Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:43, 4 December 2010

This user has autopatrolled rights on the left. (verify)

Archives

(6/07-8/09)

This user is a participant in WikiProject Albums.

This user is a member of WikiProject Lacrosse.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits to bring Ian Kinsler and Scott Feldman to hopefully a GA status Ositadinma (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag arbitration-related

Encouragement

Please persevere through all the drama surrounding The Shells article and Rjanag. I believe such drama drives many good editors away, and I don't want it to happen to you. You do good work and I appreciate it. - Draeco (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your your valiant efforts to defend The Shells (folk band) article with your reasoned arguments and perseverance, and for taking conflicts in your stride and continuing undeterred with your good work as a Misplaced Pages editor. Illegitimi non carborundum. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI--Rjanag; Rjanag Arbitration

With heavy heart, I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Shells affair. It is neither a personal attack against him nor a favor to you, but his behavior compelled me to act. As an involved party I think you should know. - Draeco (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. My heart too has grown heavier the more the relationship between the nom and the closing admin reveals itself.

As you know, now that that ANI has closed, I've opened up this Rjanag arbitration. Quick question as to your comment there. You indicated that you don't recommend de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. My reading of WP:ADMIN, as I quoted it there, was that de-sysopping is one possible appropriate treatment of an admin who displays consistently or egregiously poor judgment, or who seriously, or repeatedly, acts in a problematic manner or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, including repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), and conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship. Did I miss something (in which case I should amend my request), or do you read it differently? Or perhaps just have a more lenient approach than WP:ADMIN? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

This may be too little too late, but I have left you a message with my apologies at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Rjanag. Thank you, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full reply @ Rjanag Arbitration

• I'm saddened that you did not do so many weeks earlier. But only after being completely unrepentant through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, an AN/I, an arb request being filed, evidence pouring forth regarding your extraordinarily close relationship with the closing admin, and arb voters indicating that they do not agree with your pooh-poohing of the matter. And even yesterday you were saying you do not need to apologize. It certainly makes it look as though rather than being heartfelt, this has more to do with your desire to avoid the scrutiny of an arbitration.

Finally, on further inspection, your "apology" is barely an apology at all -- as you fail to admit and to apologize for your persistent incivility, untruthful statements, bullying, wikihounding, gaming the system, edit warring, and knowing COI. Further inspection also reveals that your behavior spreads over a number of matters, and impacts a number of editors. They deserve better. My full comments can be found at Rjanag Arbitration. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A word in your ear

I participated in the first Shells AfD in question. AfD is a frequent stomping ground of mine, and I find it extremely common to see articles like The Shells to be put up for AfD, and just as common to see them deleted as a result of them not satisfying the basic notability and sourcing requirements of WP. Sometimes creators/editors who fail to accept that. There is occasionally dogged opposition to a deletion, which you demonstrated to see the article wasn't deleted, leading to bitter fights which may get personal. The Shells AfD was certainly one of those. I believe the tone set by Rjanag in the AfD was not appropriate, effectively winding up people who would have supported the deletion on the merits of the case alone that prevailed eventually. While I applaud you for your tenacious fight to keep the article, I believe that the lesson to be learned would be to strive for improved sourcing and better writing of an article to avoid the common pitfalls which lead to deletion. I have been upset when articles I have contributed significantly were put to AfD, because it's a natural tendency to want to look after one's baby. I know the above from Rjanag is not the unreserved apology you feel you deserve. But hard as it may be, I hope you will not take the deletion too personally. Perhaps one day, The Shells will be a notable band... I hope you will stay around for when that happens. Ohconfucius 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We can have different views as to the AfD merits. We're not alone--just look at the votes at the two AfDs. That's fair. And needn't be uncivil. I've created nearly 200 articles in my years here, and made more than a few thousand edits, so I have a bit of a sense for notability.

I credit you, however, for agreeing with those of us who believe that the tone set by Rjanag in the AfDs was not appropriate. Not many have crossed the aisle, stood up, and made themselves heard on that point.

Also, his misconduct included misstatements. That does not lead IMHO to the best decision-making by those who are trying to make a decision based on facts, not misstatements.

Many editors noticed his misconduct. At least 20 discussed it with him in the past few months, with communications ranging from complaints to warnings to AN/Is. Those 20 editors from what I can tell are essentially unrelated--joined only by their common concern over his misconduct.

As to the "ownership" point, I don't get the sense that Draeco brought the Shells AN/I, or that the other editors spoke up about the conduct that led to the Shells and the other AN/Is, because of "ownership" issues. Quite the opposite. Rather, they think as I do that misconduct is bad, they care about this project, and they believe that misconduct of this sort adversely impacts the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I sympathise. With all your experience, he still managed to wind you up. In my previous dealings with him, he's been pretty no-nonsense, occasionally blunt; he's never been abusive, but one can sense what lurks below the surface. I don't know what's got into him. I'll make a mental note but I'd rather not have to spend time looking into it for now. Happy editing! Ohconfucius 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not every day I see an admin write one editor: "You can go f_ck yourself" , use the same choice words to another editor, and also write "if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You f_cking moron”. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No you don't. Whoever let the lord of the jungle out? ;-) Ohconfucius 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I award Epeefleche the special barnstar for his work on Nidal Malik Hasan's article and for defending the article from POV motivated edits.--Gilisa (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Great job in updating Anwar al-Awlaki article. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		...is awarded to Epeefleche for major clean-up above and beyond the call of duty on the Inner Temple Library article. Well done! The article will likely survive AfD thanks to you and your addition of quite a few references, among other things! Even an 1897 New York Times article!!!! Fantastic! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudy York

I added a footnote pointing to York's HR Log at bb-reference. York hit his 50th on 1938-06-15 which was the 51st game of the Tiger season. York had 107 career games before 1938. So the latest he could have hit his 50th was career game #158.DavidRF (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Help me here ... how do we know it was the 51st game of the season? And we have an RS saying something else--does this fall into the cat of a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui

Some terrific work there on Aafia Siddiqui Bachcell (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Great work on Aafia, It's more factual now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar for the Moazzam Begg article

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	for your additions, editing, and Herculean clean-up on the Moazzam Begg article! It is truly impressive. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners

This link is now dead: http://www.cageprisoners.com/campaigns.php?id=818 -- it's not in archive.org.

I could have said this in the talk section of Begg's article, but I wanted to add here that I'm wondering if Cageprisoners may be cleaning up some of their tracks.

I came across this link two years ago. It's a discussion board. On that page they talk about 21st Century Crusaders. The only thing really notable is that it had a link where you could download the entire film. As you can see, the page is now password protected, as is the one taking you to the film.

In light of the disappearing pages, I just used webcitation.org to archive the ones that we have linked in the article that weren't yet deleted. I haven't cited that in the article yet, although that doesn't necessarily matter at the moment. Webcitation has a function to tell you whether or not it's been archived.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Najibullah Zazi

Hi there. Just a quick note: Great job editing the article. It now looks complete. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ressam group; goal -- the subject "should be pleased to see they have a WP article"?

http://books.google.ca/books?id=E1_SxOuUHmIC&dq=%22abu+jaffar%22+terrorism&source=gbs_navlinks_s From page 320 onward] has some great information on the various players in the Ressam group. You could add the reference to almost each of the articles, as it discusses each of them. Sherurcij 06:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. Shall take a look. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do you think the Montreal mosque (Assuna ... spelled various ways in English ... attracts 1500 to Friday prayers) is worth an article?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally fairly inclusive when it comes to churches/schools having articles; unless they written largely to "smear" the group. So if you're going to include a "list of notable persons who attended", be sure to balance it out with some positive stories from the media/books as well...basically, the group should be pleased to see they have a WP article...not angry. Sherurcij 06:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not precisely the way it works, is it. We don't write articles to please the subject. Otherwise, for example, all criminals would rightfully have their articles deleted. What we do, which I'm happy to do with your help if you like, is reflect what is in the RSs. In other words, if x percent of the material in RSs is material that they would be happy to see, we should make certain that x percent of the article is of that ilk. Agreed?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking your advice

Taking your advice, I've rolled back my own edit. That aside, please respond to me instead of blanking this message. I have been civil with you, why can't you return the favor and discuss this with me?— Dædαlus 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have checked the history of this page, and for failing to do so, and assuming bad faith, I apologize. It is fine if you remove this message of course, now that I know. Again, I am sorry. I hope you can forgive me. I understand the need to not have clutter, I just wish that I was so insistent upon it that I could manage to clean my room. I'm actually considering a wikibreak because-(this will continue in email, if you don't mind). I'm experiencing too much stress. I'm even considering changing my 'oppose' to a 'support' regarding the interaction ban with Mb. I don't want there to be an indef ban, but considering things, and .. other things, I may just resolve to, instead of reverting their edits, responding to them, instead, I will simply report the edits to the admin who placed the original 24 hour ban, and let them decide for themselves. If this user continues to personally attack others, then they will get sanctioned.— Dædαlus 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

street

I initially made the edit on a "gut" basis; I've been around the Internet a long time (pre-web), and have seen "facts" like that have very bad outcomes, e.g. an acquaintance who had an armed activist drive cross-country and show up at his workplace, which another person had mentioned in an abortion-related forum the two were active in.

Following your serious query, I went looking for policy.

• First, WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The remainder of the policy is also relevant, particularly "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." and "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability."
• Second, WP:NOT: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I judge that the street name is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; the edit comment is based on one of the 5 pillars.
• Third, WP:NPOV: the nutshell "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." On a proportionate basis, how important is the street he lived on?

Studerby (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the response. I was guessing it was a gut basis. Nice work in doing such a professional job looking for support for the gut feeling. My gut reaction is that different people have different gut reactions, and (moreso elsewhere, admittedly) I sometimes see editors cloak their gut reactions in similar verbiage. As I said, I'm not passionate about the issue in that particular case. My view in general is that if RSs report it, it generally meets the above, just as the name of the former spouse of a suspected killer or their current relatives would meet them if reported in RSs, or the place they are employed, or the city or state or country in which they live (all of which are routinely mentioned in all such bios, without any discussion, and could be attacked as inappropriate in the strictest reading of what you cite -- this is, after all, clearly only a question of degree, as the general place they live is routinely deemed relevant), etc.. The same issues arise in all such instances. Just my opinion. But we don't have a tussle on this particular edit, just an intellectual inquiry. I think based on your research, your response, and my response, it still ultimately comes down to editorial judgment, and in the event there were a tussle on another article there would be a consensus discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Editorial judgment" inherently can't be codified, and we're all going to use our gut from time to time - no one has time to research and cite policy for every single edit. However, I also just went back to the version I edited; neither RS referenced in that paragraph has the street (at this moment), so the information was also unsourced, apparently. I'm suspecting that somebody interpolated that from the criminal complaint, which is NOT an RS for all purposes - it's a primary source, inherently one sided, etc.; certainly not subject to the "editorial judgment" that a proper secondary source uses. I generally shy away from controversy, but I think policy on this is absolutely crystal clear and this is one edit I'd go to the mat for, if it was needed.

