User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Verbosity

I thought that I was verbose ;) I shall keep out of it for the time being. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not the length, its that he sounds like he's trying to write an epic, or narrate a documentary. It's really no different than someone writing to simply--it's just the wrong register. That's why I'm offering to either do it myself or let him do; different people are better at different things. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Qwyrxian! I hope you enjoy this mouth-watering treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Your name sounds familiar, but, to be honest, I don't recall where we've crossed paths before. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The National Association Of Powered Skateboard Racing [sic]

So we have one sentence about a two-year old organisation with one non-reference. The link Modesti, Kevin (19 July 2010). "Motorized skateboarders race at Encino Velodrome". Los Angeles Daily News. Retrieved 10 August 2011. goes to the newspaper's wikipedia page, which doesn't even mention this organisation, let alone establish notability. Wikipedia is not WP:RS anyway.

We are not even told that it's American, and I have doubts whether "of" should be capitalised. We aren't told anything about it other than it was founded by two guys in their fifties. If you really insist, I'll restore, but I'm not going to send to AfD or Prod, since I think SD is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I screwed up the link, sorry. The actual link should have been to [1], which you'll see is an actual newspaper article about the group. To me, that coverage indicates a credible claim of importance...the problem, though, of course, is I'm not sure it can pass WP:GNG (I haven't yet found any other sources). If you think that newspaper reference isn't enough, let me know; I can always try just userfying it to my sandbox or the creator's sandbox, and see if they have any more sources that would bolster it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just realised that you are an admin, so you can restore yourself. I won't wheel war if you do that. Personally, given the limited content and one ref, I don't think it's viable, but I'm happy to leave it to your judgement. All the best Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yadav DRN

See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yadav - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My 3RR Helpme Request

Thanks for stopping in. When I realized I'd 3RR'd -- on nearly so -- I realized I should cool off. I actually thought a block would help me. I think this is a better thing however: that I just the hell calm down.

For better understanding of the heat, please have a look at user contributions of User:ConcernedVancouverite here. I have been an occasional editor of several of these articles, and I am very disturbed by disruptive editing. Individually, CV's changes may seen as the challenging but reasonable work of an editor with an agenda, but taken in total, his edits are much more challenging. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Solved disputing

Hi, I've read the message from User:Guymacon about moving to other work as feeling too involved. Tomorrow (or when you feel it necessary) I'll remove all my { { uninvoled } } section if everything will be still silent. Solving without having to report anything to WP:WQA or WP:AN is such a relief.

User:Freywa, already active on the Floppy disk article showed some interest in reviewing. With your kind consensus (that will be added to talk) about directly adding tech-only text

no reference at all to manufacturers
no reference at all to product features / compared features
no reference at all to articles hosted on manufacturers' pages
no EL section

I'll rebuild the article and cooperate with Freywa and maybe other people from the Guild of editors. Blackvisionit (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you can't just restrict yourself to the talk page? I really don't understand why, when presented with the standard COI solution, you refuse to accept that? As you say, there is at least one other editor who is interested in working on the article as well, so it's not like it's just you, all alone. Wouldn't it just be easier to continue full discussion on talk, and let others make the edits? It's also unclear to me that your suggestion is even viable, since there isn't a very clear distinction between "tech" text and other text. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems we're near to a solution. I'll try to be as clear as possible:

tech-text: floppy drives spin at 300rpm or 360rpm, emulators need to switch PLL frequency < r e f >
personal-opinion: floppy disks are no more worth because there are better devices available

tech-text: floppy drives, upon receiving a step-pulse, switch to next track in above 8ms < r e f >
personal-opinion: non-standard drives don't need to be emulated because no one uses them any more

tech-text is more-than-a-stub and less-than-an-article. Other editors will review sources, written english, and expand. There are also some orphans that are worth to be merged. Blackvisionit (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Swissôtel Tallinn

Thank You for your help I need it. And now we have two articles: right name Swissôtel Tallinn and wrong name Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia but the second have a right old history. Please paste the text from Swissôtel Tallinn to Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia and move his name Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia to Swissôtel Tallinn. I can't to do that,therefore came the third article Swissôtel Tallinn (2007) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I see the old history, but Mall {{linkrot|date=July 2011}} is present too. Thank You very much, best wishes --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia is a redirect. That means that it's not actually an article; if someone types that in the search box, they automatically get sent to the correct article Swissôtel Tallinn. So there's only one article left. The Swissôtel Tallinn has the proper history.

The "Link rot" template is correct. That article uses only bare urls (just direct web links). It would be much better if it used citation templates, like {{Cite web}}. More info can be found at WP:REF and the citation template, Template:Cite web. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam requested move

Hi Qwyrxian, you mentioned you were looking for evidence on the Adam page regarding the requested move. I've added a lengthy breakdown of statistics that show evidence that the Adam biblical character does not appear to qualify as the primary topic. Hope that helps. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A new economic system

This user recreated this page. Thanks. Atomician (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

An exceptionally simple theory of everything

Did an edit of the lede and Chronology of An exceptionally simple theory of everything. Would be great if you could give it a look and comment.-Scientryst (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested on the talk page, on the issue of the phrase "called 'E8 Theory'" vs "referred by the author as 'E8 Theory'."-Scientryst (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your search on google scholar was too quick and without the quotation marks E8 theory lisi -> "E8 theory" lisi. Of course there is a lot of entries with E8+theory+lisi, given that he talks about a theory, uses e8, and his name is lisi. Results change drastically if quotation marks are used (and also if lisi is dropped). But to me still the page is becoming again too Lisi-centric and there is too much Lisi-opinions in it instead of just Lisi-theory. Please read the short response I wrote on the page. I don't think that it should be a big deal if we say "referred sometimes as" or "informally called" or things like that. Thanks! 67.172.180.199 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Atterion

FYI, I have just opened another SPI for Atterion, based on edits at my talk page. They have also just taken out a load of cited content at Green Leaves, which I have reverted.

