User talk:MBisanz

This user, Matthew Bisanz, is currently being considered for election to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. To ask me questions, please visit the Questions page. To vote for me, please visit the instructions at the Voting page. Thank you for your time in considering my candidacy, I recognize that all of our editors volunteer their time in order to create and spread free-content, and am honored that you are taking the time to participate in these elections. If you support Matthew's candidacy, please consider adding {{User:MBisanz/Board}} to your userpage during the election.

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions.

Free culture?

I do not think that Skype could be usuable to "spread free culture" while it is censored. I suppose that you were joking. --Snek01 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I will not vote for you. I hope that you will change your mind in the future. You can still change your statement, because other sections of your statement are good. --Snek01 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanzBot

I'm not 100% sure of this, but your bot seems to be making some errors: diff. Not really sure why that happened, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Drewcifer (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Drewcifer (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it was picking up the }} wrong on some types of images, I've tightened the regex, so it shouldn't happen again. MBisanz ^talk 08:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Campora San Giovanni

Is good evening to you, an Italian uuser, do I sustain your candidacy on Wikimedia, would you be so kind to be helped to translate me from English into Spanish the voice of my village? thanks --Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. sorry my bad english--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks, MBisanz, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am still unable to vote.

I went to a windows run Pc but I still am not being allowed to vote. Can you help ? Albion moonlight (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No I forgot and I just assumed it would work, I will try again tommorrow or the next day and copy the message this time. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the comment on my RFA. While I should have given a little more thought when I did those actions, I am happy you brought them up for me to learn form them. :) Thanks again. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Restricted use

I have nominated Template:Restricted use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your swift and bold action here. Your work is appreciated. Watchdogb (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion on edit summaries

Could you please explain what you meant by "add" in these two edit summaries, [1] and [2]? Thank you in advance, Aspects (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hello fellow Long Islander. I have a question regarding my Admin coach, User:Shyam. As per his contribs, he seems to have left, or be inactive. I'd like to proceed with coaching, and would like to know what I should do. Thank you so much, T^heDJA^tC^lubR^ock :-) ^(T/C) 01:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Typo redirect Template:Non-free-NASA/doc

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Non-free-NASA/doc, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Non-free-NASA/doc is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Non-free-NASA/doc, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange MBisanzBot edit

This edit happened about a month ago, but I've only just discovered it. Your bot made this edit to User talk:203.14.53.45. I guess it thought that the template contained {{sig}} when it actually contained the parameter {{{sig}}}, hence the pair of opening and closing braces enclosing the substitution of Template:Sig. Is there any way to find other instances where the bot made this mistake and correct them? I couldn't find any with this Google search using text from Template:Anonblock. But then, there can't be too many non-proxy IP's that have had to be blocked for two years because of vandalism. I used to be on that IP address, and I like to check on how it's going from time to time. Graham87 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks for your attention to this matter. Did you catch my ramblings at User talk:MBisanz/Quotes? Graham87 00:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite funny :) MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"substing user templates"

What was the bot trying to do in this edit? --Carnildo (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up

Heads up, you have an email!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:StewieGriffin! Talk

Thanks for your input. Of course, this meets the rules as i was renamed by a crat (like you said).

StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Are you already a crat? You should most definately nominate yourself. I'll put immediate support (if you tell me) StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If I could vote, I really would vote for you. I've added {{User:MBisanz/Board}} to my userpage. Good luck. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note i've fixed Image:Selectedsim.jpg. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Block explanation

User:Gmaxwell is a well-known Wikipedian. I assume he's the legit guy in question, as I know nothing about him, but I see his name around a lot. When I see an account that calls itself a sock of Gmaxwell, I think user/vandal that has an issue with him blowing some steam. User:Misza13 gets or got a lot of that. Basicly an account who's name says 'this is a sockpuppet' and doesn't show in the log as having been created by someone reputable should be a block on sight job. I would have appreciated some forewarning we might get something like that sprung on us out of the blue, but I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it. A misunderstanding occured and was undone, let's move on. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the block

As usual, someone tends to get to the block of a user before i do (idk why). This time it was you, on the revert and block on the user concerning the Palpadin High School page. Good job, and i hope you get the election.

GENIUS(4th power) (i dont feel like typing my sig) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GENIUS(4th power) (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure you haven't missed my comments about your nasty block and attack of me to protect another administrator -- a link

[3] You can find the rest, I'm sure. Feel free to carry out your ban threat. After all, that's the normal escalation, isn't it: one warning, then a block, then one warning, then a ban? --Blechnic (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted. MBisanz ^talk 07:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, would you consider taking some time to discuss things with Blechnic. There are some severe misunderstandings here, and I think some friendly overtures from you and/or Ryulong are needed to have any hope of resolving this. I started an ANI thread here, as this was an unresolved bit from a previous thread. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded here [4] MBisanz ^talk 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My response

Here you go, here are the diffs, the last two edits I made, the last to the article, and the last to the article's talk page before MBisanz blocked me:

My last edit to the article was at 8:47[5]

My last comment on the talk page,and last edit before the block, the edit that infuriated Mbisanz so much that it called for me being blocked with just a single warning was at 9:09: [6]

