User talk:Guy Macon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Your help?

Hi Guy. I'm trying to help improve the page on SAS (software) in a public relations capacity (see here), but haven't found anyone with the time/interest to collaborate on it yet. I saw on Wikiproject Cooperation that you were interested in technical topics (this is statistical analysis software) and I thought you might have an interest working with me on it. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 22:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

See article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Guy Macon. Do you think the SAS language page should exist? We already have separate pages for the software and the company, but then, the software is very notable to the extent that a separate page may be warranted - I don't know. I don't think I have the technical know-how to contribute to the language page and it seems like a potential trap for how-to. CorporateM (Talk) 13:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's notable enough to have a separate page, but the current page isn't really based on any sources, and in some cases is just plain wrong. For example the page claims that

"the SAS Institute created a wiki with the condition that any content there is irrevocably and permanently licensed to the SAS Institute"

but http://www.sascommunity.org/wiki/sasCommunity:Terms_of_Use says

"Unless you indicate otherwise in the particular posting, by posting your content, you are granting sasCommunity.org and all other users of the Website an unrestricted, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide, and fully transferable, assignable, and sublicensable right and license to use, copy, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create collective or derivative works from, distribute, perform and display your content in whole or in part and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, and you further warrant that all so-called moral rights in such content have been waived."

That's really not all that different than what we all agree to when we edit Wikipedia (it's at the bottom of the edit page):

"By clicking the 'Save page. button' you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."

and it certainly does not assert ownership of the content. In fact, it specificly says just the opposite: "...and all other users of the Website".

What I am going to do is to trim out the unsourced material, leaving just a stub. That way it will be ready to be expanded by someone who user proper citations.

It would improve Wikipedia and benefit SAS if we had something better. Is there anyone at SAS who might be willing to write something up for that page? I would be willing to do the usual "I have looked this over and it appears to be properly sourced and neutral so I am adding it in". If you ask, point them to SQL as an example of a good language page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll see. I posted a draft of the SAS (software) page for consideration. It's not "done" yet, but then Wikipedia never is - it's a big article to do all at once and the proposed is definitely a huge improvement. Some of the sources are "non-traditional" because it's a topic covered by experts and academics rather than mainstream media. For example, this website may just look like "some guy's website" but he's actually written five books on SAS. I'll probably circle back if/when SAS and/or SAS users (there are some active SAS users on Wikipedia) provide some input or just another time. CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I just made some changes that I think are improvements. Please do not assume that I am in love with my changes; if you think it was better before, change it back. Sometimes I end up wondering what I was thinking. Many times I conclude that it is OK either way. If i feel strongly about it, we can discuss it. (I am a big believer in WP:BRD). --Guy Macon (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I reverted back a couple things. Although I barely know what the MultiVendor Architecture is, I know from the sources it's a big deal and should be included in the History. SAS is involved in data integration, data management, etc. so it's more than retrieving the data for analytics.

Yah, I like being extremely bold in my volunteer editing as a release of sorts I think due to the patience I have to show in my COI editing. When I started doing this, it took months for me to push an article through corporate approval cycles and the article came out like mush. Now, I've got stuff like Monster (company), where we're on the home stretch for getting the article GAN ready, and Monster hasn't even seen the page. CorporateM (Talk) 12:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Glaisher

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. – Smyth\^talk 18:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Smyth, If you read WP:DTTR and WP:TTR, you will see that the arguments in the TTR essay are far more compelling that the arguments in the DTTR essay. I have yet to see anyone read them both and conclude that the arguments in DTTR are better. Also, Glaisher doesn't need you to fight his battles for him. He is a big boy and is perfectly capable of defending himself without your unsolicited assistance. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lighten up, please. It's just a joke -- the kind of good-natured pseudocriticism that you often see among people who like and respect each other. – Smyth\^talk 19:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Joking aside, if humor was your intention, then the whole question is moot, though that intention wasn't obvious to me and apparently several other people. – Smyth\^talk 19:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(Smile) It was indeed an attempt at humor, but it is also true that nobody has ever tried to defend WP:DTTR after reading the rebuttal at WP:TTR.

I am now trouting myself for not being clear enough:

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.

Ah. that was cold and slimy refreshing! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

DRN

If you're wondering some of the reasons as to why I opposed, besides the vi.wikipedia issue (if you told someone to stop doing something as part of the Commission, would you use tons of exclamation marks and all caps? would you be nice about it?) - I just don't think you understand what your role was in the DRN incident, and what you could have done better. (Even Steven Zhang, the founder of DRN, understood my concerns). It seems that you're more interested in people "following the rules" than resolving disputes, both then and now. Besides your continuing to smear my name on WT:DRN whenever you get the opportunity, and on my CU nomination (where you had little evidence to show that I would violate rules at SPI, or that I would violate someone's privacy if I disagreed with what they had to say). It came off like throwing pasta at the wall and seeing what stuck. You'll note that I had the support of several current CheckUsers, SPI clerks, and stewards at that nomination.

I understand that my comments at that DRN were probably suboptimal, and could have focused less on Martinvl (who is now indefinitely blocked), but your involvement certainly made the situation worse (as did Mark Miller's, but he has since tried to make amends, which I appreciate).

Finally, all of the other candidates I have worked with quite a bit (in all truth, I did have some misgivings about GiantSnowman, but not enough to move me from support), even if it's just on IRC and not visible otherwise. Factually speaking, you were the only non-admin candidate, and that does play a factor in my decision; the only non-admin candidate that I have supported for a seat on the Commission was Lord Roem, who was an ArbCom clerk. And as for your prior comment that nobody who works DRN can get into any other positions, I can name one who became an admin: Mr. Stradivarius. --Rschen7754 06:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there was User talk:Glaisher#November 2013: while he may not have many edits here, he is a global rollbacker, acting in good faith, and I don't think he deserved to be templated. It seems that you tend to overreact when telling people to stop doing something. --Rschen7754 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I made this edit based upom the above.

Upon reflection, here is what I believe is happening:

You see me doing something (using all caps) in one situation (dealing with a Vietnamese speaker who isn't getting it) and suspect that I will act the same way in another situation (dealing with arbcom candidates). In other words, you think my future behavior will be driven by my disposition or personality, as evidenced by what you have observed of my past behavior. I look at the same situations and believe that my future actions will be based upon the circumstances -- that I am smart enough to not treat arbcom candidates as if they had very bad English skills.

Meanwhile I see you doing something (not following rules that you disagree with) in one situation (DRN's rules about discussing article content and not user conduct) and suspect that you will act the same way in another situation (the rules about not misusing CU). In other words, I think your future behavior will be driven by your disposition or personality, as evidenced by what I have observed of your past behavior. You look at the same situations and believe that your future actions will be based upon the circumstances -- that you are smart enough to not treat CU like DRN.

This is a classic example of Fundamental attribution error, and it has caused each of us to mistrust the other and to conclude that he is fundamentally unsuitable for any position requiring the trust of the community. Meanwhile we have both concluded that we ourselves are perfectly trustworthy.

A related cognitive bias can be seen in your statement "Steven Zhang, the founder of DRN, understood my concerns". The thing is, I can say the exact same thing. If I wasn't familiar with Steven's methods of resolving disputes I could have interpreted his private correspondence with me as somehow supporting my position, but of course I knew that he was being sympathetic and understanding, not rendering a verdict. I admire him for that.

The obvious solution would be for me to leave the job of explaining why you cannot be trusted to others and for you to leave the job of explaining why I cannot be trusted to others. Realistically, if nobody else sees the flaws that we think make each other unsuitable, that should tell us something. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

On the surface, that may appear to be true, but it's more nuanced than that. "if nobody else sees the flaws that we think make each other unsuitable, that should tell us something." -> well considering the complaints that I got on my talk page about DRN (and the ones that I have gotten about aspects of DRN from a few arbs/functionaries), and another admin's comment about your templating Glaisher here, it's not true for you, and one could say the same about me (though in my defense, quite a few had less than pure motives). I would venture to say that some people didn't support you because of what I posted, though of course there's no way to know for sure. I would urge you to consider whether what people are saying is true, and whether you can improve your methods of communication.

Unfortunately, I don't see a way forward here. I think it's unfortunate that you've chosen to oppose all my subsequent rights nominations, especially as I was planning to use my CU rights to handle the Morning277/Wiki-PR case, with my crosswiki connections and access to assist me in the process. And the CU log is watched constantly, so any abuse of the tools would have been noticed very quickly, and would probably cause me to lose my OS access on Wikidata too, if WMF or the Ombudsman Commission got involved. In addition, the WMF is considering making CUs legally and financially responsible for purposeful violation of privacy policies. And I would never CU you, and would try to stay far from any cases that you filed to ensure full transparency. But if you want to oppose every rights request that I make from now until I retire from Wikimedia, that is your right to do so; there is nothing that I can do about that, and rightfully so.

What is not appropriate is rehashing what happened at WT:DRN every month or two. It's ax-grinding, plain and simple, and it looks quite unprofessional, along with breaking our policies on civility. What happened in March happened, and to be honest, it reflects poorly on all of us. It's time to move on, as User:Steven Zhang did tell you on this very talkpage. --Rschen7754 09:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

While it takes two people for an argument to occur, I am disappointed if this matter is still being discussed. It happened in March, and if it is still being discussed, well, it really is flogging a dead horse. We all make mistakes. Never forgiving each other (this includes not reminding them of it all the time) is a bad idea, and I hope you have both moved on. If so, great. I never spoke. If not, well, please do :-) Steven Zhang (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to just unconditionally stop. I am not going to discuss this again. I am not going to refer to it in any situation. I am not going to oppose Rschen7754 regarding CU or anything else, and in fact he can count on my support vote for CU (I had already decided to do that based upon his comments above about the the CU log being watched constantly). I would hope that Rschen7754 would leave the job of telling everyone that I cannot be trusted to others, but if Rschen7754 decides to oppose me in the future as he did when I volunteered for the Electoral Commission, I will not respond. Not that I am likely to allow myself to be put through that sort of thing again. Feel free to have the last word. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(Archiving after leaving it up for three days to make sure everyone has a chance to respond) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Negative Power Factor

After a long period of silence, Wtshymanski is back at Talk:Power factor and has picked up the stick again on his IEEE spec that conrtradicts itself [1]. You threatened to take action if he did, so now is your big chance. I B Wright (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski should be treated like anyone else who has a WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific theory that he cannot let go of. Please be very careful not to treat him worse than an adamant believer in perpetual motion or phrenology would be treated. His penultimate comment was on 24 August 2013‎, at which time several editors advised him to drop the WP:STICK. He dropped it until today (14 November 2013) at which point he posted a grand total of sixteen words. That's so far from being disruptive that I would give him a barnstar if not for the fact that in the past he has assumed that my honest attempts to tell him he did something right were sarcasm.

Meanwhile, Wtshymanski has been doing some fine work on articles where his fringe engineering theories don't interfere. Look at these edits for example, comparing the page before and after Wtshymanski edited it. That was some very good work. Now look at these edits to another page; again, a real improvement.

I am watching for any resumption of the former disruptive behavior, but one talk comment every month or two is not disruptive. The goal here is to encourage Wtshymanski's productive editing while discouraging him from getting into raging battles in those areas where his theories go against the scientific consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot argue that Wtshymanski does make positive contribution to Wikipedia when he puts his mind to it. This edit is a good example where an article was turned from a rather childish description of the action of an inductor into a much more engineering like description - a substantial improvement. However the edit betrayed one characteristic that Wtshymanski has shown on quite a few occasions. His description of what the inductor does was what a number of editors were trying to get into the article at Inductance. However, Wtshymanski was determined that that was not what inductance was and he wanted a totally different description (describing a solenoid). I have accumulated a few examples of where he argues a point one way at one talk page and then attempts to argue the exact opposite at another (and in one case: in the same talk page but at different sub discussions). I cannot help but form the opinion that where Wtshymanski appears to show an ignorance of some of the most basic engineering principles, the reality is, that he is merely adopting the argument that he does for no purpose other than to facilitate an edit war and a potentially lengthy discussion (if indeed he discusses at all). I find it hard to believe that an engineer at his level really does not understand the basics to the extent that he appears not to.

I was hoping to add details of these examples to the evidence gathering page for a potential future RfC. However, I cannot find it or a suitable link. I was fairly certain that this was being collated by DieSwartzPunkt, but that does not seem to be the case. Can you please remind me of where this is located? -I B Wright (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that he deleted it.[2] Of course there is the first RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski). Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance for guidance. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(Archiving after leaving it up for three days to make sure everyone has a chance to respond) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

DRN for Richard Armitage (actor)

Guy, Thank you for your willingness to take on the requested Dispute Resolution regarding the article on Richard Armitage. Out of respect for your time and the work you have already put in, I wanted to let you know that I do not plan to participate in the DR any further. This is a conduct issue on KiplingKat's part, based largely in her need to WP:OWN the article. Consensus was reached, she herself made the desired edit. The article is accurate, reflective of the content of the sources we have available to use, and verifiable. There is nothing to dispute, much less resolve, and I'm not willing to do anything to encourage any further disruptive editing on KiplingKat's part. All the best to you, --Drmargi (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There is no requirement to participate, but you are always welcome. Once any remaining content issues are resolved (which looks like it will be pretty easy to do) I will give everyone involved advice on where to go t resolve conduct disputes.

Again, thanks for the welcome. There are no content disputes; this is all conduct, and I know where to go. I just don't have any confidence it will do any good. I'd prefer to give KK a wide berth instead. She's most likely run me off the article, just as she has every other editor who has dared to challenge an edit she makes. Best of luck to you! --Drmargi (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did come here to ask you where I could go to complain about Drmargi's conduct which is very evident on the article's talk page. And is very evident on the Dispute Resolution board. KiplingKat (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please give DRN a chance before assuming that we cannot help. Many times, solving the content dispute also solve the behavior problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize the content discussion would get shut down while the conduct discussion was ongoing. I'm a little confused how a discussion of content (especially when one party has stated twice they would not participate) is going to help the conduct issue when discussion of conduct is not allowed. KiplingKat (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, my apologies for not notifying you that I was quoting things on your talk page. I'm new to this process. I notified Drmagi, but did not think of the innocent bystander, as it were. I'm sorry. KiplingKat (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think your comments about DRN were directed elsewhere, but just in case, I have no issue with DRN when there's actually a dispute, and know it can work well. My comments above referred to the dramah boards, which experience tells me are toothless. --Drmargi (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. As you can see at ANI, I have some comments about user behavior, which is something I cannot do as a DRN volunteer (the rules about discussing article content, not user conduct apply double to me). If I hadn't closed it down because of our one venue at a time rule, I would have had to step down and ask another volunteer to take over; I cannot criticize or defend user behavior at ANI and stay neutral and unbiased. All in all, I think ANI is a better place for this. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

It looks we discussed for nothing. In the end our agreed sentence has been modified to the version wanted by some editors who refused to participate to the DR. Should it work this way? It looks some people have by far too much time and need to waste it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As a first step in dispute resolution, WP:DRN is about 80% to 90% effective, and participation is entirely voluntary. In your case, it looks like you need to take the next step. Here is how: Go back and carefully read WP:DR. Ask yourself, have I fully followed the first step (In the "Follow the normal protocol" section of WP:DR)? Have I fully followed the second step (In the "Discuss with the other party" section of WP:DR)? Now assuming that you have done all of those things, the next steps listed are WP:DRN (You already tried that), Third opinion (skip this step; it is for disputes involving only two editors) which brings you to the "Request community input on article content" or "Noticeboards" section of WP:DR. The noticeboard are purely advisory. With DRN, we hope to get everyone to agree. With RfC, you get an experienced closer who makes an official determination of what the consensus is. If it goes against you you are expected to follow the consensus. If it goes against another editor, he is expected to follow the consensus. If either of you refuse to follow the consensus, you can be taken to WP:ANI and an administrator will force you to follow consensus or be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

So in response to your question "Should it work this way?", the answer is yes. Everyone involved has had a chance to voluntarily come to a resolution, and now the next step has some teeth. I know that it can be frustrating, but the system does work.

