User talk:John254/Archive 15

My vandalism

Sorry, I misread the page history. It appears the vandalism was actually removed while I was reading the article. - Calmypal (T) 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the warning, and apologize for the inconvenience. John254 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

HELP

I have tried to add information about the digital phase converter to the three phase power site, but am continually being removed by Wtshymanski. Can you help? I would appreciate any suggestions, etc. Thanks. Soothsayer2 (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

		The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism to Port Charlotte High School!

GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. John254 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

shaftesbury page (again)

Sorry to bother you again with this John but it seems the people that were spamming for their link to a commercial site on shaftesbury are back again and are ignoring that we had this whole editor discussion a while back about their site selling advertising space and the link there being to one of a community non-profit site. They keep just adding the link without discussion while talking about all the editors agreeing with them when no such event has ever taken place or anything close. Would you mind terribly revisiting the page shaftesbury and just showing them there are editors about that will stand up for pages not being used as advertising tools. Thanks for your time --Curuxz (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain lobbyist controversy

I closed this DRV, please discuss the redirecting/non-redirecting of the article on its talk page. Redirects are not the same as deletions, and they are in no way equivalent because simple redirecting is done editorially without a deletion debate, and the history is preserved - anyone can revert a redirect. No deletion debates on this article reached a "redirect" consensus, so this is not in DRV's scope. --Coredesat 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some other administrators disagree with that contention, and assert that the redirection was effectively a deletion of the entire article [1] [2] Perhaps it might have been better to let the discussion continue, and close it on the basis of the consensus expressed therein. John254 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not deletion at all because the history is preserved, and I'm not sure why they think it is. DGG is arguing a change in policy, and DRV is not the right environment for that - until such change is made, redirects are not deletions and cannot be considered deletions. As for JoshuaZ, the redirection wasn't done as a result of a debate. Anyone can revert it and discuss it on the talk page, there's no need for a DRV at all. Last I checked, we didn't use DRV to settle content disputes, which is what this is. --Coredesat 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the preservation of the page history is factor which weighs in favor of the finding that redirection does not amount to the deletion of articles, as does the fact that this particular redirection was not implemented with administrative tools, by protecting the redirect. These factors, however, are not dispositive, since other considerations cause redirection of an article to partake of the character of a deletion:

(1) Redirection removes the article from existence for most purposes, insofar as most readers won't follow the backlink after being redirected, and view the original article in the page history. Furthermore, the article cannot be edited without reversing the redirect.

(2) Redirection is a uniquely binary decision, which sharply distinguishes it from most content disputes: the article is either redirected or it isn't, no compromise or intermediate position is possible. In an ordinary article content dispute, it is usually possible to resolve the disagreement by producing a compromise version of the article somewhere in between competing versions.

I contend that these two factors, taken together, render the redirection of an article a deletion in effect and character, even if conducted without the use of administrative tools. I further note that the fact that redirections are sometimes implemented administratively as a result of AFD discussions, weighs in favor of considering the reversal of redirects (even those not implemented via AFD) within the scope of DRV. Finally, since deletion review discussions are closed administratively, and not subject to unilateral reversal by any editor, DRV has a fairly good track record of implementing decisions which are not subject to substantial further conflict. Effective deletion of articles through redirection, however, has often resulted in massive edit warring over a large number of articles -- see, for example, the situation described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 -- simply because controversial talk page discussions often have no objectively ascertainable consensus, which results in a situation in which each side in a content dispute can claim that consensus favors them. As described above, this situation would ordinarily be resolved through compromise, but, because redirection is binary, such compromise is impossible. John254 01:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Elk Mountain Ski Area