In the cases you mention, where RSs have included reference to relations or acquaintances of the article subject, I suspect you'll find that those individuals have usually involved themselves in the reporting by becoming information sources on the topic. You won't see very many statements in current event reportage in RSs like " married Jane Doe (born 1955 in Boston) in 1967, had children John (1970), Janette (1971), Chang and Eng (1973) and divorced in 1974. He subsequently married and divorced Floozy Mcsleazy, a pole dancer, in 1980, and cohabitated with a Ima Nicegirl from 1985 to 1992." Instead you get, "His wife, Jane Doe, said: 'Billy-Wayne was such a nice quiet person. I can't believe he kept a collection of human ears in our garage.'". The wife's name is then relevant to the notability, as a source of reported information relevant to the notability of the subject. Or there's some sort of at-least-arguable relevant-to-the-story event involving the relative; in the article under discussion, a protective order and the inability to serve divorce papers arguably are facts that tell us something about the subject's life relevant to his notability; folks with "issues" are thought to be more motivated to do things outside the norm. However, in the reference cited, the wife also injected herself into the story and made several statements in support of subject; that only the negative material relating to the wife is included is an obvious WP:NPOV problem, and which rather seems to undermine any "include all the facts" argument. Studerby (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Fiftytwo thirty has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This cookie is for coming back so nicely to my somewhat harsh message. Thank you. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Thank you for your Wikignome-like edits. What do you think, substantively? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzling over why the article is up for AfD, frankly. Does the nom dislike you? I'm just poking around the article for the moment and looking at the sources, and curious what others have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell from my comments at the AfD, I found Greg L’s analysis somewhat short of what I think you are entitled to when someone reviews your article at an AfD, and suggests deletion of your article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I was very impressed by your rebuttal to an administrator that wrote, " is an admin ... I'm sorry but in any conflict between the two of you that requires weighing the relative commitment to the goals of the project or of the project's mores, I'll be backing ." -- Rico 03:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For helping to save Eric Ely from sure deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

New York energy law

You seem to be everywhere. Thanks for the minor edits. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer GA

Congratulations on the GA. Here are my suggestions for conversion in June:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer
Scheyer vs. Long Beach State (December 29, 2009)
College	Duke
Conference	ACC
Sport	Basketball
Position	Guard
Jersey #	30
Class	Senior
Major	History
Nickname	The "Jewish Jordan"
Career	2006–10
Height	6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Weight	190 lb (86 kg)
Nationality	American
Born	(1987-08-24) August 24, 1987 (age 37) Northbrook, Illinois
High school	Glenbrook North High School, Northbrook, Illinois
Career highlights
Awards
Honors
2006 Illinois Mr. Basketball 2006 All-American (McDonald's, Jordan, PARADE) 2x Duke team captain 2x All-ACC Tournament First Team (2009 & 2010) 2009 ACC tournament MVP 2009 ACC Academic Honor Roll 2009–10 All-ACC First Team 2010 Consensus All-American (second team); 1st team: Lowe’s Senior First Team and Wooden (10-man team); 2nd team: AP, NABC, TSN, USBWA; 3rd team: FOX, YS 2010 Award lists: Robertson (Top-16 finalist), Wooden (Top-10 finalist), Naismith (Top-30 midseason), Cousy (Top-6 finalist), Lowe's Senior CLASS (Top-10 finalist) ACC single-season minutes record (1,470; 2009–10) 2010 NCAA Championship 2009–10 ACC statistical champion (free throw percentage, three point shot/game, assist/turnover)

Jonathan James "Jon" Scheyer (born August 24, 1987, in Northbrook, Illinois) is an All-American 6' 5" guard, who was selected by the XXX with the Xth overall selection in the 2010 NBA Draft. He led his high school team to an Illinois state basketball championship and the 2009–10 Duke Blue Devils to the 2010 NCAA Basketball Championship. He was a prolific high school scorer who earned numerous individual statistical championships in Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) play, ranging from free throw percentage and three point shots/game to assists/turnover ratio.

A high school All-American, he once scored 21 points in a game's final 75 seconds of play in an attempt to spark a comeback. The 4th-leading scorer in Illinois high school history, he led his team to a state championship in 2005 and was named Illinois Mr. Basketball in 2006. He chose Duke, for whom he moved over from shooting guard to point guard towards the end of the 2008–09 season, and was the Most Valuable Player (MVP) of the 2009 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament.

In his senior year in 2009–10 as Duke's captain, he led the team to ACC regular season and Tournament championships and to the NCAA National Championship. He led the championship team in points per game, assists, free throw percentage, and steals per game. Scheyer was a 2010 consensus All-American (Second Team), a unanimous 2009–10 All-ACC First Team selection, and was named to the 2010 ACC All-Tournament First Team. He played the most consecutive games in Duke history (144), and holds the ACC single-season record for minutes (1,470 in 2009–10) and the Duke freshman free throw record (115), shares the Duke record for points off the bench in a game (27).

Scheyer was drafted by the XXX with the Xth pick of the X round (Xth overall, if 2nd round) of the 2010 NBA Draft. If there was a trade to get the pick to select him mention it here. (He is represented by XXX if he has a famous agent like Rob Pelinka or something).

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Jon Scheyer to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

You've been doing incredible work on this article and I wanted to make it clear how much I appreciate your work on it. You've been prolific in editing the article, and adding in relevant information, and while I've followed this story myself, in all of your edits I've not disagreed with you once (maybe I missed something... or maybe I thought the police commissioner should be facing the other direction....). Thank you, and please keep up the good work. I'll try to help as much as I can. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar suggestions for Jimbo

I've never given out a barnstar. But I imagine Jimbo deserves one for this.

Can anyone suggest which template I might consider using? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Replacing Passengers with Activists

Interested to know the reasons for replacing 'Passengers' with 'Activists' on the Gaza flotilla raid. . The change does not seem very Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Firefishy (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Passenger is a "set" used to distinguish between crew member and others who are not crew members. But it is less descriptive of the role of the people and their purpose than is the term activist. Most passengers are not activists, and it is not the activity that the term passenger brings to mind. But here the purpose of the activity was one of activism. The preferred approach is to use the most descriptive term that is accurate (we could also use the less descriptive term "people", but wouldn't for the same reason).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for the explanation. -- Firefishy (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Lacrosse

Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject Lacrosse. If you are interested in contributing more to Lacrosse related articles you may want to join WikiProject Lacrosse (signup here). --Yarnalgo _talk to me 17:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy

I find it facinating that Nableezy, just coming off his lengthy topic ban, makes this very provocative and contentious edit without so much as uttering a word on the discussion page. Technically, he didn't violate the letter of the law but he certainly violated its spirit. Your thoughts please.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if someone gets a ban that specifically says it includes not being allowed to revert vandalism, then that someone immediately announces that he's going to ignore that part of the ban, then actually goes and ignores it, then when the issue comes up before the people who put the ban in place they do nothing, that someone would probably feel he can get away with anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/No More Mr Nice Guy. Sysop Sandstein, who railroaded the close of the Nableezy complaint -- after Nab had effectively told Sandstein to go f_ck himself w/regard to Nab's ban, and that Nab was going to do what he damn well pleased and intended to violate the ban -- encouraged poor behavior with Sandstein's own happy (or intimidated?) acceptance of Nab's belittling of Sandstein. I mean -- under the circumstances, if you were in Nab's place, what reason would there be to have even the lowest level of respect for that sysop, or be concerned that he would enforce wiki rules against you? Nab is reacting quite logically, under the circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Threeafterthree; Block

Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Thanks, FASTILY 01:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. One down; it's a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Got a moment?

Hi. I noticed that you just answered a concern for a user over on the wikiquette alert page. Could I impose on you to take a look at my entry and advise accordingly? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Got your thoughtful response and I thought I should thank you here as well. I'll do what you suggest right away. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments!!!

-- φ OnePt618 φ has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seriously, you made my day. Thanks and I hope we can cross paths on here again soon!-- φ OnePt618 φ 06:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For turning this into this. Fences&Windows 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Jews in sports

Consider adding Sam Stoller to the list. He was an NCAA sprint champion and a remarkable man. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown Stats

The infobox does allow for up to six statistics, but those should be used in only the instances of players with records of some sort. This was discussed.--Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a conversation that has been had for years. I see a number of the usual participants didn't see or take part in this one. I've just added my thoughts. I think your original comment was spot on -- I remember the days well of only batting average being mentioned in print or TV, but those are long gone. No harm will come from allowing editor discretion. It is retrograde to suggest that BA should be reflected, and OBP or SP or OPS not.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tx

It's no problem. I'm an article writer myself, and I can certainly understand the frustration if one spends hours upon hours on a single article, only to see someone come along and destroy most of it effortlessly. The trimmed article got rid of exactly how much I thought should've gone away: 10%. Spasm was deleting content because of a petty grudge, which is unfair to the subjects of these articles. I have tried to use the GA-Class article Billy Pierce as a model to expand baseball player articles on Misplaced Pages, and he brought it up out of nowhere threatening to hack that down to start class as well, just because Pierce was "less important" than Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron and therefore has too big of a file size. He failed to mention that those extra KB in the Pierce article was attributed to 100+ reference citations. He seems to leave out a lot of facts whenever arguing his side of thing. Oh well. Two months+ from now I'm not going to put up with his crap if he does it again. Vodello (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Long Island Council of Churches

This is an automated message. I have performed a web search with the contents of Long Island Council of Churches, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ncccusa.org/ecmin/licc/Old_LICC. This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Review Request

It is a small world. Your DYK link for Cordoba House led me to the December, 2009, Times article--your source for the phrase, "its location was a selling point for the Muslims who bought the land." Although I don't recognize the building at all from the pictures, I shopped there when it was being operated by Sy Syms. I still have a couple of his coat hangers from that single trip in the early 1980s.

Curiously, Syms died last year, just about the time that Abdul Rauf was announcing his plans for Cordoba House--I don't think that was the cause.--Komowkwa (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gerald Garson

On August 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerald Garson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Garson

Not familiar with American issues but got lead to that article and very impressed. I want to add it to your page, but too complicated. Do you mind if I watch your discussion page?

