) (undo)
• 5. (diff) 20:18, 31 January 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (18,390 bytes) (→Comment: poisoning the essence of collaborative editing) (undo) ... (emphasis added)
• 4. (diff) 20:26, 31 January 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) m (17,581 bytes) (→Comment: caveat) (undo)
• 3. (diff) 02:23, 31 January 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) m (17,390 bytes) (correction) (undo)
• 2. (diff) 02:06, 31 January 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) (17,237 bytes) (+ more) (undo)
• 1. (diff) 01:58, 31 January 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) (16,971 bytes) (→Comment) (undo)

I invite your attention to the topic again, this time in a new context -- here. My purpose in contacting you now is two-fold. Initially, I want to ask questions about how to use diffs more effectively than I manage to demonstrate in this message; and secondarily, if you are willing, I would hope to amplify what I could not in January.

If this is perceived as an unwelcome intrusion on your talk page -- as you seemed to construe this -- I will simply stop with an apology for having knocked on the wrong door. --Tenmei (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am going to have to pass on this one, I don't have the time, I'm sorry.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your question

I would like to help, but I'm concerned you've put me in something of a bind. In your explanation here, you say that over-length evidence will be collapsed and moved to the talk page. But here my evidence wasn't too long, until you did the opposite and moved my talk page comment to the evidence page. I would move my comment back to the talk page, but of course that would be to undo your action. Besides that, the section you moved is now cited in response to Roger Davies' inquiry.here. If we need to stick to the original limit, my only suggestion is to move my comment back to the talk page. Otherwise I would certainly appreciate any suggestion you have. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply with my note that excess evidence could be kept on the talk page indefinitely. The talk page move is meant more as a buffer, giving the author time to modify their evidence while keeping it in the public view. In any case, it is not the only way I will treat overlong evidence, just an example of what I might do. Now, the section I moved to me, was evidence. Specificly, it was evidence under the accusation that Jayjg is "stonewalling and wikilawyering" Overall, I believe your evidence section has a lot of "fat" that is to say, excess words and has a conversational feel to it. I am confident you could minimize your evidence a great deal, making the same point with less words.--Tznkai (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of discussion

Am I correct in thinking that you are the administrator who removed my discussion from this [75] thread?

I have explained here [76] why I think my block was a mistake, and my reasons apply equally to the removal of discussion involving an important issue in the arbcom case. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how important the issue is to the case - and as the case clerk, I feel that it in fact has not only crossed the lines of good taste, but has disrupted the bare minimum (and I keep my standards rather low these days) conduct standards in Arbitration proceedings. It is my advice, within that role, that you find a much less inflammatory way of making your point - whatever it may be - and do it with specified and dispassionate evidence and analysis. You are obviously no longer blocked, and you may once again participate in the case - but do not forget that editing privilege that you may not abuse.--13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You will forgive me if I think that getting blocked for discussing an issue central to the case, does not promises much for a fair outcome. In my edit I tried to explain that issue in terms that I hoped would make some of the problems involved more clear and understandable. My block for doing that, and the removal of my comments, has allowed one side in the case to frame the discussion on their own terms.

I know it is a hot issue, and I know that because of the flammability few other editors are willing to risk the blocks, and possible banning, to present this problem in plain language. Because of the very heat of the issue, it is rather easy to misrepresent what has been said as an attack, to present what was said to administrators as an attack, and (because administrators are accustomed to look first for 'violations') to get a block from an administrator who did not understanding the complexities involved.

Also, despite your squeamishness over my language, others commenting on this case have included language in their edits that I have not used on WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Making broad sweeping statements accusing people of being antisemetic is not useful - and the discussion that accusation fostered did not generate any information that I found to be useful to anyone, and was not heading in the direction where it would get more useful than nasty.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nasty"? Well, yes...this whole arbcom case is very nasty, and that is none of my doing. In any case I did not write that edit without thinking carefully about it. For now I am satisfied that my protest over this has been acknowledged here, and if necessary I will return to the issue later.