As the administrator who handled the AfD on this article, I wanted to bring a blatant COPYVIO in the History section of Elk Mountain Ski Area to your attention. I have placed the {{copyvio}} template in article. -Gr0ff (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section of the article which was comprised entirely of a copyright violation. John254 03:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

js in category

Hey, your javascript at User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js shows up in Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics because it contains some template text ({{rescue}}) that is mistakenly expanded by mediawiki. Can you fix that? I actually did the same thing in one of my scripts, which I fixed by splitting the string up into something like '{{' + 'rescue}}'. (Probably the other templates or category links, too...) — brighterorange (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have adjusted User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js to remove it from Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics. John254 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have split the strings used to represent AFD templates, and an instance of Category:Ended featured picture nominations. These modifications should (hopefully) remove the script from all deletion and featured pictures related categories. John254 03:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all that did was cause Category:" + "Ended featured picture nominations to be created (since deleted per [3]). Of course, since your monobook has been "fixed", it's now showing back up in Category:Ended featured picture nominations. Personally, I don't care (I'd rather have it be in Category:Ended featured picture nominations than have someone create Category:" + "Ended featured picture nominations again), but I see how some people might. Is there any way to modify your script so it doesn't appear in any category at all? --Kbdank71 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "category" itself could be split into multiple string literals, a remedy which I will implement shortly. John254 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for your help. --Kbdank71 15:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Blue Man Group CDs

Hey, saw that you closed this AfD. I agree with your call, but for consistency's sake, I moved the article to Blue Man Group discography. Hope you don't mind. :) GlassCobra 10:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, John, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking an IP?

Hello John, I've been fighting a consistent vandal on the page for Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. This vandal operates under IP 212.16.62.98. I went to his/her talk page and noted you had already issued a warning about bad behaviour. My question: do you have, or know someone who has, the authority to block this person? Not a big deal but it might put a stop to me annoying having to revert the article every day. Thanks, Dmhaglund (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD script

Nicely done on the script! I was wondering, could you change it a little, so it also asks a reason for the keep? That would be great. Thanks! BTW, the script blanked the article instead of removing the notice. Also, how do you make it work for FPC, TFD etc.? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the page-blanking bug, and added a "keep (reason)" tab which will prompt the user for a statement before closing the AFD discussion. Use of the "keep" tab will continue to produce the usual behavior of closing the discussion without a statement. Note that it may be necessary to update your version of the script by viewing User:Milk's Favorite Cookie/monobook.js and pressing control + F5. John254 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! How do you get it to work on FPC, TFD etc? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The script can currently handle all types of FPC closures except the promotion of new images. A discussion such as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/lamp which will not result in a promotion can be closed by pressing the "decline fp" tab that will appear when viewing the discussion page. To close a nomination for delisting such as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud, the "retain fp" or "delist fp" tabs can be selected, as appropriate. Note, however, that if an image is delisted, any transclusions of the image on Wikipedia:Featured pictures or subpages thereof must be removed manually. Use of the script to close TFD discussions would likely require extensive modification, as TFD does not have individual discussion pages, but instead uses a single page for all nominations which were initiated on a given date. The script would need to be modified to prompt the user for the name of the template whose discussion was been closed, then parse the discussion page to determine the boundaries of the relevant entry. John254 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For making a very useful script for closing AFD's, FPC's etc, I - Milk's Favorite Cookie hereby award you this barnstar. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. John254 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You deserved it! BTW, when using the "Keep (reason)" script, while closing an AFD, when it leads you to the articles talk page, it will not save automatically. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. John254 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Live at the Crystal Palace AfD

I was wondering if you'd reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live at the Crystal Palace. None of the "keep" !votes addressed the fact that only 1 of the references given in the article even mentioned the album; and that only confirmed that, at least in 2006, they were planning on releasing an album with that title; two years later and it's still not out. One minor reference doesn't indicate notability, and only barely covers WP:V. Your thoughts? (You can respond here.) Thanks —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless an article contains certain severe policy violations, such as copyright violations or unsourced controversial information concerning living persons, deletion discussions are generally closed on the basis of consensus. While some administrators have been known to delete articles if they find the arguments for deletion to be compelling, even where a significant majority of participants in an AFD discussion have supported retention, consensus for the deletion of an article requires, at a bare minimum, that at least some users beside the nominator support deletion. As there was significant support for the retention of the article, no users besides yourself supporting deletion, and no severe policy violations asserted, I closed the discussion as keep. Naturally, if you disagree with this outcome, you are welcome to raise the issue at deletion review. John254 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I know some admins do things differently than others and since it was closed without any elaboration, I figured I'd ask. I may chuck it in DRV; if I do, I'll drop you a line. Peace —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Script