		The BLP Barnstar
		For a major effort on enlarging Gerald Garson. Cheers. Luckymelon (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the school webcam lawsuit article

Thanks for your work on Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District‎. Blue Rasberry 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cordoba House

On 17 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cordoba House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Courcelles 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Raheel Raza

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raheel Raza, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Long Island Board of Rabbis

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Long Island Board of Rabbis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Assassination

In my opinion there is no consensus shown for a separate page for the term targeted killing. If you want to create a new page then first lets hold an RFC on talk:assassination and see if there is a consensus for such a page, because at the moment it is not at all clear that there is. The reason for this is that it can be argued that it is an euphemism for assassination. If the consensus is that it is then creating a separate page is a POV fork. -- PBS (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We already had that discussion on the talk page of assassination. A clear consensus was shown. The material in the targeted killing page is over 100K -- we are not of course going to make that a subset of a page that people say it does not even belong in the first place. There is zero question it is notable in and of itself -- a google search will show you that. There is absolutely no reason for it not to have its own page. Blanking the page because you do not like the consensus is not acceptable either. This is not a place for POV blanking of the page; nor would a prod or an AfD hold water. This has nothing to do with forking -- as the article sources make clear, and the consensus discussion makes clear. Idon'tlikeit is not reason. "It can be argued" -- that's certainly not a reason. Why in the world would you seek to cover up information regarding a subject of great public interest? Really -- what is your motive? Your comments go beyond wikilawyering.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have created an RFC. If there is a clear consensus then it will be reflected in the RFC. Rather than argue it in different places. lets see what the outcome of the RFC is. -- PBS (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a good faith RFC. There is a clear consensus shown. You assert -- against reality -- that it is not clear. You are wasting peoples' time, and being disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is not a clear consensus shown and if there were to be one then it would be reflected in the RFC. Let the RFC play out and if there is a consensus then we can have a page. -- PBS (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, that's absurd. There was a vocal, extended, talk page discussion of the issue with a clear consensus. You seem from what I can see to have a history with this article. Be that as it may, it shouldn't cloud what is as clear as can be. There is no need for the community, having discussed it, to have another discussion now that the first has been concluded. Just because you don't like the result. There is no need to delete a 100K article with 150 footnotes, because you don't like the result. The RFC should be ignored or rolled up -- the discussion has been had.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In reverting my edits to targeted killing you have used the phrase "Reverted 1 edit by Philip Baird Shearer identified as unconstructive to last revision by Epeefleche." The link under unconstructive is to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. I refer you to the section in How not to respond to vandalism and the bullet point: "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments." If I were not a party to this dispute with you, and another editor bought such behaviour to my attention after a warning if you persisted I would block your account until you agreed not to accuse another editor of vandalism, when such edits are made in good faith. I suggest that in future that if you are in a content dispute with a fellow editor that you think very carefully before you accuse another editor of vandalism. -- PBS (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

PBS, first of all I ask you yet again to stop edit warring and to stop blanking the 100K page and attendant talk page. Second of all, inappropriate blanking is indeed vandalism. Third of all, the scrip chose the specific words--if you don't like it, take it up with the scrip writers. It is the standard language. Fourth, good faith is an assumption that you are in a position to rebut. You've done a fine job rebutting the presumption with your bad faith edit warring, etc. I suggest that you, in the future, stop deleting 100K articles with 150 footnotes without a good faith reason, stop edit warring, and stop accusing editors of using the commonly used scrips to be used for deletions without good reason of entire articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the name of the template? Either you are using it inappropriately, or the template is incorrectly linked. -- PBS (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What is inappropriate? You deleted an entire article without legitimate reason. That's vandalism. You are also edit warring. I've asked you many times to stop both types of misbehavior. You are also violating wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what is the name of the template? In what way do you think I have been violating WP:ADMIN-- PBS (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If its the warning template we're talking about, it reads "uw-delete ". If its the wp:vandalism admonition on the same, you can find it at wp:vandalism, which in the very first example of what vandalism is describes blanking -- which was precisely what you were doing. As to wp:admin, I would bring your attention to the following: "Administrators are expected to lead by example .... Administrators are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policies .... sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.... if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies ... while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... edit warring, ... etc) ... Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions) ... Repeated/consistent poor judgment." BTW, have you now read what I pointed you to (more than once) in the article and in the prior discussion, that answered your prior question?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Byron Krieger

I really do not understand why you keep putting his place of birth in the lifespan brackets. It does not belong there. Can you please explain your edits, because your edit summary is not sufficient. So what if he competed for the United States? The actual place of his birth (Detroit, Michigan) is not particularly notable - in fact, considering that he did compete for the US, that makes it not particularly notable. If he competed for another country, then maybe it would be worth mentioning, or if he was born somewhere else... but an American competitor being born in the United States is nothing notable. Canadian Paul 14:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I got your "will reply soon" email almost a month and a half ago... I think that's more than a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response... Canadian Paul 05:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

nice work Decora (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Targeted killing

On 20 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Targeted killing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If I can help...

...with the sourcing of Targeted killing as per that conversation at WP:RS/N, let me know. Bigger digger (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What a kind, generous, offer! Of course -- feel free (if you think it would be helpful). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't quite make it today, got a bit side tracked. But you really need to stop fanning the flames that PBS feeds on. There's no need to return repeatedly to the RFC, which will close in its own good time. The conversation at the reliable sources noticeboard could've been wrapped up quite quickly if you'd have said "ok, here are some page numbers". Or ignored it. You would have had to add the page numbers eventually (I figure if you didn't he would add dated fact tags and use that as justification to delete the info after a week), so why not just play his game? He's going to make you play it anyway so you should play in the easiest manner you can. The rules are skewed massively in your favour, and he must enjoy all the pointless forum shopping and pointless debating. Say your piece, do what's necessary, and let time take its course, as we all know there's no deadline! Sorry if this is a bit teaching you how to suck lemons, but I think for your own wiki-sanity it might need saying! And sorry not to reply to your email, but I don't have a suitably anonymous email address set up and don't think it necessary. Best, Bigger digger (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Off2riorob

Thanks for the comments! Did you mean to support 1RR or 2RR? Your first post says one, but you say two in the second. In any event, thanks for the thoughtful replies! --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Geim

Hi, Just to let you know that you were mentioned here. (Unlike some other noticeboards, the edit notice doesn't require notifying users that are mentioned.)

Possibly WP:Requests for comment/Biographies would've been a more appropriate venue.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New biographies of living persons noticeboard design

I've create a new design for the biographies of living persons noticeboard that simplifies the reporting process and makes the instructions clearer. Could you take a look at User:Netalarm/Lab 3 and provide some feedback on how to improve it or take it live? Feel free to submit a report there. Thanks. Netalarm 04:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2Riorob

Hi -- I have noticed your comments about this editor in a few places, including Scottmac's talk page. You might have noticed mine as well: , on the Ed Miliband talk page, the Geim page, and here. RFC/U requires that two editors have raised concerns with the user directly, on his talk page. I have already done that (the first link above, which he simply deleted). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- As Scott had been intensely involved with both the AN and the Geim page, I thought it would be quite appropriate to afford him the ability to take appropriate admin action. Unless he was too involved already as an editor, as may be the case (though he seemed to be involved in pleading Off2's case (as an editor), which likely would have allowed him to take some action). Scott has not responded. At the very least, especially given Scott's silence, I thought I should give Off2 the opportunity to consider my concerns with his behavior (whether or not I pursue an RFC/U ... which, as it turns out, is something that Scott has mentioned as a possibility as well). So I've just left word for Off2 as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not taken any admin action as regards Rob. And I have not "pled his case" either. I archived a thread because I believed that the voluntary agreement covered the most pertinent points. Others were free to disagree with that, or indeed revert my closure. Closing or opening a thread is not an admin action, and if I'd been reverted I would not have closed it again - that would be for others to decide either way. As for Robb's actions, I've not examined them at all. However, it might be best to ask some neutral editor to do that. Generally raising behaviour questions once you are in a content dispute (and particularly one as vexed as categorising BLPs by identity) is more difficult. You will not be seen as objective. If you've concerns about my admin actions, feel free to raise them with me, at the moment I'm not sure I've taken any.--Scott Mac 15:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac -- perhaps I misunderstand RFC/U, but I would have thought that the point is precisely to request comments from neutral observers. True, I would not be perceived as objective about O2RR at this juncture -- so the the point would be to request comment from others who would be perceived as objective. Is this not how it works? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was only suggesting that getting someone uninvolved to mediate might be useful.--Scott Mac 18:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Israel.2C_Palestine_and_the_United_Nations

I left comments. Thank you for the heads up. Can you find my name in the link? ;-) Bearian (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yes I did. Congratulations! I believe one of my colleagues may have taught there while you were there. I pinged you and DGG on this, as I thought it might interest the two of you. One point on your post, that one of us might address. Do you think it would be helpful to clarify the degree of fact-checking and re-checking involved in a law review? That, to my mind, is part of what makes it such a reliable source ... it is beyond that which we see, I imagine, in many other RSs, and goes to the heart of the matter. Also, do you think we need clarification at the guideline, to avoid this sort of confusion by others in the future, who know little of what a law review is, but are not dissuaded in the least from commenting as to whether it is an RS?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yemen-Chicago Plot

Thanks for your work on this article! It's developed a lot since I created it a couple of days ago. There's an extra layer of depth now that I wasn't able to provide with just the BBC articles I was using. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. And many thanks for starting it, and doing such a good job at that. (Hopefully someone will be able to find us a relevant picture or two that we can add as well). A pleasure meeting you. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is looking great! I've nominated it to appear on WP:ITN. The discussion is at . – Novem Lingvae (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Good call, as to ITN--I am unfamiliar with it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN: 2010 cargo plane bomb plot

On 2 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

-- tariqabjotu 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yay!!! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah dude, I'm watching the page views too! Really I just started the article and you took over after the first day. Every time I refresh the page history there's like 20 new edits by you. Good job man! Talk about just diligently reading every newspaper as they put out an article on the issue and incorporating the new facts. I look forward to collaborating on IR articles in the future. :D – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For fantastic work on expanding the 2010 cargo plane bomb plot article and helping to get it featured on the front page of Misplaced Pages. Great job! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Geim article

Hi,

I posted a proposal for a cleaner version of the bio. I'm not sure if you check the talk page (plus it was moved up by a few anon. comments) so I though I'd notify you here. Basically, it compresses redundant info. and puts sources in refs. Like, instead of saying something like "The Forward and RussianInfoCentre and Physics World reported that..." it would say ""Several sources (link to footnotes) reported that..." That way it just seems a lot more professional, and the flow improves significantly.

Please check it out, and make any suggestions if you want. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tx ... will take a look when I have a moment. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In concept, it is certainly fine. But it may be that some who are not as quick as you are may need additional assistance.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed it in the text, with your notion and those expressed on the tp by others as the guide. Different working, but same concept and I hope it addresses precisely the point you range.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Awlaki

"that in the 2010 cargo plane bomb plot, packages containing bombs were addressed and mailed to historical figures from the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition?"

