Jump to content

User talk:MBisanz/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Thank you

...for changing my username! This makes my life a bit easier. Much appreciated. Sampa (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! Nikthestunned 15:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Double ditto! (Hmm; would that make it a "tritto"?) —RWSmith (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edittools.js ????

Noticed you moved these, now I no longer have them, here or anywhere.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working with Isarra on this, I'm having him check it now. One second. MBisanz talk 00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Should be fixed now; reload and the gadget will be on. We may be turning this off be default later, but that's later. -— Isarra ༆ 00:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, it's back. Sorry for the rushed post but thought I best notify you in case you weren't aware of it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
No, thank you for letting me know. I'm glad someone was checking besides me. MBisanz talk 00:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition

I'm not sure what you did here, but it appears to have broken the teahouse gadget; I've reverted until whatever the issue was is fixed. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It may have broken a lot more than that; see WP:VPT. --Rschen7754 01:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It may have been fixed in this edit; can anyone verify? Anomie⚔ 01:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Okey, I don't think they're related, but I'll defer to Anomie's fix. MBisanz talk 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

WP:CHECKWIKI bot request

At my last bot request, you had a concern about requesting a bot to fix CheckWiki errors. I thought it best to alert you that I just filed for the CheckWiki bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BG19bot 7‎, so concern away. Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Username

Hello,

I recently put in a request a few days ago. It hasn't been answered yet, although the robot didn't find any issues, but many other requests have been answered. Is there a specific problem with my request that I need to change? I'm wondering, because I'd like for it to be changed as soon as possible and to start using the new one. If not, would it be possible to make the change soon?

I don't want it to seem like I'm rushing anyone, but I did submit it a bit of a while ago and newer requests have been answered.

Thanks. --Activism1234 17:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I just hadn't noticed. All done. Apologies for the delay. MBisanz talk 17:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That's what I had thought, which is why I brought it to your attention. Thank you so much, I truly appreciate it. --Jethro B

Thanks

Thanks for this usurpation. Kotz (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much

For this. It's been a really huge pain in the butt. Zac  01:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding

Im aware that you have discussed blocking StillStanding if he continues to be disruptive about the recent sanctions imposed upon him. Although I'm certain he is aware, you might want to officially notify him of your intentions as he will no doubt continue to make tongue in cheek asides. I also have no doubt that he will proclaim that you are biased and have it out for him if you do warn him, but I'm sure you can weather this. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Noting I've read this. MBisanz talk 03:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Test run?

Re this; can you point me to where it discusses a test run? Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

At the very top where it says "early pilot." MBisanz talk 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
A pilot is not the same as a test run, MBisanz. A pilot is "we'll run it and see if it works, and if it works, the programme can continue". A test run implies restrictions on time, or number of articles covered, or...so on and so forth. Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I did not appreciate that distinction and have amended my close to reflect it. MBisanz talk 14:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:HKGovtCopyright listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:HKGovtCopyright. Since you had some involvement with the Template:HKGovtCopyright redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MBisanz talk 15:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Withpermission listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Withpermission. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Withpermission redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MBisanz talk 15:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:StateGov-AK listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:StateGov-AK. Since you had some involvement with the Template:StateGov-AK redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MBisanz talk 15:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Typo in your comment?

When you write about Darkness Shines at WP:AE "I do think his edits rise to the level" I assume you meant "I do not think his edits rise to the level" since otherwise the sentence looks incomplete. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I've fixed it. Apologies for the error. MBisanz talk 23:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

Quick question for you-- do you need to be an admin to close some of these discussions? I'm interesting in helping close up the backlog, but not sure of the conventions surrounding closes for RfCs. (e.g. this one or this one) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(Also, thanks very much for your closing statement of my Village pump proposal.) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad to help. You can close anything that doesn't require an admin flag to do (like a request move that requires a deletion) or is inherently an admin task (like closing XFDs). MBisanz talk 23:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

AE and Bin Laden/Massoud

Dear MBisanz,

before you enact what you said you want to inact please take a look whether it is me who is distorting or Fut.Perf. Look at the sources I presented at AE on the Bin Laden/Massoud issue and then please tell me: Was Bin Laden "Massoud´s adversary" since the Soviet times (as I wrote) or was he on "friendly terms" with Massoud (as Fut.Perf. wrote).

I would really appreciate if you turn the proposal for a ban into what Salvio - who in contrast to most that commented is very familiar with the whole editing history - proposed: a mandated external review on the issue. This would ensure that no damage can be done and at the same time for those who see through Fut.Perf.´s agenda, it ensures that he can no further distort my editing on the issue. I won´t have much time for wikipedia the next time anyways and that´s why my editing has been sporadic at best lately. So, I would really like you to consider this. No damage can be done.

Thank you, JCAla (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In the diffs presented by Fut.Perf. on my recent editing, can you point out to me where exactly lies that disruption that goes beyond Fut.Perf.´s own disruption? And do you think it is fitting for an admin to falsify the historic issues such as the Massoud/Bin Laden relationship to misrepresent the editing of another editor? JCAla (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I am going to ask if someone is willing to supervise. I am willing to clean-up the article when I am not that busy anymore, there is probably not many people who would do it otherwise and actually are familiar with the issue. The history of the person the article deals with is of central importance to current world conflicts. JCAla (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ

You may be involved as a participant but I'm bringing this to your notice in your capacity as a steward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to say in his capacity as a 'crat? I can't see why that would be steward business... Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. There are several crats who have participated on that page, but I just assumed a steward to be a higher authority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought, but Stewards don't have higher authority than Crats in RFAs. They actually have no authority in RFAs when Crats already exist on a project. MBisanz talk 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

Matthew,

"not be taking action in this situation"? What action would you have contemplated if you were not friends with the nominator and the nominee? I think my message was perfectly neutral, regardless where and by what mechanism it was posted. Yes, I think the candidate is not ready, yes, I'm certain that if what is known now had been known before nomination they may not have attracted such notable nominators. If this stuff about vandalism and disruption had been disclosed earlier the RFA would likely fail. A non-neutral comment would have been far more pointed and accusatory if I had genuinely wanted to disrupt the RFA.Leaky Caldron 14:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You're still not being very neutral, are you? You're throwing out terms like "vandalism and disruption", which appear to be very subjective judgements taken completely out of context. I don't agree that Sigma has been involved in disruption on WP, and I don't regard silly edits on "Conservapedia" (yes, scare quotes, really) are in any way the same thing as vandalism on WP.
Also "... they may not have attracted such notable nominators". Do you actually have any significant familiarity with what IRC is mostly used for, or Sigma's behaviour there? legoktm and Worm are both IRC regulars, and have been for a very long time. Kudpung despises IRC (as far as I can work out from multiple public statements) but he knows that Sigma uses it, and he has been aware of Sigma's approach in his early days on WP, and how he has changed over the years. (There were some heavy hints to that in the nomination statement.)
Your canvassing against the nominators was completely inappropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about mentioning IRC here. I haven't mentioned IRC in the context of the nominators support. Nor have I canvassed against the nominators. Leaky Caldron 14:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Well in that case I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to "vandalism". If you can't support that claim, I suggest you strike it. As for your postings to (at?) the nominators, you can refer to it as canvassing or not, but they certainly weren't very neutral; and I agree with Matt's view that they were not appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
"this stuff about vandalism and disruption" is a quick summary about a whole bunch of accusations and allegations made by a number of contributors at the RFA. It is a generalised remark based on what is presented at the RFA by other editors. If you want it to be struck out you'll need to approach those who have made the specific claims or presented some evidence. It wasn't me. Leaky Caldron 15:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
So you're picking individual words out of other people's comments at the RfA, and then presenting them out of context on various user talk pages round Wikipedia, then, when challenged, representing them as merely "allegations" that can only be discussed with their original authors? You're telling me that isn't partisan canvassing against the RfA? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to speak for him, but I believe his comment that he would "not be taking action in this situation" was referring to not closing the RfA. Ryan Vesey 15:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Matthew. I have withdrawn my query at the nominator's pages. Is Ryan correct? I had assumed (typically negatively) that you were threatening sanctions?
@Demiurge. I have absolutely no interest in discussing the matter further with you on another person's talk page. You can say, think, believe, imagine, infer, concoct or postulate whatever motive you wish. I have no wish to share them, challenge them, discuss them or read your pontifications about them. In short, leave my head alone. Leaky Caldron 15:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
If sanctions was what he was discussing then, "[I] will not be taking action" would be quite specifically not threatening sanctions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't threatening sanctions. Even if I could have acted, my remedial actions would have been of the nature of going to the nominators' talk pages and replacing your comments with a plain link to the WT:RFA discussion or discounting oppose comments added after your postings as a discount to canvassing. MBisanz talk 16:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:StateGov-AZ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:StateGov-AZ. Since you had some involvement with the Template:StateGov-AZ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AE log

Could you please clarify whether you intend JCAla's topic ban to apply only to article edits or also to talkpage participation? (Given the fact that much of his disruption was related to talkpage filibustering I'd obviously recommend the latter, but either way I think it will be useful to have maximum clarity.) Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see your notice on his talkpage answers the question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
{ec} I've synced up the AE log to the notice to provide an abundance of clarity. MBisanz talk 07:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RFD

If your nominating a bunch of very slimmer redirects for RFD, it's usually best to nominate them all together in the same RFD discussion. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#How_to_list_a_redirect_for_discussion for institutions. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have combined them. MBisanz talk 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Usurp Request

Hey MBisanz,

Can you take a look at WP:CHU/U#CeraBot2 → Cerabot. I'd like to get that ove with so I can go oon to Bot requests. (I'm streamlining all of my bot activities into a new bot :P). Cheers, --ceradon talkcontribs 21:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done but I'm not sure it's what you intended. MBisanz talk 21:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The hotels CfD

HI there. I doesn't look like your closure at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_1#Category:Hotels_by_year_of_completion has been implemented. Have I misunderstood something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... I know how to read consensus, I don't know how to trigger the technical means to do the merge. You might ask somewhere like WT:CFD or similar to find out how to do it. AKAIK, you only need an admin to close the XFD, not implement it. MBisanz talk 19:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My name change

Thank you for moving my name, but it now contains a "+" symbol, on all the other projects I'm registers in there is no "+" character in my username, therefore not allowing me to unify my account, also you can take a look at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#फ़ाराह् देसाईं खान → فرح دیسائی where the فرح دیسائی username is still red, please rename my account without leaving a "+" in-between the characters, Thank you! --MBisanz talk Farah Desai KhanTalk 19:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by فرح+دیسائی (talk • contribs)

 Fixed 03:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with usurp request

Sorry to bother you, but I saw that you were particularly active in WP:CHUU. I'm eager to resume editing and am waiting for my usurpation request to go through before starting. Since it has been over a week, could you please take a look at my request or recommend a course of action? I would appreciate it. mxdxcxnx T C 03:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Matthew. I didn't expect such a fast turnaround. Your haste was appreciated. czar · · 08:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, anytime. MBisanz talk 13:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making me feel welcome

I just want to thank you for posting a welcome message on my talk page. Unfortunately, I got rather distracted by all the links (particularly the bit about Wikipedia:don't delete the main page) and forgot what I came to Wikipedia to do. (Not your fault—I do that.) I'm hoping to become more active on Wikipedia, and being welcomed was a great feeling. Just out of curiosity, how did you happen to notice me? Wolfgang42 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I ran across your future bot, User:BeepBot. Glad to see you like it around here. Happy editing. MBisanz talk 03:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Also thanks for changing my username. Wolfgang42 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Username Request Overlooked?

I noticed that several requests have been processed that were posted after I posted mine (Tehgrue → Ender), I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but since I saw your name on several that have been processed, I thought I'd ask...thanks for any help. Tehgrue (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Iamthemuffinman's unblock request

Hi MBisanz. Iamthemuffinman has (finally!) posted a sound-looking unblock request, which I'm inclined to grant. However, you and a number of other admins have been involved with his block in the past, so I'd like to get your take on it too; if you have a moment, please could you have a look at User talk:Iamthemuffinman and leave an opinion? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note there. One further question (in your Stewardly capacity); are there any global implications to unblocking this account, given the (suspended) global lock in place? I haven't found any Arb decision relating to it, so I'm unsure of the circumstances leading up to the lock (beyond the clear vandalism on other wikis which a couple of users have linked to). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope, no implications from the lock. I'm watching his userpage and if he manages to get re-blocked here at a later date, I can just relock the account. MBisanz talk 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

commonswiki USURP

Thank you for your help! I could not find a way to request rename/usurp in commonswiki, could you point me in the right direction? --Wiking (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests. MBisanz talk 15:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Wiking (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012


Scoring tool page move

Good call. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but as I just said at RFAR, if stuff like this keeps up, I will be handing out blocks. MBisanz talk 17:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You've linked to a revision; which bit are you referring to? — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What is the "this" you are referring to? Mentioning the tool in an RfA? That would be completely uncalled for. Editors are free to evaluate a candidate as they wish. Should blocks be handed out for using the edit summary counter? If we're going to enforce RfA with blocks, we should block for incivility, not for using a bad tool. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize for the assumption. Ryan Vesey 18:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I might be wrong but it could be Hex's mention of bogus reasons in his oppose. Let's not get too excited until Matt explains. Leaky Caldron 18:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I was on the bus and pulled the revision link instead of the diff link. This edit will get a block. We don't warn people for their comments in that manner, we don't use bright red signs on RFA and we do let people adopt the criteria they desire, even if they are untested and originated with another person. MBisanz talk 18:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
So you were referring to me. Noted. Then I shall continue to politely resist the pollution of RfA with this absurd invention in every civil fashion available to me. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In that case I think a block would be excessive. If this approach is to be adopted I suggest you take a recent RFA and highlight for all those edits which you and other 'crats will block in future. Leaky Caldron 18:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Thank you. My comment at RFAR notes I was prepared to block you, Scotty, and Leaky for the disruptive discussion at WT:RFA and the subpage from yesterday, but decided against that course of action given that it had seemed to have tailed off, so please don't think I'm simply picking on you. MBisanz talk 18:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You would block me for pointing out that "No tool can determine anyone's suitability for Admin", refuting a specific claim he made about the tool, and then defending myself against being called obnoxious and an arsehole? Leaky Caldron 18:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
See your 19:32 edit on User_talk:Scottywong/Admin_scoring_workshop and the second to last sentence of your 16:22 edit on Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Arbitrary_Break. The block would be specifically for violation of WP:BATTLE and generally for WP:DISRUPTION. MBisanz talk 18:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for my earlier misconception, but I do believe that if blocking for those types of things is the direction we are headed, we should make a turn and have bureaucrats redact improper comments. Ryan Vesey 18:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I just went through and redacted a couple of aspects of the current RFAs pending. I can see where redaction is preferable to blocking (such as when a comment is insufficient or lacking merit), but I don think blocking is the better way to deal with poor user interactions. MBisanz talk 18:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"Enjoy your block" was provocative, I accept. Everything else was seeking explanation and withdrawal of his offensive PA. If that is the standard at which sanctions are now going to be dished out to editors with a 6 years clean block record I'll be off and I'll not be the only one. Leaky Caldron 18:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Separate paragraph for comment to MBisanz: First - sorry, I can't find the comment at RFAR you're referring to. Link please? Second - me, "Scotty, and Leaky [were having a] disruptive discussion"? Excuse me, but please don't tar me with that brush. While they were sniping at each other, I had a brief conversation with Scottywong in which I said that his tool shouldn't be made to look pseudo-official, asked (not ordered) him not to refer to it in RfAs, and then that I would be making sure that people in future know that it's not official. (The way in which I did so the first time, we've already addressed and isn't covered by this.) I also gently noted that he was being a little rude in his comments to me and others. But I did nothing wrong. If you're going to censure them for causing a fuss, leave me out of it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand. My comment was at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_MBisanz. Also, there is no policy from preventing people from adopting other people's tools; there simply isn't a way for his tool to ever be official. Because people can cite whatever criteria they desire as their basis for a comment, we don't annotate with warnings. Otherwise, every person who cites "1FA" or links to their own admin criteria would also get an annotation. It makes the RFA a more hostile place to throw in constant annotations. MBisanz talk 19:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't monitor WP:ARA so didn't see that. You draw a good conclusion regarding crats paying more attention to comments in RFA, and I hope that it's paid attention to. We do seem to be reading from the same page; I was probably just worrying too much. Specifically, that we might end up seeing comments saying "Oppose - Scottywong's tool gives a low score for this candidate"; the comments from people who'd tried it on themselves - I didn't bother - and gotten weird scores were very concerning, far more concerning than any particular person's own admin criteria.
Incidentally, regarding a detail of your comment - 2002, actually. I get my official Old Fart of Wikipedia badge in three weeks. Happy times. Best wishes, — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

