Misplaced Pages

An exception is clearly this close by User:Nihonjoe as sucessful in the discretionary zone at 78.6 percent nearly 2.5 hours before time was up. This obviously should not happen. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading things wrong, but that one appears to have been closed 2.5 hours late. That diff clearly shows the close time to be 10:01 am, and it was closed at 12:25 pm. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was going by xeno's timings. Should always learn to check these things. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa, stand on me. –xeno 13:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Idly wondering

RFA canvassing

Does this count as canvassing for a particular result in an RFA? I supported the RFA (which is due to close in a few hours), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As the talk page has 473 watchers, and the user full well knows this, I'd say "yes". --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree. It's his talk page. Arbcom elections have similar campaigns and I don't see the difference here. Besides, it could end up positive for the candidate. AD 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear canvassing. Wifione _....... 03:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is, but I didn't see evidence that it had a major effect on the course of the RFA. A number of opposes and supports were added after the incident with no apparent connection to it. bibliomaniac15 04:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear: are users forbidden to express their opinion on an RfA on their own usertalk page? Are they permitted to voice their opinions so long as their userpage has < n watchers, where n =... what, exactly? MastCell  05:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just expressing one's own opinion on one's own user talk page is not considered canvassing. If he had proceeded to post that same opinion on multiple other talk pages, that would be canvassing. This is very clearly not canvassing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding specifically to MastCell's point (despite the indenting), the correct place to express an opinion on an RFA is at the RFA page set up for that purpose. Expressing an opinion elsewhere risks skewing the results by drawing an unrepresentative sample of people to the RFA. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well yebut - wasn't this editor only recently the subject of an ArbCase clarification which revolved around their use of their (well-watched) user-talk page to advocate certain edits by others, or suspicion thereof? Nothing in the recent ArbCom findings applies here, but it's a worrisome trend. Franamax (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. My opinion is that this is a clear case of canvassing for people to go and "say no" on that RFA (which has now closed). I appreciate that the canvassing came late in the day (only a few hours and a few comments before the close), so it had no appreciable effect, but it was still, in my opinion, an attempt to affect the result of the RFA. One way to find out would be to ask the editor in question why he made that edit and who he was addressing that edit to. There is also a clear difference between drawing people's attention to an RFA (sometimes acceptable depending on the context), and explicitly asking people to vote one way or the other (not acceptable, in my view).
• If you look at the history of the user talk page in question, there are a series of edits that are clearly addressed to a watching audience - which I see as a misuse of a user talk page. User talk pages should be for messages to the person whose page it is, or for short discussions that don't really fit anywhere else. User talk pages should not be a venue for centralised discussions best held elsewhere, and they should not be a place to make announcements to a group of users you know are watching your talk page. Finally, I disagree that there are not instances of opposes made to the RFA that likely appeared after the canvassing notice appeared on the user talk page. What I would do is look at the opposes that appeared after the notice was posted, and see whether those people normally vote in RFAs or not.
• To give another example of how a notice elsewhere draws people to a discussion: xeno notified the user of this discussion (thanks for doing that, xeno), and that could have prompted subsequent edits here by people watching that user talk page. That's nothing new, but the point I'm making here is that notices left on user talk pages, even your own user talk page, can act as notification to more people than just the user whose talk page it is. I think that WP:CANVASS should take that into account, if it doesn't already, but that would be a discussion for the talk page over there.
• As far as this matter goes, I would hope that the following happens: (1) Someone asks the editor why they made that edit and who they were talking to; (2) The distinction is made clear that the edit was not just drawing attention to the RFA, but was explicitly advocating opposition; (3) That bureaucrats say what they will do in future if a notice of this nature (or similar) appears elsewhere on-wiki at the start of an RFA (or point to previous discussions on this sort of thing).