Utterly fed up of Wikipedia's idiots right now. I might go find another gap to put some bricks in. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain they're the same person; that's a long time sleeping. On the other hand, that appears to be someone's "bad hand" account--it's almost exclusively dealing with weird archiving, much of which was disruptive, and had some serious vandalism that they somehow managed not to get in trouble for. Nonethless, the timing was very odd. Interested to see if a CU Clerk endorses. I'm going to ask for a sleeper check if they do. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Nirmal95 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in India: pesky IP

Hello my friend. There is an IP with a long history of disruptive editing (including blanking) at List of shopping malls in India. He's the main reason for a couple of page protections, and lots of my time wasted. The range is always 117.192.0.0 - 117.255.255.255 I don't know beans about range blocks. But, I'd rather see this range nixed than protection. What do you think? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, a range of that size effects over 4 million users, so I'm sure that's out. However, I'd be happy to semi-protect the page indefinitely. I looked through the history, and I see you reverting IPs both in and way out of that range. I know that some of the IP edits are good, but this seems like exactly the kind of page that can and should be indefinitely semi-protected. This is because almost all people adding to the article simply go "Hey, there's a mall next to my house, I should add that", without understanding our need for sourcing or notability (well, not notability, but, at least, some level of importance; 2 stores connected to the same parking lot shouldn't count as a mall). For precedent, I point to List of search engines and List of social networking sites, two that I watch, that are indefinitely semi-protected. Anyone who wants to add something can do it with an edit request, and when someone makes a request without a source, it's very fast to just say "All entries on this list must be verified." I would also consider adding an edit notice, for both the article and the talk page, making that requirement. Both of the two lists I just mentioned have even stricter rules--they require that items on the list have their own WP page; I don't think you want to go that strict here since so few of them have articles, but a consensus of involved editors could make such a decision. Let me know; feel free to copy this over to the article's talk page and see if there's anyone else watching who has input. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also technically impossible, as only up to a /16 range can be blocked, and even then it is best if only checkusers place those blocks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the input. I will paste this to the article talk. I should have done that in the first place, and posted here with a talkback to the post.

Indef semi would be grand. By the way, I also suspect competing malls removing the other guys' entries.

I will amend the lead to reiterate the invisible comments currently beneath each section title "This a list of shopping malls which have Wikipedia articles." (Is it "which" or "that"? My English is really going down hill.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pasted. Further posts to this thread can continue at: Talk:List of shopping malls in India#List of shopping malls in India: pesky_IP

User:FreemanSA

Thanks for your help with this user, I hope that works, but at the moment, the user seems not to have taken the message. Their latest revert:

12:55, 12 August 2011 (Undid revision 444317399 by Kudzu1 (talk) WP:NPOV)

They also responded to you on their talk page, accusing me of both "crying" and being "a troll".--Objectively (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I now have reason to believe that the user is using a sockpuppet to try to avoid 3RR. The most recent revert on the article comes from User:Archeopteryx5, which seems to have been created just today, and has edited two of the articles User:FreemanSA was most active on. I put more info on the the noticeboard post. Thanks again! Objectively (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the problem has been solved, or, at least, a number of the socks have been taken care of. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

SI

Hi! Thank you for the notice. I'll think about it. BTW, it looks like you forgot to add this rm. Oda Mari (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. That RM is there--it's the second one on the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. But you have to correct the first sentence of the entry. It says September 2009. Shouldn't it be 2010? Oda Mari (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks. Fixed now. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

WPIX

Hi. Thanks for letting me know about the redlinks rule, however:

a) There are still red linked names which you left
b) Why would you delete the names rather than the wikilinks?

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't actually with the links, its with the people themselves. WP:NLIST says that on lists of people (stand-alone or embedded in an article), we can only list people that are verified to 1) be important enough to be discussed in prose in the article and 2) are verified to meet the list criteria (here, that means being a past employee of WPIX). Basically, that means that everyone on this type of list needs to either have their own wikipage, or a reference verifying they worked here and are in some way important. Theoretically, I should check the wikipages of everyone who is linked to make sure there is verification on those articles, but doing so would be so laborious that I choose not to. On Current staff lists, I just presume that the information comes directly from the studio's website, so I don't ignore them. But for past staff...the list shouldn't just expand to be everyone who ever appeared on air there, but rather be only those people who are verified as important to the station's history by a reliable source. So, I'm going to have to undo your edits at WPIX (and remove the person you said was incorrectly linked). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify: technically, WP:NLIST only applies to living people. But the problem is, if someone just adds "(deceased)" after a person's name, that still doesn't provide any verification. Furthermore, WP:NOT says that we aren't here to list every single detail that is true about a given thing, and WP:V says we should be able to verify everything we include, so, for consistency, I still remove the deceased ones w/o refs or pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Then

Notable alumni, not just alumni, should be the name of the section/list in question
All names without wikilinks should be removed as there is no verification of any particular notability. Joe Harper link, btw, was to Pat Harper, his wife and on-air partner.

Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Getting Acquainted with the 'help me' request tag

Hi, thanks for noting my request. You ask if I have any specific request. I have many, many questions. However, my main purpose for posting it was to see how it works. I had just learned about it. I do have a question, though. How did you find my 'help me' tag so quickly? Are you alerted by some mechanism, or bot? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Any time anyone adds that tag to a talk page, that page is automatically listed in Category:Wikipedians looking for help; someone interested in helping other editors can monitor it. Also, a link to that category appears on what is called the "Admin Dashboard", which is basically a handy page that collects all of the various things that admins might be interested in (requests for blocks/unblocks, potential deletions, page protections, etc.). So I noticed that 2 people were looking for help when I pulled up the Admin Dashboard, and, after looking at your request, thought I might be able to provide some help :). As a side note, I now have your talk page on my watchlist, so I'll see future comments you put there. But if you want general help, or want help faster than I may personally be able to provide, feel free to use the template again. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Eolai1 again

Hi Qwyrxian, since you took care of this user regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eolai1, can you look at User:99.41.49.246's contributions and make any applicable blocks / page protections? Thanks. Them From Space 22:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it's too late to block the IP, as it may well have already been re-assigned. However, I have recorded the IP on the Sockpuppet Archive page; it may well be that there is a range here that can be blocked, but we'll need to see at least one more IP to check. As such, I'm not going to protect the page yet. That way, if Eolai1 does come back, we can see the new IP, and, if they're close, hopefully eliminate the problem with a longer rangeblock. If a rangeblock isn't possible, I will consider long term protection of the page. I'm not watching those pages, so please let me know if the same disruptive editing occurs. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to open up a dead thread, but Eolai1 got indeffed the other day and User:99.41.49.246 is back. This guy won't take a hint :\ Them From Space 04:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. If this keeps up, let me, I'll just semi-protect all of the relevant pages (it looks like there's only 5 or 6) for a long period of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Dethcentrik_(2nd_nomination)

Hello. I wanted to thank you for protecting Død Beverte. User:Metal.lunchbox tagged that article for speedy deletion after tagging the band Død Beverte is in: Dethcentrik for deletion. I wanted to ask if you could check out the AfD discussion and would be able to do something about it if you as well notice that User:Metal.lunchbox is using false information based on a vandal placed tag in addition very ungrounded claims as reasoning for creating this AfD, and if you find this to be true could you please also protect the page? BusyWikipedian (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got this resolved. For reference: what is vandalism? It seems I have taken misinformed edits as vandalism. Is there a way you judge what is vandalism, and what may just be an editor making an edit in good faith but they may be misinformed? I noticed you simply explained to the user what he did wrong, what personally told you to act that particular way? Just curious. BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note about removing speedy delete tags. All is not what is seems with BusyWikipedian and the article Død Beverte. I accept that other editors may delete the tag, but I was concerned that the single purpose users removing the tag were not actually different from the editor who created the page, concerned that the removals were just gaming the system. I was not the only editor to revert the removal for this reason. Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (2nd nomination). I believe that the user BusyWikipedian who objects to the deletion of the article Dethcentrik has tried to make the AfD look as if it has been closed by an admin. I think some supervision is necessary. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added the "not a ballot" template to the AfD, and added it to my watchlist. I have informed BusyWikipedian of the procedures for AfDs, and asked for an explanation of xyr behavior. You are correct that the AfD should not have been "closed". I am declining to actually comment in the AfD so that I can remain uninvolved.

BusyWikipedia, I explained on your talk page what vandalism is. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal

It's been a couple of weeks. Nothing. Lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky. This problem has the potential of just melting away. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

I thought I'd let you know I'm pleased to see you successfully completed your RFA. Not that it matters anymore, but I would have voted support for you. – AJL^talk 09:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Er... I mean !voted... Whoops! And you're welcome.

I'm also happy to see that the conflict revolving around the SI area didn't influence decisions in a negative (personal) manner and that participants were able to "look at the big picture". – AJL^talk 10:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the end result was 2 of the SI editors voting for my RFA, and 2 voting against (one of whom was canvassed by a wholly different editor and probably wouldn't have come otherwise). Your question at Talk:Senkaku Islands is a good one, and one I'm still toying with. The basic concern is whether or not the content issues can be fixed before the behavioral problems are fixed. The former can't be fixed by ArbCom, but the latter can be. Different users have expressed different opinions about this. I wonder whether or not ArbCom would like to see one more good faith effort at an RfC, since, even though there have been numerous RfC's (and equivalent) before, there's been some changes in the basic data that some believe will alter the outcome of a new RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion between you and I is largely done, but you probably should finish the business with Lvhis. A second mediation can be viable, since ~~Tenmei (the main reason for last mediation to fail) has withdrawn his participation from these pages.~~ --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's already back. It appears my theory about gaming the system is not wholly unfounded after all... You know... do something that merit a block, declare a wiki-break, and then come back after the block request proposal is thrown away (due to the wiki-break) :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have requested that Magog the Ogre block him. At first, I thought you were just talking about un-collapsing the talk page, which is pretty small, but then I looked and saw that he'd put in the same edits. I fully agree that, no matter what exact "rule" (XRR, BRD, etc.) is being enforced on those pages, its clear that making the same edit again is a violation of the intent behind the rule. I have posted a note on Magog's talk page requesting that Tenmei be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll support an ArbCom motion to deal with the behavioral issues. If they want to resolve the content issues (or at least some of them), then that is an added bonus. – AJL^talk 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Senkaku Islands. I didn't list you as a party given your limited involvement, though you are welcome to do so if you like. Sigh...there are many parts of Wikipedia I hope to at least "visit" eventually, but Arbitration is not one of them. I just don't see any other choice. Hopefully I'm not just walking into a stick of my own throwing. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the request before you posted this message here, and I have already made a note that I was briefly involved for a short time in attempting for MedCom dispute resolution. I will be preparing a more complete statement later, but for now, I need to be going to bed. I agree, ArbCom isn't exactly a place I'd want to participate either or find myself considering.