That's interesting. Unfortunately the article isn't eligible for DYK because it was on ITN, though it's in much better shape than a lot of other article there. Anyway, wondering if you saw the CNN feature on Awlaki today? I saw it advertised but went to vote so didn't get to. Grsz 04:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the CNN feature. Tx for the head's up -- where would I find the ITN/DYK rule?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For whatever reason, links are squeezed in here. Also note the "Additional rules". Grsz 04:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Your email

Thanks for the heads up, I don't think they will succeed but it's good to know they're planning it. Did you let Jayjg know as well?Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• No -- only you. Jayjg and I have made complaints about each other at AN/I. To put it delicately, he is not really an editor I choose to converse with.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

jewish

Why don't you gey over yourself and leave living subjects alone, three Christian Grandparents makes him a whole lot not jewish, all the world can see he is a single quarter jew, the size of which is a minor genetic issue. Also if you are unable to discuss like adult and insst on adding silly templates to my talkpage then stay off my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the matter seems, with all due respect, to be perhaps on par with your spelling in your above missive. In any event, please respect core wikipedia policies such as verifiability, consensus, and the Project's general distaste for disruptive editing. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to cite verifiability, best to read the sources. The RIC did not say he was Jewish, but "born to a Jewish family". I've corrected the text to reflect the sources accurately.--Scott Mac 14:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This brings to mind a conversation we once had regarding the possibility that you might be tag-teaming with an editor. I'm trying to recall his name. Also with regard to the propriety of you acting both as a sysop on an article and as an editor on the very same article, which raises perhaps questions under wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck? What is this? Are not we all supposed to working for neutral verifiable content accurate to the sources? I saw a dispute between the two of you, and rather than jump in with blocks and templates I thought the best way to settle was to examine the sources. What's your problem with that?--Scott Mac 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On my talk page, I would appreciate it if you would make an effort to find some other language to express yourself. Children view this page at times. It's a robust language, and in it you may well find similarly satisfactory expressions that they would find perhaps slightly less offensive. As to the substance of what I am saying, I assume your understanding of my comment is such that I need not provide diffs, and discussions of Arb Committee applications of wp:admin, and reference prior AN closes, and the like. This isn't an AN/I or an arbitration -- we're simply seeking to communicate with each other. So I imagine further explication is not necessary here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the material to reflect the given sources more accurately. The previous version seriously misrepresented the sources. Would you rather I had left the inaccurate version?--Scott Mac 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring your rather energetic exaggeration, I'll limit myself to suggesting that the beginning of your answers lie in WP:ADMIN and the arb cases decided applying the relevant principle.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no idea what you are on about. If you think I've misread the sources let me know. Otherwise, I think I'll just let it go.--Scott Mac 18:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

opinion/feedback requested

At the Jan Schakowsky article I am arguing (on the Talk page) that an Infobox field for "Religion" should be completed with the term "Jewish." I am being told that no, "Jewish" is not a "religion"—"Judaism" is. Could you respond to me on my Talk page. I need a second opinion, so-to-speak. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the point that is being made that Judaism is only a religion? And if someone is Jewish, it could apply to the Jewish religion (e.g., I am of the Jewish religion) and/or the Jewish ethnicity (I am ethnically Jewish) and/or the Jewish nation (I am part of the Jewish nation, the Tribe of Levi)?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The infobox has a field. The field contains the word "Religion". On the Talk page of the Jan Schakowsky article is this section. It contains a variety of sources. It is my contention that those sources would support the inclusion of the term "Jewish" into the field for "Religion" in the infobox. Do you agree? If you disagree that's OK too. Your reasoning behind any stance you take would of course be of interest to me too. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to participate

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio

Did you purposely chop off the lower page, or are you by chance editing by phone?  -- WikHead (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Tx for pointing it out, though I see another editor fixed it in accordance w/my edit summary. Neither, as it turns out -- just a SNAFU. Apologies.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

If you are going to continue to edit here, you need to both understand the letter and spirit of the biographies of living people policy and accept it. If you continue to disrupt article talk pages arguing the consensus can override BLP, I will open a user conduct RfC on your behavior. Yworo (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Your comment is absurd. OK, first of all let me warn you for a wholly inappropriate warning. Take that, given the inappropriateness, as a final warning. Level 11. It goes to 11. Second, there is nothing at all disruptive in what I have done. If you think there is, I urge you to bring it to a noticeboard immediately, and submit yourself to sanction if your bullying inappropriate warning is found to be absurd. Third, you don't display in your comment a firm grasp of what a talk page is used for. Fourth, you don't display a firm grasp of the importance of consensus. Fifth, you don't display a firm grasp of BLP vs. wp:cat. Sixth, you don't display a firm grasp of the proper use of warnings. Seventh, of civility. Eighth, you appear to be trying to threaten me with sanctions for expressing a legitimate view which -- quite frankly -- IMHO is more legitimate than your view. I urge you to bring this to a noticeboard, as I would be happy to have the community comment on what I view as your less than appropriate behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blabbing about consensus as if you knew what it meant is pointless as consensus can never override BLP. Yworo (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Others' understanding of BLP can always override your understanding of BLP. And please desist with your incivility. Again, I urge you to make your threatened report, and submit yourself to scrutiny by the community at the same time.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been scrutinized before and am not afraid of it as I've done nothing wrong. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please make the threatened report. Your threat was inappropriate. Your incivility is not appropriate. Your personal attacks are not appropriate. IMHO. You've made your threat, and I've invited you to follow through on it so that the community can provide you feedback on whether it was appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll get around to it; however, I made no personal attacks, nor was I uncivil. I merely told you that I thought your behavior was disruptive to Misplaced Pages. And I believe that in good faith. I'm not the only one to think that. You are always welcome to discontinue the disruptive behavior. Yworo (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We have starkly different opinions of the appropriateness of your behavior. And mine. I look forward to you making your threatened report, as I have been unable to explain satisfactorily to you why your threat was not appropriate. I would hope that community input would better clarify to you why your baseless threat, your incivility, and your personal attack are not appropriate. Please let me know when you have subjected your behavior to that scrutiny, as I would be happy to participate in the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to provide a diff of the alleged personal attack. In fact, if you really think I've been incivil and attacked you, please take it to the Wikiquette noticeboard. It may be a while before I get around to opening an RfC/U. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahah. I see. Not only was your threat not appropriate. It was pure, empty, impotent bluster, when you considered that it would lead to a review not only of the fact that it was wholly without merit-less, but also to a review of your behavior, as evidenced in this string. I would urge you to desist in baseless threats, personal attacks, and incivility. Please take this as a final warning with regard to such behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As you've still not substantiated your baseless accusations, same to you. I will file the RfC/U if your inappropriate behaviour continues. Yworo (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my above comments. Res ipsa loquitur. Given your behavior on this page, I ask you not to make entries on it in the future, other than to alert me to any reports relating to me. Have a great week.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Covenant Aviation Security

On 1 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Covenant Aviation Security, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Transportation Security Administration officials tipped off Covenant Aviation Security employees to undercover tests of their luggage screeners at airport checkpoints? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

ANI thread about your recent canvassing

Since you have refused to engage me in discussion on your talk page and deleted the discussion I attempted to have with you, I have started an ANI thread about your recent canvassing actions. You may want to read and respond at WP:ANI#Canvassing by User:Epeefleche. SnottyWong  00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseless. As you know. As is your statement that I "refused to engage" you in conversation. Just the opposite is true.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so next time you delete an entire discussion from your talk page, I should take that as a sign that you'd like to continue that discussion? Yes, you did respond to my comments, although your responses consisted mostly of explanations about why you don't feel the need to explain yourself to me, followed by completely deleting the thread. I don't believe my claims are baseless, and neither do the majority of editors who are currently contributing at the ANI thread. To clarify, I'm not out for blood or anything, but I need to know that you understand that your actions were disruptive, so that you don't repeat them in the future. To this point, I haven't seen any indication that you understand why your actions were disruptive. SnottyWong  01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for epee, but I imagine he doesn't fully understand that his actions were disruptive because there isn't a particle of truth to the assertion which is itself, ironically enough, disruptive. To the extent that you have a point, you've made it. Best to move on. IronDuke 02:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that I'm wrong or that I'm lying when you say "there isn't a particle of truth"? Which part of my accusations are untruthful? SnottyWong  04:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry about the musician articles

im sorry to hear that your article was deleted. i personally disagree that conesnseus was firmly reached but i suppose it is what it is. if you want, i would be willing to work with you if we can get an administrator to place the article in userspace. this strategy was effective in saving the Alan Cabal article a while back even though it was put up for deletion 3x by overzealous deletionusts. get back to me whever u have time User:Smith Jones 01:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Not my article, actually. Just one at which I sought to respond to the nom's issues, by supplying refs to all entries, etc. I'll give your suggestion a think. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

—Kww(talk) 05:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

On behalf of Epeefleche, I point out that blocks are not to be used punitatively only preventatively, and no one has made any allegation that Epeefleche was likely in the immediate future to cause any damage or disruption to the project. "Teaching someone a lesson" is not an appropriate reason to block. See WP:BLOCK. I note also that this block was made in knowledge of, and contrary to the consensus of, an ongoing AN:I debate (link). – DustFormsWords (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Epeefleche has a working keyboard, presumably, so he can file his own unblock request when he is ready. Interested community members who wish to request consensus to unblock him can do so at WP:ANI where there is a vigorous discussion on this issue. Please comment at ANI if you wish to see him unblocked. Jayron32 06:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• All editors have an interest in the fair administration of justice, and all editors have an interest in having the absolute minimum of blocks administered necessary for the protection of Misplaced Pages. As far as I'm aware neither WP:BLOCK nor WP:GAB require than an unblock request come from the blocked user, and requiring Epeefleche to appeal his own block imposes an administrative burden on him that is only justified to the extent that the block is justified to begin with. – DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Because all editors have an interest in justice, there is a discussion at WP:ANI over lifting his block. I see you have already found that discussion. When sufficient people have commented, and consensus has been reached on how to proceed, we will proceed. --Jayron32 06:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Although I agree with Jayron32, that unblock request should not be granted, if it is filed not by a blocked editor themselves, but a wrong block as that one is should be lifted with no unblock request at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree 100% that wrong blocks may be lifted even without an unblock request. Whether or not this block is wrong is indeterminate at this stage. Which is why there is a discussion underway at WP:ANI to determine if this is a wrong block. Once that decision has been made by community consensus, we can proceed. --Jayron32 06:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • But wasn't the appropriateness indeterminate when the block was made?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Community consensus is not required for an admin to block someone, particularly when there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing. Everyone just relax. When Epee next logs on, he will have the opportunity to show us that he understands why he was blocked. If he can do that, he will be unblocked in a matter of minutes. Let's not blow this out of proportion. It will not be difficult for Epee to resume editing, and this block will likely inconvenience him for only a few minutes. SnottyWong  07:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, if I were in Epee's shoes I am not sure I would have ever logged on after such unbelievable injustice!--Mbz1 (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Facepalm I know right; how dare an admin block Epeefleche for violating an established guideline, disrupting the AfD process, and indicating they will do so again in future. I mean come on, where's the harm in that? GiftigerWunsch 08:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here

With all due respect, I think this was a decidedly inappropriate block. I'm certain the blocker acted in complete good faith (I can't recall our prior interactions, and therefore have no reason to think otherwise). But I'm puzzled. An AN/I on the same issue had just been opened. This also had the unintended effect of depriving me of the ability to correct mis-statements at the AN/I. Which appear to have misled some editors.

As requested, below is my understanding of the policy and its latest interpretive guidance. Which indicates that in a strikingly parallel situation, a notice to 50 editors was appropriate.

The blocker is correct in implying that a necessary factor, for a posting to be considered "excessive" under the guidance, is a lack of discrimination. But he appears to not perhaps have been aware that the notified editors were in fact picked with discrimination.

This was certainly not a "clear canvassing violation" (the rationale for the block).

I apologize if I in any way created even an appearance of impropriety. That was not my intention. My postings were an effort to do precisely the opposite (to dispel even the faintest suspicion that some—but not all—editors had been contacted). I read wp:canvass and its related talk page guidance carefully before proceeding. I acted strictly in accord with my understanding of them. I am committed to following the guidance, in whatever form it may be written now or in the future.

I respectfully request an unblock, with an edit summary reflecting that it was not appropriate.