[1] Nice idea, hope you don't cop too much flak for it. 120.151.222.137 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And you did it on Gigs' RfA too. Is this now common practice? ☮Soap☮ 01:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
If you see my comments at RFAR that are linked above, I hope it to become a common practice. I see Maxim has reverted me though, so in the tradition of WP:BRD, I'll be speaking at WP:BN when I get up tomorrow. MBisanz talk 02:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm mixed on my opinion of that, but I'm interested in seeing how it turns out. Ryan Vesey 03:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 6

How can Bigg Boss 6 be merged when many editors have voted on keep. All the copyright has been removed. I have rewritten the summaries in my own words. I BEG YOU. PLEASE. It is the biggest reality show in India. Dont do this. All international versions have separate pages for every season. Check it out, everything on Bigg Boss 6 is original now. -- I'm Titanium  chat 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my determination stands. The argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is disfavored and AFD is not a simple vote count. Those expressing arguments as how it could be merged given the non-copyrighted content in the article were convincing. MBisanz talk 18:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody suggested the merge expect from JohnNagle. Which editors are not talking about? It was about copyright deletion. There's nothing wrong with the article.
Are u merging it on the basis of this comment? :
Merge to the main article Bigg Boss. The main article is much better. The annual articles are mostly fancruft/listcruft.
That is not fair. -- I'm Titanium  chat 18:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
AFDs are on a continuum from delete to keep and there is a built in bias in favor of retention. Therefore, his merge comment carries the day when the article would otherwise be deleted. MBisanz talk 18:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm commenting here since it popped up on my watchlist that Imtitanium left a message here and the most discussion so far is here. I agree with MBisanz's closure of merge. It's my opinion that copyright concerns should err on the side of delete as opposed to keep, which was why I voted as such, and by closing it as a merge, that concern is (hopefully) gone. And if you still believe it was a bad close, WP:DRV is always available. Legoktm (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's a copyright concern, wouldn't it be better to list it at WP:Copyright Problems and have it fixed through that? Ryan Vesey 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Somebody that makes sense. Mr. Stradivarius and Anbu121 have removed copyvio masses [2] and now the articles has no conflicting content. Please before making any decision look into the matter and at least visit the page to scrutinize the content.
Look how much the page is visited every day. [3]. It would be an utter disappointment to merge it.-- I'm Titanium  chat 06:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
the article had copy vio problem when the AfD began. However, thanks to the edits of several editors, the copy vio content was removed. So, towards the end of the AfD procure, the article had been freed of major copy vio concerns.
In case the decision stands as it is (merge), can we move to DRV right away (when the merge has not been done yet, and the article itself continues to grow as the show progresses)? I am not acquainted with the DRV procedure, so asking for help. Is it ok to move to DRV while the article still exists but merge decision has been taken? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can go to DRV anytime after the end of AFD.MBisanz talk 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I find it so appalling that the admin took no time to check the content and the actual reason for the AFD. I'm sure MBisanz, you still do not know why the AFD was initially proposed. Basing your decision on a mere sentence negating all others is a disappointment to your role here on wikipedia. The article is not fancruft nor is it copyvio anymore. Give me one good reason why you closed the AFD on merge? To be merged to a page which has a copyvio template on it? Really? Really? WOW. you really are misusing your rights. -- I'm Titanium  chat 16:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I took a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss 6 and I don't see consensus to merge there. While there was an issue with canvassing and poorly supported keep !votes, there was only one comment towards merge. The merge comment was not supported by policy and contained reasons that violate policy. It mentioned that the main article was better. AfD is not for cleanup so the quality of the article is not a relevant argument. It also violates precedent (which is a far cry from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). All delete comments were based on copyvio which has (apparently) been cleaned up. I haven't yet formed an opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but based on the discussion, the only options I see are no consensus or relisting. The latter is probably preferable. Please consider one of these options, otherwise I'll bring it to DRV. I know this has already been mentioned and I don't intend to threaten, but based on my analysis I only see the review going one way and I'd prefer not to deal with that process. Ryan Vesey 17:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing this page and the arguments you presented I have decided to list the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 19 since it does not appear like you are particularly open to discussion on this issue. Ryan Vesey
Thanks for making sense. I expected you to. How is MBisanz an admin when he makes such chaotic decisions? Arghh. -- I'm Titanium  chat 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It is possible that participants in the Deletion Review will agree with MBisanz. The fact that he made a decision you disagree with does not make him an unsuitable admin. In fact, MBisanz is a bureaucrat who has improved the encyclopedia over 95,000 times and more than proven his suitability. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:How to disagree brilliantly. Ryan Vesey 18:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not care. If i think he is unjust, I will keep saying it. What he did is just too careless. Considering one point of view and rejecting all others is very biased. Sorry i cant lick his feet just cause he is an admin. -- I'm Titanium  chat 18:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Then I suggest you stop discussing MBisanz entirely. WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is a blockable offense. You've made your comment at DRV (and I suggest that you strike your protest against him there) from this point forward I suggest you ignore the issue entirely. In fact, you should probably unwatch this page and the deletion review. You will know the outcome if the merge tag is removed from Bigg Boss 6. If the decision is made to endorse the closure, I will let you know. If that does end up being the case, Wikipedia:How to lose would be some useful reading. Ryan Vesey 18:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop crying. I have removed it. Gosh you people! I get a hearing for having an opinion? Bravo. -- I'm Titanium  chat 19:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Ryan, thanks for dropping by. I agree I would have been unlikely to change my decision and certainly don't mind having DRV review my close. As to the other points Imtitanium reaises, I have never heard of this television show before closing the AFD and AFD closers are not supposed to review the content, they are supposed to review the commenters' interpretations of the content relative to policy to determine the community consensus. MBisanz talk 22:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Steward required for "bigdelete" on en:

Fancy getting out your heavy cannon to blast Wikipedia:N things not to write your article about into smithereens per my close at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:N things not to write your article about? Or should I just wait for a non-local steward to wander past M:Steward requests/Speedy deletions? No real rush, I suppose, now that I've protected the page against further editing... BencherliteTalk 18:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel comfortable doing it because the big delete limit is in place for performance reasons, not for the usual neutrality reasons of stewardship. MBisanz talk 19:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I've not had that error message before, but it has led me to increase my meta edit count by 33%. BencherliteTalk 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
And  Done. Oddly it only had 3,200 revisions, so not sure why it triggered the error. Glad to be able to help. MBisanz talk 19:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Big move?

I dunno if there is such a thing (Not that I can find.) Is there perhaps something in the interface that we could temporarily change in order to make this move? - jc37 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the limit for crat account is 1,000, not 100, but I don't know if that only applies when coupled with the rename function. One idea would be to do the move without creating a redirect (and move 100 subpages), then re-do it three more times and the subpages will move with it. I can try it myself if you'd like. MBisanz talk 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave this to your discretion : ) - jc37 19:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It was very painful, but I did it all. MBisanz talk 20:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
With empathetic apologies, thank you : )
In relation to that (and since you implemented it - lucky you : ) - Would you please "close" the discussion, noting the implementation? - jc37 20:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 20:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. And thanks again for all your help with this : ) - jc37 20:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello dear i want to know you have deleted article of Trishneet Arora when his book will come out in market and on onlnine book stores can we make this article again?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.163.221 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which discussion you're referring to, but your best bet would be to re-create the article when there are new sources documenting the coverage of the book release and submit it for review at WP:AFC. MBisanz talk 22:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Trishneet Arora Deletion

Hi , I am Contributor of Trishneet Arora Page dear i am upset to see that page has been delted . but i want to know how to republish this ppage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroratrishneet (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:DRV to contest the deletion of the article and permit its republication. MBisanz talk 22:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop, it's already covered in MediaWiki:Robots.txt. MBisanz talk 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop is not an explanation - without NOINDEX it returns in google search results - after adding NOINDEX it doesn't - Youreallycan 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I've always been under the impression that robots.txt and NOINDEX achieved pretty much the same thing—is that wrong, or has it changed since the last time I looked into how that works? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
They do the exact same thing. So there is no need to go editing old RFCs to add the tag when all RFCs are already covered in robots.txt. MBisanz talk 21:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Geonotice

Thanks. It's nice to feel that it's not just me being irrationally curmudgeonly and grumpy, but that someone else feels it's a problem. Another editor removed one of the items and I've trimmed the excessively huge meetings one so it takes up less space, so it's a little better. --Dweller (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: the comments

here, your post was apparently not in reply to my post, but to the editor who added the code to the talk page Archive? I'd like to reiterate something...I happened along and was just asking, I had no clear idea *why* and when I don't understand I like to know the reason something is done or not done. Thanks for the mediaWiki linkage, I will take a look at that - the nomenclature of finding information around Wikipedia has not always proven to be intuitive for me. I've just never seen NOINDEX used for a talk page Archive before and didn't even know if it was allowed....I can conceive of why someone might *want* to NOINDEX WP content, but if the content is libelous/injurious/whatever in a WP:BLP sense, this NOINDEXing doesn't really remove the content from view just keeps it from appearing in indexed searches. Anyway...thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're fine. Definitely wasn't intended for you and is always a good thing to ask questions. A lot of things like that are very very obscure and most admins wouldn't know them, so it was a good conversation to have, especially if it encourages you to investigate and learn more. MBisanz talk 00:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For really useful set of icons. Pawel.Benetkiewicz (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! MBisanz talk 18:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages

Hi. Can you do me a favour and sort out an approval to move this to Wikipedia:Top 5000 pages. The creator said he'd need bot approval, I think its an extremely valuable list which will be frequently updated and should be a main feature on the main pages on here and linked from it.☠ Count de Blofeld 15:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think West.andrew.g had a good point. Why not leave it where it is and transclude to Wikipedia:Top 5000 pages. The only problem occurs if you want to watchlist it, you need to remember to watchlist the User subpage. Ryan Vesey 16:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
He doesn't have a bot account so it would save him the trouble of creating one too. Ryan Vesey 16:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) He needs to fill out a request at WP:BRFA. A super-small and insignificant task like this would probably get approved relatively quickly. Legoktm (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
If he wants to transclude it from his userspace and have it regularly updated, that's fine, although Ryan does mention a potential negative. If he wants it moved to Wikipedia:Top 5000 pages, he'll need a bot account and a quick and easy BRFA. Let me know if I can help more. MBisanz talk 18:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:NORTH INFRATEL INDIA LIMITED

I saw you blocked him, so I went to you: he's still trying to promote through his talk page. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 04:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 04:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple.
Message added 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Will you take a look at this please, I want my name changed globbaly. Mr. Incredible T - E - C - G - 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

deletion

The article Lisa McGrillis was deleted, if it does not meet wikipedia terms and conditions is it possible to delete it entirely rather than there being a page saying this page has been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.163.130 (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Maharishi Group AfD

Hi MBisanz, I was the nominator for the AfD of Maharishi Group and I am very surprised to see it being closed as "merge" when there was a clear consensus for deletion at AfD. I'm wondering what your thinking is on this. Can we discuss it? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can chat about it. I'm traveling today, but will explain when I get in tonight. MBisanz talk 19:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
There was DGG's comment citing keep and the other comment citing merge. The deletions agreed the article was unsuitable, but with reference to it being an undefined division of the main entity (see Uzma's comment). Working under the general presumption in favor of retention, a merge seemed like the best idea to preserve any useful content relevant to the overarching entity. I would be willing to change it to a close of redirect if you believe there will be problems with individuals accepting the removal of the article following the merger of any relevant content. MBisanz talk 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and explanation. And yes, a change to redirect would be a good thing I think, thanks for offering to do that.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 18:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Rough Draft Brewing Company Redirect

Hey, you set the Rough Draft Brewing Company to a redirect right as I was working on it. I don't believe consensus was reached on the deletion topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.26.61 (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. You might run it by User talk:MelanieN, but otherwise you need to go to WP:DRV. That's how the deletion process works. MBisanz talk 23:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Hi Matt. You may remember that I mediated the Prem Rawat article on and off over the years. It's kicked up again, and I think protecting the article would encourage the parties to discuss the issue. Thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Ping me when you think it's good to unprotect. MBisanz talk 03:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's good to unprotect.Momento (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I suspect Steve will be by when it's ready. MBisanz talk 15:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Result from Birth rape AFD

Hi MBisanz, I have a question regarding your close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Birth_rape, which was "merge to birth trauma (physical)". This doesn't seem an appropriate merge target. Birth trauma (physical) is described as "damages the tissues and organs of the child, caused by mechanical forces during childbirth (birth injuries), and response to the damage, accompanied by a violation of compensatory and adaptive mechanisms"--this is damage to the child during the process. "Birth rape" is a psychological perception of powerlessness and feeling attacked as experienced by the mother giving birth. One is physical damage to the child, the other is mental damage to the mother. The best merge target is actually Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder. This was brought up in the AFD discussion but maybe it wasn't clear. Could you please update the close to that target? Or would you even care if the redirect were just made to that target even though it wasn't the "official" close target? I'd prefer not to have to go through WP:DELREV but will if necessary. Thanks... Zad68 03:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I re-closed to the suggested target. Merge is a poor close term, because it means the article is not suitable for retention, but useful content should still be preserved. Hence, the specific target is not super important, but I understand the need for clarity in controversial areas such as this. MBisanz talk 15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate it! Zad68 18:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