Do you mind if I modify your script a little (as in move it to my userspace, credit to you). I want to make some additional tabs (results are merge;no consensus etc.) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. John254 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, could you create a new tab with a "no consensus" closing? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I could -- however, note that per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Thus, AFD discussions with "no consensus" outcomes are not suitable for non-administrative closure. If an administrator wants this feature implemented, please let me know. John254 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA

If you accept, I will create the page. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been involved in a bit too much recent controversy to pass an RFA at this time, and it's still somewhat too soon after my last RFA. Maybe next year? John254 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think next year, is a long wait. I suppose we can wait until May. Is that good for you? You sure look like you would make a great admin! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on my past experience with an RFA in January, May would probably be too soon. Thanks anyway. John254 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--Riccardo.tenaglia (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks John, I will go away and rewrite the article from a business tool perspective on cardscan business card reading tools for office automation. Cheers Riccardo

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kindness in cleaning up my user page so quickly after the vandal hit it. Much appreciated . . . Alanraywiki (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Twaz

I can't really argue about the first two edits, but I certainly can about his post on my userpage. So, Twaz forgot to click User Talk, and posted his warning on my userpage. So what? I don't think that I should have to remind you that Wikipedia doesn't block because of trivial mistakes like that. Please assume good faith before slapping on warnings. Cheers, Glacier Wolf 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and [9] indicate that Twaz has recently restored vandalism to articles using popups, at a rate far greater than what would be expected due to simple mistakes in RC patrol. Twaz also recently issued a vandalism warning to a user who actually removed vandalism from Pythagoras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and placed two warnings on userpages [10] [11]-- warnings are only placed on talk pages, a custom with which Twaz is clearly familiar, as indicated by his issuance of a warning on my talk page. If Twaz isn't engaged in outright vandalism, he is at least being sufficiently reckless as to warrant a block for disruption if he continues. John254 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. IN RE: your recent posts on my user page. Pointing it out would have been sufficient. No clue how I changed poopane to propane, must have double reverted. About the rest, a Bureaucrats guess is as good as mine. Going to go to sleep, researching for like 30 hours. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So, why didn't you warn the original vandal to Andy Macdonald? I mean, you know I'm just zapped from being online too much. But, this guy actually inserted non-referenced material. In fact, why haven't you warned any of the original vandals I thought I was going behind and reverting? I mean, I'm in no capacity without sleep to take on an advisory role as an editor, but you sure could if you were truly interested in the encylopedic quality of Wikipedia. Which, through your zeal of my activity demonstrates that you are. For which I applaud you. I'm just coming to you to resolve this directly. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 03:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Six restorations of vandalism ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]), a restoration of hoax content ([18]), and the issuance of a vandalism warning to a user who actually removed vandalism, in the space of less than 50 edits, indicates that you are making inappropriate edits at a rate vastly exceeding what would be expected due to simple mistakes. If a user is employing an RC patrol tool to restore vandalism at a sufficiently high rate, one may justifiably conclude that the user is either actually engaged in vandalism, or at least editing in an unacceptably negligent manner, either of which will result in such a user's account being blocked if they continue. John254 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That was all freehand homie, using popups. A lot of them were due to things like double reverts, or in your case, accidentally reverting Andy Macdonald. But good job watching the page, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten Huggle at the behest of Glacier. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

IP: 76.235.87.57

I was going to say something, but you did that. I reverted the petty vandalism by that IP address on JAPW Heavyweight Championship. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Defamatory" edits

How is mentioning the known fact that this person left Lyndon LaRouche's movement defamatory? It can be referenced to other works as well. The subject has been up-front about his reasons for leaving the movement... I'm not sure where you're coming with this.