Background

1. Concurrent AfDs are discussing deleting 6 lists of Jews. The discussions include related issues. (rules for deleting lists of religions, ethnicities, and nations; whether Jews fall into all 3 categories; the effect of that w/regard to deletions of Jewish lists; who is a Jew; impact of a Jew saying he did not want to be noted for being a Jew; etc.). I !voted keep at all 6 related AfDs. Bulldog, Snotty, and Yworo !voted delete at all 6.

2. Bull asserted at a number of the AfDs–incorrectly–that I had canvassed. His "evidence" was an on-wiki note to DGG, in which I mentioned all 6 AfDs. And the fact that I had mentioned to DustFormsWords off-wiki that he had commented on 1 of 2 co-extensive concurrent AfDs (entertainers and actors). DGG had not !voted. Dust had !voted, split keep and delete, at some AfDs.

3. The editor-response to the Bull accusation was largely negative. See the AfDs.

4. I responded to the Bull accusation. Pointing out I had not canvassed. That his accusations violated wp:agf & wp:civil. And that the only editors other than me to have commented at all 6 AfDs were him, Snotty, and Jayjg—with 17 delete !votes and 1 keep !vote among them.

5. Bull's complaint, if true, would have raised the possibility that keep !voters had been made aware of the related AfDs. But that delete !voters had not. So I also noted that I would

"be happy to leave all editors editing/who edited related AfDs a note about related on-going AfDs".

Nobody objected. I then proceeded as I had suggested.

6. I used a neutral notice.

7. I was discriminating in whom I contacted. Contacting only editors who had commented at 1 of the related AfDs (but fewer than all). I did not contact editors who had commented at the DGG string (inasmuch as there, all AfDs had been mentioned).

8. Noteworthy: Contrary to what an editor intent on "getting out" the keep !vote would do, I did not also (or instead) contact editors who had participated at the prior AfDs of the lists–which had resulted in !keeps. (Unless they participated in this week's AfDs). Despite the fact that it would have been a totally acceptable alternative (or addition) under wp:canvass. And would have resulted in contacting a more keep-heavy group.

9. The editors contacted were not keep-heavy. If anything, the opposite. Nor did the notices result in keep-heavy !votes. Just the opposite.

My understanding of wp:canvass (emphases added)

1. Purpose. wp:canvass is meant to protect against: "canvassing ... with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". This clearly was not such a case.

2. Acceptable notices. Per wp:canvass: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That was my intent.

3. Note at AfD regarding notifications. As wp:canvass suggests is good practice, I "left a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made". Actually, I did better than that. I left the note before making the notifications.

4. Neutral wording of notice. The notice, as suggested by wp:canvass, was neutrally worded and brief. It did not even say "You are invited to join the discussion at ...", as the guidance's template does. Instead, it was far more neutral. Saying only:

"Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians."

5. Selection of those notified—known opinions. As suggested by wp:canvass,

"The audience not ... selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."

I did not leave messages for users selected on the basis of their opinions. Precisely the opposite.

6. Selection of those notified—connection to topic of discussion. As suggested by wp:canvass, there was no posting of "messages to users ... with no particular connection with the topic of discussion." To the contrary, all users were ones who had edited this week at one or more of the related AfDs. As suggested, the notices were "On the talk pages of individual users ... who have participated in previous discussions on ... closely related topics".

7. What "excessive cross-posting" means under the guidance: Indiscriminate Notification, and Uninvolved Editors. wp:canvass provides that one should not send notices to an "excessively large number" of individual users. Wp:canvass then clarifies what that means, stating the elements that constitute prohibited excessive cross-posting:

Excessive cross-posting

Important discussions sometimes happen at disparate locations in Misplaced Pages, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-posting to other Wikipedians' talk pages.... indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive.

There was nothing indiscriminate about the posting here. Those posted to were a highly select group. Specifically, those editors who had posted at one of the related AfDs this week. Nor were they "uninvolved editors". Precisely what the guideline indicates is meant by "excessive" cross-posting–the 2 necessary elements of indiscriminate notification, and uninvolved editors–was not the case here. Rather, the polar opposite was the case.

8. Guidance terminology vs. common parlance. I understand terms can have different meanings in common parlance, from how a guidance instructs us to understand them. "Excessive" is such a term. Had the guidance (and its interpretations) not described its meaning, my initial instinct (without any objective foundation) might well have been that "65" would be "excessive" (in normal parlance). I took care before acting, however, to check what "excessive" means under the precise guidance language. It is indeed a wiki-specific interpretation of the phrase, as reflected above.

9. Footnote. A footnote says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Misplaced Pages community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki." See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IZAK#Principles." To understand what "excessive cross-posting" means, see the above para. Not the case here.

Furthermore, the footnoted case is plainly distinguishable.

The editor there violated the principle of "Aggressive use of Misplaced Pages forums to mobilize support for point of view". He sent notices that were "calls to action". The opposite was true here. This was a neutral message. Sent to all editors, without regard to their view, who had edited at the related AfDs this week.

In addition, in the footnoted case there was no rationale for why those particular editors were contacted. That distinguishes it. And as the guidance indicates, indiscriminate posting is a core element of "excessive cross-posting".

It is noteworthy that the editor in that case was not even, btw, sanctioned for canvassing. He was only sanctioned for personal attacks.

10. Guidance on wp:canvass talkpage, in parallel matter: 50 notices is in accord with the guideline. In July of this year, a starkly parallel matter arose at the wp:canvass talkpage. An editor complained when editor Collect contacted 50 editors on their talkpages as to an AfD. Collect had used a neutral notice. He sent it "to everyone practicable" who had participated a prior AfD. Collect felt, the same as I did here, that it "avoided any possible cavil that people were "selected" for the message". He relied on the same guideline language discussed above. The feedback on the guidance talkpage by Kotniski (with which nobody disagreed) was that since Collect sent the message to people on both sides of the debate equally, nobody should have any objection. Kotniski added:

If people have contributed to a discussion, they have a right to know if the same issue is being raised again (essentially, if they are not told, then they are being disenfranchised, by having their previously expressed views ignored). If you're going to inform some, you have to inform all, so if it turns out to be a few dozen (quite a large number), that's just slightly unfortunate. The disruption (if any) comes from the people who continually re-raise the same issue when the previous result went against them.

11. Additional guidance on wp:canvass talkpage. The notion that multiple postings (to all RfA !voters) are not excessive if they: a) are not solicitations to !vote; and b) are made to editors who had previously participated in a related discussion, was discussed at the guideline talkpage here.

12. Common sense. Common sense, which accords with the stated purpose of the guidance, suggests that one should not send notices to so many users as to lead to a disruptive influx of opinion. There was no disruption here.

13. Following the guidance. I'm keenly interested in adhering to the strictures of the guidance, now and in the future. Were the guidance changed to say, instead: "Editors should not contact more than X other editors per any AfD, and more than XY editors per a related group of Y AfDs ... even if the notices are even-handed, and made to parties who have been involved in related discussions", I would be happy to follow that new rule. Or any other new guidance.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block is being very actively discussed at WP:ANI (permalink) and there is, at the very least, no consensus to overturn it. Instead, even after you have posted your overly long unblock request, most editors (including those who I have no reason to assume are or were involved in any dispute with you) agree that both your canvassing and your above attempt to justify it are inappropriate. Under these circumstances, an unblock is not currently indicated. I recommend that you wait until the ANI discussion concludes and then make another unblock request which takes into consideration the outcome of the discussion, and especially the opinions expressed by uninvolved users.  Sandstein  20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment to Epeefleche: after the discussions we had at Andre Geim and their result, I honestly believed that your intent was to be as unbiased as possible, and to provide sources for information. Now, that I find out that you e-mailed (and then left a message on my talk page, I guess only as a courtesy item) tens of editors to come to several AfDs, I am not sure what to think. I am especially hurt by some of your comments to certain editors' talk pages where you claim that there is an effort to remove Jewish pages from Wiki. Those lists are, by far, not the only ones that have problems, and they will be dealt with, in time.

To others: as the "invited" editors have all voted "keep" without discussing the policy issues. (Those lists being "notable intersections" was not even an argument raised, the concerns were related to BLP, EGRS, and Stand-alone Lists policy/guidelines), I believe that the closing administrator must pay extra attention to their weighting.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is ridiculous. I just commented on the ANI, but I'll say it here as well. Epeefleche and I have disagreed in the past and he knows this, so I assumed that approaching me for comment is to get more traffic in otherwise overlooked Afds. Maybe 65 was a lot, but big deal. --Luckymelon (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE Luckmelon has about 100 edits total. His 17th edit on wikipedia was a "delete" vote on a heated Israel-related AfD in which Epeefleche also voted delete. . The AfD discussion spread to WP:ANI and Luckymelon further went on to support a topic ban on a user who did not agree with Epeefleche here: Luckymelon's 19th edit on wikipedia was to comment on an obscure article talk page in support of Epeefleche after a user complained about the "improper tone" of Epeefleche's contributions to the article (). He then goes on to "compliment" Epeefleche's changes to the article (). Luckymelon's first edit after returning from a month-and-a-half-long hiatus was to "oppose" Epeefleche's ban (). He further goes on to leave a strange edit summary referring to User:Tarc (who he has never had any contact with) as "unfriendly Tarc" (). Note that Epeefleche and Tarc have had a history of bad feelings. Needless to say, there is reasonable suspicion (WP:DUCK) that User:LuckyMelon is a block-evading (and at one time votestacking) sockpuppet of Epeefleche. Unless someone else wishes to, I think this should be brought to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. Bulldog123 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

By all means take it to SPI, but let's not make grand public statements about how Epeefleche clearly must be sockpuppeting; you'll only get egg on your face if and when the SPI turns up a negative. GiftigerWunsch 20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• You want to define "grand public statements?" I'm not allowed to bring up an obvious case of WP:DUCK? It's better Epee is made aware his shenanigans are not going unnoticed -- than by doing it "under the radar" and then being accused of "fishing of puppets." Bulldog123 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note In the sockpuppet investigation of Epeefleche initiated by Bulldog123, User:Luckymelon was found to be a sockpuppet of User:Shuki... not of Epeefleche. Sometimes the duck one hears quaking is not the duck one wishes to assume. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuki Schmidt, 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Epeefleche’s posts on user talk pages weren’t cherry-picked in the slightest; editors on both sides of issues received polite notices on their usertalk pages. Moreover, his posts were exceedingly benign and neutral, like this one that the complainant in the ANI used. Misplaced Pages:CANVAS uses a handful of criteria that must be taken together to paint a paint a picture that someone is trying to *game* the system to their advantage. The totality of the evidence could not possibly make it any clearer that Epeefleche’s only objective was as is described in the very first sentence of WP:CANVAS; that of In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Many of the articles on which Epeefleche edits suffer from a chronic lack of participation by the wikipedian community and that makes it exceedingly hard to discern a valid consensus. His approaching the wider community that had weighed in on related issues only points to the fact that Epeefleche is more-than-willing to accede to community consensus—whatever the outcome—rather than slap {{I DON'T LIKE IT}} tags and insist that things go his way. This block is unconscionable and needs to be quickly reversed. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No, as the guideline page makes clear by means of a diagram and the linkers "OR" in the inappropriate section. A message is appropriate if it is Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open, and inappropriate if it is Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret. Mass posting is a violation of WP:CANVAS. GiftigerWunsch 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition, contacting users off-wiki to inform them is a violation of the "Secret" criterion. GiftigerWunsch 19:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, my mistake on the “and”/“or”. The posts show that he went out of his way to be unbiased and neutral. Moreover, there is no bright-line rule in WP:CANVASS to what is “mass” posting and what is limited. Given that it is clear he was just trying to broaden input (via his contacting editors on both sides of the issue; that is, including those who had previously voted against him on issues), how can an indefinite block be justified?