For anyone else reading this, please note that I am not taking sides. I would have given Silvio1973 exact the same answer whether I thought that he was 100% in the right or 100% in the wrong. I choose to say neutral and help anyone who asks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is not frustrating at all. It is the rule and you are right but what you described is not the issue.

The timeline of the events was the following: 1)We all participate to the discussion on the talk page of the article but it did not work. 2)The issue was moved to the DRN were we discussed and found an agreement, even if some users for some reason moved away from the discussionon. 3)We modificed the article according to the consensus created on the DRN. 4) A week later, the same users who moved away from the DRN, re-modified the article according to what pleased them since the beginning (sic).

And I am also not taking part. It is just that I find this strange. Because basically it means that if I want things my way and I can do it even adversely to the conclusions of the DR. So what the DR is for? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN is for the 95% of editors who can arrive at an agreement and stick to it. For the remaining 5%, see my comments above, which describe the issue just fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control RfC

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My sole involvement was as a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer, and I only volunteer to work on cases where I am neutral. I really do not favor one side or the other in this dispute. I do, however, insist that whatever the result of the RfC is, all sources used must conform to WP:RS and the article must conform to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. These are community standards and can not be overridden by an RfC on a particular dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with an editor's WP:IDHT

I agree with your comment at FTN about User:QuackGuru not being the best judge of editorial consensus, and seek your opinion. I think this goes to a longstanding pattern of QG's WP:IDHT. There's an excellent example right on FTN today, where QG twice ignores an answer I gave him: see comments just above this section. (Diff of my last comment.) There's an obvious user conduct issue here, but it's hard to get traction since QG is a respected skeptic editor and a lot of editors automatically support him if a perceived fringe proponent is criticizing him. (I'm a dual-degreed scientist and acupuncturist, not practicing the latter and more skeptical about it.) QG seems impervious to change; while he seems mostly sincere, he appears to lack social/communication skills necessary for editing. How can I bring this to the community so that they'll really listen? ANI is out, for the above reason. Maybe an RfC/U for the broader community. What are your thoughts? This is so frustrating, and longstanding. (BTW, I have health issues too, and totally understand about time constraints.) regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear I am against including the low level details. Then Middle 8 asked if I'm in favor of restoring/including the text that I am against. I am discussing article content at the talk page and for no good reason Middle 8 decided to disrupt the talk page rather than focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize my editorial feedback (well-founded, if you read what other editors have said) as "disruption". BTW, the reason I asked you about restoring/including content -- something you seem to find offensive -- is that you asserted there was consensus despite my not agreeing with you, so I wondered if you'd changed your mind (the AGF position) or were just misrepresenting consensus. I've explained this THREE TIMES already [3] yet you keep repeating it. IDHT much? --Middle 8 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have the same advice for both of you. Read WP:CON and WP:DR and follow the steps. They really do work. Please note that QuackGuru is already doing this -- he posted an RfC, which is the next step in DR. At the end of the RfC you will both have a ruling by an uninvolved admin about what the consensus is, and the matter will be settled. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input about the article; no disagreement there. In my comment above, to be clear, I'm actually more concerned about user conduct. It's fine if you don't want to go there. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DR has step-by-step instructions for resolving disputes about user conduct as well as article content. I am purposely not expressing an opinion about whether there is a user conduct issue in this case or about which side, if any, is misbehaving; my advice would be the same either way. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving user conduct disputes. Wikipedia's dispute resolution system really does work; try it and you will see. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Controversy-ANI closed as should be in DRN, but DRN closed-where to go?

The ANI was closed due to the DRN but the DRN was closed because of the ANI. So where to go? What I included in the ANI is a conduct issue not content and I was not finished presenting the evidence in any case but can continue doing so at whichever forum is most appropriate. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now withdrawn all DRNs and wish to proceed with AN or ANI. Please advise. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like ANI is the best place if it really is a conduct issue. It was closed with advice to re-open a DRN case, but DRN only handles content disputes. I advise posting to WP:AN (not WP:ANI) with a question about where to go. Stick to just that specific question, and avoid the temptation to argue your case -- that comes later. WP:DR nad WP:CON give some guidance on where to go with different types of disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your post on User talk:Elvey

Please don't post responses to talkpage threads in the middle of someone else's post, as it looks like you just did, perhaps inadvertently. It makes it almost impossible to figure out who wrote what. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I of course do understand and attempt to follow WP:INTERSPERSE (I had better, seeing as how I created the redirect at WP:INTERSPERSE) :)

In this case I am not sure that what I did was wrong -- but of course I am open to being educated on that.

Elvey posted three comments, each properly signed, at the same time.[4] This is not unusual -- many editors make multiple comments and post them as a batch -- but having two of them one right after the other is a bit unusual; most editors would have only put a signature at the bottom of the pair.

I posted my reply under Elvey's signature.[5] I didn't pay attention to the date on the next signed comment directly below my new comment (nor do I think I am required to make a practice of checking for such a rare event), but I am not sure that I would have done anything differently if I had. I posted a reply directly below a signed comment, which I believe was correct behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, I was about to come here and recommend you disengage from his talkpage entirely. I know that there's the school of thought that posits that every erroneous statement should be rebutted, and I while I don't necessarily disagree (in particular due to the nature of some of the very statements that led to the block), I think we're at the point where any further interactions while he's blocked will be counterproductive. Take the high road. It really is the better path. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean like this? :) I tend to be a little more aggressive in disputing false accusations because I use my real name, but of course that was my choice. That being said, you are right. I really only have to declare that I have no COI once. Good advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Randall Munroe is the Terry Pratchett of webcomics. Under the surface humor, he hides some of the keenest observations of human behaviour of our time. :) MLauba ^(Talk) 23:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I went to User talk:Elvey‎ to unwatch the page, and gave in to the temptation to take one last peek. Now I am a sockpuppet as well as a paid shill and a criminal. Well it just goes to show you that, Wikipedia being what it is, if you participate in talk page discussions over a period if time you have the possibility of attracting your own personal tendentious editor, who considers any attempt to explain Wikipedia policy as a personal affront, and considers it their duty and obligation to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's kind of pathetic, but they can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's how it works - when confronted, he will latch on the slightest and tiniest details and finagle over it for months on end, to turn attention away from his own issues. The editors who give in to the exasperation and reply in kind make it more difficult to deal with the situation, because when it ends up at the noticeboards, there's plenty of bad behaviour on all sides to consider, and the walls of text that come with it discourage an in-depth review of the root causes. Over the years, I've finally come to see that the best way of dealing with people who believe they have to win at all costs is not to play. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to my point at the top of the thread—all I was saying is that when I read that page, it wasn't initially clear to me which paragraphs were your posts and which were someone else's. Maybe it was just the way the page or thread is formatted, or maybe it's my age-related deteriorating eyesight, or maybe something else. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Some advice?

Regarding the message you left on my talk page... The situation at GERAC has not improved. Where would you recommend to turn to as a next step? Dispute resolution noticeboard, RfC, or request a third opinion? Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

First, read WP:CONSENSUS. That's your basic road map. WP:DR is helpful as well.

As for this specific dispute, and not taking sides, if there are only two editors disagreeing and you believe that both of you will accept a third opinion even if it goes against you, third opinion would be a good choice. It there are more that two editors involved or you think that you can work out something agreeable to all with a little help, the dispute resolution noticeboard would be a good choice. An RfC is different, in that it does not require cooperation among the disputing editors. If one of the editors just won't budge, and the RfC goes against him he has to follow the consensus as determined by the RfC closing statement. If he is unwilling to do that, he is likely to face a series of escalation blocks. Personally, I would go with the RfC in your situation, but it is your call. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, man. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

GERAC, again

Hi. Things are not getting better. When you said you'd try an RfC if you were me, were you talking about WP:RFC/U? --Mallexikon (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:DR is your road map. Always start there. Also, become very familiar with WP:CON.

If you have a dispute about article content and not user conduct, WP:DRN or WP:RFC are good places to go.

If you have a dispute about user conduct and not article content, WP:ANI is a good place to start for clear-cut issues. If the issue are a bit more complex, WP:RFC/U is the place to go, but keep in mind that there are minimum requirements: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Minimum requirements.

Helpful hint: before you file an RFC or RFC/U or posting to ANI, spend some time browsing the archives and seeing what works and what doesn't work.

(As usual, the above should not be construed as me taking sides or expressing an opinion on who is right. I give the same advice to everyone.) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment on "Voice to skull"

Hi.

Discussion has been hatted so as you were nice enough to respond to me, I felt it incumbent on me to explain.

I think that the subject itself is a nonsense, the article title was also quite silly, and the content was worthless. This is all in my opinion of course, but I was heartily amused at the earnest discussion of the topic, and it did seem to me that little discussion was required for a sensible decision, and I couldn't understand why it was taking so long. Then somebody explained, hence my apology.

After that, my "not one second more" was tongue in cheek.

I am still a naive editor here, and learning stuff all the time. You have helped me learn some more, so thanks very much.

Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks! And Welcome to Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with your comments, but I was curious.

Note to anyone reading this; this concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull.

This does, however, give me a chance to pontificate on the nature of Wikipedia. The thing is, we don't delete articles because they are silly (See Smoot, Weasel war dance, Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard and Nils Olav). We don't delete them because they are wrong or stupid (See Nazi UFOs, Phrenology and Time Cube). And we don't delete them because the content was worthless -- we replace the bad content with good content. Everyone in the discussion understood that the the subject itself was nonsense, the article title was quite silly, and the content was worthless. But is it notable nonsense that we should have an article on? Is there a better title so we can rename instead of deleting? Can we replace the content with something good? In this case, it was unsalvageable so we deleted the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CON, WP:DR

I suggest you review our policies regarding how consensus is formed and changed, and keep in mind that the article falls under WP:ARBCC. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the article has been plagued by WP:CONLEVEL problems. You've made a clear case that the problems remain. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't much like being threatened,[6][7] I have never edited the article in question,[8] I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies on consensus and with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, and they do not say what you think they say. Please do not post to my talk page again. You are not welcome here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrator abuse?

Hi, Guy. I noticed this by you on Jimbo's page: "In general, whenever I hear about "administrator abuse", it turns out that it is the administrator who is being abused." Mmmmm. I'm not nearly as sure as you. (Or as Antandrus, if by chance you were quoting his justly famous observations.) What do you think of this example on ANI right now, which also happens to illustrate what can happen with the nice unblock 'review' (yes, those are scare quotes) that you mention, in case the user is really out of luck?

But no no no, that's not a challenge, you should by no means feel obliged to go read an ANI thread if it'll interfere with other commitments or digestion or indeed health, per your template above. (Once I read a really long ANI thread and then I needed a liver transplant.) It's the lightest of suggestions. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

Notice of discussion

Since you previously discussed an issue related to the Larry Norman article, I thought that you might be interested in a discussion about sources that is currently happening at Talk:Larry Norman#Malicious Edit Removal/Fallen Angel film recantations. Thanks for your time. There's no requirement for you to participate or respond. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Template:User health inactive

I've seen you back around the last day or so, and so I hope that things are going well for you. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! At this point the medical issue is more annoying than it is serious, but I wanted everyone to know that I might suddenly disappear from editing for a while. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you mentioned that you've been unwell in a DRN recently. Hope you're on the mend! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia and Tor collaboration

Hello. I started a proposal on meta at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Partnership_between_Wikimedia_community_and_Tor_community. I thought that you might like to comment. I am showing this to some Tor friends, and then I plan to post it to Tor lists and Wikimedia developer lists.

Thanks for starting the conversation on Jimbo's page. I had been thinking of this for a long time and now seems like a good time to explore this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I have started a couple of discussions there, See

Making Wikipedia writable for Tor users? and

Proposal: Create a Wikipedia-only read-only Tor exit node.

Pinggroup fail

I'm pretty sure this edit won't ping anyone. First, the HTML comments should cause it to fail. Second, it would only work if you had signed it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I had a feeling that it wasn't going to work, even though I copied it directly from the example shown at Template:Pinggroup. (Actually I tried the list=yes option first, which didn't work as advertised.) I am going to try again without the HTML comments, and then when that fails, with the signature. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I will fix up the template's documentation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I redid the ping using "template:tiny ping. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope they can see you.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A thought

Re your comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Open_letter_from_EFF.2C_Demand_Progress_on_re-opening_Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day. As another EFF supporter, I'd love to see us take action. But I don't think the fault lies at the few participants of the said discussion; rather at the inefficient way we disseminate information. I only just learned about this entire debacle by an accident - VPP is on my watchlist, and I looked at the right time to see the discussion. No, I think we need to do something similar to what Lessig did when he moved away from Free Culture into Demand Progress: we need to reform the way Wikipedia announces such discussions, to ensure interested editors are at least aware of them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

When including diffs in edit summaries, consider using a wikilink

Hello Guy. I happened to see your recent post to WP:FTN where you included some diffs in the edit summary itself. Note that Special:Diff is now working (since 8 February):

The first of your diffs was:

• Old syntax: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=595087695&diff=595081111 (this is not clickable in the edit summary itself since full URLs can't be clicked there)
• New syntax: Special:Diff/595087695/595081111 (this is a wikilink so it can be clicked, even in an edit summary)

In the edit summary you can pipe this to a suitable name, like: First protection request. This means that diffs in edit summaries can now be brief, blue-linked and clickable! Details of how to use are at this Gerrit link. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a great improvement. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Note to self: look at the following pages and see if any need updating with information about Special:Diff and Special:PermanentLink. Also look into what happens when you put "Special:Diff" or "Special:PermanentLink" in the search box. Can we make it so that those searches go to a help page?

Help:Diff

Help:Interwikimedia links

Help:Link

Help:Page history#Linking to a specific version of a page

Help:Permanent link

Help:URL#Linking to a specific version of a page

mw:Help:Links

mw:Help:URL

Template:Diff

Template:Oldid2

Template:Oldid

Related:

Help:Interwikimedia links

meta:Clean linking

meta:Help:Interwiki linking

mw:Templates for linking to sister projects

Template:Cross-wiki language oldid

Template:Cross-wiki oldid

Template:Querylink

MediaWiki r79059 - Code Review

MediaWiki r79036 - Code Review

Also, Template:Diff has a "see also" to diff that doesn't go where it says it goes.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Acu, COI/N

Hi Guy M.,

Re your comment at WP:COIN#Acupuncture: I appreciate the fair-mindedness of your posts, so your feedback is valuable. "Not responding to every comment" is a lesson I'm still learning.