Sorry about any unpleasantness. I am just trying -- not too successfully so far it seems -- to get you to understand the importance of the edit that you removed. Unfortunately antisemitism is nasty business, even the relatively benign "garden variety" that I was discussing in that edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Essay on punishment

I worked on it at one point and forgotten about it. You've reminded me to get back on it though. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good move

Way to deny recognition to opportunism[77]! Chillum 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that not a personal attack? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not, but why not? Chillum, would you kindly refactor to "Way to deny an opportunistic edit?" or something similar?--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure... Malleus, you are not a duck, you just just quack and walk like a duck(This is of course a metaphor referring to the Duck test). Chillum 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself, can you Chillum. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That was half an hour ago. I think you wanted this to be finished? Either way, I do have to go off wiki for a bit. Please no fighting on my talk page while I'm gone.--Tznkai (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

my evidence

Hi Tznkai, thanks for your note. I'm sorry for the delay; I started at it, then found it onerous and began to procrastinate, then forgot. How's that for an excuse.

I'll do it tonight when I get home from work. Promise. All best, --G-Dett (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you are working on it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's done now, sorry again.--G-Dett (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

AE muddling

Tznkai, I'm leaving you a note of this edit (which I reverted). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect experienced admin users not to make edits like that. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm. Can I get some background?--Tznkai (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I filled an AE report about Dr. Dan. Deacon appeared and turned the discussion into one about user Radeksz. I tried to introduce order by moving posts about Radeksz to a separate thread, Deacon himself refactored the discussion previously by moving Radeksz comment around ([78]). Deacond reverted me. A discussion took place on his talk; also, an AE reviewer has posted this. I do agree with Deacon: "I don't think it's unreasonable to expect experienced admin users not to make edits like that". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, you obviously didn't notice, but that reviewer's comment was about you posting irrelevant material about me. And as MBisanz already pointed out to you, there was no need to reorganise the information the way you did. Let's be honest, you did it purely in an attempt to discredit the comments I made (why else such a heading). That's tendentious editing, and, as involved, you really should know better. I don't think it's too much to ask, at the very least, for experienced users such as yourself to adhere to normal wiki etiquette. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for use of placenames

Hi, Tznkai. I would appreciate it if you would give me some advice and/or assistance about how to move forward with the draft guidelines here (note that the section linked to is a first draft, and there is an updated version lower down).

I've been thinking it may be a good idea to notify all the parties to the case who have not commented on the guidelines, to make sure they're aware of them. For example, MeteorMaker has not edited much in the past few days and may not be aware of the draft guidelines (but is editing about now). If you also think it would be a good idea to notify the parties about the draft guidelines, I would appreciate it if you would be willing to do the notifications.

Involved parties: Have they commented on the draft guidelines?

• yes Pedrito (talk · contribs)
• no MeteorMaker (talk · contribs)
• yes Nishidani (talk · contribs)
• (yes, on workshop page) G-Dett (talk · contribs)
• yes Nickhh (talk · contribs)
• yes Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• yes NoCal100 (talk · contribs)
• no Jaakobou (talk · contribs)
• no Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs)
• no Brewcrewer (talk · contribs)
• no Elonka (talk · contribs)
• no ChrisO (talk · contribs)

I think we also need to do an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on policy and conventions). I'm not sure whether to do that now, or to wait a few days to allow more discussion and development of the guidelines first.

I put a link at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Israel–Palestine, but now I'm thinking maybe that wasn't appropriate, since the naming conventions page is (primarily) about titles of articles, while these guidelines are about use of placenames within articles. However, there may not be a better place, so maybe the link is OK there. (I also put links at WP:ISRAEL, WP:PALESTINE and the workshop talk page.) I'm also wondering what to name the page if the guidelines are put on a separate page, e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Israel–Palestine) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Use of placenames or something. And when to move them to a separate page, e.g. just before the RfC, with a {{Proposed}} template. If you would be willing to take the lead in getting some of these details worked out I would appreciate it. Thanks for all the stuff you've been doing on the case: well done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Somebody pointed out that we can't do much at the moment due to religious holidays. It's probably not a good time for any notices. MeteorMaker has commented on the guidelines and there's some ongoing discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Civility