And be careful... those sticks has the potential to hurt pretty bad, especially if you throw them at yourself. Hopefully you can outrun it! :P – AJL^talk 10:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll see if he can out-run those sticks :). By the way, would it be possible to invite AGK as well? He's the chair of the mediation committee and had supervised the mediation proceedings at a substantial degree. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I will notify AGK, though I won't add him directly, under my same logic for not including Ajl772. To be honest, I'm not even sure how much input Feezo can give, because it's unclear to me how much they're allowed to comment based on the privileged nature of mediation. Part of Feezo's "work" extended beyond mediation, which is why I saw his input as potentially useful. But there's no harm in me notifying AGK; if I understand correctly, un-named parties are welcome to provide input as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggested him because I saw Feezo's name on there. And as far as I know, he did participate beyond the scope of the mediation. Am I right? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Xe did a little bit. I left a message on xyr talk page, though xe has a notice that says xe is mostly unavailable in August. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to pre-emptively apologize for what I will write about you in the arbitration case. It's nothing personal and I doubt you will be any nicer than me, but I want you to know that the content I plan to introduce is mostly reactionary in response to your personal crusade against me. While there is a chance that you will dodge the boomerang, I feel it is still best to apologize in advance in case it slams you hard in your face. After all, despite our disagreements, I still consider you as a wiki-friend (or wiki-frenemy). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

When I opened the request for arbitration, I fully expected my own actions to be criticized. The fact that I believe that my actions have been almost entirely in line with Wikipedia's explicit policies and implied ethics of dispute resolution is, of course, colored by my own biases, neuroses, and worldviews. As, in fact, is everything that everyone does. So I welcome the insight into my own behavior, even if such an analysis shall reflect badly on me or lead to potential sanctions. If somehow I'm causing a problem, that should be fixed. Obviously, that's not how I expect the arbitration to be resolved, but I've been surprised before. Finally, you are correct to expect that, should the case be accepted, I will be providing examples of what I believe to be your disruptive behavior on this topic. To continue the above metaphor, my fear of boomerangs isn't going to stop me from lobbing a whole bunch of sticks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am curious about, though, is how big of a deal you will make it out to be. :-p --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Forming a Consensus

Hi Qwyrxian

On your User page you wrote: "I also sincerely enjoy coming to a pre-existing dispute and looking for ways for people of differing views to come together and form a consensus." If possible or practical, can you summarize some of your basic notions learned or used? I have just recently gone through an intense dispute with another editor. The dispute has returned to a low simmer mainly because I grew tired of it and took a break. I like the negotiator idea and am pleased that you like that role. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a good question; however, it's quite a complex one, and I'm about to wander away from Wikipedia for the day (it's almost 10pm here). I'll come back in the next few days to tell you what (little) I know. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have posed a question on my talk page, for starters, as well. We should probably make use of only one venue. When you come back, I will follow your lead on how to proceed. Thanks for your time. It is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Military Metaphor. On my user page I suggest that wikipedia's level of editors favorably compares to military rankings. Admins are like Commissioned Officers. Non-admin editors are like non-commissioned officers and other personnel. Some non-admin editors give advice in commanding and demeaning tones. This has inspired my distinction between the two levels. One editor took offence to my making a difference. I respect all editors. But, if a conflict develops with another non-admin where I feel I am being bullied, I remind the editor that we are both non-admins and that I wish an experienced admin would come and help us think. My Question: Can you comment on this approach of dealing with someone who makes me feel bullied? Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your page yet, but I don't think that's a very good analogy. In most situations, admins are nothing more than editors with a few extra "buttons"; that is, admins can block users for violating conduct rules, protect pages that have been subject to a lot of vandalism or intractable disputes, delete pages that the community agrees should be deleted (and a few pages that can be deleted on the discretion of individual admins), and hand out a few user rights (rollback, autopatrolled, etc.). But in terms of a content dispute, admins actually have no more authority than any other editor. Yes, it is true that due to natural social pressures, admins often have more "clout" than non-admins, and there is some reason to believe that admins tend to come to each other's defense quite readily, but that's not an inherent part of the position, and one that some admins try to work actively against. The one other "advantage" is that admins are often on the upper end of experience, and so they may simply know policies better than newer admins, but there are plenty of very longterm non-admins who are equally well versed.

Now, on the "tone" issue (again, I haven't looked at your page yet, so I haven't read the details), the truth is that neither an admin nor a non-admin editor should be "bullying". In all cases, editors (save those who've proven to exist "outside" the community, like serial vandalizers or banned editors) should be treated with respect. However, what counts as "bullying" and "respect" varies from person to person and culture to culture. For example, in Wikipedia, it's not bullying to tell someone directly "You are violating policy X. If you don't stop, you can/will be blocked." We have a whole set of standardized warnings that say exactly this. The right to say this is not at all limited to admins; the only difference in this case is that only an admin can actually push the button to block someone. But, long before I was an admin, I was giving people warnings, and, in some cases, requesting the user be blocked for consistently violating policy/guidelines.