  I personally was involved in a policy battle on WT:MOSNUM because there was a small group of editors insisting that Misplaced Pages use non-standard language like A computer with 256 MiB of RAM. RfC after RfC was conducted and the cabal kept at it for so long (with still more objections and more RfCs), that the community tired and no one checked in on the matter, which had been moved to its own sub-page because of the tedium. I recall having posted a perhaps 15 posts on user pages that amounted to “(*sigh*), There’s another vote on the IEC prefixes. You might be interested in weighing in.” Under the circumstances, that seemed perfectly appropriate and even those IEC-prefix fans didn’t rake me over the coals for that since they could see first-hand that there was voter fatigue.

  As for contacting users off-wiki, I note you enabled your e-mail feature. In fact, I just now e-mailed you to say “Hi”. Do tell, have you never exchanged e-mails with your wikifriends to strategize? Ample electronic white space is provided below for your candid and honest response. I had some black guy e-mail me (there’s my e-mail link on my user page) and appeal to me to reverse a vote of mine in an RfC over a graph showing the bell curves of intelligence for the different races. I didn’t posture with feigned great wikidrama grief and make a stink out of that; I politely responded that I had no intention of changing my vote. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. All Epeefleche did was get WP:BOLD with who he contacted rather than engage in the standard dance with months-worth of beating around the bush and feeling each other out in one’s e-mails until one knows whether they have a trusted friend and ally. So I’ll have none of this hypocritical garbage about “Secret”; it’s just a catch-all tool used to whack someone who has made some enemies—which one can do when they specialize on religious and terror-related articles.

  The appropriate thing to do here would have been—at most—a 24-hour, first-time block and warning that he should better familiarize himself with the guidelines regarding mass postings. This is an obscene injustice right now.

  So just pardon me all over the place for saying what is exactly on my mind, but it seems that Epeefleche accumulated some enemies who are now exploiting some “payback” time here and have somehow managed to pull out a ridiculous indefinite ban in place of something more limited and appropriate. Greg L (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if you knew the difference between a block and a ban before making comments like this (WP:BLOCKBANDIFF). Rd232 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if you didn’t pretend to have insight into what I do and don’t know ‘before making comments like this.’ I’ve seen “indefinites” that have gone for more than a year. Greg L (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you need to address the email issue. You also base your lengthy disquisition supporting your position on the view that editors participating in one AFD were "involved" in closely related AFDs they hadn't participated in, which is extremely shaky. I can see why you might think that, but perhaps you can also see that policy should not be interpreted that way. Rd232 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I’ll start out here for him by proxy, as I have great distaste for hypocritical behavior on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else for that mater. I’m speaking in general terms and am not targeting you specifically with that comment. See the last three paragraphs of my above post regarding e-mails. Greg L (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The existence of email does not negate the existence of policy against abusing it. And judging by your comments so far, Epeefleche is better off without your intervention here. General discussion should stay at ANI. Rd232 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. That doesn’t mean it is valid, however. And now that you saw fit to weigh in as you did, I see that you too have your e-mail feature enabled. So, do tell: Have you ever exchanged secret e-mails with wikifriends? To strategize, perhaps? To ask for assistance or guidance, perhaps? Do tell: do you use your e-mail feature with other wikipedians to discuss only the weather??? Ample electronic white space is available below for a candid and honest answer. I am very much looking forward to seeing your answer. We’ll compare it to your above comment taking Epeefleche to task for e-mailing other wikipedians. In order to further explore just what in the world this e-mail feature is that wikipedians can enable, I just e-mailed you too just to say “Hi” and tell of the weather here (the snow is melting). That is, after all, all you use your e-mail for with other wikipedians, right? That is your position? Greg L (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Just in case it is not obvious, I am employing satire for effect in order to comment about rampant hypocrisy on Misplaced Pages. Greg L (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that you are not helping Epeefleche. In fact your "satire" borders on disruption. Rd232 20:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What GregL has described as Epeefleche's behaviour (selectively contacting people off-wiki to sound them out as potential future allies in specific topics), regardless of the topic involved, is disruptive, period. It has little to do with making enemies, that is just a smokescreen being used by supporterd to try and hide the real problem. I also tend to agree with Rd232 in that GregL is only helping to dig a deeper hole by trying to justify Epeefleche's actions. The block will be reduced/lifted if and when Epeefleche acknowledges that this kind of behaviour is disruptive and it is accepted that they will not induldge in the same in future. _wjemather 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not too much to ask, Wjemather, that editors practice what they preach. Would you agree with that statement or not? And please don’t accuse me of throwing up a “smoke screen”; that is a failure to assume good faith for I believe it is entirely appropriate to expect that rules be applied evenly. Rd232, please answer my question above. Have you exchanged e-mails with other wikipedians before? Don’t duck the question. You are taking Epeefleche to task for using the e-mail feature to e-mail other editors. So, have you received and/or sent e-mails using Misplaced Pages’s e-mail feature (which is available to all registered wikipedians) and do you now exchange e-mails directly with wikifriends and simply bypass Misplaced Pages’s e-mail feature for convenience? Have you every “secretly” strategized with these friends? If you expect to be perceived as taking the high road, let’s see if you really practice what you preach and really take the high road.” Greg L (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Sandstein whom I respect as a fair, if tough admin: Isn't it inconsistent to refuse an unblock while an ANI discussion is ongoing ( which makes perfect sense), unless the block, and an indefinite block at that, was carried out during that same ANI discussion. What was the status of the editor before the ANI discussion. Isn't that the stable, pre ANI position? (olive (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

Administrators should not lightly overturn another administrator's action. Per WP:ADMIN, "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." In this case, the discussion is very much ongoing and an unblock would therefore be premature unless the discussion shows clear consensus for an unblock, which is not the case. After the discussion has concluded, another unblock request may be more usefully evaluated in the light of the outcome of the discussion.  Sandstein  21:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I respect, and of course understand that position. My concern is that the block itself was carried out during that same ANI discussion. Perhaps an unblock does not correct what may have been an initial mistaken action. I'm not saying the action was wrong just that I personally think it was hasty carried out as it was in the middle of a discussion, and probably too severe if a block was warranted at all. Thanks for your reply.(olive (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

Holy smokes! You are all walking right into this one. I see that you too, Wjemather, have your e-mail services activated. So the above questions apply to you. Do you exchange e-mails with other wikipedians and not reveal the content of those e-mails on your talk page? Have you ever strategized with any of your wikipedian friends or requested their assistance with an on-Wiki matter? If you have done so, couldn’t that be seen as a violation of rules? Since you have your e-mail feature activated, and we are discussing another editor’s use of that feature (and you are criticizing that conduct), this seems a probative and fair question under the circumstances. Greg L (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend reading the first two sentences of WP:CANVAS, Greg. Canvassing involves notifying users of ongoing discussion; none of the rules surrounding canvassing apply to anything else. Using e-mail is not a problem; using e-mail to secretly inform users of ongoing discussions is a serious problem. GiftigerWunsch 21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice oratory. Well played. Let’s all acknowledge the 800-pound gorilla in the bedroom (a topic so sensitive it’s better to just not touch upon the issue). But many of us have our e-mail services enabled. And many of us have used that service to establish behind-the-scenes communications with people who are wikifriends and with whom we have private communications. For the most part, the wisest of us play a “feel ‘em out” game of ever-increasing boldness until the parties have gained mutual trust. In this case, Epeefleche didn’t exercise such caution and used Misplaced Pages’s built-in e-mail feature to contact editors who A) didn’t appreciate it, and B) ratted him out. That’s like a politician playing hanky panky with the interns: About the only response behind closed doors is “Ha! You damned fool! You got caught! Don’t be so careless next time.” Greg L (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg L, you seem to be very well-versed in the finer points of successfully conducting off-wiki strategy sessions without getting caught. You seem to be very interested in whether or not different users have their email option enabled. What you don't seem to understand is that contacting users by email is not, by default, "against the rules". There is nothing wrong with using email to contact other users. However, contacting users off-wiki in an attempt to stack votes at an AfD is against the rules. So, accusing other users of hypocrisy simply because they have enabled the email option on their WP account is clearly ludicrous. If you can prove that another user here has been shown in the past to conduct off-wiki votestacking campaigns, then you might have a case to accuse other editors of being hypocritical. Until that time, however, I think your comments are doing Epee more harm than help. SnottyWong  21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bulldog123, go for it. I'm calling your bluff, though I know you have no guts. Take me to SPI, or remove your childish and misleading accusations here from this page. If you don't, I think I'll take you to AE for that baseless attack. --Luckymelon (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it baseless necessarily. This is obviously not your first account, since you know your way around WP far better than a legit user with 99 edits would. Also, you have edited 13 pages which Epee has also edited. For an editor with so few edits, it seems plausible that it could be more than a coincidence. Finally, Epee has been blocked for sockpuppeting in the past, so it is not out of the question. I think it would be worth it to run an SPI, just in case. SnottyWong  22:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. For the record, I have no problem being proven wrong (insofar as the check proves you are not a sock, but in fact, a meat). The meatpuppet claim is pretty much without a reasonable doubt. Why? Because you've been caught in a blatant lie () The Epeefleche account has not notified you (AKA your account) at all through wikipedia. Given you do not have an email registered for your Luckymelon account and given there are no diffs providing that your account and Epee's account "shared contact information," the only other way you could have been "notified" (your words: ) is in real life. Next time plan out your trolling attempts a little better. Bulldog123 22:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note In the sockpuppet investigation of Epeefleche initiated by Bulldog123, User:Luckymelon was found to be a sockpuppet of User:Shuki... not of Epeefleche. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuki Schmidt, 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope of off-wiki notifications