It saddens me if you perceive my comments at COI/N as shenanigans. My posts there are as sincere as can be; ant apparent shenanigans are artifacts of my communicative style. I'm a little obsessive, and don't like letting unwarranted accusations of editorial misconduct go unaddressed. Yet replying to every comment is a case of making the perfect the enemy of the good. The overall result is undeniably a mess, and without meaning to, I end up disrupting the process perhaps more than anyone else... and I just now grokked that this might be what you meant by "I call shenanigans". Is that the case?

Your final para about being strapped to a chair is a funny image. I'm not sure what you mean by "keep up the good work"; do you mean my "captors" -- and yes, they're only captors if I allow them to be -- are doing a good job of baiting? Valid criticism is doing one a favor (per Carl Sagan), and I want to be sure about what you're saying.

Happy editing, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you tool my comment in the spirit with which I posted it. Any attempt at humor has a risk of falling flat. As you figured out, you are not strapped to a chair and you don't have to respond. People who read noticeboards are very familiar with all sorts of human behavior. They can figure out if someone is making unsubstantiated accusations without any help.

BTW, I Call Shenanigans is a link that brings you to a page that explains it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Great; thanks! I couldn't quote figure out the summary of that South Park sketch but sorta got the drift. That strapped-to-a-chair image reminded me of "A Clockwork Orange" -- dark humor indeed. "I was cured, alright." cheers --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me)

Oops!... I Did It Again -- by over-responding here, especially at the top. It's a case of not recognizing that I've created a forest until I've planted too many trees. But, as the saying goes, good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Enough allusions for now; thanks again! --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 02:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I have this mental picture of you looking like Britney Spears... (smile) Or perhaps the image at Middle 8 is preferable... (grin) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, RfC's re COI: WTF? (FWIW)

Hi, you've recently mentioned some recent RfC's involving COI.... can you clue me in on this? best regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 07:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No paid advocacy

Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

TY!  :-) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 21:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

COI stuff

Hi Guy. I was wondering if you had time to chip-in on a couple articles where I have a COI. User:North8000 has already reviewed my work here on improving the SMS Audio page, but I was hoping to find someone to do the Request Edit.

I've also submitted an AfC here for Brilliant Earth, which User:Fluffernutter provided feedback on here (that I implemented), but he/she said they were not confident enough about company articles to do the formal approve/decline. The backlog is about a month long and I was hoping not to wait so long to get an answer ;-)

CorporateM (Talk) 16:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

76.120.175.135

I have to tell you something. The guy with this IP address suggest moving Die Hard to Die Hard (film), which I don't find it necessary and it doesn't change a thing about it since Die Hard is the main name of the film, among other things. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Right now the proposal to move the page is losing, and I don't think anyone will agree that it needs to be moved, so let's wait and see what happens. I have to clean up some errors I made earlier first, but after that I will look into whether the IP user is making a habit of suggesting moves that don't make sense. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposed move has now been closed (Wikipedia:Snowball clause). The result was no move. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Can this be used as RfC evidence?

FWIW, the evidence is this: after the RfC was filed and around the Guy/JzG posted at AN about QG and chiro, QG initially became highly (and imo weirdly) conciliatory, asking for a "truce", telling me and Mallexikon that he's stop editing acu articles if we wanted, asking me to undo all his edits since Decmber-ish, and changing his mind about whether category:pseudoscience should be used for the acupuncture article. Then, a few days later, after I came out in support of a topic ban that others had previously suggested, QG reversed course 180 degrees, posting complaints about my edits at acu (all of which had been resolved earlier, AFAIK), deciding that acu should be in category:pseudoscience after all, and edit-warring over an NPOV tag that I'd placed on another article. This is imo battleground editing; I find it really inappropriate to make content changes for WP-political reasons. Regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you are correct (I am not taking sides, not having looked at the evidence myself) while there is no explicit rule on this, in general it is better to stay silent if the behavior is at the RFC/U itself and let those evaluating the RFC/U decide for themselves. Not responding (except for correcting statements of fact when you have diffs/citations showing that they are wrong) actually strengthens your argument. Psychologically, our brains tell us "you have to respond or everyone will think that it is true!" but the reality is the exact opposite. That's why you so often see someone in an argument making points in the form of questions; instinctively they know that responding usually weakens their opponent's position. Plus, the subjects of RFC/Us are often stressed out and are given a lot of slack.

If the behavior is in an article (including changing the category) and your complaint is valid that is the best kind of evidence. Even then staying cool and sticking to the facts is to your advantage.

Behavior on article talk pages isn't as good for evidence, and behavior o a user talkpage is worse. It's a judgement call whether to point it out at the RFC/U , and egregious behavior is better evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Table

Wow, that could be confusing! Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(For the interested reader, this is in response to this edit.)

This being Wikipedia, we have a list...

List of words having different meanings in American and British English: A–L

List of words having different meanings in American and British English: M–Z

...and an article which goes into more depth...

Comparison of American and British English

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Different meanings, yes. But opposite meanings? Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Both dialects have the sense of "to table" as to lay [the topic] on the table or to cause [the topic] to lie on the table. The difference is in the intent of how long the topic is to stay on the table. The British meaning has the sense of anticipation that the topic will foreseeably be called off the table for discussion and vote; the American sense is to dispose the topic by sending it to the table and leaving it there, presumably forever." --List of words having different meanings in American and British English: M–Z

A better example of opposite meanings would be telling someone from the US and the UK "he slapped her fanny". Or the phrases "inside lane" and "number 1 lane"; in the US those both mean the part of the road nearest vehicles going in the opposite direction, while in the UK they mean the slow lane farthest from vehicles going in the opposite direction. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Schneier's Seventh Movie-Plot Threat Contest

If anyone is interested, I submitted an entry to Bruce Schneier's Seventh Movie-Plot Threat Contest. The rules are here, and my entry is here. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Brash

...but funny enough to make me laugh. Sometimes, there simply is no other way to put it, other than bluntly. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! To my loyal fans: Denis is talking about this edit. There is a lot more where that came from, and you are all free to use it. See http://www.guymacon.com/flame.html for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally I'm against sarcasm when dealing with problems (and should have suspected you were a fellow Texan), but I think you showed a reasonable amount of restraint and humor when applying the sarcasm there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Born, raised and live in California (one of the select few who are in the OC and in the TMZ) but I am in love with Texas and I do work there whenever I can get it. Find me some engineering work near Off The Bone and I just might work for free! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If you get to Austin, you need to go to Stubbs for great food and entertainment. The beef ribs look like something that belongs on the side of Fred Flintstone's car, good stuff. I buy their BBQ sauce to use at the house. I've yet to visit CA, although a new business I just started will likely have me out there some. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Stubbs is great! I went to concerts there and a Sunday Gospel brunch which was divine. There is so much entertainment in Austin, if I had been a student there, it would have been a challenge to focus on schoolwork. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Conversation about socks

Hi Guy. I don't know how helpful this is, but one of my clients Tapad (for targeted advertising) uses things like operating system, network, cookie and device IDs. I have to presume that it is possible to give Checkusers the same information, so they can see if multiple accounts are connected to the same device or network, rather than only being able to see if they are editing from the same IP. It would be much more difficult to sock if you had to use multiple devices, rather than just multiple IPs and could you imagine if we could block a device or network, rather than just a throwaway account?

The other thing I'd like to see is some degree of automation. Like an admin-only area that generates alerts when edits are made by the same IP, to the same article, from different usernames, within quick succession, without anyone having to file a checkuser. CorporateM (Talk) 20:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Those are some really good ideas. What a nice surprise for someone who tries to to vote on an RfC multiple times! (smile)

BTW, I was meaning to drop you a note. A while back you made a request for help and it somehow fell between the cracks. I just wanted you to know that I am still a strong believer in working with ethical paid editors, and I welcome any more requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I've been trying to expand the pool of editors I rely on (mostly unsuccessfully) for Bright-Line(ish)-type collaborations. I think the only pending Request Edits I have right now are fairly minor things here and here. Both have already been discussed with other editors, but I often have to shop things around to find someone bold enough to actually make the edits.

Oh, one thing I just thought of, there would have to be a way for someone to say "I am the new user of this device, which was sold to me on eBay, please unblock me." ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 21:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Windows XP

"Upon reflection, I am going to WP:IAD and unwatch this page." I can understand that. [I saw your sarcasm above however and liked it..] I don't read it regularly and was reading up on past events. I've gotten this far. Since you may not have been watching, could you look at the top of my talk page. I could tone it down. I admit, I should have gone with my current proposal and started about this the wrong way. I'm sorry about your health, hope you get better. comp.arch (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I will look at it a bit later today. Giving it a "one minute look" it seems like it should be in the article, but I want to carefully examine the arguments other editors made against it before making a decision. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do, just keep in mind I'm not pushing for the hatnote or a "disclaimer". Then the inclusion may not have much use. Still I think the main text would be improved with more careful wording. The text I quote can't be included if US-CERT is not considered a reliable source. Nobody has used that objection. Codename Lisa said, at some point, they use "haste" for security, and had previously reverted an inclusion of using their link[9], saying it violated WP:NOTADVICE. In light of that, would you think my current wording violated that or WP:HOWTO? Note "Alert" would be seen in the references. And would you say US-CERT would be a WP:SECONDARY not a WP:PRIMARY? These are the issues I can forsee. comp.arch (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I just looked the page over, and at the moment US-CERT is used as a citation. I don't see anything that I want to get involved in. In addition, there may be a conflict of interest. While I don't normally work with operating systems (I prefer microcontrollers that cost less than a dime and have 256 nybbles of RAM), A number of my consulting customers have called me recently and asked for advice about XP EOL. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

COI Help

Hi Guy. A while back you mentioned you were still interested in collaborating on articles where I have a COI. After pinging a few editors without response, North8000 seemed like he/she was going to work with me on the SAS Institute and McKinsey & Company pages, but I noticed they just received a site-ban from an arbcom ruling related to gun control articles. Eeek! Very surprising since North seemed like a very amicable editor. While I'm still working on fairly mundane topics on the McKinsey page, it has some pretty heavy controversial topics further down. In contrast, a SAS page that is representative of the sources is very glowing. I suggested that I may want to take it to FA, seeing as its neutrality will almost certainly be contested. However, I am working on cleaning up the primary sources I used previously and correcting some of my prior, poor COI edits. CorporateM (Talk) 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have put the shorter version into the article. As always in such cases, I have carefully reviewed the changes and read all of the talk page comments, and take full responsibility for the edit I am making under my name. Also, I have no prior connection with this subject with one minor exception; I am a former user of the the Lattice C compiler, but I use GCC[10] now.

A note for any talk page watchers who might read this: I am in strong agreement with Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations and am always willing to help COI editors who follow those suggestions. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! For each article I have moved on to the next item as I go through them section-by-section mostly. WP:NORUSH of course if you need a week or two to get around to it. Also, if doing two large articles at once is too large of an ask, I can try to distribute the load a bit to other editors if I can find one with an interest. BTW, I was also very surprised that there was disagreement about removing content about the aircraft SAS owns, cited only to the FAA (see here). CorporateM (Talk) 18:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issue

This may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Traditional_Chinese_medicine -- regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Due to health issues I cannot take on another DRN case at this time. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you here this a lot, but please let me add to the chorus of those wishing you the very best of health. I deal with health issues too (myself and other family members), and that always has to come first, and by a long shot. Wikipedia can have a way of sucking one in, so sometimes it's better not to engage at all. All the best, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 22:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow!

Agnosticism is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date or a time. Clear is not a color. - That certainly establishes a new standard for the quality of edit summaries! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like he may have been copy/pasting a default edit-summary to a few articles, while patrolling for some common errors. A sort of "one of these apply to this case" kind of thing. CorporateM (Talk) 08:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

One can only hope that some of the newbies who change "religion: none" to "Religion: atheist" or "Religion: agnostic" in infoboxes will get the point that atheism isn't a religion, but is rather the lack of one. Also, vacuum is not a kind of gas, darkness is not a type of light, dry is not a kind of liquid, and a blank sheet of paper is not a written language. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether 4′33″ is or is not music... :)

Can anyone think of any other examples? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise I think. Religion at its most basic is a system of belief. Atheists believe that there is nothing to believe in. Certainly they may have some sound logic on their side, but in the end it is still a belief as nobody knows for sure. Certainly from a legal perspective Atheism is a religion, with numerous court rulings so that Atheists can get equal time and representation in civic displays etc .I remember one notable lawsuit where an Atheist group sued because the town had church bells and a Muslim call to prayer, and they wanted the right to go up on rooftops with loudspeakers yelling "There is no god" (They won, but only went up once as I recall, because they were really hoping to force the others to stop doing their thing). Blank paper could mean something btw Whitespace (programming language) :). How full is it? Its empty. How loud is it? Its silent. How hot is it? Its absolute zero. What do you believe in? I believe in nothing.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that their religious affiliation should remain as atheist. Whether this is technically a religion may be debateable, but as a practical matter it's the information the reader is looking for. CorporateM (Talk) 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Isn’t atheism a religion? Sure. And not smoking is a habit." -- The Thinking Atheist FAQ

Whatever our opinions are on the matter, it is a well-established Wikipedia principle to allow living persons to self-identify their religion. (This comes up whenever someone tries to say that Shiites are not really Muslims, Mormons are not Christians, or that those who follow reformed Judaism aren't actual Jews.) Unless someone self-reports that their religion is atheism -- specifically calling Atheism a religion -- our policy requires us to report that those who call themselves Atheists have no religion.

The vast majority of Atheists reject the claim that Atheism is a religion.

http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2013/03/18/for-the-last-time-atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html

http://www.godlessgirl.com/2010/09/atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://blevkog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/why-atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheist

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_a_religion

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/10-is-atheism-a-religion/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/26/is-atheism-a-religion-that-questions-at-the-heart-of-a-lawsuit-over-housing-credits-for-ministers-of-the-gospel/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAx4DPDLq8I

http://agnosticism-atheism.yoexpert.com/questions-about-atheism/is-there-any-proof-that-atheism-is-not-a-religion-40130.html

http://godlessandblack.blogspot.com/2013/07/atheism-is-not-religion.html

If you do a web search on this topic, you will be hard pressed to find a single Atheist who thinks that Atheism is a religion, and you will also find that most or all who claim it is are themselves fundamentalist Christians, often combining that it with the claim that Evolution is a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

;-)!! One of the joys (and irritations) of starting a discussion on a wikipedia talk page is you can't guarantee where it will go. However, with luck, the journey will often take you to more interesting places than the origin. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Guy has a good point. We are not in a position to label it as a religion on behalf of the BLP who may not think it is. However, I think rather than remove it from the infobox entirely, maybe we need to tweak or add parameters (or something) to allow the information to remain without giving it the religious label. Something like "None (aetheist)" or creating a new alternate parameter entirely for aetheist. Maybe "religious beliefs" would be more acceptable than just "religion" since aetheism is a sort of belief about religion. CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? Is there something wrong with "Religion: None"? It seems quite clear, and we know that most atheists would object to "Religious beliefs: Atheism" for the same reasons that they object to "Religion: Atheist" or "Religion: None (atheist)". Atheism is not a religious belief. It is the lack of any religious belief. Barefoot is not a shoe; it is the lack of any shoes, and thus an infobox that listed shoes would properly say "Shoes: None", not "Shoes: barefoot."