Mbisanz blocked me at 9:11 for an edit to a talk page discussing the article 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

--Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I was blocked for discussing the article on the article's talk page after a single warning about putting tags on articles by MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure you have my AN/I response, since you don't seem to have the accurate diffs of what you did to me that would have gotten any editor, new or established, seriously upset about your abuse of power. --Blechnic (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to settle this, you might consider stop trying to provoke me, and stop trying to establish every way you can that I'm a new editor and not worthy of your time. Which is precisely what your suggestion to recall sounds like. "Editor in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." You are not showing good faith in this, you are, instead, showing the desire and willingness to antagonize me, poorly justify your actions, and show other established editors that you can have a little fun. Why don't we not continue this on AN/I or anywhere, now that you've established that I'm not worthy of addressing you? --Blechnic (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I watch Mbsanz's Talk page because of past dispute with him, so I saw this. Blechnic, you are violating a very basic and important policy: Assume Good Faith. It used to be called a Policy, but I see that it was downgraded to a Guideline, probably because it's widely violated, in fact, but when a user consistently violates it in spite of warnings, friendly or otherwise, they do tend to end up banned. AGF isn't important when people agree, it's important when they don't. Wikipedia is not rule-bound. The actual definition of Reliable Source is a matter for editorial consensus, and whether or not to leave material in, pending research, which is not reliably sourced by the guideline, is likewise a matter for consensus. Consensus becomes impossible when editors aren't civil. Don't take this as a threat. If it were a threat, it would take the form of a warning on your Talk page, because then it could be the basis for a block if you continued the behavior. Nor am I an administrator, nor do I unquestioningly support admins in their actions. But neither do I attack them, assuming bad faith, absent clear proof. Lots of things are wrong with Wikipedia, but we are not going to fix them with incivility. Administrators make mistakes, it's practically a necessity. If an administrator made a mistake with you, there is process to address it, and clear your name and record, if you think it important and can find support, which you will if it was clearly a mistake. But you simply rage and blame and show contempt, that process becomes impossible. I've been involved with online communities for longer than the age of some administrators, and I've seen one thing over and over. Some participant is unjustly accused of something -- or thinks he was. Instead of calming addressing it and letting it go, the user becomes incensed and rages, and the rest of the community, from the response, comes to see the user as the problem, and won't even bother to look at the record, which has become irrelevant. If you were a police officer, and you walk into a bar, and someone is raging, whom will you focus on, whom will you take action to stop? The one raging will say it is the fault of the others, they did this or that, etc. But it is not the job of the police to determine and enforce justice, it is their job to maintain order. Administrators are not content judges here, they are process police. Their decisions are ad-hoc and reversible, and if they make too many mistakes, they can lose their privileges, particularly if they defend their errors. Administrators do a huge amount of work, many of them, slogging through the mud, and they do it with little compensation. Cut them some slack, help them to do their job, bear with their mistakes and help the community correct those errors. And if you are not willing to do that, maybe you are barking up the wrong wiki. --Abd (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A replay for MBisanz in the AN/I#Timeline Bidgee (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, if you read my recall, the filer must only be an "Auto-confirmed user not under editing restrictions."; it is the five people who agree with the filer that must "1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is a poster, not MBisanz, who posts in bold, in the midst of a long paragraph, "Don't take this as a threat," I guarantee, I have never in my life had to tell someone not to take something as a threat, so I won't be reading this page and the threats, and I will take it off my watch list. --preceding comment added by User:Blechnic note added by Abd (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I knew, from what Blechnic was writing elsewhere, that he could be inclined to take my comment as a threat, so I made that statement, and I made it prominently. And the statement essentially contained prima facie evidence that it was not a threat, because Blechnic isn't directly responsible for what is written here about him. Yes, it was a kind of warning, but with no stated or even possible "threat" of punitive or other direct consequence, it was merely advice. Had I intended to set Blechnic up for a block, I'd have warned him on his Talk page, where it could then be presumed that he read it, and I'd have made it very specific, warning that specific behavior, if continued, could result in a block. Now, in fact, because he responded to it as he did, (proving that my expectation was reasonable, as if that was necessary, he'd been writing "threat" here and there with considerable frequency), it could serve as a warning, if some administrator so chose. And there are over 1500 administrators, any one of which might make that decision. And the more the user attacks those who make a decision that is not clearly a violation of policy, the more the user will be perceived as disruptive. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

I don't know whether or not Blechnic will read this, but if he were serious about dealing with problems of alleged administrative abuse, he'd change his behavior and actually do something, pursuing due process. But the behavior itself prevents this, and my conclusion is that he, like many others before him, is one who rails against alleged oppression, but won't lift a finger in any disciplined effort to correct and prevent it. The world ihas many such people, unfortunately. --Abd (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was a bit surprised how she reacted to your comment, given that we rarely see eye-to-eye and even when we don't most people see your comments as straining to assume good faith, not making threats. I offered her my User:MBisanz/Recall page, since that is the fastest way to get lots of eyes on my behavior and call me to heel, so to speak, but she opted not to pursue that. I'm hoping she's move on to other editing and just doesn't like me. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the unblock

Yea, that's my fault for clicking on the wrong side of the "last" page to tackle vandalism. :-) --MASEM 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:PD-icon.svg

Hi, you protected this image, but it's on Commons. The local description page should probably stay protected to prevent local uploads with that name, but I just wanted to let you know you didn't protect the image itself. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk)

All good then. :) Rocket000 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Matthew, I am not sure if here is appropriate place to ask you this question, if you think is not, please just simply delete my question or move it to an appropriate place.