Hi. With reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study, I was about to proceed to merge the article (all 64 words of it) to Bristol. However (and as your close notes) it also needs merging to Bath, Somerset - and arguably Bath and North East Somerset and possibly elsewhere too. Unfortunately, such merges will result in content forking, which won't help in maintaining the encyclopedia. Now I think about this a little more, are you entirely sure about the consensus being to merge? I would have expected a relist, with the discussion as it was. (Apologies for the tardiness of this note, but I was away until today.) Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I think the problem is the imprecision of AFD closes. The result was the material needs to go somewhere because it isn't suitable for its own article. If that means one of the Bath articles or the Bristol article or all three, that's a content decision that any editor doing the actual merge can make. Does that seem fair? MBisanz talk 16:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I've now merged the content to Bath, Somerset. This is because the content (as it was, with no mention of Bristol itself, other than in the title) would probably be undue at Bristol. Transport in Bristol would be a destination article for consideration, but again there's no mention of Bristol in the merged article content as it was (please note: I've not read the report itself). If editors disagree with the merge, then the discussion will have to be recommenced somewhere appropriate. In any case, if/when I find further information demonstrating notability, I expect to reinstate the article or take it to deletion review. I still maintain that the study itself is likely to be notable, but now that it's merged I think it will be more difficult for editors to add to encyclopedic content about the report (rather than including references from its contents), e.g. how much did it cost? how long did it take? what sort of data did it use? which of its findings were rejected? were any (likely to be) implemented? why was this? Sorry to be making what may seem like a big deal about this, but I still don't think that consensus was reached to merge the article within the the period of discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but Wikipedia handles developing stories poorly. You might look to the relevant WikiProject to house discussion about the report until it receives more coverage in the press? MBisanz talk 06:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Overcoming bigdelete

Hi Matt, could you please use your magic steward powers at Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to delete the article then restore all but the first three edits? It needs to be history merged with Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and I can't do that at the moment because some of the edits are in the way. I'd like to take care of the history merge about nine hours from now, after getting some sleep. :-) Thanks! Graham87 16:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but, if you don't mind I'd like to do it early tomorrow morning (20 hours from now) to minimize the strain on the database. MBisanz talk 16:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that works for me. Graham87 01:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I bet you'd like to do it at peak times as you enjoy breaking things. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
You wish. MBisanz talk 02:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Haha. don't do WP:AIV while you're there! Graham87 04:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done and I didn't even have to use bigdelete. I just merged the larger article over the small one and use selective revision deletion. MBisanz talk 06:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks ... all the edits are now together, but as it says on the page itself, revision deletion is not to be used for history merges; it leaves unneeded evidence in the page history. That also leads to some pretty weird diffs, like this one (admins only) linked from here. Also, you restored *all* the edits from the "Mohammad" title, which means the page history now has some useless redirect revisions in it like this one. We need RevisionMove yesterday. Graham87 07:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. Soooo, what do you think is the best way to fix it. A bigdelete followed by selective restoration of non-redirects? MBisanz talk 07:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, that'll do it. I'd also move the redirects from 2006 and later back to where they came from. Probably the easiest thing to do would be to delete the page, restore the 2006-and-later redirects, move them back to the "Mohammad" title, then restore everything else besides the 2003/04 redirs. Graham87 07:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I moved the 2006 redirects. I undeleted the last revision of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, so once you say the 2006 redirects are good, I'll undelete the rest of the Muhammad Ali Jinnah history, minus the 2004-2005 redirects. MBisanz talk 08:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope, unfortunately you moved quite a bit along with those redirects, like this edit which I've moved back, and you missed the first redirect edit here. Along the way, I learnt that IE9 is totally inadequate for dealing with really long pages like that (I have to use IE as my main browser because Firefox doesn't work as well with JAWS). It must be my turn to make a mistake like this; I thought I'd just fix everything up myself so I tried re-deleting the page ... only to accidentally undelete one of the errant edits again! If you could, could you delete the page *again* and undelete all but those three edits? I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Graham87 09:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I think I finally got it right. Sorry for struggling with it. MBisanz talk 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it's all good now! Graham87 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

174.252.53.189

I don't think it's Colton - it geolocates to the wrong side of the country. GiantSnowman 17:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't really care if it was him. If he wants to claim to be a blocked user, I don't see why we shouldn't block him anyway. A self-joe-job doesn't seem like a bad thing. MBisanz talk 17:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not doubting the block - I was about to do it myself before you beat me to it! - but if Cosmic wants to come back at some point (as seems to be the case) we shouldn't be allowing trolls to de-rail that. GiantSnowman 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I agree with that. Only proven infractions would be a valid factor in a sanctions discussion. MBisanz talk 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Jon Krosnick's photo at Commons

It was uncontested perhaps because a Stanford prof. is too busy with other things to contest these things? The deletion tag produces no notices at Wikipedia, else I could have asked him to post a release from the photographer. I have been working with Krosnick on his article at Wikipedia, and am managing to get it into some shape, but these kinds of out-of-the-blue actions make it impossible to get academics interested. Churn and change (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to undo my close if you'll link me to the deleted image in question. MBisanz talk 22:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It is File:Jon_Krosnick_2012.jpg. Thanks a lot for the help. I will convey to Krosnick the need to quickly get a release. Churn and change (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Restored. He needs to get the release in, but don't rush him. I was just trying to clear some backlogs by tackling easy stuff. MBisanz talk 22:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks again for putting it back. Churn and change (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm done

I guess "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." doesn't mean "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." anymore. Quite disappointing. A couple more discouraging AFD outcomes, and I think this last one of Riley Costello (actor) is going to help me make the decision I have come to in leaving Wikipedia for good. I made a more lengthy statement on my talk page, but I'm done with this. -Aaron Booth (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Warm thanks with a cup of tea!  Goutam (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Usupartions

I'm really sorry for bothering you but could you answer my request here? The last topic please. --Gusta100 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The procedure is that we have to wait a couple of days to let the current owner object. After that I will fulfill your request. MBisanz talk 23:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Double, Triple Standards?

Why did you delete Aldorlea Games? Are you going to do the same for Hanako Games or SakeVisual or all the TONS of other articles that have no better notability or "reliable sources"? Of course not, let's only take down people we don't like and turn a blind eye on the one we do. This is how it works on Wikipedia, isn't it? It's not about what's fair, it's about being as biased as possible, because the "rules" are not for all to follow, only a minority that the Wiki police wants to get rid of. If you were applying the same strictness for all articles, hundreds of them would be deleted, so why be so tolerant with some and so uncompromising with others? I guess Wikipedia was never about morality... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.88.183 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the existence of other articles on Wikipedia is not a valid reason to retain a specific article. Each article, as judged at AFD, must meet Wikipedia's policies for retention. MBisanz talk 12:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand that. Why aren't all the articles supposed to meet the same rules? You say EACH article must meet the police for retention, I give you two that don't, and you turn a blind eye to that fact. It cries to me the contrary of what you are saying, then. Care to explain?
If you believe the referenced articles do not meet Wikipedia's standards, you should nominate them for deletion. Articles are reviewed when nominated for deletion, not when created, so there is an indefinite lag. MBisanz talk 12:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a "name" on Wikipedia (both literally and figuratively, actually), am I still allowed to nominate an article? Won't I be accused of bad faith because of my lack of history? Truth be told, I think Wikipedia is more about the importance of the name than the quality of the argument. If I use the deletion of Aldorlea Games as template, based on what was said there (ie the notability of the games themselves don't give notability to the company that made it), then yes Hanako and SakeVisual and a lot of others should go down. But let's face it, I think this "argument" is not used very often, in fact almost never. Don't you agree? Case in point, have a look at this [4] and keep in mind the reasons invoked for the deletion of Aldorlea, don't you think this article should be deleted too? My belief is that the article about Aldorlea has had one of the harshest judgement around here and it's not the norm. I would like to try to bring your attention to this matter of double-standards. This site should be fair for all, and it isn't.
I don't know what you mean by the norm, but anyone can nominate an article for deletion and the article is judged on its own merits. It is not a double standard; we only review articles when they are nominated for deletion, not at the time of publication. MBisanz talk 13:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems a lottery to me. For instance I just pointed out a few articles for you, but that doesn't seem to make you budge much nor raise much interest, does it? I'm also not sure every article is judged with the same level of severity once the deletion process is initiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.250.47 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, comparing the system to a lottery would be a very accurate characterization. See Wikipedia:There is no deadline. MBisanz talk 15:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it satisfying though? Seems like Wikipedia becomes a ground for "educated haters" (ie the one who will have the brains not to appear obvious) to take down articles about whatever they don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.250.47 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia is satisfying for me. Deletion discussions are done according to policy. MBisanz talk 15:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I've been browsing through several page of indie developers. Most if not all of them are using "reliable sources" based on their games. The only reason Aldorlea was taken down was because it did not have enough articles about the company itself. I've seen tons of undeleted articles in the exact same situation, if not worse (Aldorlea as it happens did have several interviews about the company itself). This observation takes me back to the double-standards issue, as the "policy" appears to be flexible and used to its full power only when it's convenient.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.250.47 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a deletion on Casuarina (music group)

Hi,

I'd like to contribute about a subject. It's about a Brazilian samba group called Casuarina. You deleted this entry in 2009 because that group was not well-knowed. That entry is blocked until today and I suppose that it can't be edited.

But Casuarina is famous in South America. They recorded CDs on great recording companies like Sony and Warner Music. They've released a best seller DVD with a show on brazilian MTV.

I think this entry could be released for changes as this group gets success. The objective of Wikipedia is knowledge and more people in the world could know Casuarina.

(Please take a look on Portuguese entry.)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jucaazevedo (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it could have changed since 2009. You might try submitting it to WP:AFC. MBisanz talk 23:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

CSD G8

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (April to June), can you CSD G8 UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier and protect against recreation please. Mtking (edits) 21:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

ditto with UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier. Mtking (edits) 22:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Aren't they the same page though? MBisanz talk 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
opps ... got to them via different links. Mtking (edits) 23:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

please stop him, h makes them cry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.69.37 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson needs to be restored

It passes the notability guidelines as a major sports title is being fought for, namely the title of "The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes Winner". That is actually a title and a TUF winner trophy is given to the winner. MtKing is on an anti-UFC crusade and is clearly biased, he disappeared for awhile after his last anti-UFC crusade failed, but it appears he's back, I with all due respect must ask that you dont help him with his anti-UFC crusade, for it is a legitimate sport, just as baseball, football, and boxing are legitimate sports. Thanks. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue was the IP's comments, not the notability of the concept or MtKing. I'll tweak it down to semi-protection in a day or two and let it continue under normal editing. MBisanz talk 23:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I know nothing about these articles but there seems to be some support for retaining these articles. Therefore I have lowered your protection on UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le and I am just letting you know this. Protecting this in MtKing's preferred version seemed inappropriate, unless there is other stuff I'm not aware of. (Can I ask where the request was lodged? Because looking at your contribs around that time does not clarify how this protection arose.) I suggest that MtKing take these articles to AfD to reach a consensus rather than the redirect+protect route. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in my email or IRC log, so I think it was done when I clicked his contributions after answering his unrelated request above. Lowering the protection seems fine. Next time I might just block the IP instead of protecting. Thanks for the note. MBisanz talk 18:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The page is still protected. Can you unprotect it at your soonest convenience please? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 13:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Threatening editors for appealing discretionary sanctions

I would request you withdraw your threat of a block made at [5]. Whether or not it is prudent for a member of the committee to discuss an appeal on their own talk page, he did, and he asked Zeromus1 to provide evidence. Zeromus1 did just that, and it is grossly unjust for you to threaten him with a block for it. Discretionary sanctions explicitly permit appeal to the committee, and discussing such an appeal with an member, and doing so in response to that member's question, is clearly within that exception. Monty845 20:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. He's not discussing an appeal of his own ban, he's discussing his desire for Mathsci to be further sanctioned. Discretionary sanctions permit Zeromus1 to appeal his own interaction ban, not for Zeromus1 to join Cla68's request for a case to add sanctions onto Mathsci. MBisanz talk 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Further, Zeromus1 initiated the thread on AGK's talkpage instead of incorporating his request into his Arbcom statement or into a request on the relevant Arbcom page or in an email to Arbcom. Zeromus1 was aware of the ban and selected an option that violated the letter of the ban when other alternatives were available that would not violate the ban. MBisanz talk 21:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mass delete request

Can you delete everything under User:WolfBot/source? The source is now on GitHub, so these pages are no longer needed. Thanks! Wolfgang42 (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 01:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User rename: old name still in use

Hi, you performed the rename at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive123#RB-AXP → RB-ASHISH - I've found that RB-AXP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) is still making edits; but RB-ASHISH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) isn't (the only contribs listed are those which were actually made by RB-AXP prior to the rename). What's the procedure to follow in such cases? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally drop him a note and remind him the rename went through. He should remember and move to the new account. As long as he's editing from one account, it shouldn't be a problem. MBisanz talk 19:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Afd: James Norman

Hi, Mbisanz. Thanks for relisting James Norman! Two additional posts have come in following the relist. The article had already been added to the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions and the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions, but as is so often the case, the day after listing articles get forgotten. Do you have any suggestions for stimulating additional discussion? Thanks! --Rhombus (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it will close in 3 days (?). Assuming there are no more comments, I would be inclined to close as delete at that time. MBisanz talk 20:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Software Change?

Just out of curiosity, was there a software change with the username changes?

I noticed all of my edits are here, but previously, people had to wait a few days for all of their edits to convert over from their old account to their new account. - Amaury (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's really random and entirely depends on the mood of server farm at the time of rename. MBisanz talk 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MBisanz. You have new messages at Jimbo Wales's talk page.
Message added 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mentioned your name [6] Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been fairly vocal in recent months over the conflation of editor retention with AGF as a suicide pact, so I don't mind more eyes. MBisanz talk 22:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

note

Just occurred to me that I mentioned your name, so I thought I should drop you a note : ) - jc37 23:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't specifically remember starting such an RFC, but it's certainly possible I did. MBisanz talk 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right - I was thinking of your comments here on how a bot could potentially do it. - jc37 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, ok. MBisanz talk 23:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. (That's what I get for actually reading all of someone's comments and not just something enboldened : ) - jc37 23:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Shaifulmarketing: What in all that justifies a username block?