Wikipedia allows living persons to self-identify their religion. Unless they specifically state that they are atheists and that they consider atheism to be a religion, we are not allowed to do any WP:OR and say that they have a religion despite them saying that they do not. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"None" might work. For some reason, I thought you removed the parameter entirely. CorporateM (Talk) 20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi. I hope this message is not a deviation of your discussion (although, your topic is "wow!") but given the editing background of some of you, I think you'd agree that "cross-platform" is also not a name of a platform or operating system. Sometimes it must be replaced with "several{{weasel-inline}}" and sometimes with "none; no compiled binaries available". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

SAS Institute

Hi Guy. Do you think I could ask you to revisit the page again regarding my request here? CorporateM (Talk) 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. As usual, I reviewed the changes and take full responsibility for them. BTW, two things made it easy to help; first it was a straight cut and paste, with no obvious errors to fix. Second, the notes about why you used certain sources was a big help when reviewing the citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it is inherently difficult for one editor to try to orchestrate edits through another person. When submitting a new article entirely or a small correction, it's easy, but when 100 different edits are needed, they can't be explained individually and it's hard for another editor to see all the changes in a "before" and "after" snapshot. I was asking Mastcell here about it. If only there was a better "Track changes"-type feature (like in Microsoft Word), that would solve the problem, since diffs are not easy to read. CorporateM (Talk) 06:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I have moved on to the next section and proposed a re-write of the Workplace section here that should make it more concise, better-sourced and less promotional. I've pinged user:Smartse already, since he took a look at my work-in-progress for that section previously. He is extremely thorough so if he does take it on he may need some time, but I have not convinced him to work on my Request Edits since Proactiv in early 2013. Just a heads up! CorporateM (Talk) 08:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI - Smartse said he was busy and more-or-less deferred to you here regarding this section CorporateM (Talk) 02:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Moved discussion

Hope you don't mind my moving [11][12] our recent exchange re Doc James and QuackGuru from the latter's user talk page to my own; I think it's too distracting there, especially since, as you say, any connection is speculative [13]. regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 04:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:3D software#Classification added on 2 June 2014

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:3D software#Classification added on 2 June 2014. Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 main page redesign

Hi Guy Macon. I would have addressed this message to you at the talk page if you hadn't unwatched it. I don't know what the current state of the project is, but I created a design (what do you think of it?) that hid away most of the rubbish, but less so than you did in your design. I would actually rather the main page have your design, but apparently it's too different for the community to accept yet. For your information, I'm willing discuss changes to the process if/when you are. JamesDouch (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shermer's last law

Seems to me that if it is discussed in Shermer's article, a redirect might work for now. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem good humoured

...are you still interested in remediating disputes? There is a need at this Noticeboard, [14]. Is the behaviour in question a COI and POV issue or not? Can a Prof write his own web page, wife assisting, making claims for primacy of discovery based on his own authored primary sources (in largest part), and not receive attention for COI, POV, and OR issues? (OR, because it is inherent in selecting between primary sources, to make claims regarding discoveries, etc.) Perhaps, because he is Harvard, it is OK. Who needs to know about the Neanderthal remarks controversy, anyway? If you have a constructive view, please feel free to chime in. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like COIN is handling this just fine, and I suggest following the advice you received there. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

Hi Guy Macon. I saw that you're active again and was wondering if you had time to chip in on a couple Request Edits for a small update to the Hightail page here and mostly regarding cleaning up poorly-sourced contentious material on the Realplayer page here. CorporateM (Talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Next steps?

I saw you closed the DRN for the Gospel of Matthew. We gave it a shot at a compromise, but it's no surprise that the other side wouldn't budge a millimeter. Other editors are talking about whether to have an RfC on the article talk page, so that's a step in the right direction. With PiCo retiring from active editing, I think the air has gone out of the balloon somewhat. I'm here for your advice on the Ret.Prof problem. I tried to have an RfC/U for him twice, and he evaded it both times by "stepping back" from editing. I don't see the point of trying a third time, and ANI advised us to take it to arbitration. I'm leaning toward filing for arbitration and as a remedy asking the arbs to assign him a mentor and put him on probation. A targeted topic ban isn't out of the question either to give him something else to work on during the training and evaluation period. Do you have any thoughts on what to do? Ignocrates (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, your RfC/U failed because you could not get a seconder. Also the ANI recommended mediation. Nor was I happy at DRN, being threatened 5 times with arbitration. Whether or not these threats were meant to be disruptive, they had that effect on me. Having said that, I would like us to try to work out our differences before arbitration. With a bit of good faith on both our parts, and maybe some help from Guy I believe we could work things out. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is my position on all of this. I am seeing editors(s) accusing other editor(s) of wrongdoing, in areas where I definitely have not made the slightest attempt to determine the facts. You may not know this, but I have Asperger's Syndrome, with the typical traits associated with AS (High intelligence and advanced abilities in language, reading, mathematics, and science combined with impaired social skills and deficits in social insight). What all this means is that I am really good at mediating pure article content disputes, but when it comes to user conduct disputes I often am at a loss to figure out what is going on or why people are upset. because of this, I am really not the right person to offer any help with behavioral issues (assuming that they exist in this case -- I have not verified that). I invite any talk page stalkers who are reading this to jump in and give these two some advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If there's any good news coming out of this dispute it's on the content front. Andrevan made some changes to the article along with another editor to make it more NPOV, and as a result an RfC became unnecessary. The changes seem to be accepted, so Andrevan removed the NPOV tags and we are back to normal editing (for now). As usual, things get done once Ret.Prof is removed from the editing process. I have seen this happen over and over again for 4 years and counting. That's why this conduct problem needs to be resolved in arbitration. Of course, I'm always willing to listen to free advice. Ignocrates (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually what you said is not true. "Parties involved cannot come to an agreement" was DRN outcome. Your running around Wikipedia making silly little person attacks is not helping your cause. Obviously you are upset and very, very bitter. If I am to blame I apologize! Having said that, I would like us to try to work out our differences before arbitration. With a bit of good faith on both our parts we can succeed! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Finally, it is wrong for us to continue our little spat on somebody else's talk page!!! - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Guy. Hope your health remains good! All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Three Dimensional Chess

I'm glad to find you still active as an editor here. I was messaging you to let you know that I made what I consider to be an improvement to the 3D Chess article, but I expect it will be attacked like all the other edits I made before by one very possesive and territoral editor. Many of my improvements from before that must have met with his approval remain, but the introduction he rewrote might still be seen by him as untouchable, so I thought I would mention it to someone. This is the specific dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three-dimensional_chess&diff=629557393&oldid=625172756 ...I don't have the time I once had to argue with possessive editors and so I bow to your expertise and investment of time. Thanks. 24.79.32.243 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

FTDI

Since you edit and watch various technical articles, I'm invite you to "WATCH" the FTDI article. Only if you are interested. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On my watch list now. Thanks for the heads up! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The IANA, port 456, macon-tcp, and macon-udp

Thank you Guy for contacting me and looking into this subject. That was a faulty edit on my part, so please accept my sincere apologies. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For those following along at home, this regards Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 November 7#The IANA, port 456, macon-tcp, and macon-udp.-03:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification criteria?

What's your criteria for who you're notifying about the infobox straw poll? NE Ent 11:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I made a list of everyone who had commented on or reverted one of my infobox edits, paying very careful attention to avoid missing anyone who disagreed with me, then I removed those who had already !voted in the straw poll and two editors who had been indefinitely blocked since commenting/reverting. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. (That looks like a lot of work.) Without trying to be bureaucratic about it, when I've seen those types of notifications before I've often seen "because you've previously commented at ..." or something to that effect -- not a requirement or anything but makes what you're doing clearer. NE Ent 11:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I will add a note next time. I am really hoping that we can get enough of a sample so that nobody can doubt what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. When notifying people on their talkpages, it's very easy for somebody to make accusations of canvassing - best to defend against that. bobrayner (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that attitude is important. You really have to believe in your heart that following consensus is best for the encyclopedia even in those cases where you disagree with the consensus. I had difficulty with this at first, but then I realized that all the important decisions come down to accurately depicting what is in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion info box -Ian Paisley

Guy, you may be able to offer advice on Ian Paisley. Way out of my depth on that one. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC) which

Thanks! I have my eye on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your Religion edits and Vladimir Lenin article in particular

Hi Guy,

Thanks for the post on my talk page mentioning the issue of edit warring. I feel that my reverts are clearly not edit warring, but an attempt to prevent unwarranted changes to articles on an issue that is currently under discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_person . The discussion is still ongoing, but it seems very likely that that majority view does not support the removal of the Religion field based on a general principle that "None (atheist)" is inappropriate. If the consensus is that the field should be removed entirely, then of course this is perfectly acceptable - my point is that the discussion needs to take place and finish first. Anything else seems very WP:point and is very close to being vandalism, given that both editors involved in removing this content are well aware of the ongoing discussion. Atshal (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that being right is not an acceptable excuse for edit warring. See WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You have been reverted by three editors[15][16][17][18] and have reverted to your preferred version four times.[19][20][21][22]. Also, as has been explained to you before, local consensus on an article talk page overrides and consensus on on template talk. I have placed a warning on your talk page[23] and will open a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you continue edit warring. --19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree - hence why I have stopped editing the article. I am also correct that content changes should not take place on the basis of a discussion that is still ongoing - especially as the majority opinion in that discussion is evidently against the change being made! I don't really feel like getting into a wiki-fight over this - so lets finish the discussion on the Template talk page and see what the general opinion is. Atshal (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Try asking the fine folks at template talk whether local consensus on an article talk page overrides any consensus on on template talk. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Odroid

Hi Guy, if I've understood your comments on the talk there, you have a COI? If I misunderstood, please remove the connected template, regards Widefox; talk 10:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't own an Odroid, and I have no connection to the makers of Odroid, either as an engineer or financially. When I wrote "I am one of them" I was responding to the comment "If you still think Odroid is open hardware, then talk to the people who prevent projects like the Raspberry Pi from being on the open hardware lists for the same reasons". In other words, I am one of the Wikipedia editors who opposes Raspberry Pi being listed as open-source hardware. (I don't own a Raspberry Pi or have any other connection to that project either, but eventually I will probably buy one to see how the £24/$38 B+ compares to other single board computers I own.)

Regarding why I oppose Raspberry Pi but not Odroid being listed as open-source hardware, something is open-source hardware if there is sufficient documentation under a suitable license so that someone who has the capability of creating hardware can create and sell a working copy of it without infringing on any patents or copyrights. You can do that with Odroid. You can't with Raspberry Pi.

I don't edit pages where I have a COI. For example, as a former Barbie engineer who still does occasional consulting work in the toy industry, I would not be comfortable editing our page on Mattel, and would limit myself to making suggestions on the article talk page with full disclosure of my potential COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree with you opposing RasPi as open-hardware. Widefox; talk 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Relevant discussion about MH17

• Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 20#Conflicting claims USchick (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment thread to read. Plus, Guy Macon was asking for relevant discussions elsewhere.

Anyway, there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#Disruptive editing. Make sure to note the closing comment. In light of that, I personally think this DRN is out of its depth here. Another (albeit behavioural) ANI thread is Allegation of Racism at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Stickee (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a VERY relevant discussion because it shows how sources are dismissed for no apparent reason. The other two are also very good examples, because they show how content discussions dissolve into chaos and who creates the chaos. Thank you! USchick (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think DRN is a good step for all of you. Here is how I handle conduct issues: on DRN, I stop anyone from taking about other editors. It really does help. (Has talking about each other on the article talk page resolved your content dispute? No. So why not try something new?) I don't take sides (easy in this case, because I have just about zero interest in politics of any kind) and I try to get the content dispute resolved. At the end of it all, when I either close the case as resolved or failed, I then advise all the parties as to where I think you should go to resolve any user conduct or other issues. The admins at Arbcon and ANI have dealt with many cases that have gone through DRN, and tend to pay attention to the volunteer's advice -- which is a good reason to be on your best behavior on DRN.

I do appreciate the links (everything is helpful -- I am quite capable of deciding what is relevant), and will read them, but don't expect me to comment or take sides -- I don't "do" user conduct. How sources are dismissed for no apparent reason? Nope. Not allowed on DRN. How content discussions dissolve into chaos and who creates the chaos? Nope. Not allowed on DRN. You are all going to have to focus on content, content, content, sources, sources, sources. Can you do that for me? You are still free to talk about each other on your talk pages or the article talk page, just not on DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm very encouraged that this is going to work. Thank you! USchick (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon; I see the drn is on hold for the RfC. It might be of use to note (since the opening drn editor refers to it) that the last New York Magazine article on MH17 that I know of was back on 9-9-2014 almost 3 months ago. This event is also subject to rapid changes in the news, as in this one from 48 hours ago [24]. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what to make of that IBT story. This is an "old" conspiracy theory which came out right after the plane got shot down. It's nonsense. It keeps referring to some "reports" but it's not clear what these are exactly, except that these "reports" were discussed on Russian TV. Which is also the same TV which ran those faked images of an Ukrainian jet supposedly shooting down MH 17, which were photoshopped. I think IBT is going off the RS list.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This raises a question in my mind. The article needs to properly cover things that are found in Russian media. Do we have anyone who speaks Russian working on the page? Any other languages?

Yes, we have involved editors fluent in Russian, Ukrainian, German and Dutch. USchick (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on specific assertions concerning the MH17 page and remain neutral, and I don't want my talk page to become a substitute for DRN, but I do have some general advice on handling this sort of thing. Take a look at how Wikipedia handles the conflicting claims in the The Holocaust / Holocaust denial, Assassination of John F. Kennedy / John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and September 11 attacks / 9/11 Truth movement pages. Study the way on each topic we handle the fact that a significant number of people strongly disagree with what we at Wikipedia have in the main article. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been suggested several times that a dedicated article on MH 17 conspiracy theories be created where the wacky stuff that's out there can go, something like Malaysia Flight 17 conspiracy theories. The "attempt to assassinate Putin" theory would definitely go in there. I might still do it if I can get a bit more time.

There already exists a section on Russian media in the article and we have a dedicated article to portrayals of the conflict in media in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

An attempt on Putin's life is a conspiracy theory, yes. The fact that the investigators are considering more than one scenario is not a conspiracy theory. USchick (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I cannot take sides on any of this, and I don't want my talk page to become a place to discuss things that should be discussed on the article talk page. --21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Procedural question. While the DRN is on hold waiting for the RfC to close, do you recommend we take specific sources to the NPOV noticeboard for comment? Or would that be considered forum shopping? USchick (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll wait. USchick (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Regarding this, what is the problem? Notification should happen immediately after the start of a dramaboard thread. GiantSnowman 15:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

For those talk page watchers following along, the above concerns this edit in this thread.