So, I guess I would alter your metaphor to say that everyone is on the same level, and that no one should be bullying anyone else, though we have to look at the exact situation to see what bullying is. Luckily, Wikipedia has all sorts of ways to get more people's input in cases where bullying or other bad behavior is alleged, and that's usually the best way to attempt to deal with any dispute. I'm going to come look at your page now see if there's input I can give. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you wanted me to look at on your talk page--there's lots of info there, so please point me in the correct direction. However, I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard R. Brand, and I do have two pieces of advice: First, stop. While an AfD is a discussion, it is generally not appropriate for one person to continually question, respond to, and otherwise talk back to every other respondent. Additionally, you are correct when you indirectly in the middle that you shouldn't be "opining on the larger world of Wikipedia." There are dozens of other places you can do that, but that AfD is only to be used to discuss whether or not one specific article should be kept. Second, I think you're fundamentally confusing "notability" in the way the term is used in the real world, and the way the term "Notability" is used on Wikipedia. They're not actually the same. In order to function (in the clunky, slow, way we do) in the midst of a massive collective movement only a few steps away from anarchy, is to have a very strict definition of notability. In the case of Brand, for there to be an article, you have to prove that he meets, probably, WP:PROF (I'm gathering that Brand is mostly known for his academic work, making that the appropriate guideline); if not, WP:BIO is the right guideline for "generic" people. It isn't about showing that he runs in two circles, or is "significant", or whatnot. It's about showing that Brand has already been the subject of significant, detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources; for academics, we add extra stipulations to help distinguish the act of citation from actual "discussion". That's how Wikipedia determines notability. There are both good and bad things about this definition and process, but it's what we have now, and the framework within that article will be judged. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Metaphor and Bullying: Qwyrxian, thank you for your reply; some help guidance. I can't remember if I had more specifically in mind, so I will think over what you have said further. The military metaphor counsel helps compare. I presume you don't mind if I paraphrase your ideas and rework the metaphor. I checked further regarding bullying and noticed the severe kind is called 'personal attacks' where mild forms are dealt with in the WP Civility policy. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Severe edit disputes: I do have a question about editing a tough article. In the Leonard R. Brand article the only person opposing, or shall I say critiquing, my edits is the person who nominated the article for deletion. His counsel, though discourteous at times, is generally very helpful. But it is very difficult to try to save the article with more citations, etc. when this constant battle seems to be waged. We have had times when we actually cooperated, or collaborated, but the process is more intense than enjoyable. How do you deal with really severe conflicts? Have you stories to tell; not naming others, but just experiences. I am slowly getting better at this process and have lots more confidence because of the intensity. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
AfD over editing: Your counsel re: my over discussing the AfD article is enlightening. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

When I deal with severe edit disputes I watch their reverts like a hawk and the second they hit 4 it's off to 3RRN. While they're in purgatory watching Star Trek reruns I can edit in peace. Just watch out for boomerang--it's a bitch. Hope that helps. LOL!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)

It certainly does. these mentoring thoughts are appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny I just had a run in with the editor in question. First, IMO he has a civility problem. I mean look at the FAQ on his talk page: "more coercive way of convincing you." Unbelievable. Second he is wikilawyering you. I.e. manipulating you. He is cherry picking policies which support his position even though there are more relevant policies. You're at a disadvantage because you don't know the policies. He didn't get away with this at SAU because, well, if I do say so myself, I was active at that page. But it's just you two at Brand. I should've mentioned his before, but give WP:3O a try.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelt (talk • contribs)

Example of how to handle bullying [2]– Lionel ^(talk) 08:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the correct way to ask people to give their opinion on a discussion

The Leonard R. Brand article has been kept for the moment. The closing editor suggested that those who want the article deleted could try again in another month or two. Now there is a RfC on the issue of thirty party Talk:Leonard R. Brand#RFC: Remove certain sections (whales, mice, etc) due to lack of third party coverage.

Question: What is the correct way to encourage editors to come and comment on the matter.

The RfC itself does that. The whole point behind an RfC is to Request Comment from uninvolved users. The RfC automatically lists this discussion in a clearinghouse of other questions in the same broad field, so that users who are not currently editing the Brand article will see it. In addition, there is an optional bot service that people can sign up for that randomly notifies users to say, "Hey, you said you're interested in providing comments on articles related to religion, and there's this question here, could you go give your opinion?" The only other thing you can really do is to notify the Wikiprojects that the Brand article is a part of; specifically, WP:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church and WP:WikiProject Creationism (you shouldn't notify Wikiproject Biography, because that's a very broad project that doesn't really get these types of microlevel notifications, plus I think they automatically track all RfCs on biographies). You may add a neutrally worded message (i.e., one that does not imply any specific point of view) to those WikiProjects. However, you should not go around to people's user pages and start inviting them. We have a rule, called WP:CANVAS, which lays out which type of canvassing is appropriate and which is not. For example, you could technically go leave a message on the userpage of every editor who commented in the Brand AfD, since it's clear that they already have an interest in the issue. If you did, you must leave a message on every single person who commented--you may never pick and choose who you notify to attempt to sway the results of the RfC. But in this case, there's probably no real point, as odds are almost all of them are already watching (and, in fact, a number of them have already commented there). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Third Party Sources

Re: Talk:Leonard R. Brand#RFC: Remove certain sections (whales, mice, etc) due to lack of third party coverage

Two Questions about third party sources:

The sections under dispute are scientific studies published in highly respected science journals. I have presented the information about the studies by paraphrasing sections in the abstracts. Brand is one of the authors in each of those. Are such studies okay to cite?
If the information about Brand's study is reported in a study done by another team unrelated to Brand, would that be a third party source?