Hey, hate to violate the stereotype of how I roll, but really? The guy's userpage says his name is Shaiful and he wants to work in marketing. What in all that justifies a username block? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. I was ABFing about his intent. MBisanz talk 00:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Things keep going the way they are, you may end up being a committee of 1 : )

Though personally, I wish you were running for Arbcom, instead of just watching the elections : ) - jc37 04:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the vote of confidence, I'm just looking to help out. MBisanz talk 16:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Soooo, does that mean there's no chance of nudging you to help out by running for arbcom? (Nudge, nudge : ) - jc37 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I decided not to run for several reasons. First, I'm going to be very busy for large parts of the next two years with two new jobs and other professional activities that wouldn't let me give all my hats proper attention if I also was an arb. Second, while I'm not anonymous, being an Arb does place an unusually large target on my back for people to call my boss. Third, I freely admit I have fairly unusual ideas about how Arbcom should operate and don't think I would get along well in that setting. Fourth, I've made a huge quantity of enemies over the years from handling controversial matters and don't need all that muck thrown up in the voter interrogation process. Fifth, I sort of like operating on my own and being able to opine on Arbcom and policy in a lone-wolf style. Thanks though! MBisanz talk 23:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response.
I really can't argue that, after all, I think most admins feel that way in one way or other. As I noted recently on AGK's talk page, every time I am tempted, I think of the contentious discussions I have closed, and think I probably don't stand a chance.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
All that said, I hope we have enough substantive members to fill the seats this year. - jc37 23:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Username change request

Hi! Thanks for changing the username! But the username in other languages didn't change. This was a global account. How can this be resolved? There're no bureaucrats on the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We're all set, thanks! Nataev (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Suite Life on Campus

You closed WP:Articles for deletion/The Suite Life on Campus as delete, and deleted The Suite Life on Campus. But you did not delete the other articles listed in the AFD: Alice Dove and List of The Suite Life on Campus episodes. Can you address this? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've gone ahead and deleted the other two articles. Thanks for catching that. MBisanz talk 15:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Resysopping

I've always had the greatest of respect for you on here Bisanz, ever since I met you through Fritzpoll. I am not critical of you personally for sticking to what is policy as I appreciate you like to be consistent but I'm saying that the way in which decisions are made are inherently flawed and in trying to be politically correct about everything basic common sense is ignored in favor of policy. For an admin who walked out on us 4 years ago to return in the context of edit warring and then opening a new account and then demanding edit tools during the warring was so wrong and if you can't acknowledge that this was so, policy or not, then I really question the way things are run here. Such decisions are potentially dangerous. You can argue that "we can desysop him if he later abuses tools" but its really not good enough how this happened. You also showed a distinct lack of respect for my concerns in your decision making which indicates you value policy more so than the genuine concerns of veterans on here. I honestly can't blame you for doing what you thought was right in the context by sticking to policy because you would feel that you'd be criticised for not following it but its sort of difficult situation. But I think it is utterly irresponsible to be following this as a policy without any assessment whatsoever of the context of in which an editor returns or education in what has changed since they long departed.