Echo that. Epeefleche, the email issue needs explaining, and a clear and brief acknowledgement is required that regardless of how much you thought you were doing the right thing, CANVAS cannot and should not be interpreted to permit this type of action (by this I mean the onwiki canvassing you did, plus any kind of email canvassing). The key point is that the editors you contacted had not been involved in (most of) the AFDs you were pointing them to. Rd232 22:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

let us sum

So what's really going on here. A good content editor with no block record at all is blocked for alleged canvasing. Let assume that canvassing really happened. Why the editor is blocked indefinitely? Was wikipedia threatened by their actions so much that an urgent block during AN/I discussion was warranted? What this block is going to prevent? This block is wrong, it is punitive. It created unnecessary drama. A blocking admin misused his administrative tools. I simply cannot believe that almost 24 hours later the editor is still blocked. The editor was blocked with no consensus by a single cowboy's administrative action. Surely they could be unblocked with no consensus either, and besides what Sandstein has missed in the unblock request is that the editor did apologize. To keep the editor blocked after an apology is not warranted at all. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't want an apology, we want recognition that they violated WP:CANVAS and agreement not to do so in future. As long as we have that, they can be as unrepenting as they want. GiftigerWunsch 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a wrong approach for lifting blocks. The offense, if any was not a very big one, indefinite site block, and probably any length of block was absolutely unwarranted. In a worse case scenario a topic ban could have been just fine. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The "length" of the block is until the user agrees not to inappropriately canvas again. That's exactly how long the block needs to be. GiftigerWunsch 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, have you actually looked at Epee's block log? Saying that there is "no block record at all" is... well, just incorrect. Second of all, the block is not punitive. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the ANI page, so I'm not going to explain it again. Epee has a history of inappropriate canvassing. Check the ANI archives. If this was the first time he had done something like this, then an indef would be way out of proportion. Thirdly, Epee has not apologized. He apologized if he inadvertently "created the appearance of impropriety". In other words, he apologized for doing something that might have appeared to be wrong or disruptive, when in reality it wasn't (or so he believes). He clearly still refuses to acknowledge that what he did was wrong, and he has not resolved to not do it anymore. No one is looking to force an apology or anything. We just need to know that he understands what he did, why it was wrong, and that he won't do it anymore. I don't think that is very difficult. The fact that he is still blocked is his own fault, since he has not been very active here today. It appears he is just trying to wait it out. Unblocking now would not only reward him for minimally engaging the community, it would also send the message that what he did wasn't that bad. An unblock should not be performed until the blocking admin's instructions have been satisfied. SnottyWong  22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote: any claims of prior history of canvassing don't really matter in relation to this block, but any truth in that does support the need for the block to ensure that an appropriate recognition of policy is forthcoming. In addition, a number of people are overlooking the significance of the email canvassing; email canvassing is difficult enough to police that any sign of it needs to be taken very seriously, as the potential for disrupting WP processes is huge. The slope from onwiki canvassing to site ban is long; from repeated email canvassing, not so much. Rd232 22:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read the editor block record, and repeat the editor has no prior blocking history. Have you read and understood the editor's block record?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but irrelevant. Rd232 22:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to end Epeefleche's block

I have seen a lot of different hypothetical conditions for an unblock here, but I think it would be sufficient if Epeefleche were to state that he is aware that his 65-notification event and the earlier email outreach are being described by many admins as WP:CANVASSING and that in future 1) He will not ping more than 5 X* editors inwiki as to any specific article discussion and 2) He will not use any off-wiki communications, no matter how neutrally worded, to notify people of any inwiki discussions. (Of course he is free like the rest of us to use email for a wide range of other discussions.) This would not need to be an apology, for perhaps he felt quite justified in his actions, just an acknowledgment of rules to follow in the future. Then he can get back to being a productive contributor to Misplaced Pages, albeit one whose opinions are often very different from mine. betsythedevine (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC) * Where X is some number generally thought OK. I redacted my earlier WAG 5 in response to suggestions from SW and Rd232. betsythedevine (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that proposal. SnottyWong  00:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't. To be unblocked, he should clarify his understanding of the policy, and clarify what he did by email. Any unusual restrictions beyond the policy would be a matter for AN/ANI. Rd232 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that those are unusual restrictions. I think those are restrictions imposed on all editors by WP:CANVAS. Yes, I can see how the first condition limiting him to notifying no more than 5 editors is more of a topic ban proposal, so maybe that's what you're referring to. Perhaps that could be reworded so that it is less of a topic ban restriction, and more of a restatement of WP:CANVAS. The second restriction on off-wiki notifications, however, is basically just a restatement of WP:CANVAS. I am definitely supportive of the notion that an apology is not required, just an acknowledgement per betsy. SnottyWong  00:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the limit of 5 editors I was referring to. Rd232 01:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think the limit of 5 is inappropriate, your guess is probably better than mine. But clearly some guidance on the number of notifications that is ok should happen, hopefully some number way less than is likely to make consensus impossible. The thing is, if you think Misplaced Pages discussions should converge to a consensus by uninvolved editors, the last thing that should happen is to have two "sides" dragging in partisans to yell and holler. OK, I redacted my proposal slightly changing 5 to X. betsythedevine (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any fixed number is workable or necessary; this is one case where it is essential to understand the spirit of the rules, because it's too hard to legislate in detail. Perhaps the general canvassing guidance can be improved, but that's a matter for WT:CANVAS. Rd232 10:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - What I find frankly amazing is that someone can be indef blocked for a single incident, an incident that can be interpreted in two possible ways, without any thought or consideration of his/her contributions to this encyclopedia. Editors here seem to be real disposable. One disputable incident and you have a bunch of "Queens" shouting Off with his head!. Some of you think nothing of knocking people off the playing board left and right. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. You need experienced editors at Misplaced Pages in the worst way. This business of knocking people off for months or years at a time is not only unfair, but it goes against the the very spirit of Misplaced Pages and gives Misplaced Pages a black eye. Look at the whole person, not at one incident in a person's Wiki lifetime. Admins are supposed to act as judges to help move this project forward. Judges are supposed to be discriminating, to consider ALL the evidence. The evidence includes the past record, not just of reprimands but also of full body of work accomplished. The admins not supposed to act as executioners. Please reconsider this block. 172.190.87.241 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Another editor who doesn't understand the difference between an indefinite block and a permanent ban... perhaps we need some kind of "Blocks Vs Bans Education Week"! Anyway, see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Rd232 10:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support all of the above. Let Epee just submit to the maunderings of a random lynch mob, and he can be restored to freedom. If a technical violation that does no harm doesn't result in an indef-block, what on earth will? We can laugh at racism, anti-semtisim, anti-Arabism, homophobia, but excessive posting? Thank our Intelligent Designer we've drawn a line. IronDuke 04:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to implement strange restrictions. The terms of the original block are quite reasonable, and would have allowed him to be unblocked immediately without any editing restrictions. If he shows that he understands his actions violated WP:CANVASS, he'll be unblocked without any fuss at all.—Kww(talk) 04:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. This should have been over and done with and Epeefleche unblocked by now. All that was needed is a demonstration of an understanding of what constitutes canvassing, acknowledgement that their emails and postings constituted a violation and an assertion that they will not engage in such activity in future. However, all we have from Epeefleche so far is a long explanation of why they still think that they have done nothing wrong. _wjemather 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest, I don't think any of this has made a blind bit of difference. In the end, the block is dependent on Epeefleche and them alone: if xe recognises WP:CANVAS and indicates that xe will learn from this experience and not violate it again, xe'll be unblocked; if not, then xe should remain blocked, as clearly xe'll simply continue to misinterpret and violate CANVAS. Nothing anyone says here is going to detract from Epeefleche's ability to end this block simply by accepting and abiding by the established guideline. GiftigerWunsch 11:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How about just lifting the block and reapplying in the future if it occurs again. If it does not occur again, that will be the tacit admission that you seek. Everyone wins. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be more of an option if the behaviour were one which was necessarily detectable. This is not true of email canvassing, so it is essential to at least have a declaration that we can accept in good faith that the user understands the policy. Rd232 11:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but does anyone really think he's going to do that again? After all this? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think he'd do it again if we unblock him and send the message that everyone doesn't think that what he did was wrong. The conditions under which an unblock would be granted are extremely simple for Epee to attain. No one is making him jump through any difficult hoops. His tactics right now (presumably) are to wait it out and hope that the pressure being built up by everyone saying "this block has gone on for too long" will eventually prompt someone to unblock him. The only reason the block has persisted for this long is because Epee is being largely unresponsive, and unblocking him now would only reward that unresponsiveness. There is no reason to unblock him until he satisfies the extremely elementary conditions set by the blocking admin. SnottyWong  14:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand insisting that a person grovel in order to get a block lifted. Rd232 suggests that Epeefleche is "put off" from understanding what WP:CANVAS means because he is distracted by others' comments. The idea that because the "behaviour" is not detectable, the editor will necessarily repeat it unless there is a "declaration" to demonstrate "understanding" before offering the second chance doesn't assume good faith & on the contrary implies a rather low opinion of Epeefleche's intelligence. Rd232 may not have meant it in this way, but it can be easily interpreted this way. By the same token, it is possible to interpret Epeefleche's behavior in both a negative and a more positive way. Snottywong's rationale for not unblocking Epeefleche is that it would 'reward' him for being 'unresponsive', as if he were some Pavlovian dog. 172.129.7.50 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• First edit to Misplaced Pages? Somehow I doubt that very much, so who are you? It is a fact that the likelihood of repetition goes down if someone publicly acknowledges wrong doing and declares that s/he will not repeat the behavior. Whether or not that happens in this instance, it is certainly within the rights of a community to ask for this type of acknowledgement from someone who wishes to remain one of its members. From a practical standpoint it also reduces drama and wiki-lawyering should the individual repeat the behavior in the future, since there it is clear now that they are willfully misbehaving. In fact that is one of the deterrents that makes the likelihood of repetition decrease in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See also User:172.190.87.241. Rd232 17:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What that suppose to mean? One more fishing SPI in progress? How one could claim that it is a first edit made by this person? Please assume good faith if this is not so much to ask for. Besides the above two posts do not belong here. If you want to ask IP a question, please post to their talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fishing SPI? Are you being serious or are you trolling me? I apologize that the SPI unexpectedly uncovered a different user was votestacking Israel-related AfDs that Epeefleche frequented... but that - by no means - makes it fishing. Circumstantial evidence like "asking if it's okay to watch his talk page" and "coming to his defense at all opportune times" - especially for a user with 99 edits and 13 coinciding article-space edits - is all classic sockpuppeting behavior. It doesn't get thrown out the window just because Shuki is a likely IRL friend working under-the-radar (No reason he couldn't use his main account to come over and support Epee). Making new accounts for these purposes is hiding something. Fishing would be making a SPI report with your username and Epeefleche's - or some other user-combo that has no evidence to support it. Bulldog123 18:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no SPI I'm aware of, because there's no known probable sock-master. But there should be, because clearly this user (on AOL, hence IP-hopping) is not a newcomer, and most likely is a currently active editor logged out. Given the AOL IP-hopping and that they must be fully aware of what they're doing, posting to their talk page is pointless. Rd232 18:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• No one is asking him to grovel. I haven't asked him to apologize for violating WP:CANVASS, or to claim that he was unjustified in doing so, merely to acknowledge that he did, because if he doesn't acknowledge that he did, it shows he doesn't understand it. This is important, because willful misbehaviour is more serious than accidental misbehaviour. If he never acknowledges his violation, then his next violation will also be an "innocent mistake", as will the one after that. It's important that such repetitions are prevented, and understanding is the key to that. It goes without saying that if he demonstrates understanding and repeats the behaviour anyway, he won't have a credible defense at that point.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche comment

I apologize for not having left comment at the AN/I (the basis for my block). My block prevented me from addressing mis-statements there. To clarify certain matters:

1. On-wiki note. I appreciate blocking sysop Kww having left the following note, after my unblock request:

"I could be persuaded to listen to a defense that claimed that while the original e-mail contacts where wholly inexcusable, the follow-up of 65 postings was an effort to repair the damage. Claiming that both actions were acceptable is a non-starter, though.—Kww"

Yes, my 65 postings were an effort to repair the damage raised by the cloud of suspicion created by Bull's complaint. Had his complaint been true, it would have meant that Keep !voters had been made aware of the related AfDs. But that Delete !voters had not. By contacting all AfD participants, I was eliminating that possibility.