The problem is that [A] there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports your "immediately" claim, and [B] four minutes is not enough time to allow someone to open up the correct talk page, make the edit, make sure that it is correct using the preview button, then save the page. I have seen it take two minutes just to load a page when I am editing from my satellite phone, and some handicapped editors type with a mouthstick. You should apologize for not giving the user enough time and in the future you should wait at least 15 minutes before making snarky "you failed to notify" comments. If you choose to immediately post a notification yourself that's fine, but in such cases you should WP:AGF if you didn't give the user at least 15 minutes to complete his edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no - if you're going to start a dramaboard thread about another user you should damn well make sure you are able to notify promptly. Given this editor's speed of editing it is obvious they were not editing from a phone or whatever, there really was no excuse for the delay. However you're probably correct in saying that my comment was snarky and I will apologise to the editor in question. GiantSnowman 17:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Late reply, but just having a very slow or unreliable internet connection can cause you to take longer than four minutes to do something like that - equally, it's possible to immediately notify someone, switch out of that tab, and then realize that Wikipedia's server had a brainfart again and didn't save your edit due to a database error/loss of session data. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this shouldn't bother me, but having a wikipedia administrator tell me "Notification should happen immediately after the start of a dramaboard thread" when there is no such requirement still bothers me. Someone who has the power to block users, protect pages and make reversions invisible should understand our policies and guidelines better than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your question

You asked me a question on DRN noticeboard, but prohibited to respond at DRN during 24 hours [25]. Sorry, but I do not have time for these games and therefore respond here (I hope this is fine). Here is my answer. No, the article is not guilty. Blaming articles is like lashing the Hellespont. This is all about people. Why someone can not peacefully negotiate with others on article talk pages and drop the issue when WP:Consensus is not on his side, by instead complains on various noticeboards? That depends on the person who files the complaint and rather obvious from their editing pattern. I believe one should think about it prior to taking any DRN case. Honestly, if I were a DRN volunteer, I would never took this case, which would help me to save a lot of time for everyone involved. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Now, speaking about your closing comment, I am certain that if anyone submits a request to Arbcom, it will be rejected. This is for two reasons: (a) this subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions (so the complaints should go first to WP:AE), and (b) there are no real grounds for the case (perhaps one could find material for filing only one WP:AE request, nothing more). My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon is is Trouted

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.

You have been trouted for: Fixing an "is is" that is not a mistake. It's an intentional error in the title for an article discussing spoken grammar. I'm going to add an {{sic}} template to the article so that it makes it more obvious. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well trouted, sir! (sheepish smile). I am going to see if we can get the scripts that generate lists of potential errors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes to not list potential errors that are marked with the sic template, and I will put something in the instructions about adding the sic template where appropriate as we go through the long lists of pages with potential errors. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the title above is brilliant. I was doing something else after replying here when I stopped and said "hey, wait a minute..." :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

I see nothing in the rules of Arbitration Enforcement that suspends the filing of AE requests while a new arbitration case is in process. If that were the case, a disruptive editor could repeatedly file arbitration requests in an area that was already arbitrated in order to suspend arbitration enforcement. It would probably be necessary to do this using throw-away sockpuppets, but Wikipedia does have a few prolific puppet-masters. One could also argue that RGloucester is forum-shopping, requesting a new arbitration, because he doesn't have confidence that the AE admins will handle an issue correctly. (I do, but my view of handling an issue correctly is an NPOV handling, and he appears to be in one of the "camps".) I see no policy that a new ArbCom filing, not accepted, suspends arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBEE, which has been in effect for many years. Some of the topic areas in which Wikipedia has so-called edit-warring are world areas in which there are real wars. (Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was a real war crime (even as seen by Catholics or others who hold the just-war doctrine, as well as by Quakers or other pacifists who hold that all wars are war crimes.). We just don't know who fired the missile.)

An editor should not be allowed to suspend arbitration enforcement filing by requesting a new arbitration case, although it would be in order to ask the ArbCom to review any AE sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears that RGloucester thinks that arbitration enforcement requires targeting particular editors and that full evidentiary arbitration does not. It is true that every filing at arbitration requests sanctions against a particular editor, but every evidence item at arbitration requires diffs against one or more editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I am just sitting back and waiting to see how this turns out. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WTS ANI

The ANI seems to have gone exactly the way I expected it to turn out. I said yesterday, that I expected it to be concluded as a content dispute. That was my most optimistic prediction for an outcome. It has actually concluded exactly the way I really expected. It has been completely ignored. No administrator has made any response or comment - not even to say that it is non actionable. This seems to be the standard practice for any ANI raised by an IP address editor. There is something dreadfully wrong here. As you noted, some IP editors do cause mayhem and vandalism, but they are matched in numbers by named account holders who do much the same thing. This is a shame because some of those IP editors could feel hey can make a contribution and create an account and edit well. After all, we all had to start somewhere. I can't speak for you but I seem to recall that I started without an account.

I witnessed (though was not part of) an exchange between a named account and an IP editor. The named account clearly believed that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit, and made no secret of the fact. Said IP (along with many others) was frequently reverted with edit summaries along the lines of "IP address editors should not be allowed to edit", or "IP address editors should not be allowed to revert other editors". The IP address was contributing good material and the named account was just deleting it for no other adequate reason. The IP took it to ANI, where it was (as usual) ignored. He gave up stating that IP editors are treated like dirt by the whole Wikipedia community and would not conribute to the project further. He certainly seemed to have a point, which was a pity because what he was contributing was of above average quality for a newbie editor. The named account eventually did get blocked but that's a whole different story. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While the above does happen, I am not going to assume that it is happening in this case when the ANI case has only been open 24 hours. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We shall see. I note that a non administrator has already tried to shut the discussion down claiming that it is about content and not behaviour. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It does look like you are right about it being ignored. I am going to wait three full days and then start making some noise. Any other examples of IP editors with legitimate issues being ignored would be quite helpful -- I expect a fair amount of pushback on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I would love to provide you with more examples. The problem is: that IP editors don't seem to make that many complaints to ANI. The few that have been made recently have been relatively open and shut cases (not necessarily in the IP's favour!). There have been quite a few IP cases ignored in the past, but nothing recently enough that I stand much chance of finding them in the archives. If I could remember what the disputes were about, I might have found something from the article edit history, but my memory prevents this approach.

A number of people, including yourself, have critisised the IP editor as being equally at fault as Wtshymanski. Revisiting the edit history at Ladder logic, I am not so convinced that the IP editor did too much wrong. His opening shot was to delete a {synthesis} template complaining that there was no clue as to what was synthesised. Looking at the article as it would have appeared to the IP editor at that time, he was clearly correct especially given that the justification was not added to the talk page either. It was only when I looked at the previous history that what was being challenged became clear (the IP editor clearly did not look back). Wtshymanski put the {synthesis} template back stating that the discussion was on the talk page. Well it may have been, but how was the IP editor to know where to look (or anyone else come to that)? The IP editor removed the tag reiterating that there was no indication as to what was synthesised (which I have to agree with), an then by coincidence, (and I have to assume it was coincidence) added a reference to that same part of the article that Wtshymanski was challenging (and we all know that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with adding references). Wtshymanski, once again re-adds the {synthesis} tag and claims the subject is discussed on the talk page though again leaves no clue where. IP once again deletes {synthesis} tag and also deletes a sentence (which I happen to know that Wtshymanski added over a year ago pushing his fringe theory) and adds a reference supporting the deletion (so again there is nothing wrong with making an edit where it is supported by a reference). It was only because those references went against Wtshymansky's fringe theory that he just declared the references as unreliable and then provided a hidden comment that was pure synthesis from the last reference.

As I stated in the ANI, looking at that article that I linked above, at the time Wtshymanski added that {synthesis} tag (now known to be challenging the idea that ladder logic existed before PLD days), the paragraph covering the point was completely unreferenced so there was nothing for the paragraph to be synthesised from. The IP was correctly removing a {synthesis} tag but for a different, though valid reason (though arguably should have addressed the point on the talk page - not that that would have cut any ice with Wtshymanski, but at least we were saved from a long drawn out discussion).

Although I was aware that the technique was used in relay days, I was not convinced myself that the term 'ladder logic' was used in those days, and attempts to find references proving the point one way or the other failed. However, I found it in inconceivable that engineers would not apply a ladder related name to a diagram that so closely resembled a ladder. Google 'ladder diagram' and there is no shortage of references even for the use with relay logic. And I just noticed that one of the references that the IP editor added calls the technique 'ladder diagrams' and not 'ladder logic', though states that they are sometimes called 'ladder logic'. Maybe the article needs a name change given that it primarily discussed the diagrams?

As a parting shot, given Wtshymanski's prediliction for saving edits without reading them and leaving others to tidy up the spelling, grammar and typos. I rewrote a nonsense sentence that he left at Valve actuator here (The odd edit summary was a result of the Wiki interface doing its usual crash of Internet Expolorer). (Wtshymanski had stated that the operators of manual valves required adjustment rather than the valves themselves). I can only assume that his reversion back to the nonsense version was just pure retaliation because I contributed to the ANI (and this has been seen before). Since editing in nonsense can be legitimately classed as vandalism, I reverted twice more, both times Wtshymanski restoring the nonsense version. It took another editor to agree that it was nonsense and agreeing with the reason before Wtshymanski rewrote it to say what he (presumably) intended to say in the first place (and had the gall to critisise that editor for not rewriting it!!). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I keep trying to stay out of this, but it is becoming crystal clear that [A] The Wtshymanskis situation is hurting the encyclopedia, and [B] ANI is unable to handle the situation. I really think that I am going to have to write up a solid case and submit it to Arbcom after the holidays. What a pain that will be.... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO there are two things that make it difficult to handle. One is that it's a long-running situation: AN/I wasn't set up to deal with those, and there's another giong pear-shaped on that board right now. The other is that one needs a certain level of competence in engineering to assess the situation - we've had problems before with experts that have been aggravated by the need for some level of expertise in the field to follow the ins and outs. (And while I appreciated your explanations in that thread, I still don't understand the dispute.) And now in addition to WQA (or whatever the abbrev. was) we've shut down RfC/U. So AN/I is also overloaded, and getting testy responses to reflect that. I don't know what to tell you, but I do apologize on behalf of all my fellow non-engineers. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, as I'm sure you are aware: I am an engineer of long standing. If you need some additional expert input, please drop me a note on my talk page and I will assist where I can.

I had though that WTS was about to start an almost exact same edit war with a different IP editor somewhere else, but I am happy to report that he has (so far) resisted the temptation. At the very least, a step in the right direction! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, WTS has recently provided a superb example of exactly what the problem is with his editing. As you know the ANI was over an IP's removal of a tag because WTS was not providing any reason as to why he was putting it where he was. WTS later subsequently added another tag to another article without giving a reason. Well, actually, the tag code demanded a reason but the reason given was a non reason [26]. Just two days later, WTS deletes a tag put by someone else, because that someone failed to leave a reason [27].

I am building up a list of examples where WTS changes his argument to the precise opposite when it suits whatever fringe theory he is trying to push. This sudden switch leads me to believe that he doesn't really believe them, but is just being deliberately awkward. On one occasion he even did it in two adjacent edit wars on the same article Audion where in one discussion he was insisting that an Audion was distinct from a vacuum triode because of the presence of low-pressure gas (true) whereas in the next it was exactly the same device (false). In one war WTS wrote, "I don't think this should be merged with "vacuum tube" - for one thing, Audions initially weren't supposed to be under vacuum." In the very next, he put in an edit summary, "an audion at room pressure didn't work; deForest knew it had to have a vacuum." and even claimed on the talk page in support, "... anything less than sea level pressure is a vacuum.". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That will be super helpful when putting together a case. I started to put together a draft RFC/U at [Page now deleted] a while back but got busy and never finished it.

You may recall that I was reprimanded for compiling a draft ANI (somewhat unfairly in my view as there is a process for doing so). It might be useful if it could be resurected as there may be some useful content should this go further. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: For your information, our mutual friend has attracted another ANI from an IP editor Attempt at Outing. Although it has attracted some admin attention it is mainly excuses as to why they are not going to do anything about it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

CSG International

Was wondering if you were comfortable doing the honors with regards to a Request Edit on the Talk page of this article. BTW - happy new year! CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Guy. I have a few open items from a COI perspective, some simple and some more complex, and was wondering if you had time to hammer out a few and participate in a couple others. For example two editors have already supported a few edits that are copy/paste ready at user:CorporateM/Yelp, but both editors have said they'll put it in when they get around to it. Well, it's been up for about two weeks or so and now I'm having to constantly duplicate edits in article-space into the draft as to not lose other ppl's edits. I've been given a "go ahead" but some of the edits touch on lawsuits and whatnot where it is not appropriate for me to edit directly. If you have time to chip in on a few of these it would be greatly appreciated! CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WTS

(edit conflict) Picking up on the above post, there is an issue here. Putting aside 31.48.73.38's smart arse response at Talk:Transistor–transistor logic (which although unnecessary was somewhat in the same vein as WTS's post - though the latter did contain useful content, it was presented in a smart arse manner). I have no wish to get involved further with that issue.

The real issue here is WTS's almost continuous tirade of abuse directed at editors who chose to edit through an IP address. Examples: [28] and [29] (this last one a legitimate beef that several others have complained about). I do not have the time to document any others but I'm sure you are aware of them. I would be here all night if I tried. These surely must breach WP:CIVIL.

Wikipedia choses to allow IP address editors. WTS may be entitled to his opinion on such editors but he has no right to allow it into Wikipedia agaist Wikipedia's chosen policy. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

While preparing my response, I see I have been hit by an edit conflict where some user other than yourself has deleted the post I am responding to. I do not want to get into an edit conflict, so instead, I would refer you to the version of your talk page where the post is present [30]. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, I am putting together a case concerning Wtshymanski. It will have to be carefully researched and well-written, because of Wtshymanski's practice of (usually) staying just within the rules with his toes hanging over the line. I will try to finish it up and post it the the appropriate venue this week. The IP editor, an the other hand, is clearly and repeatedly violating policy, so I will be able to deal with his behavior immediately -- simply because it is easy to do. This does not imply that I have forgotten about our long-term problems with Wtshymanski --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:65.120.149.2

By the way, that IP-address was already Blocked when you left those three Warnings... Shearonink (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for not doing this earlier ...

... but thank you for your input here. No consensus of one should ever be allowed to stand. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You may find the following to be of interest: Wikipedia:Help desk#Guidelines for the use of Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw that ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Power factor

Thank you for your thank you. I meant to drop a note to you yesterday, but unfortunately, time crept up on me. I was going to point out that on this occasion, I had to take Wtshymanski's side in that solar panels in themselves were not a good example of negative power factor. Partly because (as Wtshymanski correctly pointed out), solar panels have no mechanism for absorbing power and converting it into something else (do they actually conduct in the reverse direction?). But also because, the power feed from solar panels into the inverter is DC, so power factor does not rear its head at all.

However, this does raise another age old issue. Wtshymanski was perfectly happy to revert other's contributions ([31] and [32]), but not change it to make it relevant. This is further evidence that Wtshymanski prefers to edit war rather than actually improve anything. As you already noted, it did not require a major rewording to make the example pertinent ([33]). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The good news is that my medical issues have improved and I think I will be able to finish documenting these kinds of issues. RFCU is now defunct, and in the discussions leading to the closing there was some talk about users building a complex case in userspace and presenting it to AN or ANI with a link to the userspace research, and then filing an arbcom case if AN once again fails to solve the problem.

There is a lot of material to be gone through in his edit history, even if I limit myself to the last 12 months, and I have every intention of doing my best to document a fair number of those cases where he did good work instead of pushing pseudoscience. I want to be scrupulously fair.