I'm not calling you to desysop Polar, I've patched things up with him and I hope to see positive contributions from him in due course. I call for a revised policy on returning admins gone from over a year or two years for a] Assessments undertaken on an individual basis, examining the context in which they return, is it controversial or not. b] The returning admins go on a trial period during which they are educated in what has changed on the website since they departed and allow them to recap and revise what is now common practice for the betterment of the website. To not do so is irresponsible. I can't believe what happened with this, and its seriously made me question why I'm contributing to a website which obviously does not value editorial concerns in favour of bureaucracy which at times lacks even basic human common sense. When common sense is overidden in favour of "sticking to rules" its clearly gone too far Bisanz.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr. B. I actually talked to Fritz a couple days ago and he's doing well; fondly remembers his time with you. One of the things that was drilled into me when I was looking into being a crat was that my general view of "doing equity" or "acting in the best interest of the project", while sometimes acceptable for an admin, was not acceptable for a crat because of the severe consequences of our decisions (there isn't review, we have to get it right). Crats have to follow policies strictly and not attempt to innovate or push the boundaries of policy because there is no effective community constraint on their behavior.
I certainly didn't mean to disrespect you, I'm very much aware that you have contributed infinitely more to the project than I have or will. I just feel very strongly that the community wants crats to have a narrow remit and, until it tells us otherwise, we shouldn't act outside policy. I would however agree that policy needs reform; I've called for a reform myself and it appears the community will reject it. I hope your reforms make it through, but one of the things I have also noted in recent times is the ossification of policy. My own attempted admin innovation earlier this year in the name of common sense on Trayvon Martin's article was opposed strongly. I've become fairly certain that the project, in its current state, doesn't have the capacity to act with common sense and that my personal goal should be to simply maintain the functioning of the system within the constraints I'm given. I do certainly hope you stay on the project because there are still broad areas where one can while away their time doing something they find personally fulfilling. MBisanz talk 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to butt in, this is why I was so frustrated at Nihonjoe acting so hastily. "Crats MUST get it right" is correct, which is why taking a pause would have been the order of the day. It is utterly forgivable, but only if someone can admit a mistake. You have no idea how much it pained me to drag this to Arb. I hate the idea of asking Arb to review Crats, particularly since I hold Crats in the highest esteem at Wikipedia. In part, that is why I had to start the case. As I posted elsewhere, I don't see the policy saying that Crats must resysop anyone, only that they may. This doesn't mean you are forced, it means we depend on you to take your time and use the utmost in discretion. Crats must listen to the community when a discussion is ongoing. Of course, the final decision is yours and I completely respect that, but that respect is one that was earned by listening to community to begin with. Jumping the gun while there is genuine, sincere and legitimate concerns being expressed is a mistake, even if the end result would have been the same. I would also note that part of the respect comes from an expectation that mistakes will be admitted publicly, or if they disagree, will be explained publicly. I don't expect perfection, I make mistakes as well, but I also address it quickly and publicly when I do, or when others even think I have. I do expect this from any admin. This is the only way we can preserve the trust of non-admin, and having more bits doesn't exempt anyone from this expectation. I can easily trust and respect anyone who admits a mistake or disagrees with me and will explain why. I'm still open minded. The current silence, however, is deafening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I agree with you that admitting mistakes is important. However, the issue of waiting periods has been discussed many times and there has never been consensus to require. Further, Nihonjoe did it act in reliance on three other crats and at least I had reviewed the discussion in question. Nihonjoe's said he might have made a different decision if he had spent more time reviewing it, but I wouldn't have, so if there was some way to swap our places in the logs, I don't see how that would change things. I still maintain the problem is that the policy doesn't permit him to undo his actions even if he thinks it was mistaken and that policy doesn't require a waiting period and that policy, as historically applied, uses an odd definition the word controversial. We try to avoid making mistakes and maybe more time here would have prevented it, but I don't think so. MBisanz talk 17:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) :Just a quick word, can we "name" these 'crats rather than keep referring to them as "three other crats" etc? Let's call it. There's clearly a mission for here for some, so let's get it out in the open. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear Fritz is well, how much better off wikipedia could have been if he was still on board running that bot! Well as I said you and Rambling have both demonstrated that the decision to resysop him was within policy, so I can't really fault you for trying to follow this. But my concerns were trodden on and you failed to answer that Polarscribe showed a clear basic understanding that edit warring and tag warring is not really acceptable for admins to engage in and its better to discuss first without conflict before giving him the tools. You and the others at the arb say they is no evidence of inappropriate behaviour but its written all over the Alcatraz history and talk page and the fact he created a new account, why would he do that if he had originally intended to return and serve as an admin again? Why was this ignored? Please try to revise the policy, at least for returning admins to undergo a period to see they are reaquainted with things, and that returning in a controversial context should be taken into account. I'm not expecting you to admit anything here in view of the others but the intelligent Bisanz I know would know inside that policy didn't take into account this scenario and that revision is needed. If the community are going to reject a permanent desysopping after 2 years at least make it obligatory to have to recap for a period before affirming they are ready to use the tools again. 4 years is a huge absence in wiki terms. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I must note that it takes two to edit-war. I really didn't want to rehash all of this because we have agreed on a step-back point, but for you to paint yourself as blameless in this matter is not really fair. You made several intemperate personal remarks and used rollback to blindly revert two separate and different tag insertions. Why did I create an account? Because when I edited as an IP, you used that IP to deduce my geographical location and publicly remark upon it (why?) - a personally-identifiable act that I perceived as hostile. None of that was calculated to create a reasonable editing environment. polarscribe (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Polarscribe, much has changed since you left. Let me be frank: I will block another admin for edit warring in a skippy minute, quicker than I will block a non-admin as I hold admin to a much higher standard, and so do all of us "new school" admin. Admin are held to a much higher standard now than they were in 2008, and even more so than when I started in 2006. That is a good thing. We all make mistakes, but admin are expected to be an example to the community. Servants of the community. I've already seen more than one "old school" admin get stripped of the bit for being ham-fisted with the bit this year, and supported stripping the bit in every single case. Hopefully you aren't one of those types of admin, I honestly have no idea and I really don't assume you are, but you should know things are very, very different now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the question. Have things changed such that it is now OK for an editor to call another editor a "sock puppet from Bloomington, Indiana" (using IP data to pull a location), an "arrogant professor" and "banned administrator", none of which is true and all of which targets my character rather than the particular content being debated? polarscribe (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, I have no intention of being "ham-fisted" with the bit, and that is why I appreciated and accepted Dr. Blofeld's suggestion that I voluntarily relinquish the bit for a month to refamiliarize myself with the community, policy changes, etc. polarscribe (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I truly hate this, being on the other side of an issue this way. Yes, we need to fix some policies and a comprehensive reform of the entire process is probably needed. You know I have the utmost respect for you MBisanz, and for Bureaucrats above all other "pay grades" here, but I truly feel that I would not have been true to myself and the community if I had walked away instead of taking it to Arb. I didn't ask for his bit back, only a review of the process, btw. If the only outcome is that it forces us to reconsider and finally fix the policy, I will consider it a great success, albeit a painful one. I do think you are seeing the role more rigidly than necessary. Pausing is not prohibited, and while the role Crats should be to strictly follow policy, the word "may" is not the same as "should" or "must", so there is more flexibility than you give credit for. Don't be like the critters in the movie Antz, who lived by the credo "Everything not forbidden is compulsory." ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Dr. B, look at the discussion over at WT:ADMIN. The community so firmly holds to the belief that adminship is for life that if I were to inquire into his subsequent edits or intentions, it would grossly violate the community norms. I'll keep proposing things I think will help. I proposed RFA modifications that were shot down last month. I agree the policy doesn't take this scenario into account and is a faulty policy, but no one gave me the discretion to ignore consensus. I do promise to keep working within the community structures to change things though. I don't want to lose you.
Dennis, I have equally great respect for you; I believe I've urged you to run for crat and arbcom on several occasions. I don't think taking this to Arbcom was the right thing to do though. I agree the policy should be fixed and I've proposed some fixes. No one appointed me or the crats as a group as the controller of crat policy though, so we are constrained by the community and its expectations. I don't think throwing the crats in front of Arbcom was the right move anymore than throwing Dank55 in front of Arbcom for his work on the PC RFC or throwing Sandstein in front of Arbcom for his work at XFD would lead to good reforms. It might lead to good reforms, but it's very off-putting to have someone try to use a compulsory process to say the crats are a bunch of screw-ups who can't figure out how to do their job and need Arbcom to step in and properly instruct them on the appropriate methods. I like you, but I don't like this thing you did. MBisanz talk 00:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you're being fair to Dennis. If we get a resysop decision wrong, as he believes has happened in this case, there must be a means of reviewing that decision, and ArbCom seems a sensible place to take such a review. If the objection was to the competence of particular bureaucrat(s), then RFCU would be the right place, but that isn't the issue as I understand it that he wanted to raised. I think "throwing in front of ArbCom" is accordingly over emotive language - the remedy being sought is not removal of anyone's bureaucrat rights, it is a review of a particular exercise of discretion. WJBscribe (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
As I think I said at Arbcom or maybe elsewhere, the reason the threshold is so high for RFB is because adminship decisions are pretty much unreviewable (outside of corruption) for mistakes and people don't want mistakes. If the community wants arbcom to review the merits of crat decisions, it should say so in policy. Also, if Dennis had been seeking to have someone de-cratted or de-adminned, he would have had a purpose to it. Trying to shake loose a change in policy this way isn't something I agree with. MBisanz talk 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you really saying that our decisions as bureaucrats cannot be reviewed? Not by ArbCom, not by other bureaucrats collectively? I really don't think the community can have chosen such a state of affairs... WJBscribe (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree the community shouldn't have chosen such a state of affairs, but I can't find anywhere in WP:CRAT or WP:ADMIN or WP:ARBPOL that says otherwise. The comments I quickly found, #16 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar, #37 at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Beeblebrox, neutral at Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Husond_2, reinforce what I thought. I know of no prior crat group or arbcom action that looks like a review of a crat decision. I have always operated under the belief that crat and admin rights grants were basically unreviewable outside of impropriety, socking, etc. That was why I always assumed the threshold for RFB was so high. MBisanz talk 01:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we can say that because there is no express mechanism, it doesn't exist. WP:IAR exists to fill such a lacuna if necessary. The suggestion that bureaucrat decision are unreviewable seems to me so surprising that I would expect to see a community discussion that had reached that consensus. As far as I'm aware none exists, which is why I think we reach opposite conclusions. But as an Arbitrator has described my involvement in this matter "disingenuous", I'm minded to shut up and go to bed. WJBscribe (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say you're disingenuous on the topic, so I'm willing to engage. If there were ways to review crat decisions, I find it very unlikely that in 8 years and ~4,000 RFAs, no one would have invoked it. I think it's more that we haven't had as many resysops before inactivity passed, but I don't think Arbcom's the obvious place to fix it nor that a group of crats deciding they're a review body is the right idea. Asking the community how they want it handled (like how they have previously shown little interest in a 24 hour rule) seems the best choice to me. MBisanz talk 02:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I tried talking at WP:BN but once it became obvious that discussion wasn't going to find a solution, I was between a rock and a hard place. Nihonjoe said that he can't take away the bit. Since that was going to have to be an option, I had no choice but to either walk away or go to Arb. There are no other venues that can consider this. I also tried with WP:RAS, but the community decided they only want Arb to desysop. My goal wasn't to affect change in policy, btw, it was to get action. I'm open minded and optimistic that if the net result is only a change in policy, I would accept that as a silver medal, but that isn't why I filed. I try to be polite in my filing, but removing the bit is clearly my objective here. Again, I hated filing it at Arb, you really have no idea how badly, knowing it was likely to upset a group of people whom I respect above all others at Wikipedia. I've never filed anything at Arb before, EVER. I even waited many hours before filing, hoping for a solution. I can and will accept and move on if the community tells me I must at Arb, but I had to make this effort. I can't just walk away when I think something is a real problem, I'm not built that way, be it strength or weakness. If I felt I had any other alternative, I would have taken it but there is none that could effect change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you've opened the very real door to crats denying returning admins the bit if one person vocally objects because they will fear being hauled before Arbcom. This is the first time anyone has filed a case over a resysopping and I predict will have a very negative effect on how crats approach their task. Sometimes it is good to know when to just walk away and admit a problem has no solution. MBisanz talk 19:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel that way. It seems you are taking a personal and harsh view of my actions, which is disappointing. This is particularly true since it looks like Arb is going to decline, and the RfC is going to affect some change. The silver medal I spoke of. Even if that wasn't the intent, I'm always willing to accept good results in the end, even if there is some pain along the way. But you have every right to view it how you choose, so I won't labor it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
{outdent} You certainly aren't belaboring it; discussing userrights is pretty much my unique specialty on the project. I feel so strongly and personally about it because this is my area of specialty on the project and it feels like you wandered in, saw something you didn't like, and when we didn't respond quickly enough to change the way you thought was better, hauled us to Arbcom to get them to order us to change. Also, given it had never been done before (nor has Arbcom tended to involve itself in disputes of this type), it just seemed like you wanted to create more drama to get The Right Answer™ in this situation than letting it die and preserving a quiet status quo that works well enough. As I've complained to Arbcom, I think they care too much about getting things right instead of stopping fights. Also, in the vein of editor retention, dragging Nihonjoe and Polarscribe to Arbcom is a great way <sarcasm> to communicate our desire to retain experienced editors. If Polarscribe messed up after being resysopped, I'm sure Arbcom would unblock whomever he blocked and desysop him at that time. MBisanz talk 21:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If editor retention was the sole criteria, I would have done the same. I regret that I was forced to do this, but I don't regret filing at Arb. That would imply I thought I did something morally wrong, and I don't because I didn't. You say that I "wanted to create more drama", and that is entirely unfair and beneath you, Matt, bordering on ad hominem. I never want drama, even if I have to sometimes take actions that I know will generate some along the way. It is the price you pay for doing what you think is right sometimes. If I avoided all drama and walked away at all costs, I wouldn't be a very good admin. I do think the process was flawed, and I was told that it was impossible for the Bureaucrats to do anything about it. I do think him having the admin bit is a serious detriment, and I'm sure I will hear about it at WP:WER. You shouldn't take it personal, because it isn't, and you didn't play into it at any level anyway, you didn't give back the bit, and no one could conclude I'm trying to do something against Crats. I've maintained that the system is flawed, not the individuals, and I've made that abundantly clear in every venue. I've supported changes that would empower Bureaucrats, including you own proposals. But if I think something is genuinely flawed, truly bad for Wikipedia, I can't walk away. I don't see this mistake as a small thing. And editor retention, something I know something about, is why I can't walk away. I'm trying to be understanding Matt, but I think you are laying way too much on my shoulders, and I didn't do anything that deserves blame of any kind. Hopefully this will pass and we can go back to being compatriots who almost always agree. I can now as I have no hard feelings about anyone, even the admin. I just hope you can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying you filed the case to cause more drama, but from my perspective, I can't see how someone who knows how Arbcom works would think it was a productive idea to file a case. Crats aren't an innovative bunch, sysopping has never been innovative, and the few times Arbcom has tried to be innovative in other areas, it has messed the job up. I am heartened that Arbcom, for the most part, is accepting the idea that it doesn't exist to right all wrongs; I'm sure they won't hesistate to desysop PolarScribe very quickly if his reputation brings him to WER. I know you aren't targetting the crats and are doing what you think is right, but I'm a firm believe that well-meaning attempts to improve a flawed system can harm the overall system, even if they succeed in improving the system. For example, I think Arbcom completely messed up the Perth (initial decision) and Rich Farmbrough cases, but kept quiet (at least I think I did) because I think a functioning Arbcom, even if it sometimes makes terrible decisions is better than an Arbcom afraid to act or an Arbcom who is regularly ignored. There are so many things I think are completely insane about the project; geniune flaws that I am completely convinced result in an inferior product. But the project works and I'm loath to ruffle feather if I can just sit on my hands and watch it keep working. I like working with you and we agree on nearly everything, I just privilege the existing system over the individual or ideal system. (I was going to quote WP:NOJUSTICE, but I realize you helped write that). MBisanz talk 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
We both learn things. I just don't want it to be taken personal, by you or anyone else. Maybe in a month, one of us will look back and decide we were wrong. I don't pretend to know which. Maybe things will get better because of it, even if it had a price. I generally hold back my opinions as well (ok, not all of them), and agree that dysfunction is better than no function. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
So be it. It would appear you get both the gold and silver now. Were I in your shoes, I would be ashamed of such a result, but hopefully in a month you will still be satisfied with it. I don't take it personally or expect you to feel morally culpable, I just expected better. MBisanz talk 06:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt, you are coming across almost bitter. You have made you case fully and strongly, to the point of overdoing it. There is no chance that ArbCom is going to assume control of RfA or any Bureaucrat function. And if they did, ArbCom couldn't handle it, and the community wouldn't stand it. ArbCom is about behaviour, and what to do when the rules are insufficient. Bureacrats deal in policy and concensus. ArbCom knows this. Dennis has not put anything at risk. Dennis should not be chastised for filing a high level greivance at ArbCom just because you don't trust ArbCom to respond responsibly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Smokey, it's not that I don't trust ArbCom to respond responsibly. As I've said elsewhere before this event, filing an ArbCom case when one is not needed can be as corrosive to the community as disruptive editing of articles. I am fairly disappointed with Dennis's 14:31, 14:39, 14:50, 15:05, 15:23, 15:51 comments on WP:BN because they distinctly read to me as if Dennis expects the crats to do what he wants or he will take them to ArbCom. File a case if you think someone did something wrong or sit on your hands if you think it's something you can bear, don't go around talking about how you're going to take people to ArbCom because you disagree with them. (this is a rule I've probably violated on many occasions and been yelled at before regarding). Implied threats of filing cases if people don't listen to you are not the type of thing I like.
Also, I find it hard to reconcile the desire for editor retention with filing an RFAR on an resysopping where new admin misconduct had not occurred. Dennis missed the big picture from my position in that he put his position of predicting Polarscribe would abuse the tools in the future over his position on editor retention, just because he thought someone else got the call wrong. Dennis could have easily waited for Polarscribe to actually abuse the tools and the Arbs have shown a great willingness to sanction even small quantities of admin misconduct. I can predict though that Polarscribe will never be a sysop again and will be highly unlikely to edit (if I came back after a four year break and the response was SPI, RFAR, and constant assumptions that I would try to blow up the project, I'd be gone as well).
I believe the net result of this case is that we're down a potential returning user and a potential returning admin, that by threatening and filing the case Dennis has validated for those with vendettas against returning admins and crats (I know he didn't have one, he validated the method though) a new way to continue those vendettas by reframing resysop decisions as poor conduct and drive the people off the site through process, also, if as predicted, admins will now log in once a year to edit and never take breaks because they're scared of similar treatment, there will be more admin flameouts and fewer self-imposed breaks, that there will be a general decrease in returning admins asking for the tools out of fear someone will decide the decision was wrong and take them to arbcom, which doesn't further the goal of editor retention, and that the process of requesting resysopping will be viewed by the community as an adjudication of the user's general guilt, not as a request to return to former status. I view the last element as particularly undesirable given all of the failed spoken efforts to improve the climate of RFA against a culture of interrogation of those seeking permissions. MBisanz talk 12:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't hold any hard feelings toward Dennis or anyone else. I made the decision and apparently a few people disagreed with it. Fine. It's not the end of the world. In the end, those upset with the decision got what they wanted anyway: Polarscribe relinquished the bit. After looking over everything, I still don't think Polarscribe left under a "cloud" as it has been defined. Sure, he left in a huff after getting beaten on for a decision he made, but that decision was not enough to constitute a "cloud" in my view. He was desysopped for inactivity four years after leaving in a huff. I would have made the same decision now (after going over it a few times in my mind). It is a hard decision, but sometimes the hard decisions have to be made, even if people don't like them, because that's what the rules state we need to do. We ('crats) are not given the leeway to interpret the policy broadly in this case; it's very cut-and-dried and leaves little to interpret. Now, to sleep. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why/what made you make your decision in such an obvious hurry whilst an experienced user was discussing and objecting on the crat discussion board ? Your continued support for your actions, comments about "the rules" and that you would do it again continue to reflect badly on you, as do most of User:MBisanz's comments in this thread. - Youreallycan 07:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't made in an "obvious" hurry. Three other 'crats had already commented stating they saw no issues preventing resysop, and if I hadn't flipped the bit when I did, MBisanz would have a couple minutes later. Having someone object to something, especially when they raised no concrete reasoning (in my view) prior to the resysop, is not a valid reason to not do it. People object to things all the time here, and yet have decisions made they don't like. I've had it happen to me in the past. The issue here is how broad the definition of a "cloud" is. This needs to be defined more carefully by the community so there are more clear guidelines/policies to follow in the future. As they currently stand, my action was perfectly supported by policy. If you're not fine with that, please help craft better policies. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Nihonjoe, I don't appreciate your above comment ″at all″. At least, after you have raised all this mess, you should recognize that "something went wrong" in your decision. You had hurried a decision ignoring all the suggestions in the discussion to be very prudent, and you have hurried that decision WITHOUT checking the edit history and the circumstances under which he left WP (as you honestly admitted, and I appreciated the sincerity), and that was a patent error, even if in good faith. I just hope in future, even if not prescribed, you will spend a couple of minutes more before resypop, and in cases so controversial as these ones you and the other crats will raise the eventual problems in the discussion before the decision, not later. But writing "I made the decision and apparently a few people disagreed with it. Fine." suggests you have not even noticed the mess your decision made. And that is very bad. Cavarrone (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't raise any of the mess; others did that. I followed policy and some people vehemently disagreed with it. I already stated as much in more than one place (as there are at least four locations this is being discussed). I also stated that policy prohibited me from undoing it even if that was a valid option to consider. As I also stated elsewhere, I didn't initially find the discussion; I am not sure why I was unable to locate it, but sometimes the ANI/AN archives are difficult to sort out. Even after reading the thread, I still didn't consider it to be at the level of a "cloud" as defined. And to state that I haven't noticed all the discussions is absurd and not based in reality. Obviously I have noticed them and I've participated in them. I even participated here, though I only stumbled on this discussion accidentally. No one bothered to notify me about it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the circumstances in which this has happened, I think your response Nihon has been reasonable, but you are wrong if you "they got what they wanted" somehow makes this fine. I'm not going to grill you, and it isn't the end of the world no, but you still haven't explained why you thought it was fine to rush giving this editor the tools when there was an obvious controversy surrounding the resysopping request. You keep talking about the walk out 4 years ago but keep ignoring why the editor returned to wikipedia and the timing of the request for tools. This is what concerns me is that you failed to examine the warring of the Alcatraz article initiated as an IP and that in the slopping of tags which other wiki veterans have also agreed was inappropriate and were even added after I had actually addressed all concerns and restored most of Polar's edits, that this was clearly a basic misunderstanding of what is common practice on here. Any administrator knows not to edit war if they specifically have an objection to an article. You continue to ignore this. To also ignore the concerns of a veteran with such haste, policy or no policy, it clearly shows a lack of disrespect to not at least look into it carefully, and to not even ask the editor why they felt they suddenly need tools after a 4 year absence I thought was incredulous. "Policy didn't think it important" is not a valid answer. To be effective in decision making here at times basic common sense is required and you can afford to be a bit flexible, if not, then you've taking this bureaucrat "job" thing way too far.
Bisanz indicates that he is annoyed with Dennis at being put in front of arb like this, I'm not surprised, but the entire thing could have been avoided if you had simply heeded that this might have been a controversial resysopping by my objections on the page and lay off making a hasty decision. I think in any scenario if a trustworthy member of the community raises a major objection to a request or anything like this then you should take the time to try to look into why it might be controversial. That is what upset me the most that policy or no policy, you couldn't at least inquire into the context in which he returned and if the granting of tools was for all the right reasons. Whether this is required by policy or not, does change the fact it was irresponsible to do so and you are in danger of being too rigid as bureaucrats on herein my opinion. I sincerely hope the admin request was for the right reasons and that this editor is productive for wikipedia admin or no admin. As it is we are also in danger now of putting off Polarscribe from editing to wikipedia after seeing what happened here who is probably as astounded in regard to the drama that this caused as I was that the tools were so quickly granted in the first place. This has soured by opinion of wikipedia as a whole and has seriously questioned why I put so much in here for a site which values apparent "policy" so rigidly as to marginalize the concerns of its trusted editors. I sincerely believed you had made a decision which was a direct threat to content, and whether or not my concerns were exaggerated or not, it should have been looked into. As I say technically according to current "policy", as ridiculous as it is, I don't see that you personally were actually at fault, but above all this has revealed that the whole atmosphere of the website has become such that you feel literally forced to act in a manner which "consensus" has decided even if it is detrimental to major concerns, in fear of being criticized. This case has basically shown that "consensus" isn't necessarily right and can pose serious problems for the crats who are trying to be consistent in enacting policy, who, in my opinion, should be allowed more freedom to exercise common sense on such things and be more flexible in how they make decisions. I sincerely hope something constructive will come out of all this in regards to a revision of "policy" on resysopping and you exercise more caution in future on taking quick action in any scenario where an obvious concern has been raised by an editor you (apparently) value.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I've explained my reasoning behind the resysop multiple times, though it appears you haven't acknowledged that. If you can't be bothered to read all my comments in the various places this has been discussed, then there isn't much I can do about it. I see no reasons to keep regurgitating the exact same comments in multiple places here. Policies are in place for a reason, and on this particular policy, community consensus (whether you agree with it or not) is very clear on how little leeway we are given. If you don't like it, I encourage you to work with others here on the site and change it accordingly. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your arguments Dr. B and would agree with your conclusions but for the fact that it was drilled into me that crats are rigid in their actions because people don't want variable outcomes (RFA passes at 60%, bot failures where BAG approved, etc.) in things that lack a process to appeal. Why the community just didn't create an appeals process, like a broader crat chat, I don't know, but it certainly made it clear to me that it didn't want crats innovating from their common sense. As to the speed, I can't predict other crats motivations, but I know mine was because I value prompt customer service; the same reason I've made regular calls asking for more crats to process renames quicker. I do value you and did actually pause (I had the resysop screened loaded twice, once right after he made the request, then I saw the 2008 AN thread in my review and waited a few minutes, then went to resysop and Nihonjoe had already done it), but I still feel that I have to act following consensus (the resysop, not the speed of it), even if I think the action is one I fundamentally disagree with. I do hope future requests have more caution in the crats speed, but I also fear that no one will ever believe their concerns have been heard out if the crat says they still find reason to resysop at the end of 24 hours. MBisanz talk 13:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand the position you are in, any decision which is even slightly different to consensus driven "policy" would also mean that you'll be subject to criticism and "disrespect" of "policy". Its sad I think that wikipedia has come to this where you feel so pressured to have to operate this way, when at times whatever the consensus was has shown itself to fail to take into account certain scenarios, and that you are compelled to take each case strictly as was apparently decided in discussion. My opinion is that you should have far more freedom to operate, and that if a decision is subject of a likely controversy and is objected to that you can take the liberty to investigate and ask questions. I hope to see some reforms on this, I understand your difficult position and that it was what process decided how you make decisions was clearly at fault, and you were basically following guidelines. Anyway maybe the current proposals which seem to have support will stop this happening in future, but I do sincerely hope that this is applied to any scenario in decision making where a long-standing editor shows a specific concern against that decision and that the crat making the decision indicates that they have taken into account the editor's concern and justify making the decision. In this case, I believe Nihon should have provided evidence as to why there was no cloud, and why the edit warring and inappropriate tag warring was not a problem in his regaining admin tools and that my concerns were unfounded and then made the decision after 24 hours of discussion or whatever. But the vague policy on this and the expectation of the crats on this has clearly failed to take into account that each case might be different and that issues which seemed quite worrying were expected to be ignored. I'd like to see some sort of change on the situations where veterans on here who are well-trusted individuals at least have their concerns answerable too in decision making and that "is it controversial without objection" should be one of the central questions you ask yourself in any decision made quickly..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It's impossible to provide evidence of something not existing. The policy provides to hard and fast timeline required for review, and even general practice doesn't require an extended waiting period for every individual who requests their bit be restored. As I stated above, you are welcome to work with other ont he site to craft a better, more clear policy which will allow us the apparent flexibility you wish us to have in these circumstances. While this may not be a perfect solution, it is how Wikipedia works, and we therefore have to work within that framework. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ban number AfD