Also, it is highly uncivil to leave warning symbols on established users' talk pages. Don't do it again. I know my way around Wikipedia fine without your harassment.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As Lyndon LaRouche is a highly controversial political figure, any claim that a living person is associated with Lyndon LaRouche is necessarily controversial as well. That the claim might "be referenced to other works as well" is irrelevant -- per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, any controversial material concerning living persons which is inadequately referenced now may be removed from Wikipedia articles until acceptable sourcing is provided. The warning indicates that your account will be blocked if you continue to restore this information -- I strongly suggest that you heed it. John254 19:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The change of BLP from "defamatory", "potentially defamatory", or "negative" to "controversial" or "contentious" is, itself, highly controversial. WIthout that, there's no remaining support of your edits in BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with that assessment, and would suggest that the current wording of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material accurately reflects consensus. I will raise this issue further at WP:AN. John254 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on the Eric Lerner talk page. You were able to see and communicate in Wikipedia-speak what I was trying to convey in English. ABlake (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalking!

Kindly desist from stalking my edits and trying to cause trouble. It won't work, so go and find something more constructive to do with your time. Such edits as this [19] may make you appear foolish. Giano (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate requests for the enforcement of decisions by the Arbitration Committee do not constitute "stalking". John254 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You have begun to interest me, stalking is a game that two can play...I'm wondering why the Arbcom accepted a case from you with such speedy, almost suspicious, alacrity - if I were one of those Arbs I would now be very worried, because your edits have started to interest me too, first one on Masturbation - now there's a sunject and a half. As I said I am now very interested indeed.You see John I am still far from happy about the IRC case, and I will get to the bottom of it, if not here then elsewhere. Giano (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. John254 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, no luck required. Giano (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John, whilst I might have issues with the wisdom of the arbcom remedy on Giano, the intent was clear. The intent was that they wanted Giano to be free to edit, but the high drama to stop. Whether that will work, I don't know. The danger is always that someone baits him with an intent to stoke said drama. So, if the intention is "no drama" and the blunt tool is blocking, am am ready to block. But I am ready to block whoever is seeking to cause a drama. Get it? So put down the costume and step away from the building, please.--Doc^g 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking users for filing legitimate requests for the enforcement of decisions by the Arbitration Committee [20] [21] would set an extremely bad precedent, and would likely have a significant chilling effect on future requests. I certainly hope that you don't intend to place such a block. John254 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you've got the message, I won't have to, will I?--Doc^g 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured of one thing Doc, when (not if) I am proved correct in my assunmptions there will be drama on a scale you have only ever dreamed about. People would do well to put their houses in order now - if they know the truth. John has stoked a fire, that, now, I will put out when I am good and ready. Giano (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

With comments like this, I think it's fairly clear who is trying to cause drama. John254 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you some advice: Never start something unless you know the ending. Giano (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh

Um, is it better now? I have to go work. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. John254 22:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA

When filing a report at WP:UAA, please use {{user-uaa}}, not {{userlinks}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dalton Prejean

Hi! I was wondering if you would explain close? I realise there were keeps but in my opinion, none addressed the BLP1E issue. Newsworthy does not necessarily mean notable and he doesn't appear notable for anything other than killing and then being executed. Thanks. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The closure is justified on the following grounds:

(1) As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalton Prejean had a unanimous consensus favoring retention of the article, and did not raise issues of severe policy violations (such as copyright violations or unreferenced controversial information concerning a living person) it is highly improbable that an administrator would have deleted the article on the basis of this AFD discussion. Respect for consensus on Wikipedia is usually sufficient to preclude the deletion of an article against the wishes of every participant in an AFD discussion except the nominator, absent an extraordinarily compelling justification.

(2) WP:BLP1E is a subsection of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and is to be construed accordingly. Therefore, it is inapplicable to deceased subjects. Dalton Prejean, being dead for the last 18 years, is no longer within the remit of the biographies of living persons policy.