The biggest question in my mind is what remedy to ask for. Are we dealing with one of the the unblockables here? Given his history of responding well to restrictions (in the sense that he constantly pushes the limits but generally stays within them) would something as simple as a general 2RR restriction or a carefully crafted topic ban be enough? Your thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we have agreed in the past that fairness has to be the watchword here. I was not aware of the changes to the process of censuring problem users. The administrators' noticeboards are not as useful as they ought to be. Although the WP:AN3 noticeboard attracts swift response and action, the WP:ANI board is much more hit and miss. Sometimes a swift response is forthcoming but sometimes a complaint goes by with no response or action at all. And it is not just complaints about WTS where this happens, it seems to be a general phenomenon. I wonder if passing admins tackle the easy complaints but leave the more complex ones hoping that someone else might take it on.

At the RfC, three years ago, there was quite a bit of support for sanctions of some sort, and if this stood any chance, it might be the way to go. My only reservation is that this was tried (at least in part) shortly after the RfC. You may recall, that WTS was (and still is) deleting vast tracts of articles by merging an article with another article but omitting to merge the material that he wants to delete. After the RfC, there were complaints and the the admins instructed WTS not to merge any more articles. WTS complied with the instruction - for around just one week. Then a single merge was tried, presumably to see if anyone was watching, and when no objection was lodged it was back to merge as usual. If sanctions are to be the tool, then there needs to be a way of enforcing them.

The two main issues that I do have with WTS, is not so much his attempting to hammer in fringe theories (think: Power factor here). I have amassed sufficient evidence that that is not the driving factor. The driving factor is that WTS will change his viewpoint to facilitate whatever edit war he is trying to persue at that time. He has argued the entirely opposite views in separate talk pages (when he does discuss) to support two unrelated edit wars. I have several examples of this. On one occasion he did it in the same talk page in adjacent discussions. The other issue is that WTS routinely reverts or alters any edits that are made to the articles that he seems to monitor that are made by IP address editors - which is what really drew it to my attention. Reverting vandalism I can accept, but this happens to good faith edits as well. The revert is often for the most tenuous of reasons. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I have started to keep a track of good faith edits made by IP address editors that get 'auto'-reverted by WTS on tenuous grounds. Naturally, reversion of vandalism will not be included as won't any where WTS may have a valid point (because it does happen).

I am not going to document them all here, but just as an example from today is this reverted by WTS within half an hour here. Edit was clearly good faith and a more or less correct claim. Reverted as, "ungramatical and out of place". The grammar is easily fixed (and WTS himself is more than able to do so) so no excuse for that. And it was not out of place having been added to the very section to which it applied.

Another editor contributed this substantially comprehensive article on Electrolytic capacitors. English was clearly not his native language because the English is nowhere near top notch (not a critism of the editor as he clearly knows a lot about the subject). WTS reverted to the vastly less comprehensive earlier version here claiming it was superior (I suspect that he was referring to the English because the content certainly wasn't). Nevertheless, the newer version was reverted, and with the magic that is co-operative editing, the English has been considerably cleaned up in a bit over a month. And to be scrupulously fair: even WTS himself has made some contribution. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

w:mr embassy page

Hi, Thank you for your message on w:mr. There indeed seems to be a filter on the embassy page that disallows non-Marathi twxt. Personally, I believe that is wrong but the community seems to have agreed to it. I will ask the Question again and try to remove the filter after a consensus. I will need a bit of time to do that, familiarize myself with filters, then remove it. I ask for a little patience in this matter.

In the meanwhile, please do not hesitate to post on my talk page there if you need to convey a message to the w:mr community.

Thank you.

अभय नातू (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin, 'crat

Marathi WikipediA

p.s. lol@picture caption

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

m:Global user pages

Thought you might want to know about this, since I saw you were creating them by hand. (You can request at m:Synchbot to have the ones you created deleted). --Rschen7754 19:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I do know about the global settings, but I have been testing the various Wikipedias for bugs (because I am a high-functioning autistic, I find this sort of repetitive work to be very relaxing).

So far I have discovered:

• mr.wikipedia.org has a filter that forbids non Marathi languages, and it stops post to the Embassy page -- the page that is supposed to be the place for users of English and other languages to get help. One of the mr.wikipedia.org admins is working with me on fixing this.
• ak.wikipedia.org has an edit filter that thinks that secure.wikimedia.org is a harmful site. I haven't tried to get a local admin to resolve this yet, but it is on my list.
• yi.wikipedia.org has a problem with LTR text. It puts the icon on the wrong end of https links but gets http links right. he.wikipedia.org, for example, has no such problem, so I need to talk to the developers and see if there is some sort of configuration issue or whether this is an actual bug that needs to be reported through bugzilla.

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no admins on ak.wikipedia.org - maybe try asking at m:SRM to see if someone who knows more about abusefilters knows more about what to do? --Rschen7754 20:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted there and the problem was quickly fixed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocking

Can you please put this talk page section under your own name, or a different IP ? As mentioned before i'm no spammer and didn't vandalise anything. The fact I do such a bad job in trying to hide it (and make everything worse rather than better) probably makes this obvious too. If you want me blocked, then that's fine too. I won't be adding new texts at wikipedia. I'm just overcautious and don't sleep well knowing this section is signed by my ip; so please put it under a different one. If you agree, that's the last you'll see of me. 2A02:A03F:126D:A800:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to delete your own contributions (including any that you put a fake signature on), go right ahead. That is allowed. Doing that will remove your signature as well. Do not attempt to delete anything anyone else posted at the same time, like you did the least few times. Deleting other people's contributions is not allowed. You might want to put "deleting my comment per discussion with Guy Macon" in the edit summary. That way if anyone objects they will come to me and I will set them straight. Remember, you can only delete your own posts. Not anything anyone else wrote.

As for faking signatures, no. I would be violating Wikipedia's rules if I did such a thing. Everything on Wikipedia is subject to the license listed at the bottom of the edit window:

"By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution."

The signature is the attribution, and it would violate both the CC BY-SA and the GFDL license to falsely attribute any contribution to someone else.

Finally, if you ever decide to stop breaking the rules, you will be welcome here. If you register a username, nobody will be able to see your IP address. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Tor Talk page has been protected now, so can't be altered by contributors without a username, but I guess that if Blueraspberry agrees to remove his comments (so the section doesn't stand out that much anymore) -I asked him directly, so he'll be the one removing it if he agrees, not me-, and together with my https ip adress, it will probably be safe enough. I don't mind the text being in there, as long as it's done anonomyously. Next time I'll definitely log in using a username; I didn't mind the tracebility -so wikipedians could see what articles I modified-. The reason instead why I didn't make a username and log in was because I thought a https ip was more anonymous/secure (well, at least if I didn't screw up the way I did). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:126D:A800:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Socking

Guy, you and I have been accused of being sockpuppets of each other, along with (I assume) Andy Dingley, here - note the edit summary. This requires action, but I am not sure how and where. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it requires a thorough ignoring. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's annoying, but probably not in itself actionable beyond a warning. For the record, Guy Macon is my full legal name and I am listed at the Wikimedia Identification noticeboard,[34] so I am a particularly unwise choice as a target for false accusations of sockpuppetry.

I have, of course, been looking for a position as a Minion. I have a lot of experience as a Henchman and am looking to move up. If you know of any Evil Overlords or Criminal Masterminds who are hiring, let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

<G> DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

EMTVSS

EMTVSS seen as SPAM? Not sure why, but I am adding a new, very important technology to Wiki and Guy Macon claims it is spam, while another, Wtshymanski says it is snake oil. Instead of simply deleting what may be the most important discovery about electrical circuits of the 21st century, I ask that you work with me to make it acceptable to all. The science behind EMTVSS is sound, and it has been in use for over a decade. it is insulting for someone with no experience with the device or expertise in electro magnetic physics to simply dismiss this. NASA, the US NAVY and the Dept of Homeland Security are taking this technology very seriously; is it too much to ask for you to take 5 minutes out and help instead of deleting? If not, I will simply take this to 3rd party arbitration and work with the best people to get this on Wiki. CharlieTrig (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well and truly flogged to death at User talk:CharlieTrig. It turns out that there is a conflict of interest at play here too. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I advised CharlieTrig[35], per Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD, he should open up a discussion at Talk:Surge protector. This is the mandatory first step in resolving any content dispute on Wikipedia. Any attempt to use Wikipedia Dispute Resolution will be rejected if there is no attempt to first discuss it on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts please.

Guy, I would value your opinion. As I mentioned above, I have started compiling a list of occurences where Wtshymanski is reverting IP address editors for no discernable reason. I have recorded no less than five occurences since mid February, two of which were a clear case of failing to assume the required good faith (which someone else commented on as well). You can read the summary at User:DieSwartzPunkt/IP. There are countless example that predate my start date, but any potential ANI does not need scores of diffs when five or so adequately make the point.

My motive here was that I had previously identified another editor who was routinely reverting IP address editors solely because he did not believe they should be allowed to edit Wikipedia (sound familiar?) not to mention a whole raft of unacceptable behaviour. On that ocassion, I raised an ANI which attracted a lot of interest, mainly from other users who expressed concern that IP editors who could potentially become productive editors were being driven away and that any user doing this should be indefinitely blocked. An indef block was never likely, but he did get blocked for 72 hours, though the block was for the other problems rather than the anti IP address stance, though I dare say it was a factor. You can read the thread here, but it takes a bit of sorting the chaff from the wheat.

I have no idea how many productive editors started by dipping their toes in the water as an IP address editor (I'm pretty sure I did). What we need is such editors to be encouraged not driven away. My question to you is this: is this worthy of making an ANI case. The required outcome is some sort of restriction on Wtshymanski reverting IP address editors solely for that reason alone. If that requires a short term block then that's fine by me if the goal is achieved. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth taking to ANI. The usual result is either a strong warning or a short block, followed by Wtshymanski realizing that he stepped over the line and going back to standing with his toes over the line. Sigh. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. I will make a start drafting an ANI tomorrow. Results at ANI do seem somewhat patchy, but you never know. I know what you mean about that line, but WTS usually becomes blinkered to it within a few days. <Sighs in sympathy!> DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you not yet been involved. The thread is Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.. Thank you.

For information as discussed above. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IP request for help

I'm at a loss - if I email info-en-c@wikimedia.org with EoRdE6's so-called fair use, am I making a legal threat? Would you take a look at User_talk:EoRdE6#Train_derailment and suggest a course of action? His position seems to be that he does not have to properly identify the copyright holder or inform them, and that by my informing them of "fair use" of their material, I have made a legal threat. He has warned me that I may be blocked. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking into this now. I should have some sort of advice and/or resolution for you later today. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to impose and thank you for taking the trouble. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No trouble at all. I love helping people.

Here is how I advise handling this sort of issue:

• First, post a polite note on the user's talk page. There is no need to get into an extended debate if he disagrees; you just want to make sure he was notified.
• If that doesn't work, post a polite question on the article talk page. Again, no need for extended discussion if anyone disagrees; you just want the folks who edit the page to know that there might be a copyright issue.
• If that doesn't work, post a polite question to Wikipedia:Copyright problems (for text) or Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files (for images, sounds, etc.). Then disengage and move on to other things, knowing that you did your part.

BTW, the legal threat accusation was just blowing smoke. Ignore it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the Associated Press has no objection to use of their image File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg with The Columbian mis-listed as copyright owner, then the issue is moot. I feel step one has been done to the user's smoke blowing annoyance. EoRdE6 got notified. I would like to go directly to disengage and move on, but 2 is possible - I may post a polite question on the article talk page. As for 3, files that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files according to that page, so since the argument is fair use, that's the wrong place to go. It was kind of you to respond. Thank you. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I took File:Mount_Carbon_Derailment.jpg to {{Non-free review}}, where an editor suggested a couple of public domain photos on commons. After I told EoRdE6 that I substituted one of them for the AP photo, he had his copyright upload deleted. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

82.132.234.182

The IP who is defending W is probably W logged out, a sockpuppet, but it isn't worth making an issue about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. W. never goes to that much trouble to defend himself. If you honestly think this is a SP case, why not take it to SPI? Jeh (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert, it is very very important when dealing with Wtshymanski‎ to be scrupulously fair and to only bring up issues where there is solid evidence. In this case http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/82.132.234.182 shows us that that IP address is a wireless broadband connection in the UK, and Wtshymanski‎ has self-identified as being in Canada. Plus, as Jeh rightfully pointed out above, Wtshymanski‎ has never behaved like that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Look here [[36]] (the first case). I became far more convinced that this was Wtshymanski after the case was rejected. This was for a number of reasons.

1. The geolocation of the IP address was close enough to Wtshymanski's known location that it could have been him while away on business or a week's holiday. Not conclusive enough in itself, but ...
2. One of the IP addresses was compiling a list of Wtshymanski's enemies (an admin's description - not mine). Why?
3. The IP address was very keen to get my draft RFC/U against Wtshymanski deleted in spite of the IP addresses not being featured in it.
4. The IP address claimed in the SPI report to be, "sick'n tired of all the BS" that he was taking from another contributor to the SPI despite no interaction having taken place before the SPI was raised (though Wtshymanski had had plenty of interaction).
5. The IP address edits supporting Wtshymanski's edit stopped as soon as the SPI case was filed.

I know Guy was unconvinced, but that is his privilege just as it is my privilege to disagree.

I note the second report from an IP address editor didn't fly either but as the co-accused was an administrator with a long and mostly separate editing history, it was never likely to. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Where's the IP "defending" Wtshymanski? That's just someone out to troll me. It might be Hengistmate again (he has form, although it's not his usual ISP) or it might even (given some behavioural evidence) be a mighty-morphin edit warrior from Utah, who seems to pop up through various Telefonica IPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Justin Capră

Hi, I'm wondering if you could perhaps help me out with a situation going on at this article.

To give you a brief (and, admittedly, biased) summary: the article was started by a quasi-single purpose account, survived AfD, and once that happened, I cut it down to size. The problem is that the original author insists on a version that violates numerous policies, and is willing to slow-motion revert-war for that. He also has a rather original take on WP:V. And he likes to warn me, which is somewhat irksome.

As you can see, this is a somewhat difficult case, and I certainly don't want to continue reverting - that hasn't gotten us very far - but I also do want my version to be the basis for the article as we move forward, rather than the dreadful text the other editor keeps imposing. I'd much appreciate any intervention on your part. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A call to my minions talk page stalkers for help

Our article on Leading and lagging current could use some loving care. I am planning on working on it, but I am really, really lazy stuck on the final boss level on DoomRL a high priority project. Does anyone want to do my job for me wade in and improve it? There will be cake. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a regular stalker, but I happened here from Power factor. I agree that that article requires a bit of TLC, in the form of correction and clarrification. If no one beats me to it in the next couple of days, I might find some time to have a crack. There isn't a lot of it and it is (or should be) pretty basic stuff. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Distractions

"We all know that once we start discussing the above, it will take over the thread." Bugs is really, really good at that. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Responding just 
 encourages them! 
        \ 
         >') 
         ( \ 
          ^^` 
 --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

...and of course μηδείς/Medeis is now trolling me[37][38], hoping that I will respond. I am ignoring all such comments and I recommend that others do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have competely failed to ignore today. --Steve Summit (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult. Our brains evolved in small groups of hunter-gatherers where expressing disapproval worked. Here on the Internet, feeding the trolls only results in increased trolling.