Quick question - since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ban number as "keep", is there a reason not to remove the AfD notice from the article page ? Or was this just a slip ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it should've been done automatically. I've fixed my slip. Thanks. MBisanz talk 13:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Great - thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yobot 22

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 22. Trial completed, found a minor problem and fixed, reran trial. Everything set. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandar Simov

I just wanted to point out that this discussion also reached a consensus to delete Miodrag Filipović. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it. MBisanz talk 00:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

I was wondering if you could clarify your proposal on WT:ADMIN to make it clear what the start date is for the +2 part of your 1+2 proposal. Is it the date of desysopping? That would mean it would first prevent a user listed on Wikipedia:Former administrators/Inactive from requesting the tools back on July 3, 2013. MBisanz talk 13:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, though I must say I'm confused at the confusion.
The goal of each is to suggest 3 years of inactivity. Either 1+2, or 3. Regardless, the 3 years are to be contiguous. I thought I made this clear in the noms, but apparently not : ( - jc37 02:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Okey, so then people on the inactivey list who have also been inactive for three years (including time before desysopping) are included in it? MBisanz talk 02:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was my understanding. 3 contiguous years (or more) of inactivity. (I would strongly oppose any time frame less than that) Though as you were discussing, it only seems fair to notify in some way. - jc37 02:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Okey, now I know where I need to look besides the initial 32 names I found. Thanks. MBisanz talk 02:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As you requested...

List at User:Legobot/MBisanz. Feel free to move/edit/delete/etc. as you wish. Legoktm (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! MBisanz talk 13:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually hold on a bit. I just realized there was a bug in my code, and it might have excluded some users that should be on the list. I'm going to re-generate it now. Sorry, Legoktm (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok just updated it and it should have everything now. Legoktm (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror.co

Matthew, I am writing you on account of what I believe was a hasty decision to end the forum/discussion and the subsequent deletion of the Mirror.co page. There was no consensus reached since you relaunched the discussion on November 7th. Moreover, when you boil it down the only person who weighed in other than myself was Shorthate who hasn't contributed anything to Wikipedia and as far as I'm concerned hardly explained itself in the discussion. A person with no track record on Wikipedia who simply pops in at a witching hour to cast a vote can hardly be viewed as CONSENSUS. Without going into a full blown discussion of inclusionist versus exclusionist users of Wikipedia, which can discussed at a different time and in certainly in a multitude of places on this site. I am formally requesting that you push this discussion back live so that NOTABLE users of Wikipedia can weigh in. Thanks. MikeGurock (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)MikeGurock

(talk page stalker) Mike, that company doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, and the closure of the AfD was correct. Legoktm (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but my decision regarding the discussion stands. I continue to believe that there was an adequate expression of consensus that the article failed to meet the referenced policies. You may appeal it to WP:DRV, if you desire. MBisanz talk 17:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I will begin the appeal process here shortly and do appreciate the consideration that you gave. I will add that Mirror.co's page and its company was referenced in Huffington Post, New York Post, Mashable and International Business Timesto name a few periodicals that don't just write about anything. But more importantly it is regrettable that Mirror's page has received stringent/harsher standards treatment since it is no different and no less notable than pages like Tagged,Badoo,and MeetMe that currently exist on Wikipedia. I will chalk it up to Mirror.co being treated with exclusionary gloves by users such as Shorthate who have no record on this site and are part of growing number of exclusionist users of Wikipedia. Thanks again for your time and for organizing this discussion. MikeGurock (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)MikeGurock

Deletion review for Mirror.co

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mirror.co. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MikeGurock (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Former administrators list

I saw the list of administrators that you posted at Wikipedia talk:ADMIN#Notifications that would be immediately affected by the proposed change in policy. Did you go through Wikipedia:Former administrators/Inactive and check the names there that would be affected as well? The initial desysoppings in July of 2011 had lots of administrators that had been inactive for several years, and they would need to be notified as well. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I had misread Jc37's proposal and not accounted for those users in my list. Now that he explained it to me, I'll figure out who it applies to. MBisanz talk 23:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Jana Cruder

I wish to contest this AfD. The individual in question has produced a significant body of work for various major sources. The argument that "the existence of artwork is insufficient" is invalid. The photographer HAS been the subject of "multiple significant articles" as my citations attest. I find it puzzling indeed that detractors "confirm her photography" but deny WP:CREATIVE, especially criterion 3. I ask for a reconsideration before I take this matter to a deletion review. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Faustus37 (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the consensus still appears to be that the coverage in sourcing is inadequate for retention. MBisanz talk 02:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Username Changes

Just dropping by to give you a thank you. Please keep up the awesome work! Accents 06:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, anytime. MBisanz talk 01:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Essays listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Essays. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Essays redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't think I was that involved though, so I'll leave it to other people. MBisanz talk 01:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Username change: Ratzd'mishukribo → הסרפד

Thanks! הסרפד (Hasirpad) 03:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Happy editing. MBisanz talk 03:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Family Room HD

Not sure how a more clear consensus is needed to delete or merge for this article. Maybe because the primary discussion is delete or merge. One editor who I think turned this and several other related articles into a wp:snowball discussed for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There's only really two comments besides your own, so I wanted to give any opposition time to speak given the thinness of the consensus. MBisanz talk 16:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. --0pen$0urce (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The RŌBLOX Lua Scripting Book

Curious why you think a how-to manual copied from a Wikia should not be speedily deleted. Statυs (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The two most recent comments were not to delete, so I figured an extra week to get more comments wouldn't hurt anything. MBisanz talk 17:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wondering

Hi. Just wondering why you came to the decision to "keep" the town manager" page I nominated for deletion. There was no rationale. Once again, seems the AfD is based on number of votes.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

After relisting it, non-SPAs who reviewed the article found it sufficient to pass the WP:GNG, presumably based on Uzma and Hiro's sources and no one found it worthy of deletion. MBisanz talk 18:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Bot flag for WolfBot?

Thanks for approving my RfA. I was just wondering—should the bot have a bot flag? — Wolfgang42 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It'll get one when a bureaucrat gets around to reviewing the BAG approval. I could do it as a bureaucrat, but I just like two eyes on the process. MBisanz talk 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


L.A. Percussion Rentals should not be merged

(This is a repost from the talk page - not sure if you have a watch on it. Thanks.) A merger does not seem correct for L.A. Percussion Rentals. Both Emil Richards has his own 50+ year career (much before selling some of his instruments to LA Percussion Rentals), and LA Percussion Rentals functioned industriously for the majority of time before acquiring some of Emil Richards' instruments (company began in 2005, Emil Richards instruments acquired in 2012). Straight from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging: Merging should be avoided if: 1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky" 2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short Alas, #2 and #3 apply to this issue. Take heed that this is not the correct way to go about these articles. Xylosmygame (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the community felt otherwise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L.A. Percussion Rentals. I'm just implementing the community consensus as to how these articles should be handled, and it is presumed that their comments took into account the passages of policy you cite. MBisanz talk 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by the passages of policy I cite? Xylosmygame (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I just added another reference to the L.A. Percussion Rentals page for notability: http://www.pearldrum.com/news/concert-news-article.aspx?id=524 Xylosmygame (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant your cite to WP:MERGING, which isn't really a policy, but is a description. Also, I'm sorry, but the community decided the article should not exist; if you think an article should remain at L.A. Percussion Rentals, you'll need to take my closure to WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 19:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

One of your comments is being discussed at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#RFC Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Being here 8 years and having no elections ahead of me means I get to say things like that and then watch people debate them. :) MBisanz talk 16:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for the Ian Corrigan AfD closure

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For following policy rather than listening to advocacy in the Ian Corrigan AfD closure, you are hereby lauded for defending the integrity of Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you for the rename. The Master (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Farm Group

Slip of the keyboard that you only deleted The Farm Group (2) and not The Farm Group? The Banner talk 02:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, got it now. Thanks. MBisanz talk 02:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Tssss, a non-perfect administrator... The Banner talk 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
:::raspberries::: MBisanz talk 02:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy

It looks like someone has successfully gamed the system. This whole article will end up being reduced to a paragraph on the legitimate basis that it's a weight violation to give it full coverage in the other article(s). This is a not-so-subtle form of deletionism/whitewashing. I've seen this happen before with politically sensitive articles. It's used as a convenient way to bury inconvenient truths. This event was of huge significance in politics and the news. It doesn't deserve this fate. It is a very notable and significant event in the GOP's War on Women. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but my job was to look at the discussion and see what the community felt about the article. Generally, people felt it wasn't worthy of its own article and was more appropriately covered in other article, such as the one you link in your comment. Those opposed to its deletion failed to show its separability as a topic independent of Todd Akin's article or of the campaign's article. MBisanz talk 01:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I only wish I had known about this AfD. That's what I get for having "7,476 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)" in my watchlist. I've been around here long enough and have enough experience to know that once an admin has made this decision, they rarely change it, so I don't expect you to change your mind. No point in banging my head against a wall. Like I said, the system was gamed. It happens all the time, and even when it's discovered it rarely gets fixed after-the-fact. This rewards more of the same behavior. I just wanted to express my misgivings with this. Just follow what happens and you'll see what happens. Through persistent wikilawyering, this will slowly get whittled down to a blip, fully in line with the GOP's wishes. I hold no ill will toward you. You have a hard job and it's often thankless. Don't give up. Keep up the otherwise good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. I hope to keep seeing you around as well. I do hope the article maintains appropriate coverage post-merge and remain confident that the setup of the Internet renders it unlikely that actually relevant materials will disappear altogether. MBisanz talk 06:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with this decision. Many (if not most of the keep votes) were merge and keep. Moreover there were a significant amount of keep votes. There was no consensus on this. Local merge consensus should have been allowed to develop. I would ask you to reconsider. Otherwise I will take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review.Casprings (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that is just not true; there was not a single "merge and keep" !vote on the whole AfD. Such a !vote would made no sense on a deletion discussion. There were some "keep OR merge", which translate to "prefer a (but not too much, if you are OK with b), but failing a, do b"--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I've re-read the discussion and remain of the opinion that the consensus was for a merger. MBisanz talk 01:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a shame that Wikipedia has gotten to the point where any administrator who will properly close a controversial AFD can find themselves deluged with complaints/insinuations of bias/etc. (and no, this isn't just limited to this issue). I believe the proper thing was done here, and deletion review is thataway, not here. Kansan (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Casprings is right that DRV does encourage them to come and talk to me pre-DRV, which they have done. I appreciate your concern, but this is mild compared to most DRVs I've been involved in. My only complaint about DRV is that most participants fail to remember that they are reviewing the closing admin's process, not re-discussing the content of the article. MBisanz talk 06:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I have struck my comments accordingly. Kansan (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"GOP's War on Women" Yeah, there's no bias in that comment. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 07:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I did start the new article suggest in the merge discussion. That was allowed under the AfD. As such, I will wait and see what the consensus is on that article before taking the review process. Thanks for your time. Casprings (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Todd Akin Rape comments page question

Hi! I noticed that you had closed this AfD, so you seemed to be the right user to ask. On the talk page of the article, there was a move discussion about changing the article's title and scope. It seems that it was recently closed and moved, not by an uninvolved admin but by the user who proposed and advocated the move themselves. I was wondering if you agreed with what they found to be a consensus. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the discussion in detail, but I believe the proper place to review it is at Wikipedia:Move_review. Thanks. MBisanz talk 21:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Big problem with that suggestion; there was no Move request (which properly should have been a controversial move request), it was moved unilaterally by the Article creator. Agree with your close, that there was clear consensus that the Article as a standalone could not stand alone, but would alert you to the fact that referring to "future articles" was problematic - I believe it has been taken as carte blanche to ignore the consensus and simply rename, something which was definitely NOT agreed to. Have no problem with someone creating a separate and completely different Article, as that would have its own AfD/SD and History, just that allowing name changes INSTEAD of the options usually allowed (AfD used to allow "Expand", but currently restricts merge options to existing articles, something that was not there) has the effect (though I presume not the intent) of re-casting the AfD as a Keep vs. If Delete, keep anyway under different name. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Reading the AFD, some people thought the content belonged in Todd Akin's article, some thought it belonged in the election article and some thought it belonged in a then-non-existent article on politicians' comments on rape. What matters is the content of the page; the title is fairly irrelevant. If the renamed article is primarily concerned with Todd Akin and his comments on rape, it would be an inappropriate article for inclusion. If it concerns politicians' comments on rape in 2012 generally, it would be eligible for a new AFD as a new topic (or just leaving it alone if it doesn't require deletion). MBisanz talk 20:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think your intent was unclear, nor do I disagree with it (except that the politicians/Republicans in general actually clearly redirected to War on Women, an existing article), I am just saying that implementation was inappropriate. By ignoring the AfD and instead prematurely closing a contested RfC as a move (and then immediately re-opening as something different), we now do NOT have the result you intended. For instance, if someone believed that the current article on Politicians' Rape controversies (soon to be Republicans' Rape controversies) was worthy of deletion ( a probable outcome, though I am inclined to give it a week of so to be fair), since the Article history was transferred wholesale, the AfD history attached would make it a 3rd nomination. Similarly, a DR would, as the article is presently constituted, simply revert the new article to the old article, even though they are completely different species. I may be missing something (and am asking a question, not making a naked challenge), but the situation would be as the AfD decided if relevant content had been merged to all the relevant articles, and the Akin-comment-only article deleted instead of renamed. [Further illustration; rename RfCs transferred to article already not an Akin article; now make no sense]--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_the_2012_United_States_elections#Requested_move_1 looks like a process discussion that could be disputed via WP:Move review. MBisanz talk 21:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Problem is, though it LOOKS like a move process, it wasn't. Page was moved unilaterally by Casprings, then editors complained that this made a hash of both the AfD and the RM discussion, and their entries on the Talk page were edited to make them LOOK like AfD endorsed "Name change" as the result, and the RM was acted on. Trying to put myself in the shoes of an admin looking at the hash of a move, to circumvent the hash of a AfD implementation, and I wouldn't touch it as a Move review, especially since there is an excuse not to, namely that looks to the contrary, there was nothing to review.
Understand that this is potentially becoming more and more complicated, and since I'm pretty sure the new article will at some time head to AfD, my not be the best use of time and effort to fix resultant problems now. HOWEVER, one problem that I wouldn't mind help with is the OTHER, actually appropriate merges that never took place as a result of the inappropriate rename move. Don't want to mess with the new article, but still believe (as did most on the AfD) that the merge should have been to what is now called United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012#Rape and pregnancy controversy. WP does not preclude merges of relevant sections to several pages, but the sc$%w-ing with process made this more difficult. If you were willing to do the second merge from the original Article, I'd be more than happy to do cleanup. This also might avoid the future problems of what happens if the new article is AfD-ed or DR-ed, without engaging in process wars about the problems with what has already been done. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, the inevitable independent AfD on the new article has been filed (not by me; tended to say give it a week, though due to canvassing, probably justified) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. However, the problem the incorrect process could have caused are in fact reality. Allegations that because the new article was ALLOWED, it was required in your close, or that the new article has gone through an AfD on its own. The new article has no logical merge target, in case it is deleted, so the partial merge may become impossible. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So I see; no good deed goes unpunished. It seems though that there are some experienced editors commenting at the AFD and judging the article without regard for my close, so I'm confident it'll reach a valid conclusion. MBisanz talk 06:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Trillium Vein - page deletion

Hello - I would like to re-create the page for Trillium Vein, and would like to start the article in the Special:Mypage/Trillium Vein format. To try and develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready. Thank you! Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshPatt (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You might look to the good people at WP:AFC to help you write your first article. Thanks for letting me know about it.