(3) Even if

(a) Dalton Prejean were a living person and

(b) it were established that he was only notable for a single event

WP:BLP1E would still not constitute a compelling reason for deletion, as WP:BLP1E advises editors to cover notable events as such, rather than in the context of biographies of otherwise non-notable participants: "Cover the event, not the person." The article could easily be reworked into coverage of Dalton Prejean's execution, and the events preceding it, subject matter which apparently does not receive detailed treatment in other articles. Renaming the article to Execution of Dalton Prejean and revising the text accordingly would be far more efficient than deleting the article and attempting to write a new article concerning the event. John254 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I respectfully disagree and will take it to DRV. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA

This will probably interest you and fairness requires me to draw your attention to my request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lerner ArbCom

As I suggested over there, why don't you just open an RfC on the article? That seems like the obvious choice. Perhaps other outside editors will agree with your position, and if not then at least a wider discussion will have been created. It's extremely unlikely that the committee will accept the case, and I think it was a mistake to bring it there without working the lower levels of dispute resolution first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with blatant WP:BLP violations as a "content dispute" via the utilization of dispute resolution mechanisms intended for this purpose would defeat the purpose of the policy, since content disputes can drag on for years -- surely, in consideration of the harm to living people that can be caused by obvious WP:BLP violations, they should be handled as a policy enforcement matter. John254 16:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is way past the 500 limit. I suggest cutting it down. You can provide detailed evidence if it's accepted. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The length of the statement is necessary to adequately describe the case. Personally, I believe that enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy is far more important than technical adherence to the arbitration rules. John254 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're way past what is needed to present your case at RFAR. You're presenting it like it's accepted and you're in the evidence phase. I've refactored it. If the case is accepted you can go to this link to retrieve the info. If you persist in this, you'll force us arb clerks to block you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my responses to statements by other users at User:John254/Lerner Arbcom. I will also add a quite short comment, weighing in at a mere four words, linking to this page at WP:RFAr. John254 21:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi John. I appreciate your efforts. If you want to, I'd suggest an RfC also, but drop the ArbCom case. If anything, I'd ask you to just observe for a couple of months while other things happen in the background that you are not aware of right now. However, your call. Just know that everything will be OK, regardless of what happens to the article in that time. Thanks again. ABlake (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the remediation of WP:BLP problems is generally considered to be an urgent matter, I would rather not wait several months to resolve this issue. However, we are basically at the end of the line so far as WP:BLP enforcement is concerned. The issues have been discussed extensively on the talk page without resolution; the report on WP:BLP/N was ignored; in light of the fact that we have multiple OTRS members asserting that JzG and ScienceApologist's editing has been perfectly acceptable, I doubt that OTRS will be of any assistance. While this comment by Charles Matthews suggests that at least one arbitrator believes that there might be a serious WP:BLP problem here, it is nonetheless likely that the request will be rejected, especially since the acceptance of arbitration requests requires that a supermajority of arbitrators vote for acceptance. So we are going to be dealing with the WP:BLP issues as a "content dispute", an approach that will be extremely inefficient in producing a resolution. John254 01:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Out of curiosity, how many arbcom cases have you initiated and how many have actually been accepted? John Reaves 23:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has accepted four cases that I have filed, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. An additional case regarding abusive sockpuppetry by ChrisGriswold was mooted when ChrisGriswold resigned his adminship rather than face arbitration, and would have been accepted otherwise. I have probably filed around 12 requests total, including the most recent one which will probably be rejected. If we assume that it's 12 requests, and that any request that was actually accepted, or would have been accepted had it not been mooted, should have been filed, then this results in a success rate of approximately 41.66%. While I'm not aware of any exact figures as to the total percentage of cases filed at WP:RFAr that are accepted, I would estimate that this figure is 10% or less. However, my name is mud at WP:RFAr right now, not only for the cases that were declined, but even more so for those that were accepted but produced results that some users dislike. Let's consider the most recent case: [22] [23] and [24] constitute a clear, bright-line WP:BLP violation by ScienceApologist, a point that even JzG conceded [25]. In light of the blatantly obvious (though now apparently moot) WP:BLP problem concerning allegations of controversial political associations, and ScienceApologist's extensive history of disruption as documented in prior findings by the committee including Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist, I hoped that the members of the committee would give serious consideration to my claims of more subtle WP:BLP violations through inappropriate self-published sourcing and highly imbalanced editing. Of course, so far those arbitrators who have voted on the case at all have taken the position that because this is a dispute between established users over article content, it is therefore at least "mostly a content dispute" which they could only consider after prior formal dispute resolution for the "content dispute" itself, and perhaps not resolve on its merits even then. However, the comment by Charles Matthews suggests that he believes there might really be a serious, actionable WP:BLP policy issue here