I have other sources where scientists doing other reports cite Brand and briefly tell what he said.

Thanks, DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If Brand is one of the authors, then that is by definition not a third party source--any source on which a person is an author or contributor is a first party source. That doesn't mean the info can't be included to demonstrate Brand's own opinions or findings, but it's not a third party source that can establish notability.
Yes and no. I mean, yes, it's a third party source. But the exact details of the "report" will determine how useful that is. For example, in many scientific journal articles, you see sentences like this, "Many studies have examined the role of floofer in the Furwaffling process.(George 1980; Bored and Stein 1994; Trips 1995; Brand 1996; Stevens, Locke, and Barrele 1996; Obama 1998; Rentworth 1999)." In this sentnece, yes, Brand is mentioned; no, that's not a significant mention of his work. However, if another author spends a paragraph explaining one of Brand's studies in detail, then that is more useful in establishing Brand as notable.

I hope this helps; one additional note: in general, for scientific articles, we don't care so much what primary journal articles say (those reporting on one single study). Rather, we care about review works, meta-analysis; topical overviews, etc. That is if we want to know if Brand's studies are considered reputable in the field of zoology, we want to look for a review article that examines dozens to hundreds of recent zoology articles to find trends that cut across them. This (along with major books, usually published by high quality University presses) are the best at helping us see exactly whether any given researcher is considered to be notable in her/his field. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your explanations are easy to follow. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for a biography section

Qwyrxian, You have said:

That doesn't mean the info can't be included to demonstrate Brand's own opinions or findings, but it's not a third party source that can establish notability.

In my present editing, I focus on Brand's life story; his biography. His scientific work on chipmunks, mice, turtles, whales and salamanders all relate to his biography. Are you saying that Brand's own abstracts can be used to develop how he studied the chipmunk, for example, as part of his biography? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to say, "Brand's study found that chipmunks are the loudest nose-blowers in the animal kingdom", you may source that to Brand's study. You may not say, "Brand conclusively demonstrated X" and source that to Brand; nor may you say, "Brand's study on chipmunk nose-blowing was considered a breakthrough in the field of animal behavior" and source that to Brand. I hope that clarifies the distinction. 01:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If other editors recognize this, it will solve an important dispute. Is it proper to quote you on this during a RfC discussion? Is it proper to just ask that you answer the RfC yourself. Your distance from the fray may have value in a mentor-type discussion. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Academic Notability and Bio Notability

Your answers are helping. :)

Brand has been examined using the standards for Academic Notability. I don't think that Brand can not pass the Academic Prof test. Other scientists respect him enough not to challenge his methodologies. A critic finds his thinking interesting and plans to test some of those ideas himself. Brand is just an everyday, rank and file scientist, if there is such a scientist. If we use the criteria for general bio notability, he easily passes. He is interesting and unusual. Am I understanding the difference correctly? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The professor test exists because if use normal WP:BIO measurements, every single professor seems to pass, since a condition of professorship is publishing things, and that usually leads to being cited at least sometimes, which sounds like "coverage". But it clearly is not the case that every person publishing academic articles is "notable" (in the abstract sense), thus, more specific rules were created for those subjects for which editors seek to define them as notable strictly based on their academic research. However, if a professor or ex-professor is notable for other reasons, then we may use other tests--we just can't substitute the general criteria when looking specifically at the academic work. For example, Ben Bernanke was a professor at Princeton. Even if we showed that Bernanke wasn't notable enough as a professor to meet WP:PROF, we would still keep the article because he is notable for other things (obviously). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Further, in Brand's case there are four factors that converge:

He is a respected paleobiologist. Demonstrated by citations of other scientists and a few notable scientist who say they don't fault his science, just his conclusions.
He is respected as a young earth creationist by the creationist community. It is interesting (to me) and demonstrably unusual for a person to be both a YEC and a respected paleobiologist.
Within his faith community his scientific studies bring encouragement to the membership in matters of faith and science.
His research skills were applied to the issue of Ellen White's inspiration. The church published a book he authored on the study.

Question 1: If these four assertions can be properly sourced using third party sources, would Brand be notable enough?

Question 2: Do SDA archives of journals telling about Brand qualify as sources independent enough of Brand. An example of this, Brand was department chair when the world church agreed to approve his department's masters program in the natural and earth sciences, i.e. a masters in geology. The only way to document this significant fact is by using church journals which report on it. Thanks for your patience. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Those four factors don't all quite work, but there may still be enough. You prove he's a respected paleobiologist with the WP:PROF test. Simply doing "good science" doesn't make one notable in a Wikipedia sense. His results need to be relevant and cited by the field. On YEC, you need to provide sources for that independent of Brand. #3 is pretty much irrelevant to Wikipedia (unless that has been discussed in, say, a mainstream news magazine or paper). I have no idea who Ellen White is, and the church publishing a book merely indicates his power in the church, not his overall notability. I can't make an overall notability judgement without actually seeing all of the details, and any judgement about overall notability has to be made by the community. Regarding SDA archives, my guess is that for this information they are not a reliable source. There is no reason to believe that SDA has a history of fact checking and good editorial judgment that would make their claims reliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Untimely deletion

You need to help fix the problem you caused.

The deletion of the Senkaku Islands mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was untimely.