On the talk page for Abortion, I've just received personal attacks from KillerChihuahua and Jim62sch. Am I not allowed to object to this? Their response was knee-jerk, applying a blanket assumption of bad faith to anyone wanting to include a relevant image. I see from Jim's talk page that he has a habit of being uncivil, but KillerChihuahua is an admin, and so I might expect better of her. Sorry to drag you into this, but well established editors shouldn't behave like this. Fences and windows (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You are - I just think that everyone walking away first and cooling down is going to get us quicker to the civil understanding phase than continuing to fight on an article's talk page. I'll address this further in about an hour or so.--Tznkai (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(I hope Tznkai doesn't mind if I also answer here.) I find that on Wikipedia, complaining against personal attacks against oneself doesn't tend to be effective. You can do it, and you might get somewhere, but what often happens is that a complaint against personal attacks against yourself is interpreted as part of an effort on your part to support one side of a content dispute. (This is unfortunate and may be due to a failure to assume good faith.) It's much more effective to complain about personal attacks against others, most especially when the attacks are from people on the same side of a content dispute as yourself: which may take openmindedness to recognize, since one's own bias can lead to perceiving such attacks as acceptable, clever rhetoric.

I'm sorry: I looked around for a while at Talk:Abortion and didn't find the attacks you were talking about. But I understand in general that people do say things on Wikipedia from time to time that can be extremely unwelcome to other editors, and I encourage all editors to be very careful not to make unwelcome remarks about other editors except when necessary for dispute resolution, in the appropriate forum, in neutral and objective terms and supported by diffs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I know exactly to which Fences and Windows refer, and no, it isn't particularly helpful. One of the problems we get at the abortion article especially, and part of the reason I've been rather against this picture thing, is when certain issues come up, everyone catches a big case of the stupids. There are, in my opinion, legitimate arguments on both sides - but they seldomly are acknowledged. Instead, we quickly descend into bickering, finger pointing, and escalating rhetoric. Before long, it gets personal. From my perspective, I don't get a lot of use out of assigning blame, because that is usually irrelevant to actually fixing the situation.

As far as this case in particular - yes, I think KC was a bit aggressive. I do urge you however, to try to avoid taking it personally. If you would like, I will talk to her about it, probably tomorrow - but I think that the best thing to do is to put our best foot forward instead. Let me know.--Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wise words, thanks. I've said my piece and got over my irritation, so I'm not going to turn this into some feud! Fences and windows (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing the ArbCom draft policy

Hi, do I just copy-edit it (with strike throughs and ... added words in italics)? Or is one meant to repeat a whole section, fixed, in the footnoes? I have comments, too, but a whole bunch of changes that won't change the intended meaning. Tony (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the policy itself is locked, probably to avoid substantive changes. I think its best if you stick to your substantive comments in the meantime. You may want to ask Kirill if he's OK with you making a bunch of copy edits. I'll work on getting a more solid answer for you.-- Tznkai (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless ...

I enjoyed reading this comment, and without looking into the details too much, I think I very probably agree with it, and your next comment in that thread, and the similar comment on CENSEI's talk page. Nevertheless,

Whack!

You have been trouted for: blastiferous drama-mongering at AN/I. Blustering comments from third parties achieve nothing. Keep cool, dude. Nothing personal. -- Noroton (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A day late, a dollar short, but I will be less hang 'em high next time.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusion over edit

Sorry about this, (which you fixed); I was trying to address the redlink and grammatical issues in this series. I guess I must have not only clicked "undo" instead of "edit", but had a large range selected, or edited from the wrong tab; I'm not sure. Thanks for catching the error. Whatever404 (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Silencing criticism

Please refrain from moving my response.

The arbitration committee made an announcement on the main discussion page for arbitration issues. I responded to it there. You initially attempted to move it out of context; you then attempted to remove it to another page, not usually used for discussion, which merely repeated the announcement.