Undecided here, while taking the points about "no prior" and "vexatious". These do not absolutely rule out the ArbCom taking a case for BLP reasons, when the reason is serious enough. It's an sensitive matter, and our biographies are not to be used to forward anyone's agenda. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[26]

Now, if this request were really as frivolous as certain users claim, then we wouldn't have even one arbitrator contemplating the acceptance of the case "for BLP reasons, when the reason is serious enough". The fact that we do suggests that ScienceApologist and JzG's editing on Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) does present major WP:BLP problems. But don't take my word for it -- as an administrator enforcing the policy, I encourage you to investigate the matter for yourself. John254 00:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD closing script?

Is this a script like Twinkle? Which if so? Lawrence § t/e 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's similar to twinkle, insofar as twinkle can be used to start, but not close, AFD discussions -- see Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/doc#AfD. The code is available at User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js, though I have only tested it on the firefox browser. John254 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added it to my monobook, but appears to be throwing a 404. I tried it on a pretty basic keep for an AFD, which brought me to a 404 error at this location. Lawrence § t/e 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You added User:John254/AFD closure for secure server/monobook.js to your monobook.js file [27], but what you actually need, if you're using an ordinary login, is User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js Just change the statement in your monobook.js file to importScript('User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js'); John254 23:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir; that did the trick! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Recent deletion

I find it extremely odd that nobody contested the PROD after 5 days, especially since the article was kept 2 months ago in an AfD discussion. This is not a problem, however, as deleted PRODs are commonly restored. I've went ahead and done it. Nothing special in this case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Pinewood School

John254, I'm curious about your decision regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pinewood_School,_Los_Altos. Can you elaborate a bit on why you chose to keep the article? Thanks for all your effort. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment regarding an AFD closure

Hi John,

Thanks for allowing me the time to reconsider in depth. My comments are at User_talk:Philippe#AFD_closure. - Philippe 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for moving Wikipedia:Wikiproject Artix Entertaiment back and reporting the vandal! I would have moved it back myself, as I am a member of the wikiproject, but I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I didn't know how. I am forever amazed at the amount of people like yourself who tirelessly work to revert vandalism on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, and thank you yet again! Alinnisawest (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. To revert pagemove vandalism, you can select the logs link from either the vandal's contributions history, or from the toolbox menu when viewing the vandal's userpage, then open the "revert" links that will appear next to the offending pagemoves, and press the "Move page" buttons in the resulting windows. The vandalized redirects can be accessed without redirection from the vandal's logs, and can be marked for deletion using {{db-g3}}. John254 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

John, there have been comments recently, regarding your filing of requests for arbitration. The general feeling (which I regretfully share) is that the majority of the rfar's which you have filed have overall had a disruptive or non-helpful effect. Would you agree with that sentiment?

Furthermore, would you agree to some sort of voluntary solution, whereby if you though a request for arbitration was absolutely unavoidable, and was definitely warranted, you would take steps to "run it by" a few uninvolved administrators, or perhaps the administrators' noticeboard, as oppose to going ahead and opening it?

As a heads up, calls have been made to have your ability to file requests for arbitration revoked indefinitely; obviously, this solution would be much preferable, from your point of view, than that, but I will need your co-operation.

Anthøny 09:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, no. It's fairly obvious that

(1) The case would have been accepted (or the prior case reopened) had a community sanction not been imposed upon Betacommand Please see comments by the arbitrators in declining review, and note that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 provided evidence of prior dispute resolution. When user conduct issues have already been considered by the Arbitration Committee, we don't require that all previous steps of dispute resolution be repeated before bringing the matter to the Committee again should similar problems recur. Whether the matter should have been raised as a new case request or a request to amend the prior case is a question of form, not substance: it is highly unlikely that the Arbitration Committee is willing to sanction an editor for placing a request in the wrong section.