(Deletion log); 21:29 . . Feezo (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands" (For the Mediation Committee, due to arbitration case)

I asked Feezo to restore the missing diffs. Predictably, there was no response. I asked for Nihonjoe's help. He suggested here that I may need to ask an arbitrator to do this. Elen of the Road explained that it is standard practice when a failed mediation results in an arbcom case for the mediators to delete the files - it's part of MEDCOM's ground rules for mediation that it cannot subsequently be used as evidence against any of the parties.

I read nothing that would have reasonably warned me that this would be a direct consequence of your request for arbitration. Did you?

I asked Elen of the Road to restore my diffs only; and these can be restored at User:Tenmei/Sandbox-Archive 1. She has not responded.

Perhaps you can do something to mitigate some of the inadvertent harm you caused? Please help me by adding your support to my request for restoration of my diffs in my sub-page. --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Elen has responded (note that to class something as *not responded* to, you do need to give someone time to respond). She has also responded everywhere else you've spammed notices about this. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation - the mediation pages will be made available again after the RFAR closes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit its surprising, but now that I see it, it makes perfect sense. You knew before Mediation started that all conversations which occur in Mediation are "privileged", and that they specifically may not be used in future disciplinary proceedings. It's a shame, because several parties had some pretty "ripe" behaviors that I'd love to point out, but that's just the way mediation works. Personally, I have no idea why you would want that undeleted, since, in all honesty, you don't look very good in that arbitration (neither do some other editors, but since you're the one raising the issue...). After arbitration (assuming they don't take the extremely unlikely and certainly unpopular course of making a decision on the name), it may be useful to extract some of the data (like JSTOR & Worldcat search results) for whatever final process we're following do determine the name. I'll ask Feezo about that once arbitration is done. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded cross with Tenmei. He posted his second request to me to undelete the content (after I'd already said no once) at 02:56 UTC, then came here at 03:26 UTC and said I hadn't responded. Given that this was the early hours of the morning where I am, and he gave me a total of 30 minutes before accusing me of not responding, I'm a bit pissed off. The pages should be restored in full after the RFAR closes - that's the normal way it's done. They are temporarily deleted, not "thrown away like smelly garbage" as Tenmei has been spamming everywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at Tenmei's recent contributions...it's fine to complain to me, since xe thinks I have instigated the problems. It's even fine to to complain to Feezo, which is fine, since Feezo's the one who took the action Tenmei regards as "untimely". But I see that this went to other SI editors, as well as to Arbcom members. Sigh...Tenmei, I mean this with all due respect: I would be surprised if you are not a genius. I would be shocked to find out you have less than one PhD, and not surprised to find that you're a highly published academic author. But you are literally making the case against yourself. Your statement at the Arbitration request...I can't tell if you want the Arbitration request rejected, or the request accepted but not under my "framing", and, if so, what "framing" you think I had or you think we should have.

As a side note, Bobthefish2 and Lvhis also expressed surprise that the mediation was deleted; and I told them that I also intend to ask for the right to retrieve at least the data at a later date (again, not now, I support the temporary suppression of mediation info so as to protect it from being used during the arbitration). Elen, you did come across as "cross", but I think that such an emotion is fully justified. Being angry is fine, as long as that anger is expressed in civil ways, which I think yours was, and has some sort of justification, which I also think yours had. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not meant to be a personal attack, but accomplished researchers with Ph.D's tend to have a pretty high standard of communication skills. Otherwise, no journal will accept their work (unless it is research done exclusively in Japanese). I am just speaking from my experience with academic papers and reading other people's work. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Inviting revision of RfArb statement

Qwyrxian -- are you unable or unwilling to re-frame and sharpen the focus of your statement in paragraphs and bullet points which are congruent with Coren's comment here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to change what I wrote, because I think that would be too confusing given the large number of people who have already responded. I am planning to add a little bit, since a few arbitrators have asked for clarification/evidence that the problem is behavioral. I will hopefully be able to do so later this morning, although I'm not sure yet that I'll have time for extended research/writing. I believe that is what you're asking, right? That's how I interpret Coren's words, and, thus, indirectly, your words--that the clarification needs to be that this is behavioral. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable behavior by Lionelt

I had previously advised DonaldRichardSands to find a mentor, and have just congratulated him on his talk page on finding you.[[3]] I was disturbed to find this response from User:Lionelt: [[4]], as well as his messages on your talk page. I issued him a civility warning [[5]] I'm having great difficulty assuming good faith on Lionelt's part, as it seems that he is trying to stir up bad blood between DRS and Hrafn, rather than letting them come to a working consensus. Unfortunately, his strategy seems to have worked, and tempers are wearing thin on both sides. I would appreciate it if you would look into this, as I've become rather fond of DRS, and do not wish him to alienate a capable teacher like Hrafn or be provoked into some hasty action which he will later regret. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Hfran has been rude, dismissive and condescending to Donald. And me. What about this edit sum [6]? Hfran's attitude towards fellow editors has an issue going back to Southern Adventist University, when I worked with him.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Example. In a section he entitled "Lousy writing" Hfran wrote:

"Leonard Brand has been" WP:WEASELLED by DonaldRichardSands with an appalling misuse of the passive voice to make it appear that a very brief mention of a Kurt Wise by another book was some form of monumental achievement. Hrafn has been totally disgusted by this abuse of the English language and and this ludicrously over-strtched WP:UNDUE.