                                          .--.
                            ______.-------|  |
      __                   (_____(        |  |\\\\|
  ..--''  ``--.._               __/ `-------|  |---,
      __       ``--..____.--'| \    ___   |  |  ||
  ..--''  ``--.._         |    |  |  |   |  |  |  ||
               ``--..___|    |  |  |___|  |  |  ||
  The plug is pulled     `--.|_/          |  |  ||
  Ignored are the trolls    ____\ .-------|  |---`
  Feed them I will not     (_____(        |  |\\\\|
                                  `-------|  |
                                          `--`

(Total time needed to cut and paste the ASCII art above, 17 seconds). :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Our mutual friend (!)

Guy, I was not originally happy with option 6 (Indef block) because attempts in the past to cover the behavioural patterns as a whole have been unsuccessful. The whole thing just becomes too complex for the admins to unravel. There is a saying, "Softly, softly, catchee monkey". It was for this reason that I decided to raise the ANI focussing on just one aspect of the bahavioural problem (and luckily, I have a track record of raising a similar ANI for another editor, who was blocked - though mainly for abusing everyone who supported sanctions). I figured that it just might stand a chance of going somewhere without all the other distractions (though, not too unsurprisingly, they kept creeping in). Things started to look very positive, not because of what other editors were doing but becaue of what WTS was doing. He was making the job easier as it went along. Not just because five supporting examples became ten but because of his utter contempt for what was going on.

First, he ignored that an ANI complaint had even been made (unusual in itself, previous ANIs have stopped the complained of trait - at least for a while) and he carried on routinely reverting IP edits. A study of his editing history shows clearly that this seems to be his primary raison d'être so it was a good angle to use. If anyone really wanted to push the point, I could easily have turned ten examples in twenty or forty or (however far back in time one wanted to go).

Second an admin placed a warning on his talk page to stop the reversions. WTS just ignored it and carried on reverting. Unfortunately, said admin got sucked into a discussion and no longer considered himself uninvolved and declined to implement his threatened block. Damned ethics - they'll be the death of society!

Third, WTS himself placed a statement in the ANI promising to, "be more careful" (but only after a threat of a block to force a response). Despite your belief and that of LiveRail who closed the ANI, WTS immediately ignored it and reverted yet more good faith edits.

With this last defiance (not my description), the ANI was reopened (ironically by an IP editor but with LiveRail's support) and LiveRail proposed Option 4 (edit restriction). This was the option that received the most support (with option 6 conveniently coming a good second). WTS seems to be laying low at the moment (not a new action). I am fairly confident that when he edits again, he will ignore the editing restriction. It will be at this point that I can declare that WTS himself has rejected option 4 and that I (or we) can pursue implementation of option 6 as WTS himself his made clear that he is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate on anything. It was the second most popular choice which WTS cannot reject (5 support 2 oppose - with my added !vote). Should, by some miracle, WTS abide by the edit restriction, then this will have been a worthwhile exercise anyway.

I was interested to note that an IP editor "strongly support"ed option 6, and his supporting comments underlined just perfectly what the ANI had been all about. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

D., you continue to complain about W's "reverting IPs' edits". There continues to be nothing wrong with reverting IPs' edits as long as the reversions are justified; IPs do not enjoy any more protection from being reverted than anyone else. The problem is the unjustified reverts.

I've seen a couple of editors earn indef blocks for WP:NOTHERE purely from failure to respond to community input, i.e., failure to respond meaningfully on their talk page. Take a look for example at these ANI cases. That was an extreme case (over a hundred complaints on the user's talk page, almost all of them with NO responses), but nevertheless it's a very easy thing to document and was taken as a clear case of WP:NOTHERE (to collaborate). Jeh (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I tend to take a middle ground, giving W more benefit of the doubt than you, DieSwartzPunkt and giving W less benefit of the doubt than you, Jeh. Nonetheless, I am 100% convinced that both of you (and I hope, myself as well), want what is best for the encyclopedia even if we have a good-faith disagreement about how strict the admins should be with W. Because this is a human-interaction issue and not an engineering issue (if we were disagreeing on, say, the melting point of Tungsten we could easily resolve that disagreement) and because we are likely to end up at ANI or arbcom commenting on W again over some new behavioral issue, I suggest the following strategy to avoid wasting each other's time with unproductive arguing:

• When any of us comment on W on a noticeboard, we should take the time to gather diffs supporting our positions, label opinion as opinion, and we all should take special care that what we write follows the evidence while trying our best to minimize our individual biases.

• We should speak more freely on talk page discussions like this one, while still treating each other with honor and respect. We really are on the same team, and so is W. This will somewhat insulate the admins from discussions that they really don't care about or want to hear.

• There is no point rehashing the last ANI. The decision was made, for better or worse.

DieSwartzPunkt, while the edit restriction says "Wtshymanski is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article", Jeh has a point about unjustified reverts. We shouldn't play "gotcha" and report justified reverts, even if they do violate the ban. We should wait until there is an unambiguously unjustified revert. Our goal isn't to "get" W, but rather to help him stop the specific behavior that harms Wikipedia.

Jeh, you do bring up an interesting question. Does failure to respond meaningfully hurt your chances an ANI or help them? Of course some editors are going to be blocked no matter what they say, and some complaints are clearly bogus, but in the marginal cases, does not responding or giving a minimal response help or hurt your chances? I was under the impression that not responding helped your chances, but I could be wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, the question about some justified reverts has already been raised by another user on the talk page of the admin who implemented the block. I have already stated there that one would have to be petty minded to flag up frivolous reverts as an edit restriction violation. Unfortunately, we all know that if WTS can establish a crack in the restriction he will soon turn it into a flood. That said, LiveRail did state that his proposal had to include all reverts of IP editors because, "A ban on reverting vandalism is warranted because the examples in the ANI reveal a tendency to revert good faith edits as vandalism when they are not.". He also (correctly) pointed out that even if WTS was restricted from reverting vandalism or other edits where reversion was justified, such a reversion would still occur, just by another editor.

The central plank of my complaint was the unjustified reverts and those are the only examples that I used to back up my complaint and would most likely be the only example type I would use for a violation of the reversion. I cannot, of course, speak for others, but I suspect an admin might not take much notice of a bunch of vandalism reverts. After all, reverting genuine vandalism does not count for the 3RR rule, so one could argue that it should not count towards a 0RR restriction. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed elsewhere. I asked the administrator (MSGJ) if the editing restriction required the explanatory note, "For the avoidance of doubt: this restriction includes reverting vandalism from IP addresses. This is because Wtshymanski has a proven track record of reverting good faith edits by labelling them as vandalism". He stated that it does not because the restriction is on "... reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address". He went to say, "I don't think they (sic) can be much doubt over what banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address means". This concurred with my intent when I worded the restriction, though there was a slight change. I deemed this necessary otherwise other editors would have to investigate reversions reported as vandalism to determine if they were vandalism or a disguised revert of an otherwise acceptable edit.

That should clarify the matter. –LiveRail < Talk > 14:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: You are correct in your assertion that IP editors do not enjoy more protection from being reverted than anyone else and WTS's restriction does not affect that as LiveRail has already pointed out (précised above). However, IP editors also have the same right to make good faith edits and make positive contributions without unjustified reversion. WTS has been willfully denying them that right by routinely reverting any edits that they make. His restriction will, hopefully, encourage the new editors that Wikipedia requires. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

---

As I have said before, my biggest concern is that we all retain a good working relationship despite our differences concerning W. This may involve some of us choosing to to express an opinion when we are pretty sure that another one of us will disagree with, especially in situations like talking on Guy's talk page where the result doesn't really matter. I know that "agree to disagree" is a cliche, but I really think it applies here.

LiveRail makes a very good point. By making the restriction clear and easily testable, not only is it far easier for other editors to monitor W., but it makes it far easier for W. to comply without making reverts that end up being judgement calls. This should reduce the number of trips made to ANI.

Finally, I choose to remain optimistic that W. will start working collaboratively and that the day will come when if I have a problem with one of his edits I can deal with it just as I would if I had a problem with one of Jeh or DieSwartzPunkt's edits -- bringing it up on that user's talk page and having a calm, reasoned discussion about our differences. I do not choose to remain optimistic about this because I think that after ten years of the same behavior patterns there is a significant probability of a change of heart. I choose to remain optimistic about this because it is the right thing to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

When all is said and done, all we can do at this juncture is to just sit back and watch. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a relatively uninvolved editor that has had only some small mainly neutral interaction with Wtshymanski when I came across the noticeboard complaint. I had a good look back through WT's editing history to get some feel for many of the comments made in the noticeboard. What I found disturbed me greatly. Users were defending WT by saying that he makes positive contributions. While true, there are not very many of them. Certainly well under 2% of his edits (and at times well short of even 1%).

Because of the wide diversity of opinion at the noticeboard, I figured that a restriction that was too vaguely worded (i.e. restricting some but not other reversions) was never going to cut the mustard. Such a restriction would be open to widely differing opinions as to what crossed the line and what didn't. WT could cross the line slightly and then complain that it wasn't clear and that he should be given another chance and at least some contributors would probably agree (I gather from the edit history and some of the comments that this has all been seen this before). I decided that my proposed restriction had to be an unarguable bright line (if not to also to adequately cover disguised reverts). It would also appear that the closing administrator agreed. One person did question that the restriction technically prevented WT from removing posts to his talk page. I hope that we can all at least agree, that there is a clear implication that the revert restriction applies to article space and not to WT's user space.

But DSP is quite correct. This is now a spectator sport. At least for the time being. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sticking my nose in where it don't belong

Regarding your recent comment to Ret. Prof, the only thing I might add is to maybe advise him that, if he just waits out the three months and goes to NPOVN or similar again thereafter, the possibility of it being taken as others as problematic is really good, and might lead to an even longer ban next time. Alternately, although I actually don't know this myself yet, he might go over to wikisource if he wants to and maybe start transcribing public domain documents which might support his position, or for that matter, anything else that might be there or over at commons. I'm fairly sure that there are at least a few PD documents that might support them, and, although I haven't checked, there is to my eyes maybe a reasonable chance that the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible or some other reference source which might be available might help give us some indicators of which spinout articles or articles on sources, or whatever, might be available. I actually do more over there than here right now, and I would be willing to help to the degree that I know how to help. Diacritical marks, however, are not my thing, and, for that matter, neither are other alphabets. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Any comments by anyone are welcome here.

Without expressing any opinion or taking sides regarding the actual conflict, if Ret.Prof and I end up discussing the situation (his choice), I will of course advise him that when an admin sanctions you you need to figure out how to avoid further sanctions for the same behavior. I would have given the same advice to you had you been sanctioned in some way, again without taking sides as to whether or not the sanction was justified.

As for the actual question being discussed, I really can't think of any question that bores me more than this one. I see why some folks think that the date some ancient books were written is important and interesting, and of course I want Wikipedia to be accurate even in areas I care nothing about, but boy is this one a snoozer! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion Essay

Would you object if I used your post that is currently being discussed at ANI (how I found it) as the starting point for a userspace essay on the subject? It would be useful in several discussion to have a thing to point to and go "pick your argument from the list" and your wording is a really great start for it. SPACKlick (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. Userspace essays save a lot of time when dealing with reasonable, good-faith disputes. I can't tell you how many times my essay at WP:1AM settled an argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to your religion infobox RfC

Hey, I just wanted to ask if it was alright with you first. I have typed out a, well, eight-paragraph response to your RfC. I tried trimming it down as much as I could (I could maybe omit the anecdote, par. 7, if necessary), but I had a lot of ground to cover. Would you be okay with me posting it in the threaded discussions section? I don't want to hijack your thread or bombard it with a wall of text, neither of which are my intention. Since I am making a very substantial post, and one which potentially challenges your RfC, I wanted to check with you first. If you'd rather me not post it, then I guess I'll just !vote and stay out of it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fine, please post it. Or you can take out the part where you are apologetic, knowing that I think that your comment is a fine addition to the conversation (which is not the same thing as agreeing with you (smile)...) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to censure me if you wish, I don't mind. I'll be glad to discuss the matter, though I may do so tomorrow since I'll be going to bed after the post. Thanks for giving me the OK. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for interjecting here, @Nøkkenbuer:, but after briefly reviewing your typed-out response to the RfC, I can already predict that it might spark objections resulting in several tangential discussions. Those discussions would likely be philosophical rather than productive in producing a solution to the issue addressed by the RfC. A few examples of the objections I would anticipate:

...it's technically true that someone who is, say, a Christian atheist, has no religion...

Many would argue against your assertion, as "Christian atheist" is indeed categorized as a religion, but without a belief in a deity.

An individual who believes in a Christian God but rejects the Christian religion is technically an irreligious individual.

Most would argue that rejecting just the "Christian religion", rather than all religion, does not make someone an "irreligious individual".

...scholars have clarified that (a)gnosticism is the degree of confidence or certainty in one's belief in God (or anything, actually), whereas (a)theism is the state of one's belief in a divine creator or deity.

Most would argue instead that Atheism, as the lead section of our article on it explains, has competing definitions and has changed in scope over time; "conceptions of atheism vary".

...if the person is irreligious but still otherwise adheres to Christianity, then it should read "None (irreligious Christian).

Most would say that is a nonsensical assertion, as "adherence to Christianity" means the person is "religious".

While it is apparent you taking great pains to avoid derailing the RfC, I think the very nature of some of the assertions you make in your detailed response may still have that unintended result. Just a prediction. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was about to go to bed, but I guess I might as well stay up a bit longer to ensure I watch over my potential mistake. I'm not sure why you claim that Christian atheism is considered a religion, since I see no mention of it as such in the Wikipedia article. Christian atheism is considered a "theological position", but not a religion itself. Irreligion is and can be defined as merely the absence of a religion. Even if your definition it accepted, however, I don't see the conflict unless you mistake irreligion with antireligion. It may be true that the definition of atheism has changed over time, but it hasn't significantly changed in the respect of its basic criterion of being the disbelief, or rejection of belief, of a creator or deity of some supernatural origin (especially a personal god). As for the "nonsensical assertion", it's as nonsensical as Christian atheism or Cultural Christian. It simply implies that someone adheres to Christian principles, beliefs, or culture, but rejects the religion and its institution. It's not extremely common, but it occurs. I appreciate your concerns, but hopefully it doesn't turn out like that. If it does, I may simply stop responding or inform my interlocutors to take it to my talk page so as to not derail the RfC. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

While I did try to reign in the inevitable expansion of comments with my ground rules, I don't think it is possible to stop the conversation expanding into good-faith questions the RfC didn't ask. It isn't just Nøkkenbuer, either. when Mandruss writes "The question of whether God (i.e., one or more higher powers) exists, and the nature of said God, is not only a debate, it's one of the most significant debates in all of human history" that's just asking for someone to pop up and point out that to many atheists it one of the least significant debates ever, followed by a long debate. There are at least a dozen similar statements in the thread that could launch a long debate.