AfD relists

Hi MBisanz. I've been told by an admin, User:Jenks24 and I've seen on another admin, User:Scottywong's talk page that AfDs should not be relisted more than 2 times. And in rare cases, they can be relisted 3 times. I saw that you have made many relists; many of which were the third relist and also a 4th relist. According to what I've seen and have been told, the 4th one was not needed and it should have been closed last time. Few other relists that you did (3rd relists), I feel that weren't of much use. I appreciate you taking up the task of relisting which is obviously needed but I'm just asking for cutting down the relists that are made on a single page. Thanks. TheSpecialUser TSU 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. My thought is that it's worth relisting a couple extra times to force others to comment so that if the result is a deletion, a year down the road a random person can't challenge the AFD result on a lack of participation. MBisanz talk 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious about this. There's an editor that has nominated over a dozen articles for deletion this week that I know of; part of a list of about 50 I've created or worked on. One, Trance Mission, was just relisted by you, with 8 "keep" comments and 3 "deletes". But hours ago David Jay Brown was deleted with the "votes" even; 6 on each side[7]. It seems to me that THAT one needed more time, not this one[8].
A couple of the keep commenters at Trance seem to have a faulty understanding of how deletion discussions work and I wanted to give additional time for more experienced users to comment. I didn't close the other AFD, but it appears the removal of inexperienced user comments to retain showed that discussion to have a consensus to delete. MBisanz talk 00:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Really? See, I would have said the exact opposite. The Trance Mission nom had all the actual discussion on the Keep side, with the nominator starting it off with a screed attacking the creator in a very uncivil way, and the rest rather uninformative. On the other hand, the David Jay Brown nom seemed split, with another incredible screed against the creator, and each side having both some editors explaining their positions and others just rubber-stamping ("Delete this shit" springs to mind as a less than cogent argument).Rosencomet (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want to challenge an AfD decision, Deletion review is the place. If you keep forum shopping, someone will eventually drag you to ANI. With Trance Mission, I would have said User:Michig and User:The Steve are quite experienced - Michig particularly is something of a world music buff, and he has turned up sources appropriate to the field. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, Michig usually is on-point with his AFD comments. I don't know about the closed article, it just seemed low-cost to make sure the Trance one closes with enough comments to outweigh any SPAs. MBisanz talk 01:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Also to bear in mind is the guideline at WP:CLOSEAFD, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Qworty (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but a chorus of policy-based arguments is more desirable than a lone voice in the wilderness. MBisanz talk 01:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not challenging anything at this time, and I'm not forum shopping (at least I don't think so; I may not understand the term). I was just confused about this; I don't think I've ever seen a re-listing before, and didn't understand the criteria. But I can see MBisanz didn't make the decisions on both nomination closings, so it's hardly surprising the criteria seem different. I don't mean to cause a ruckus or anything, and I won't pursue this here any longer. Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.Rosencomet (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is snowing over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance Mission. Would you be so kind as to close this deletion discussion? This AfD has been open for 11 days with 13 keeps and two deletes. I would say that this kind of extension is unprecedented. Is there any good reason this AfD is still open? I have politely asked the nominator to withdraw and he has refused. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the update. MBisanz talk 02:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response! Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Pollack

About Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Pollack - I do think that the article that ended up being deleted wasn't that good. If I can make a better sourced article that truly shows notability, would you be interested in taking a look?

Another thing is that I wish I could slip in a response to Karanacs's mention about "trivial" - The problem is the "disagreement" has to do with how Wikipedia defines a "trivial" mention in RSes. If one says "the sources about this person don't reveal anything of importance" that's not the same as a "trivial" mention which means a source says very little to nothing about a person or thing WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I tend to not agree to review revised articles I deleted at AFD because my job was closing the discussion, not judging the article. I also like suggesting WP:AFC or WP:DRV based on a sandbox version of the revised article to make sure the community's input is heard in the recreation. MBisanz talk 06:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright, so it means I can just make a sandbox in my userspace, right? I'm working on one right now as I speak, but right now it's in a text file on my hard drive WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Right, you can make it in your sandbox. MBisanz talk 06:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Alrighty. I worked on User:WhisperToMe/Michael Pollack and I will get in touch with articles for creation. As for the original deletion debate what I should have done is try to modify or rewrite the article sooner to illustrate the new sources I have found, but in any event I now have the draft and hopefully I'll get feedback on whether it's enough or whether I need more sources. I submitted the draft to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Pollack#Michael_Pollack_.28new_version.29. Another thing is that, in the deletion debate, I notice the first two users never returned to the debate after I introduced new evidence of possible notability. I understand that the discussion had been relisted several times to try to seek additional consensus, but isn't the standard practice to discount replies which have not factored into account newly-introduced evidence and/or to wait to see if they come back and still agree that it needs to be deleted?
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Based on what I've been able to find on Pollack, I think the article has grown far beyond what the original AFD discussed. If it's fine I could just move the draft article to the mainspace and see if anyone objects. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems like Articles for Creation is really backlogged. Also, I have found even more sources and I think the scenario has sufficiently changed. I would like to just move it into the mainspace ASAP. If you are fine with that, then please let me know. If not, do you think that DRV would be speedier, even though the article I'm proposing is radically different from the old one? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
My opinion would be to quasi-DRV it by asking User:SwisterTwister to take a once-over, as he seems to have done the most research at the original AFD and would be better positioned to say if it needs a DRV or is different enough to be a new article creation. MBisanz talk 02:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a good idea! I'll ask him to take a look and see what he says WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

SJI Park

If I'm reading a page and it has spelling errors or is formatted more like an IM conversation than an encyclopedia entry, I will probably trust it less? this is a obvious bias agganst people like me who hav a serious english and spelling problem, you deleted my page "The cleaning up and building of SJI Park' you question my character with this philosopy, what facts do you base your decision onKevin Lajiness (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I base the decision to hold that philosophy on my life experience. I based the close of that AFD on the unanimous agreement of the community that the article was not suitable for Wikipedia. MBisanz talk 06:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


I'm 53 years old , My philosophy is actions speak louder than words, and that a picture is worth a thousand words, you pass the buck with you lack of words and value something of substance based on it structure, odd for someone whom has the power to change the structure, you all had an opportunity to share this public empowerment for the good of the environment.Kevin Lajiness (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Commission appointment

Hi MBisanz. Please be aware that Jimbo has appointed you as a member of the Electoral Commission for this election. Good luck, and thank you for volunteering. AGK [•] 10:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. MBisanz talk 18:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Election coordination

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Coordination#Suggested_agenda_for_the_Electoral_Commission and also my set up on the project page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Superscript text

Already there. MBisanz talk 18:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16

Does your close with delete for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles include K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching that. MBisanz talk 05:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Iranian Archaeology

Hi, could you perhaps have another look at this AfD? The article is now merged with Fereidoun Biglari, whi as far as I can see is not an editor of this journal, but simply an editorial board member. While we may mention such a fact in the board member's bio, we almost never mention board members in articles on journals. Editorial board members really are only minor players in the workings of most academic journals (mathematics journals are an exception) and there is no indication that things are any different for this journal. For these reasons I find merging with this bio not very logical. If you have a look at how it is done, it must really be rather mysterious for any reader why this information is presented there... I'd appreciate if you could have a second look, personally, I would have thought that a simple delete decision would have been more logical. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and go with the option that retained at least the redirect if it becomes more notable. Would National Museum of Iran be any more plausible a merge target? If not, I'll change my close and delete it. MBisanz talk 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but the problem is that there does not really exist a good redirect target. We have no article on the editor and the publisher is indicated as being the "Wahesht Mina International Institute", which appears to be different from the National Museum. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and re-closed it as delete. MBisanz talk 23:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Was there really any need to undo the merge? Post-merge Fereidoun Biglari seemed like it was BLP-compliant, if a little untidy. (If it wasn't BLP-compliant, please let me know so I don't make the same mistake elsewhere.) Stuartyeates (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there was a BLP issue per se, but I don't think either that this was a good merge target per the above reasoning. However, I would have no problem at all with the inclusion of a phrase like "Biglari is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Iranian Archaeology, sourced with a link to the editorial board page of the journal. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin data

Are you willing to share the admin count data (just the monthly counts) that you used to make your latest graphic? I'd like to try to do a regression to see if there is a seasonal effect (and thus extract the overall decrease from the seasonal effect, if there is one). — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's at File talk:ActiveAdmins 22-11-2012.png. Legoktm (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I played with it, but I don't have a good fit to the data, so unless I find something out it was a failed experiment. I did find the average rate of loss was about 1 admin every 5 days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Porodični Paket/Extreme Paket (Specijalni broj)

Porodični Paket/Extreme Paket (Specijalni broj) was nominated for deletion, the initial discussion was closed with the result that it was to be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osasuna VS Calgary, which in turn you closed. Could you take a look at it sort out what should happen. Monty845 02:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom election voting delay

For purposes of clarify, you or one of your colleagues should please also update the timetable in the guide on the main WP:ACE page. Also, it should be clear to everyone whether the ending date and time for the voting will also be extended by a day (or whatever length the delay turns out to be), or whether there will just be one less day of voting. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I already updated the timeline to show we'd start a day late and end a day late, but I'll double check when I get home. MBisanz talk 20:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

AFD for LPUniversity Foundation

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LPUniversity Foundation, you closed as a redirect to LPC, but that is a dab page. It should have been LPC (programming language). I've changed the redirect, but I was wondering if it is necessary to fix the AFD close to reflect the correct redirect target? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed it. Thanks. MBisanz talk 11:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


Criticism of Bell Canada

Hello,

The vote for the article was 5 Keeps, 5 Deletes and 1 Merger. This is insufficient to warrant a complete deletion of the page, especially without a chance to merge the content. Thanks, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

If I put a copy in your userspace, would that be sufficient to effect a merger? MBisanz talk 14:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Truncated graph

Hi, I noticed that you are the creator of the series of ActiveAdmins graphs on Commons. This is something that I noticed a while ago, but I hadn't bothered contacting you about it. I know that Excel often truncates the y-axis if you don't have data that goes through zero, and I'm guessing that's what happened to you. These truncated graphs bug me because they can be misleading. For instance, if you look at the graph on the left and don't notice that the y-axis truncates at 500, it looks like the number of active admins on Wikipedia is plunging toward zero at an alarming rate. The non-truncated graph on the right still shows the decline, but it's clear that there are still going to be active admins in 2 years, even if the trend continues. (It also helps if the axis labels are a little bigger.) Anyway, I thought I'd leave you a note for next time around. Thanks for doing the research and making those graphs, by the way. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

ActiveAdmins 22-11-2012
ActiveAdmins 25-09-2012
Thanks for the update. My thought had been an absolute scale makes it harder to view the changes, but I can see where a relative scale will overstate the effect of the decline. I'll try to make it from a true zero in the future. MBisanz talk 11:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and thank you again for making the graphs in the first place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

MAAS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MAAS. Since you had some involvement with the MAAS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Qwertyus (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Slight issues with my username change

My username in the top corner has stayed the same, yet my page edits read as Corvoe, and does my user page and all that. However, it also doesn't register the Corvoe name as having rollback rights, which I have. I noticed you were the one who changed my name, but if I need to ask someone else, just point me in the right direction. Thank you very much. -Corvoe 02:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazycev13 (talk • contribs)

Additional thing I just noticed: looks like it actually does think that I'm Krazycev13 even for edits. I'm sorry for the hassle. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazycev13 (talk • contribs)
You need to log in at "Corvoe" to be able to edit under the new name. It looks like Rollback moved to the new name. Let me know if that works. MBisanz talk 15:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Look at that. Just me being a dummy. Thank you for the help, and the change. You're the bomb. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 14:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me know if I can ever help. MBisanz talk 14:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australians in Japan

clear consensus was for delete. why did you redirect? LibStar (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

One person said to redirect and another person mentioned the redirect as a related article. Redirects are cheap and are the functional equivalent of deletion, so the precautionary principle would indicate redirecting when there is no likely harm and some people think there is a benefit. MBisanz talk 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
i would agree in this case if you delete the old content of Australians in Japan. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 Done MBisanz talk 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WMF accounts

Can one use an official account to vote in elections.As far I have seen it has never happened before users with official accounts have used only there personal accounts to vote.I am not sure on on policy.There is a absolutely nothing wrong as the user can his personal account to cast the same vote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about Philippe, he's already asked us to strike the vote made with his staff account. I don't think there is anything wrong with him voting from his personal account, but I don't know if there is a WMF-personnel policy against it. MBisanz talk 00:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks anyone can vote with there personal accounts.It was only about the official account voting that I was asking you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No closure

I was just wondering why you didn't close this AfD [9] when you went through there earlier today? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I voted in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21, so it could be seen as a conflict of interest to close this related AFD. MBisanz talk 14:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oopsie

Sorry for adding to your workload! [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I like pushing paper. MBisanz talk 21:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pollack

I found there's a notability noticeboard so I just made a post at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard - Hopefully it'll get additional feedback WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Feminism

Hi! Would you mind bringing back white feminism temporarily to add some kind of referenced note to black feminism? As it is, it redirects without any mention or explanation. Thank you! heather walls (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be available to get any references. MBisanz talk 02:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha haa ha, der. Of course. Thanks :) heather walls (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Godulf Geoting