While that addresses the 65 postings, one remaining issue troubles the blocking admin. That issue, which he indicates is the wholly inexcusable clear violation that is the remaining basis for my indef block, is my email contacts.

2. 2 Emails—recipients. The emails, discussed here and at the AN/I, consist of 2 identical emails. They were to DustFormsWords and to Dougweller.

Though I was a straight-Keep !voter at the related AfDs, Dust and Dougweller held views contrary to mine. Dust had !voted both Keep and Delete. Dougweller had only !voted Delete.

The editors were ones who I recognized as thoughtful editors. My purpose in contacting them was—as they had commented at the entertainer AfD, but not the co-extensive actor AfD—to let them know of the existence of the co-extensive AfD. (The emails did not mention the other 4 Jewish list AfDs).

3. 2 Emails—contents. The emails were completely neutral. They said:

Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it

interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors

4. Possible third email. I believe I may have sent the same email to a third editor, but can't recall for sure if that was the case, or who it may have been. Having sent the 2 (or 3) emails through the wiki email feature, where the default is to not retain the email, I have no outbox record with which to check. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And your motivation for e-mailing at all?—Kww(talk) 19:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed--why not keep wiki stuff on-wiki for transparency's sake? Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And why would you have only contacted those two particular users off-wiki, and not all of the editors who "commented on a similar AfD"? SnottyWong  20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why them? I noticed they had !voted on the entertainer AfD, but not the co-extensive actor AfD. I recognized them, specifically, as thoughtful editors. I don't recall if there were other editors at the time who fell into both those categories. The purpose was to let them know of the existence of the 1 co-extensive AfD.

Was this an effort to attract 2 Keep !votes? No, as I think is obvious. These editors held views contrary to mine. And the notice was eminently neutral. And related only to the 1 co-extensive AfD. Even ignoring wp:agf, these reflect that the purpose of the email was as I indicate.

Why email, and not on-wiki? I could have left the 2 notes on-wiki. They were the neutral mention of 1 related AfD, to a !voter w/a contrary view. Then again, it may have been one of those days in which I awoke to find Betsy rifling through my underwear drawer, Bull nosing through my trash, and Snotty dripping from my faucet—and may have in that moment thought, "why needlessly attract contentious behavior, from editors who I believe have aggressively conflated facts in the past"?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep votes are one thing. Didn't you believe that by encouraging wider discussion of the articles, you increased the chance of the articles being kept? If not, what motivation did you have to notify anyone of the AFDs?—Kww(talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're pressing a point that's not that worthwhile, Kww. Believing things should be kept is every editor's right, as is taking actions within community expectations consistent with that belief. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No editor is allowed to make contact with any other editor with the intent of influencing the result of a community discussion. If his intent was to influence the outcome, it's canvassing. "Improving the quality of a discussion", which is specifically allowed by WP:CANVASS, is a fairly credible motivation when it comes to tuning a guideline, figuring out which sources are reliable, a myriad of other things. For an editor that believes that there is an energetic effort to delete lists of Jews to state that his motivation had nothing to do with countering that effort begs credibility.—Kww(talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kww: No – I certainly didn't believe that by encouraging input from 2 editors with Delete views, with a notice mentioning only the 1 co-extensive actor/entertainer AfD, using a completely neutral note, that I would increase the chance of the article being kept. Even if one chooses to not agf, that would be highly counter-intuitive. My motivation was as aforesaid.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kww: I did not contact the 2 editors to influence the result in an AfD. It begs credulity, IMHO, to imagine that the 2 neutral emails here, to editors with contrary views, serve that purpose. Even if you do not agf, and simply look at the facts. Just the opposite. If your other point is that I was supportive of the articles being kept, yes – that is accurate. But as to the 6 concurrent AfDs of Jewish lists, I don't think there is much question that the effort to delete them is energetic.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but that last bit is a pretty dumb answer. If you knew that on wiki notification would attract controversy, why on earth did you think that email would be any better? My personal approach? Strive to be above reproach and keep all dealings on-wiki, so there can be no questions like these. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My reasons were as aforesaid. I did completely fail to anticipate that my 2 emails, completely neutral, mentioning in each case the existence of 1 related co-extensive AfD, to 2 editors with views contrary to mine, would be construed by editors acting in accord with wp:agf as a wholly inexcusable clear violation of wp:canvass that warrants my being indefinitely blocked. I was in fact not wise enough to anticipate this, and agree that I was dumb in that respect. Now, I am wiser.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are wiser now, but I do not believe you were dumb to begin with. How for example should have you known that bulldog has no ability to assume good faith whatsoever?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you have got the message, as you say, and we'll have to AGF that you didn't intend to change the AFD outcome in your favour. But it should be said, since your reply still leaves a little ambiguity as to your understanding: WP:CANVAS states simply an incontrovertibly that "inappropriate notification" includes "Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)". Contacting even one editor off-wiki is inappropriate notification, whoever they are and however the notification is phrased. In addition, we'll again AGF that you thought your 65-editor notification extravaganza was fine; again this breaches the pretty clear guidelines of WP:CANVAS#Spamming and excessive cross-posting: you might have seen these editors as "involved", but that's not a tenable definition and in any case with posting on that scale it wouldn't matter if they were. Rd232 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Rd232 – I've indicated below my continued commitment to the stealth canvassing provision in wp:canvass, regarding attempts to persuade others to join in discussions. As to the "scale" issue, I refer you to my above discussion of it, and in particular to the guidance indicating that 50 such notices was in accord with the guideline. Finally, I think it is evident that the editors were involved in the general issue; that is reflected by the fact that the discussions at the 6 AfDs this week included so many common issues, and common commentators, and the articles were in common categories.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still completely confused. If your intention wasn't to influence the result of the AfD's (whether pushing them towards keep or ensuring a no consensus close), then what exactly was your intention? Why would you notify users of an AfD, apart from some desire to influence the result of the AfD in some way? SnottyWong  21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Snotty–To paraphrase a saying of my father, "sometimes what Peter asks Paul, tells you more about Peter than about Paul." I recognize that some editors see the Project as one in which "winning" is achieved by "getting one's way". Some even lie to that end, or conflate circumstances wildly, as we have seen in this matter. Other editors, and I strive to be one of them, view themselves and their fellow thoughtful and honest editors—of whatever opinion—as judges on an appellate court panel, debating issues energetically in the belief that the collective decision made by such editors will be the best one. To that end, I think it best for the thoughtful/honest editors to know of conversations that may interest them, whether or not they have views contrary to yours, and whether they choose to follow the discourse or not.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You probably want to monitor WP:ANI#Epeefleche is at least talking, where I have solicited input as to whether you have met the unblock criterion. I don't believe you have, but I'm willing to listen to counterarguments.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. Do you remember what was in the email you sent DGG; and was DGG !voting keep or delete in other AFD's? Anthony (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I first contacted DGG on his talk page. At the time, he was not involved. After he !voted, I emailed him for reasons unrelated to how one might vote, such as to alert him to alert him to my having quoted him and others having mentioned him in postings (the AfDs were long, and I thought it a politeness to mention them as he may otherwise have missed them), and to clarify to him the Dust/Doug email (leading to his suggestion that I clarify their nature and number).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

that was indeed the nature & timing of the email. I think he did well to send it to me, because I have previously expressed some annoyance at being quoted (by various people) out of context, as the view quoted might not be my view about the current situation. I would much rather be asked first, when I will generally say to please let me express my own view myself at whatever discussion is in question, and give it after I form my own judgment. Of course, I would much rather be asked on-wiki. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The emails were my worry. As I said, the defense Epee made of the 65 is clear and logically valid, (though I can't vouch for soundness, as I've limited experience with WP:CANVAS), so at least the canvassing element of the RFC:U should be a relatively straightforward discussion about interpretation of how many is too many in a given situation. Anthony (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me regret this

I'll unblock you on a simpler condition: state that you recognize that contacting other editors via e-mail about AFDs is always inappropriate, based on the "stealth canvassing" language at WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification, and you won't do so again.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I recognize, and commit to following carefully and completely, wp:canvass, which provides that the following is inappropriate (and may be seen as disruptive): "Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)."--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are unblocked. I'll assume good faith that your carefully and completely language won't be stretched to find specific reasons not to use talk pages. It's a vanishingly rare situation that there is a reason to discuss an AFD at any location besides the AFD itself.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've stricken the offending words, per your comment. Despite being somewhat perplexed as to why you would ever want me to follow the rule in a less-than-careful manner. Or in a less-than-complete manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back, but to tell you the truth I still have a very difficult time believing and accepting the events of the two last days. It was depressing to watch how an elephant was made out of a fly, and how much time was wasted. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I can only echo what Mbz says, It's good to have you Back. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Good to see that you were unblocked. Obviously, we've never met; I took offense at what I perceived as your unjust treatment during the discussion, and became involved. While I seriously doubt you've seen the end of this ordeal, I hope that the proposed RFC/U discussion turns out for the best. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm glad that you're back, Epee. Rough two days. Now get back to work on those articles! :P Silverseren 00:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

      I just looked at how many "those articles" you wrote, and realized yet another time how different are your contributions and contributions of your self-appointed judges. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 nsaum75  has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Good example

It has been suggested that consensus is impossible to find when there are too many participants in a discussion. This is not the case at AFD though as this has a simple binary proposition: to delete or not to delete. Examples of such discussions which had 100+ contributors but which still delivered a result include:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle — Keep
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater — Delete

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

		Misplaced Pages Motivation Award
		Thanks for your efforts to motivate good participation in our discussions. These can become stale and unproductive if we just hear from the usual suspects and so it is good to encourage others to speak up too. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference nytimes1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Saloman, Deborah (April 7, 2010). "Blue Devils' Advocate Sounds Off". Southern Pines, North Carolina: The Pilot. Retrieved April 8, 2010.
3. Cite error: The named reference sport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Bannon, Terry (December 16, 2007). "He's caught off guard; Scheyer adjusting to new role as sub for No. 6 Blue Devils". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 15, 2010.
5. "Duke Blue Devils Basketball Statistical Database". GoDuke.com. Retrieved April 4, 2010.
6. "Sherron Collins Named Wooden Award All-American". Wibw.com. April 1, 2010. Retrieved April 2, 2010.
7. Corcoran, Tully (April 3, 2010). "KU's Collins an All-American". The Topeka Capital-Journal. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
8. Cite error: The named reference allacc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. "Accolades Pour in for Scheyer, Singler and Smith". GoDuke.com. March 16, 2010. Retrieved March 16, 2010.
10. Powers, Scott (April 2, 2010). "Making memories – After three NCAA disappointments, Duke's Scheyer living his childhood dream". ESPN.com. Retrieved April 4, 2010.