My concerns about "hijacking" don't have anything to do with wide-ranging philosophical discussion in the threaded comment section. What I am trying to avoid is the common practice of inserting a second RfC into an existing RfC (complete with sections for support/oppose) and calling it an "alternative proposal". I find those to be annoying and disruptive, and I think they should be posted as separate RfCs. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for philosophy, as well, and that's actually my life's passion; however, on Wikipedia, I typically keep strictly to the topic and ensure that I don't treat it like a forum. So at least with my (potential) discussion, I will refrain from entertaining any and all philosophical queries or discussions which do not fall within the bounds of the actual topic. If a discussion strays to there, I'll remind the interlocutor(s) and bring it back on track. As for hijacking, I have no intention of doing that. I already know you know that, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone's aware of that. Anyway, if I don't receive any responses soon, I might head off to bed anyway. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Since no acknowledgement of error has been forthcoming, even after time to think about it, I'm going to complain here. The other user made a clear personal attack in violation of Wikipedia policy, for which I could have taken him to ANI if I was so inclined. I then responded with a criticism of his comments that was too harsh. You then ignored his PA and chose to admonish me, in a public talk space, for my comments. I think any outside observer would say that your action was wrong in several ways, especially given the context of that discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In my considered opinion, the post you replied to[39] was not insulting, but your response[40] was, which is why I responded as I did.[41] (last paragraph, starting wit "Mandruss, I didn't want to bring this up...") It mayv ery well be that I have an unconscious bias because of the earlier event when you replied to one of my own comments[42] with a reply[43] that felt to me to be an unnecessarily aggressive and accusatory tone, so i suggest that if you are serious about examining your own behavior that you ask some neutral third party to look at the above links and give an opinion.

You probably should expect some aggression from the other editors (I am not saying that it is right, just that it is predictable) if you continue claiming NPOV violations that nobody else agrees exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Juniper Networks

A couple editors have already reviewed my draft and suggested I merge it into article-space, allowing any further improvements to take place there. Per usual I have submitted a Request Edit instead per WP:COI. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look and potentially do the honors. Most editors aren't really use to making edits for someone else, so they're kinda just "yah, go ahead" kind of thing. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. As always, I evaluated before publishing and take full responsibility for anything published under my name. Let me know when User:CorporateM/Rami Rahim is ready to go, and I will create the page and get rid of that redlink. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure he qualifies for an article yet; most of the sources used in that draft are actually focused on his predecessor, who departed under controversial terms. I advised them he'd probably have more press coverage and meet the notability bar after a few years in the CEO chair of a multi-billion dollar company, but probably not yet. CorporateM (Talk) 22:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Guy. Do you think I could bother you to take a look at this one as well? It's been sitting on Talk for a couple weeks without response. CorporateM (Talk) 14:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries

"Irreligion is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby."

This isn't clever and it certainty isn't amusing! In future "Atheism is not a religion" would suffice. I request that you please stop the irritating descriptions. -- Hazhk^Talk 23:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the answer is no. To most people, the edit summary I chose is more persuasive that the one you would have me use. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting Template_talk:Infobox_person#RfC:_Religion_infobox_entries_for_individuals_that_have_no_religion ― Padenton|✉   23:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible canvassing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Also see: User talk:Philg88#ANI Closure. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I was wrong. Sorry. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help me tag this user in my dispute

On my dispute about saudi arabia I'm trying to tag en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PaulinSaudi and it won't let me. PLease help. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.83.151 (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strange message on my talk page --Guy Macon (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is all about. If I can be of help to anyone, please drop me a note. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. I of course took a look at your edit history just in case the IP was telling me about a real problem, but all I saw was a normal, productive contributor to the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Please tell me to get lost if you want, but I want to know how you reacted to the implied criticism on that drama board. I was a little angry, but why the hell should I care? It has nothing to do with me. I bet you ignored it - well done. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 11:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a reasonable comment, but I had already decided against talking directly to the IP editor based upon his/her argumentative resposes to other editors who had tried. It was a judgement call, Liz disagreed, no big deal. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Take home message, "no big deal" is a good lesson for me to learn. Thanks for the response. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing it as no big deal! I guess I've gotten my share of strange talk page posts as well as emails from editors that I didn't see this as alarming. People often write peculiar, incomplete messages, especially if it's the middle of the night and they haven't slept much (maybe I'm projecting!). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz, I hope you realise that my comment above was purely directed at Guy, and you have every right to comment like that. I was not intending any criticism of yourself, and now, a few hours later, regret even asking. The take home message to me will surely remain though. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 20:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress

I reverted your talk page edits because I truly don't think there's a blp violation there, especially given the BLPN discussion. But I won't contest it if you revert me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

PS - this honestly has nothing to do with our previous less-than-amicable encounter. Figured I should acknowledge that elephant. I have nothing against you at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's put that behind us and work together. We clearly both want what is best for the encyclopedia even when we disagree about what that is.

I am going to let the other editors decide whether to revert your revert. See my comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)? I am hoping that a clear consensus emerges one way or the other in that discussion so we can both follow the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :D I replied to you comment with an honest question... do we need to consider the university and the artist innocent too since there's a lawsuit against them?

If someone else does revert me, I won't contest that either. I was hesitant to revert you as I'd prefer to lean toward the side of caution, but I found the BLPN discussion convincing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Neither side is obviously wrong and both sides have valid arguments. I posted the question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Related issue: should we name the student accused of rape on the talk page Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)?, Let's see what the others think. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLETEST

Hi, would you mind looking at the paragraph you added on the Wikipedia:Search engine test page? Someone is using it to argue about the 'correct' number of hit counts from google: Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Critical_fault_in_proposal_evidence I wrote an objection to his method [44] & [45], saying that the method works for marginally known people, but breaks down for famous people. Would you mind editing the paragraph (in the Search engine test page) a little to say when the method works, and when it doesn't work, so it doesn't mislead people in the future? thanks :-) Darx9url (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. Google has changed their algorithms so that the method I described has become a lot less reliable. I updated it to reflect current research and added two citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great! Darx9url (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

CheckersOrChess.com

Hi Guy,

Would this be allowable on the internet chess servers list?

http://www.checkersorchess.com

Thanks, JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicomp21 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a question that should be asked at Talk:List of Internet chess servers; I have no special authority concerning what is and isn't included. That being said, previous discussions there have shown a strong consensus that a chess server should be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page before being included on that list. Otherwise the list would have several thousand entries. Also note that CheckersOrChess.com is one of several websites run by Lunchserver.com. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Page weight

I think you've raised a very important issue there. Consider showing Lila that Chris Zacharias quote. It might fit neatly into this current thread on her meta talk page.

In that thread, User:Pine suggests WMF should emulate or buy Wikiwand. I've been wondering if we couldn't keep heavy old MediaWiki for editing and present our readers with a fast, light interface like Wikiwand. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, but I would caution against the common misconception that mobile and third-world users have the same problems or that a single solution will work for both. Mobile users have some bandwidth limitations, but the big issue in mobile is small screens and limited CPU power (because battery life is all-important and a fast CPU hogs power). Third-world users typically have laptops with much larger screens and far more CPU power, but severely limited bandwidth, often with per-byte pricing. This misconception is so common that we should all be correcting it whenever it pops up. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Since all we're serving is (mostly) text and jpgs, I don't see why we can't be light on both bandwidth and CPU usage. Aren't most of our third world readers using mobiles? I'm sure I've heard someone (Jimmy?) say most of them will never own a laptop. Don't quote me - I know very little about this stuff. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how much experience Jimbo or anyone else speculating on this has with developing regions. My personal experience is of course also limited, but unlike most people I don't just visit areas near airports that have a network of cell towers. I have been working on an upcoming engineering problem that I call "running out of poor people". As IT has moved to India and manufacturing to China, the standard of living in both places has risen. This, of course, makes me happy, but the fact is that as the wages go up and we start running out of poor people (again, a very good thing) the low-end manufacturing is moving to places like Thailand and Vietnam, and we will run out of poor people quicker in those places because they don't have as many people to start with.

So if the standard of living rises in Vietnam, how about, say, Somaliland? No shortage of poverty there -- yet. Yes, there are severe challenges, but if we pull it off everybody wins. The manufacturers get cheap labor and the standard of living starts rising in the entire area around Somalia. Eventually we will be looking to the poor countries in central Africa because the Somalia wages are getting too high. And of course the team I am working with is also looking at various other areas in the world that are in abject poverty.

My point is that the computing situation in the remote areas of Mali is nothing like it is in, say, the capital of Nigeria. Look at Telecommunications in Mali. Note the minimal cellphone service and slow internet. Look at the computers they are using in the picture -- and that's in the city. Yes, people have cell phones, but those cell phones are typically basic flip phones, not smart phones that can browse the web. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually worked for MTN Nigeria's network management provider for a couple of years, and I would describe Nigeria's network as relatively advanced. Not quite first-world grade, but not off by much.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's not just a matter of personal wealth to buy gadgets. Developing countries often have governments which aren't very good at building & maintaining infrastructure or encouraging others to do it (cause and effect is a two-way street, there). I've had the good fortune to visit places like rural Mali, and poor internet connectivity is a serious obstacle even for those who do have a smartphone / tablet / laptop. It's not just about funding to lay new cables - there are lots of other problems. Stepping away from the internet for a moment, in Mali you can drive down an expensive new autoroute built by European aid donors, but it's already blighted by potholes, livestock, and roadblocks (rent-seeking soldiers). Spot technical fixes tend not to be as effective as the tech optimists expect; we need to watch out for broader problems and externalities. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? If there were easy solutions the problems would be solved already. Still, I have hope that the world will become a better place, one small step at a time and with many missteps. At least we can make Wikipedia more accessible. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry for derailing your hitherto-interesting thread. Anyway, I agree with your position on technology and bandwidth. bobrayner (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

(Reply to Kww) Yes, Nigeria is pretty good. A lot of these African countries are a lot more advanced -- both technologically and politically -- than many people assume. Even in Nigeria, though, you won't find many smart phones in the rural portions of Sokoto State. Of course stories like this don't help... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Pine raised this on wikitech-l [46] and the response was:

Jon Robson
May 24
to Wikimedia

FYI We had a meeting about this today at the wikimedia hackathon specifically for mobile.
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T98986

-Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There's that fallacy again. Would someone on that list be so kind as to point out to them that

(SHOUTING) OPTIMIZING FOR MOBILE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OPTIMIZING FOR LOW/EXPENSIVE BANDWIDTH!!!!!

I wish I could force everyone who thinks they are the same thing to have to connect their desktop/laptop PC to the internet through a Satellite phone. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has any doubts, just look at the second to the last page at [ http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf ]... --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "no interest"

The issue of WP:LQ comes up at least once a year. Sometimes it progresses to an RfC and sometimes it doesn't. The biggest problem with the last RfC is that a few of us had set up a thread to work out a wording that we could all live with, and then another editor jumped the line and wrote an extremely biased one, so much so that I personally don't accept the results as valid. I meant what I said about getting a neutral party to write out the wording for us the next time this happens. May I ask you at that time? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I would be glad to help. Just drop me a line here when you are ready. It's funny, but I avoid mediating any content dispute where I am tempted to take sides, leaving me with things like this where I find that the actual question you folks are looking to answer be completely boring. That makes me ideal for writing up an unbiased RfC and making sure that there is a consensus on the wording of the RfC before seeking consensus on the actual issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Assistance with COI edit?

Hi Guy,

You were good enough to jump in when I had an issue with an edit to Beepi.

I have done a substantial suggested edit/rewrite to another entry, Faith Popcorn, which really badly needs it. But I also have a WP:COI. So I've drafted it on my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/sandbox with background explanation on the Talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BC1278/sandbox and on the Talk page of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faith_Popcorn&action=edit&section=12

Article could really use a very experienced editor to review what I'm proposing and work with me on any necessary changes. I wonder if you could do it or perhaps interest someone else you think would be good. This is an article where even Jimbo Wales weighed in about 4 years ago, to correct a hostile section, so changes merit a close look by someone experienced, I think.

Many thanks, BC1278 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: Did Guy ever get back to you? I can take a look if you're comfortable with an editor that sometimes does paid editing himself participating as a volunteer; if you're not, than I won't. CorporateM (Talk) 00:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done I took care of it. Please feel free to ping myself or others for any other questions, proposed additions, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 18:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

I apologise for not checking for consensus first when I restored this; I was not aware of it. Thanks for pulling me up on it gently. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arb case

Guy Macon, I appreciate you not taking the revert at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 personally. It looks right now that this portion of the page will likely be hatted in the next 24 hours but right now, many of the clerks are away and since it was such an unusual closing, I wanted to hear feedback from clerks who are around and the arbitrators. Your interest is appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD reverts are always welcome. This was a textbook example; my good-faith bold edit followed by a revert with an edit summary that clearly explained that there was information I didn't know, so no further discussion needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values

Welcome! Good to have you in the club. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs ANI

Hi,

I have observed some of your dealings with this editors misdemeanour's. I broadly support your stance and position on him. Would you like to assist on collating some evidence that could be presented at ANI. Or failing, arb cob.

Thank you. --95.183.72.250 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced that there is anything there that requires administrator intervention, especially considering how many times he has been taken to ANI in the past. My advice is to ignore him (something that I failed to do recently and regret). That being said, if you can put together specific diffs showing policy violations, I would be willing to comment. I certainly haven't made it a point to examine his posting history and may have missed a lot of things. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP is probably the same proxy-hopper who's been after me for at least 6 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in-for-me! --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Not "all" by any means. Just one. That one guy. Not a major problem. Just a gnat that turns up from time to time. By now I'm fairly sure I know who it is, going back to one particular issue possibly as far back as 2007, but BLP and Outing rules forbid my saying it here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This conversation is a prime example of not ignoring disruption. The IP editor posted what appears to be a reasonable question, so I gave the same answer I would have given to anyone else who asked. If BB makes reasonable comments, he will be treated the same with no reference to any past unpleasantness. When it goes past that (say if the IP started trying to make his case against BB here or BB -- as we see above -- tried to make a case against the IP) I will ignore the comment and I would ask my faithful minions ... err ... loyal henchmen ... umm ... hireling thugs ... uh ... talk page watchers to do the same.

Speaking of which, BB, you may not be aware of my recent pledge at User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values, but I am serious about it. I hope that advising others to ignore certain interactions you have with other editors doesn't offend you, but I honestly believe that doing so is what is best for the encyclopedia. I apologize if my attempt to lighten up a tense situation with a bit of harmless humor above causes you any distress. Dweller isn't really my "hireling thug". That's a volunteer position. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a noble pledge. I haven't seen your apology for that cartoon fantasy. Did I overlook it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs, I apologize for using an ASCII art cartoon to encourage people to ignore you in such a way that you interpreted it as a fantasy about murdering you with a missile strike. For the record, I had no such intent in my mind at the time and nobody else seems to have interpreted it that way. I really was just trying to say "ignore Baseball Bugs if he behaves in certain ways" with a bit of humor that I had no idea you would be offended by. I do not know or care who or where you are and I do not own or control any missile systems of any kind. I apologize. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept, and I shall not speak of this again. I hope we're good from here on out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a kitten for you:

          |\      _,,,---,,_
          /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
         |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
        '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)  

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Request Edit

If you have a minute[47]. This one seems like it should be pretty non-controversial, since another editor has already expressed support of the draft, nobody else responded after 10 days and there is nothing very controversial on the page. It's not exactly the type of subject that attracts critics. CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Nice job. See article talk page for remaining issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)