Hi, I think you rightly deleted it (given that there was very low support for merge/redir) but summarized it as redirect. I think you just need to change the summary. History2007 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to close it as a redirect with a deletion of the prior edits. While there was little support for retention, redirects are cheap and there is no risk of someone trying to revert the article given the underlying deletion. MBisanz talk 03:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess I did not, and still don't know the difference. But no worries. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I made the mistake in the first place. Thanks for stopping by. MBisanz talk 05:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Coren's question page

Hi... In this edit to Coren's question page, you removed not only Giano's post and Coren's response, but also Coren's response to my question. I don't think Coren's response to my question should have been moved, it makes it look like Coren did not respond. Would you please either restore Coren's answer or allow me to? I don't want to edit war but I really think your change is flawed. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I restored it. Thank you for flagging it. As I said, this is quite a tedious task. MBisanz talk 04:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I would prefer threaded follow-ups be allowed, but I recognise that you need to treat each candidate question page in the same way. Thanks also for taking the job, I imagine it is roughly as enjoyable as a visit to the dentist, but it goes on for longer!  :) EdChem (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions for Richwales from AlexandrDmitri

Hi. When you moved this material from my "questions" page to the talk page, you moved a clarification of the original question, a followup question, and my responses. I understand you're trying to move threaded discussions out of the question pages, but that's not what this was. Please put it back (or else accept my reverting your change). — Richwales 05:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted and reformatted into a question/answer format. Discussion regarding answers should occur on the talk page however. MBisanz talk 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Count Iblis Questions

Here, you removed a follow up question and response. Begoon talk 04:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an indented response. Follow-up questions are permitted, but threaded discussions are not permitted as it is not the correct forum for them. If you wish to re-ask it as a follow-up question, that would be fine. MBisanz talk 04:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
lol - no, you can leave it as it is. I can't imagine me posting "I asked this before, and you answered it, but both were moved, so can you answer it again?", somehow. As Ed says above, it must be a tricky thing to do, and I do understand why you are doing it. Begoon talk 04:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. The theory is that all editors should be permitted to engage in discussion with the candidates and permitting threaded discussion limited to you and the candidate on the questions page interferes with permitting discussion and presenting questions as separate areas. The discussions remain on the talk pages, so hopefully they will still be useful. MBisanz talk 04:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It's just a shame that in the process valuable answers from the candidates are being moved to a place where people are less likely to look. For instance, in NW's section, where his answers are moved simply because I got the formatting wrong. I have no intention of doing this - but what do you think the situation would be if I reformatted and replaced it to reflect the intentions of both NW and myself? That's just a "what if" - not a complaint. Begoon talk 04:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
If it's really a follow-up, feel free to re-format and re-insert it as such. I know that's gameable and I agree that NW instance does look like a real follow-up; the general rule would be whether an outside observer would agree it's really a follow-up. MBisanz talk 04:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, looking purely at the 2 things I've mentioned in this section, they are both follow ups, there may be others of mine - I haven't checked. I'm not going to put them back, because your point above is valid and I wouldn't want to "start a run on it". However, if it helps - here's what I think happened. The format got "changed" because some user(s) - maybe even me - I haven't checked the chronology - posted in this format, then everyone followed suit, because that now looked like "the way to do it". Some candidates reformatted when they answered, some didn't. I wouldn't want to be the one sorting out the mess, but it's far from ideal, and if any of that is my "fault", then I feel bad about it, because it may upset other users or candidates who were answering or asking in good faith. Begoon talk 05:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not your fault, so don't feel bad. If you decide to re-insert the re-formatted responses down the road, that's also fine. Thanks though for stopping by. MBisanz talk 05:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
If I do decide to do that, I'll ask the candidate(s) involved before doing so, because I would also be reformatting their response(s). Thanks. Begoon talk 05:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also readded my questions from talk. Jc37 did not answer the question despite repeated urgings. I admit it was an uncomfortable question, but he was a part of the discussion in which Moni3 twice insulted and subsequently blocked PumpkinSky. That is this year, and it is perfectly kosher to ask any candidate, and Jc37 in particular as a participant, about that discussionWehwalt (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've undone you. Please don't do it again. You can ask him clarifying questions to the same end, but you cannot structure them as a threaded discussion to his response to your prior question. MBisanz talk 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your moves on my questions page

Hi there Matt. In most cases, I feel that the followups you removed were actually quite valuable in terms of the responses they got me to elucidate. I would prefer if you could re-add them to the main questions page. Thanks, NW (Talk) 09:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Coordination#Follow up questions moved. NW (Talk) 18:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion restored

You asked that these be brought to your attention, so here's one.

By the way, why not in these cases just add a link to talk, so folks can follow there? That is, when removing comments, include a line: Discussion continued at <talk link>? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Since other users have restored followup questions, so have I. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Your restoration was in the form of questions, not discussion, so they're fine. Thanks for doing that. MBisanz talk 20:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sandy, that sounds like a good idea, but doing the redactions I did last night took 3 hours and I was fatigued by the end of it. If users want to insert such links, I believe TDA has done so for his questions, that would be fine. MBisanz talk 20:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrats' noticeboard request

Hi, I left a request at the noticeboard regarding a rather unusual request I have. I haven't gotten much in the way of responses, and I understand if you are a bit busy right now, but could you take a look at this? Some assistance would be greatly appreciated. dci | TALK 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How come a page was deleted?

HI MBisanz. Sorry if this is not the most appropriate way to contact you. i see you have recently deleted a page called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_family_offices_in_Switzerland. We use this from time to time when some of our clients refereed to other family offices. Is there any way we can get this page back, or see a cached copy of it. Thanks in advance. Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwd10 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Left at your talkpage. MBisanz talk 04:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli

Why the page was deleted? Talk page did provide reasons for how big a celebirty he is in India?Greatwords1 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himansh Kohli. MBisanz talk 12:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I have a question regarding the new changes in the adminship policy. I resigned voluntarily in February 2011. If I wanted my rights back now, can I ask the bureaucrats to resysop me directly or do I have to go through the RfA process? --Meno25 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As best as I know, you haven't been inactive for more than a year, so yes, you could request it from a bureaucrat. MBisanz talk 12:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename the username, 17 october 2012

hello MBisanz, please rename my username.

Hi there, I want to rename my username. Please enlighten me on the procedure. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetan.vengurlekar (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tell me what you want it changed to and I'll do it. MBisanz talk 14:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive issues

Hi there MB, AL from Portugal here,

after my name change at the site, the automatic archive ceased its "business". I have been told it's precisely due to that move. Can you please change (if you can, i assume so) this page (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VascoAmaral/Archive_3), so that it contains my current name and not my former? I'm only asking you because i think i'm not allowed to do it myself.

Attentively, thanks a million in advance --AL (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You can do it, but I think I've done it for you. MBisanz talk 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hansard for both Malaysia and Sawarak was deleted

Just passing by (and I have been accused of trolling else where) and at the risk of being accused of canvassing, but for the record, wikipedia AfD seems to have an ongoing problem cutting pages of less 'connected' nations. Even important constitutional/independence documents and debates are "efficiently" cut by AfD. Hence it is fair to say, AfD is "very efficient", but the "no canvassing rule" combined with the short "AfD" time frame effectively makes the whole AfD process very "stealth" like and sneaky.

These "policies" combine and give the effect that stub pages are culled long before they ever even get close to maturity.

I have (quickly) scanned the pages that have been deleted, and certainly most of the "stuff" deleted is just trash. However there are enough example of mistakes made to demonstrate that more care could be taken. The page undelete of the Philippine House of Representatives elections in Central Visayas, 2013 fixes such a problem.

Recently (my example) the Hansard for both Malaysia and Sawarak was deleted, in the 'real world' burning the Hansard would be symptomatic of a dictatorship or corruption. Ironically the pro-deletion "contributors" even acknowledged that the stub could be improved, but - in a twisted way - this observation was used to justify deletion.

This quick/stealth delete is not how wikipedia got started. I can see the need for quick delete, but this (stealth) delete problem needs to be addressed, I'm not sure where to start. Will check around. Leng T'che (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, but community consensus is clear and the article was handled under the usual procedures. I will not undelete it. MBisanz talk 01:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for replying.... Technically I was not asking you to undelete the page, although your enthusiasm is noted. The Hansard page was simply of an example of AfD having gone awry.
FYI: The "community consensus is clear" was actually not that clear. Ironically, I would suggest that I if had not voted keep then (as AfD is not a ballot) the original page would have been "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached." As I said above: 'Ironically the pro-deletion "contributors" even acknowledged that the stub could be improved, but - in a twisted way - this observation was used to justify deletion.'
On the same thread... none of the original reasons for deleting the page "(WP:BIO WP:MAGAZINE Might even be a WP:HOAX)" actually apply, making the entire AfD "consensus" a bit of a farce. Leng T'che (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As an editor who was, in the past, heavily involved with Malaysia articles, I concur, for what it's worth. These areas are often tricky, with feeling running high, particularly with regards to the status of states like Sarawak etc..., and I often wish that someone would write a really well balanced article about the transition, and the issues it spawned. I'm sure a notable one could be created, but I don't, sadly, have all of the expertise I would need to do that. On this occasion, as Matt says, the correct process was followed. I do understand the frustration of the users who feel their 'point of view' is being neglected. Begoon talk 01:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the Hansard is a POV issue. I recently saw the entire national foot ball team of a small nation methodically deleted from wikipedia. Now if the team had been pokemon characters they would have survived. This is weird. Is Wikipedia meant top be a bastion of "Pop culture", or is it meant to be promote the gathering of actual facts?
On the other hand: Did you know that "Arnside Knott is a hill with a summit elevation of 159 metres (522 ft), near Arnside, Cumbria, England?" ... think seriously ...
I have read the "The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia", it was spell binding and detailed history and squashed urban myth. If SE Asia pages are going to be cut by non-contributing "editors" then clearly the SE Asia pages will take forever (if ever) to gain any real depth. This need to be fixed.
Leng T'che (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right about the Hansard article not being a POV thing. What I have seen happen a lot, though, is that people who want to add a point of view will attempt to support it with a long document which, on inspection, doesn't really support their claim at all. UN treaties are often attempted to be used this way, the theory, I think, being that you can read the long convoluted text several ways if you squint at it, so it serves as a "source" if nobody reads it thoroughly. This usually happens after they've edit warred and been reverted a few times and a source or explanation has been requested. There's an example here, and it's far from the only such occurence. It's a shame, because often they don't discuss what the real issue is, due to either poor English skills, or the feeling that nobody would "listen", so everyone just gets annoyed with the edit warring, and valuable information is never considered. Sorry to drag this off on a tangent on your talk page, Matt, it doesn't seem to be as relevant as I thought it was. Begoon talk 09:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree, the creator made a bit of a hash of the "first draft" of the Hansard stub by only briefly citing just the debate in London to establish the Hansard. Neglecting to list the Hansard's unique role in Sarawak over the years and in current news.
Equally I agree that the images were better served in wiki sources. But my concern is more that the page was culled before the appropriately informed person had (in the original wikipedia spirit) stumbled over the page and expanded it. Their Hansard was not even given the 4 months give to the US Congressional_Record was given to be de-stubbed.
Then certainly, when I encountered the "WP:BIO WP:MAGAZINE Might even be a WP:HOAX" comment I was left totally puzzled as to AfD's entire credibility.
Finally, essentially the solo legitimate "vote" was 'Delete for failing WP:GNG. Qworty'. But that was it. No details.
Forgive me for being cruel, but the impression in my mind is that the AfD crowd are totally overwhelmed somehow. Something is broken and needs to be fixed. Maybe I will review all the other AfD in the past.... (Oh, but wait a minute, the pages have been "deleted" complete with page histories, no review possible, how strange. I'm trying to think of person/regime in history that "outlawed canvassing", "destroyed records of debate and dissent", hunted down dissenters and kept control in a tight inner circle... can you think of anyone?)
Leng T'che (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Antonia Major

The only person in this AfD who !voted to merge Antonia (daughter of orator Marcus Antonius) to Antonia Major had misunderstood the relationship between the two – the Antonia in question was Antonia Major's great-aunt, not her sister. If the consensus is to merge (which I can see it is), a more sensible merge target would be the article on her father, Marcus Antonius (orator). With that in mind (and if you agree), would you mind reconsidering your closing statement? DoctorKubla (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 12:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Got your note

Just to let you know, I got your note about the tools. I'm unlikely to request resysopping, either now or in the future, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, my life doesn't support the amount of time that adminship really requires; secondly, most of my work used to be in the video games area. As I am now a professional video games journalist, editing articles on which I cover could be perceived as a conflict of interest, especially if I cite my own work in those articles.


That said, I wish both the admin team and the wider project the best of luck for the future. Gazimoff 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to hear things are going well in your life. Congrats on the job. MBisanz talk 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...

Considering I haven't been an admin in well over six years, and I've had enough stalkers and death threats and phone calls to my house for one life over a web page...I won't be pursuing admin tools ever again. Thanks, though.  RasputinAXP  14:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Okey. Sorry to hear about your experience, but thanks for your continued contributions. MBisanz talk 14:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that my navigation links (see profile or talk page) still link to Zhou Yu.

While it's not that big of a deal since they just redirect to my profile, how I would fix this? - Amaury (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 12:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Haha, thanks! I completely forgot about that page, because I've updated the navigation links before myself after name changes, and I couldn't remember what I did. XD - Amaury (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of tools

Hmm, what were your reasons for making the proposal in the first place? I can't spot it. Was there a previous discussion that I've missed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_25#Resysopping. MBisanz talk 12:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your efforts to make a list of desysopped admins, to propose new policies and to help enact them with taking the time to send out notices. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying and will keep trying. I'm glad to see you back. MBisanz talk 21:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

On another note, seems Polarscribe's interest in returning was not for the right reasons as he's barely been active since being desysopped. I have a strong feeling though that his interest would have been short-lived even if he still had his tools... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Election questions

Never trust me when I say I won't comment again... Adding the links improves the accessibility of the follow-ups, thank you for doing that. Begoon talk 05:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, you're welcome. MBisanz talk 14:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Page deleted ??!!

HI MBisanz. Sorry if this is not the most appropriate way to contact you. i see you have recently deleted a page called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_family_offices_in_Switzerland. We use this from time to time when some of our clients refereed to other family offices. Is there any way we can get this page back, or see a cached copy of it. Thanks in advance.

Basicaly same request as Will

Thanks in advance Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasti83 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Left at your talkpage. MBisanz talk 18:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

I assumed alpha order and you assumed chronological but it seems to be a list ordered by both. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. My error. I'll try to go and sort that list consistently at some point, but I've fixed it for now. MBisanz talk 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I've made the list alphabetical. MBisanz talk 18:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. Here's my usual lazy suggestion - is there a bot we could task to update the lists? --Dweller (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes. I actually have some of the code written from a different one of MBisanz's requests :P The notes column would have to be added in manually though, which somewhat reduces the usefulness of having a bot to do it. Legoktm (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
We could remove the column altogether and add manual footnotes where necessary. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Given that more than half the rows have comments, I like the way how the current rows are laid out. The bot could potentially copy the log message and make that the "note" and humans could add on if necessary? Legoktm (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_15&oldid=1180271354"