I posted my response in the right and proper place, and I think it is very poor form for a clerk to try and use their role to suppress critical commentary of committee decisions. Rebecca (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The announcement was made by Kirill on WP:AC/N, then later cross posted by Tiptoety on RfAr. WT:AC/N serves as a centralized discussion for arbitration related announcements, such as agendas. If you'll notice, Tiptoety's post had a "discuss this" link. I am not silencing your criticism, but in fact, putting it on the same board as all the other items are discussed.--Tznkai (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Check the timestamps. I understand your concern, but I assure you, you have it exactly backwards.--Tznkai (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:AC/N also has the advantage for the committee that it's a page far less people read, compared to WT:RFAR, where these discussions have centrally located lately. Hell, I didn't know that page existed until you moved it there. It's one thing for the committee to decide that they're going to create a place to post their announcements; it's entirely another thing to start removing criticism posted elsewhere to that talk page. Rebecca (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet, it is exactly the correct context, on the correct noticeboard, linked to and by original post. This has become been the established standard for almost 3 months. For most users, WP:AC/N is in fact the place to figure out what arbcom is up to, and what people who are criticizing arbcom are up to (short certain offwiki sites anyway). The announcements are cross-posted, by the clerks, to increase the visibility of the announcements and the centralised discussion locus. Whatever imagined political advantages there is, it is easily negated by the amount of noise you've created about accusing me of censoring you (which oddly enough, I don't even take personally anymore). You have gotten both the boring details, and my intent exactly wrong.--Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

West Bank Arbitration - User: Malcolm Schosha

Now I know everyone hates a grass, but this guy's behaviour is just getting silly now. You collapsed this long thread - which had descended into some fairly wild and unsubstantiated smears about anti-Semitism, directed against "90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it" - and warned editors that you would "likely interpret any attempt to continue the conversation to be disruptive to the Arbitration proceeding". Well funily enough, he's just done that with this edit, where he simply more or less repeats the comments and accusations he made earlier, as well as repeating the claim that User:Pedrito - who "initiated" the case, and hence was clearly a target for the accusations - was "whining". Not only is this, as you suggest, disruptive to a page which is probably confused and over-populated as it is, but he has been blocked twice now in recent days for banging on about this and making these repeated personal attacks against editors, who unsurprisingly do respond to rebut the stuff he throws around like this. --Nickhh (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Addressed at case page.--Tznkai (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Schosha also engaged in this behavior repeatedly at Gilad Atzmon article and of course was sanctioned twice before for this kind of behavior in this arbitration, as shown on his Talk page. (Probably if someone looked at other articles he's edited, they'd find similar behavior.) Should he be brought up for a topic ban? I don't look forward to his returning to the Atzmon article or running into him elsewhere again, but at least I will know where to complain right away! Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While the case is on going, I'm actually not the best place to go, I restrict myself to only dealing with parties within the context of the case. Speaking generally, topic bans are usually brought up and enforced on WP:AN, ANI and AE--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: FYI

Okay, will do. If you get a chance, could you ping on the parties and ask them to take a look at my question on the workshop? Thanks! Kirill ^[pf] 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Doing this now.--Tznkai (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Explaining repetitive edit

Re this edit of mine: since someone questioned me about this on my talk page, I thought I would just explain to you my reasons for being repetitive.

On the evidence talk page, MeteorMaker has (if I counted right) eight times misquoted paraphrased Jayjg as saying "distasteful ethnic discrimination" or "ethnic discrimination". Since some people might read only part of the page, I feel it's important to put a note immediately after each of these misquotations, to inform readers that they are inaccurate^{(12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC))}. I included a request not to move the notes, because a similar comment I had made earlier was moved by MeteorMaker such that it ended up somewhat separated from the comment it's correcting. I tried to keep the notes short. I'm sorry if I overdid them. I defer to your judgement as to what, if anything, needs to be done with them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for editing your talk page again, but I felt I had to refactor the above comment because MeteorMaker has clarified that the quotation marks were scare quotes, not indicating an exact sequence of words, and therefore it wasn't misquotation. I've also refactored my edits on the evidence talk and workshop pages. I still think it's important to have the notes, so that readers realize they aren't verbatim quotations. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Will come back to this over the weekend unless I receive a complaint first.--Tznkai (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)