(2) The community ban discussion had been stalled for four days at the time I filed the request, with no suggestion of actually being able to implement any community sanction -- see the "Now that we've talked it to death..." section. Scarcely six hours after the request for arbitration was filed, however, an editor stated that a community sanction against Betacommand actually could be implemented, as, indeed it was shortly thereafter. This chronology strongly suggests that the implementation of the community sanction occurred only as a result of the request for arbitration being filed.

(3) Even if the community sanction against Betacommand would have been implemented without a request for arbitration having been filed, the enactment of the sanction could not reasonably have been predicted based on the stalled community ban discussion present before the request for arbitration was initiated. Since we do not require that editors possess psychic abilities, we do not sanction editors for bringing otherwise meritorious requests for arbitration that are mooted by improbable events.

For these reasons, it is highly unlikely that the Arbitration Committee is willing to impose any sanction against me for bringing this case. Since several editors appear to regard the case as frivolous, it is possible that a community sanction against initiating any further cases could be attempted; however, such a community sanction would likely be rejected as interference with the Committee's operations. John254 00:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Verenikina

re: Marina V (keep????)

(copied from note to Celanor)

John, my sweet, I cannot understand why you think she is any more notable than THOUSANDS of other unsigned artists, none of whom would merit inclusion in Wikipedia under any criteria. She has reviews from little niche music media and small college papers, including a business wire-for-hire service, none from major national publications, same as most unsigned music types. She performs at various little coffeehouses in the nation and gets write-ups along the way, same as most unsigned music types. The only true test of any musician's notability would be her presence in bricks&mortar retailers (she has none), her sales rank on the internet (Amazon has her CD's selling around 500,000-600,000 position), her level of YouTube interest (her music videos average a mere 500 hits). She does have thousands of MySpace friends, but prior to MySpace instituting recent password requirements, an unsigned artist could hire computer bot services to generate thousands of friends almost overnight. She seems to be "off the radar screen" completely. Seems to me if you keep her, you should consider adding at least another 10,000 unsigned artists to Wikipedia over the next several days. I know a few hundred of them, if you need my help :)

!MusicBizLady

Marina Verenikina is notable for Wikipedia's purposes as the references provided in Marina_Verenikina#References indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of her notability per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, which states in relevant part that

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

As Wikipedia is a work written by volunteers, much of its coverage is necessarily incomplete; thus, the absence of articles concerning certain people does not imply the non-notability of their peers. John254 01:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, John, my sweet, then Wikipedia has eliminated THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of unsigned artists whose qualifications equal or surpass Marina V for true notablility. For example, recently Justin Lanning was removed from Wikipedia, yet he had CD's selling throughout retail bricks&mortar chains, a billboard on Sunset Boulevard, far more youtube videos and hits per video, higher sales ranking on Amazon by far, airplay on mainstream radio stations, whereas Marina V only has internet radio airplay. How can you claim Marina V notability exceeds somebody like Justin Lanning? I am not making a case that Justin Lanning be reinstated because I agree with his removal from Wikipedia, he was more notable, not sufficiently notable. I am simply saying that you must be consistent in Wikipedia decisions and Marina V fails notability in virtually every aspect. Let me restate one last time: super low Amazon sales, ultra low youtube hits, no FM radio play, only internet radio play, limited local/college media coverage (that's NOT notable, most unsigned artists obtain niche coverage like her), only coffeehouse performances, no concert halls, no national media coverage. She is no different (and no worse) than the typical relatively anonymous unsigned artist, most of whom will be throwing in the towel by age 30, but Wikipedia has removed so many unsigned artists who are at her level or better, so it begs the question whether or not she has a special relationship with a wiki editor who is somehow keeping her listed even while so many others are removed? I argue for Wiki consistency and your decision undermines that consistency entirely. Reconsider your decision or I will take it up with senior editors, on the basis that your decision would require reinstatement of HUNDREDS of unsigned artists who were deleted over the past few years.

!MusicBizLady

If you disagree with my AFD closure, you may raise the matter at deletion review. John254 02:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)