This is Hfran's cordial, congenial tone. Watch out if you make him mad.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can barely make heads of all of the animosity. Lionelt, whatever problems you have with Hrafn, the correct approach is not to attempt to sour xyr relationship with another editor, especially a new one. You may not think much of WQA, but you can't simply hurl accusations on each other's (you and Hrafn's) talk pages. In any event, don't try to poison the well somewhere else. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Right after the WEASELLED comment, Donald and Hfran got into it a little. Then another editor responded thus:

@Hrafn: You cite an essay, an opinion piece, not Wikipedia policy to support your opinions. Please be clear when citing opinions so editors don't mistake them for policy when you choose to castigate newer editors or editors who attempt to contribute to the English Wikipedia in their 2nd or 3rd languages but do not have English as their first language. How many languages have you, yourself, mastered?

You can go to the talk page and see for yourself Hfran's disrespectful reply and shameful treatment of the editor who defended Donald. That was ten days ago! It's been just these two for ten days! Hrfan then created THREE MORE SECTIONS where he used the phrase "more lousy writing" to insult to Donald. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DRS comments about Dominus, Hrafn and Lionel

Dominus, thanks, re: our rapport. Also, your respect for Hrafn helps me. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn is my mean-talking sergeant major and dutch uncle. He once described Patrick's relationship to Brand's book as incestuous and I told him my thoughts on that. Hrafn needs a dutch uncle. But, he is a very precise and relentless editor. Articles get much better after he has entered the fray. It is a privilege to have him helping. It isn't a love fest, but I can live with less. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Lionel has been a kind associate. He has a wonderful sense of humor. He has never tried to change my thinking about Hrafn. Lionel expresses concern for Hrafn's behavior. I have felt bullied and intimidated by Hrafn. Lionel's countering Hrafn has given me a sense of being helped; my protector on the playground. I am grateful to Lionel for this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia benefit by having these three editors work? By all means! DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Shroffameen

"I actually see a very good conversation taking place on the user's talk page today" - yes, I have been trying to explain policies, but it has not prevented further copyright violations being introduced. I guess there's no point telling editors they will be blocked for continuing to introduce copyright violations. --Beloved Freak 14:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I misread the times; sorry. When I looked at xyr talk page, I saw that all of the copyright infringement had stopped after the most recent discussion. Perhaps I misunderstood. However, that's part of the problem of bringing the issue to WP:AIV--that noticeboard is specifically for asking for blocks based on WP:VANDAL, which is fairly quick and easy to check. It's not really set up as a place to handle problems that require in depth analysis. I see that another admin did end up blocking Shroffameen for copyright violations, which is fine by me, and the WP:ANI report of Shroffameen implies that xe had other problems as well. Sorry I couldn't help yesterday; as I recommended on AIV yesterday, if you have a problem with copyright infringement where the user keeps barreling ahead despite asking them to stop, take it to WP:ANI, as you're more likely to get a better response. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dethcentrik

Thanks for the tip. I would normally remove refs that are uncontroversially not-RS (like broken naked urls to webs.com) but I hesitated to do so while the deletion discussion was on-going, especially one so enthusiastically contested. I think I will do as you suggest as it will make things slightly less confusing to the reader. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with user BusyWikipedian

user:BusyWikipedian has now outed another users personal identity in yet another attempt to fight deletion of an article he is associated with. This is a serious personal attack and is only the most recent in a consistent pattern of making personal attacks. User shows complete disregard for user conduct policies and is abusing the system for his own purposes, whatever those may be. Such sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry cannot be done in good faith. I also believe that BusyWikipedian is only yet another single purpose account employed by a previously indefinitely blocked user. I think he may be related to an incident at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elctrikchair but the edits in question have been revoked, That doesn't clearly establish a link, but when I read the incident report, which I will try to find again it seemed pretty clear. Even if its not the same user I think an indefinite block is in order, this is such consistent and clear abuse after so many warnings and advice.

If you are unconvinced about his using multiple accounts see this edit where he accidentaly responded to user talk page with IP account and then went back to cover it up. Actually as I was writing this the user admitted to being the two after I confronted him about his mistake. He now claims that this was an accident but a look at the history shows intent his intent to appear to be two unique voices, see for instance this from his talk page.

I am bringing this to you because I know you are somewhat familiar with the case already and I am not very familiar with various Administrators Noticeboards. Also I reported the outing to Oversight who prompted removed the personal information. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

that blocked user i mentioned is Mbialastoki, see this sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbialastoki/Archive. notice where it says that he outed a user in an AfD for an article about a colorado metal band which was only edited by him and several other users that are almost certainly the same person. Then take a look at the edit history of Dethcentrik to see remarkably similar behavior (removing AfD notices), they all appear to be the same person. One of his puppets recreated the article. BusyWikipedian was first created to enter round two AfD after that puppet was blocked. I can't be sure of all of this because their edits have been revoked but I'd say its a least a very reasonable suspicion that needs to be looked into in light of the current pattern of abuse. Someone else will have to look into these things further. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have given BusyWikipedian a final warning. Each of xyr individual actions can easily be read as mistakes; the fact that there are so many of them has gradually caused my assumption of good faith to fade away. Also, I looked through the deleted edits of Mbialstoki and xyr socks, and I don't think that they are the same person as BusyWikipedian, as their writing styles are substantially different. Now, given tat BusyWikipedian's very first edit was to an AfD, it's likely the case that they are somehow related to other people (no one makes their first edit to Wikipedia on a deletion discussion, especially including wikilinks and a link to a guideline; however, xe could have been editing as an IP before this and just registered before commenting in the AfD) but I am fairly certain that an SPI would not turn up any sort of connection to Mbialstoki. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am satisfied, I just wanted to take the suspicion to a more experienced editor to evaluate. Thank you for your participation in resolving the dispute. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)