I would like to know if you become a board member, what action would you take to tackle troubles in cases such as this, where the sole bureaucrat in a less developed wikipedia, grossly abuses his bureaucrat privileges.

Many thanks --Kaaveh (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to ask this question. Of course, him being the founder and sole crat makes this a sticky subject. However, at the end of the day, his crat-ship and the actions that he makes, are community matters, that I, as a board member, could not involve myself in, and still proclaim that the projects operate based on their own consensus. Reviewing the conversation at Meta, I would suggest, in my role as an everyday editor, that a local Request for Comment on his actions be initiated, and if he should prevent this, then an RFC at meta m:RFC should be filed. As a last resort, the Persian community could seek arbitration at Meta m:Cross-wiki arbitration committee if internally it cannot reach a consensus even on an RFC. Thank you again for taking the time to ask this question. MBisanz ^talk 08:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your quick and insightful reply. All the best --Kaaveh (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

George Thomas Coker

You recently gave me a warning for adding "defamatory" content to the article. It was, however, perfectly well cited and verified in published media, and thus is not libel because it is true. Please explain what I have done wrong and why you have reverted it. -Oreo Priest ^talk 08:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not of undue weight, and it's not making a point. If you're in doubt as to whether racist remarks by a famous person are notable, please compare with James_D._Watson#Statement_claiming_links_between_race_and_intelligence, where it has a whole paragraph, and Michael Richards, where it is in the lead. The racist remarks certainly are notable and are not of undue weight, otherwise they would not appear in published media. You'll notice BLP requires that all negative material be properly sourced, not that it be absent. This need not be a hagiography simply because he is still living, and all the controversial material is properly sourced, and thus cannot be removed on BLP concerns, although it is possible that there be other reasons for its removal. Please explain. -Oreo Priest ^talk 08:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out here that quoting what someone has said, using a reliable source, is not defamatory. I was surprised to see MBisanz throwing that quasi-legal word around. I'll repeat what I said elsewhere: if Coker wants to comment on what he said, or how the documentary makers took him out of context or misportrayed him, then he needs to do that on the record with a reliable source. Then we can give balanced coverage. Until then, we can only present one side of the controversy, and to have Coker or those acting on his behalf asking for this content to be removed, is bypassing that process. Carcharoth (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources could be improved, and removing until the sources are improved is valid, but totally excluding the possibility of having this in the article is a heavy-handed approach. And the point about undue weight for quotes in footnotes is a subtle one, and not one that can be addressed with a general wave at a closed arbcom case that didn't really address the issue. Footnoted quotes need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We can remove the claim that it was anti-Vietnam, but that changes little. You, by the way, have mentioned no Arbcom ruling to me. If you wish, I can back up the claim with many other published sources. (here and here for example, furthering the claim that it by no means undue weight) I also request you retract the warning you have given me, as I have done nothing which warrants a block, cf WP:BLP "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption," which I have not done, as it was well sourced. -Oreo Priest ^talk 09:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned it here and the edit I reverted did include the addition of material whose sources did not back up the statements being made, so it was a proper warning. Remember the lines "We must get the article right." and "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".", your edit, as I described on your talk page, did not "get it right" since it was an unsourced addition to a BLP, subsequent sources don't change that edit. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PIO again

Matt, bearing in mind this comment a while back [7], I thought you might like to be aware that PIO's been openly editing over at Simple - see [8]. Especially given that he's banned now rather than just indef blocked. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just FYI, if you are going to follow this up, I've opened a thread over there at AN. See [9]. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Claim of Wikipedia:Libel at George Thomas Coker

You have recently warned User:Oreo Priest that his edit of George Thomas Coker was defamatory and in violation of Wikipedia:Libel (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oreo_Priest&diff=prev&oldid=219881664 this diff]. Can you explain how the inclusion of the article subject's statements backed by reliably sourced references constitutes defamataion? Can you explain how your accusation of making defamatory statements does not itself violate WP:LEGAL? Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I clearly explained my reasoning here as to why the edit violated BLP. Further, I used a standard warning template {{Uw-defamatory3}} that has been vetted by the community at large as an acceptable warning. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that at no point do you show that the statements made are defamatory. While the community has vetted the template, you have failed to show that it applies here. As such, your use of the template would be improper, at best. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying his remarks were "anti-Vietnamese remarks" when none of the sources use that wording is defamatory to his reputation. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Meatpuppet

I have recreated this as a redirect to Template:Meatpuppet2. I did this because a number of meatpuppets had this template transcluded on their userpage. Just wanted to give you a heads up, since you speedied the previous version. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)