Apologies for the length of this post, but I wanted to make my points clear. Carcharoth (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for Arbs to try to influence the opinions of the community in this manner. Please try not to engage in contentious advocacy of this nature while there is a chance that it hurts your office. I am not entirely serious, obviously. Hans Adler 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming I am allowed to comment here (life is too short to read all the small print) I am inclined to say that anyone who adds a user talk page to their watch list does so at their own risk, it is still a user talk page with allowed liberties. Canvassing is approaching other people with your views, whereas people who have watched your talkpage have already asked the question. Within some limits people are free to express their views on stuff and it is a bit counterproductive to try to deal with a symptom rather than the problem. The problem is a mismatch (demonstrated by the numbers of talk pages watchers) between the number of people in the community are either interested, amused or enjoy being outraged by WMC's opinions and the view that Winston Smith should have no voice (as it were). Why not credit the rest of us with enough sense to see opinions in context? I have never seen many people running around to support WMC mindlessly, half the time he is disagreed with. --BozMo talk 09:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I moved from oppose to neutral in the RfA after a constructive discussion with Ling.Nut on his talkpage. There is no way any personal opinion WMC could have put on his talkpage would have changed me back to oppose. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Forbidding users from posting their reasonable opinions on their own talk pages is an idea that is so bad that I don't even know where to begin. May I suggest that you, Carcharoth, in the future run all public statements on-Wiki by me before making them? Use form X-15-666.1984, in triplicate, please. I promise that I will quickly process such requests and let you know, often within the same quarter, if the statement, made by an influential and well-watched member of the community, will potentially exercise undue undue influence on the mindless masses so as to lead to results not desirable for The Community, or whether it is harmless fluff that you are allowed to post. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: About these "discussions best held elsewhere" — exactly where would you suggest when editors are restricted to their own talk pages, and you would further restrict what can be discussed there? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors restricted to their own talk pages should be addressing the reasons they were blocked. If someone who is blocked wants to comment at an RFA, they should get their priorities straight and first address the reasons why they were blocked. Once that is done, they would likely be unblocked, and then they could comment on the RFA. User talk pages are not a space for people to carry on participating in the encyclopedia while they are blocked, but that is exactly what happened here. If they don't accept the reason they were blocked, fine, appeal the block, or wait for the block to expire, but don't spend the period of time until the block expires trying to circumvent the block by addressing a talk page audience and attempting to influence the outcome of matters elsewhere, including an RFA they happen to spot and want to express an opinion on. Seriously, if any other blocked editor had put up a notice telling his talk page watchers to go and vote no on an RFA, what would have happened? Anyway, I am busy now until Friday evening, but I hope that more bureaucrats will comment here than have done so far (I think two have commented so far, one retracting his earlier statement). My initial post here was a question asking the bureaucrats as a group whether this edit was canvassing, but typically the discussion has got out of control with people drawing incorrect comparison with ArbCom elections (a completely different kettle of fish to RFAs) and using ridicule and satire to divert attention from the real issues here. Put simply, I saw what I still see as blatant non-neutral canvassing related to an RFA, and I reported it here to the bureaucrats. I am still hopeful that the bureaucrats as a group will be prepared to give an answer to the questions I posed above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if any other blocked editor had put up a notice telling his talk page watchers to go and vote no on an RFA, what would have happened? - most likely, nobody would have given a hoot, and rightly so. I'll have to say, I'm appalled by this. What happened to I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration? Instead you go off on several long rants that have nothing to do with the outcome of the RfA, and all with speculating about the motives behind and appropriateness of another editors comments. Sorry, but that does not look like good faith to me. Your complaint is specious to begin with, and this is an inappropriate forum to discuss editor behaviour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The notion that CANVASSING isn't broken on a fair number RfA's is a joke. It is routinely broken, it is just that people do so a little more subtly than done here... how often do people goto somebody's page and make a post "about your !vote at X's RfA" or something along those lines. I would guess that somewhere between 10 and 20% of RfA's have at least one person making this type of post.---Balloonman 23:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  Carcharoth: This is very troubling. Your previous statement was that "ser talk pages should be for messages to the person whose page it is, or for short discussions that don't really fit anywhere else", and not for "discussions best held elsewhere". And now you have said: "Editors restricted to their own talk pages should be addressing the reasons they were blocked." Which is to say that restricted editors are not allowed to say anything, any where, except to address the block. Which sure sounds like: if sent your room, you are not allowed to come out, nor allowed to do anything in your room, until you apologize. Now if that sounds like ridicule, well, is it perhaps because you have a ridiculous position?  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You missed out the option to just do nothing until the block expires. But really, imagine if every blocked user ignored the reasons for their block and continued to participate 'at a distance' in the dispute that got them blocked. I think the root of the problem is this concept that anything is allowed on user talk pages. That userspace (and its talk page) is a place where almost anything is allowed. That turns user talk space from a communication space into something much more akin to a quasi-public/private debating chamber, dragging discussions away from the truly public spaces into the more 'private' spaces, and what I'm saying is that this degrades the quality (or rather, the participation level) of discussions held in the places where it should matter - on article talk pages and projectspace talk pages. Just take a step back for a moment from the 'civil liberties' concept of user talk pages, and consider why Misplaced Pages has namespaces at all. The reason is to aid in organising the editing of the encyclopedia, and to funnel discussion to the correct places. When people decide they can discuss anything anywhere they want (including user talk space), that system starts to break down. It is not a question of an authoritarian attitude 'forbidding' things, but a plea for people to think about where they are posting and to use the right location, and to consider that if access to a particular place has been blocked, that the user talk page is not a substitute for that location. Anyway, this is getting far off-topic and is no longer a matter for this noticeboard. I'll possibly raise the issue (probably at WT:TALK and WT:BLOCK) at a later date. What would really help to bring this discussion to a close would be for a bureaucrat to step in and shut it down, as I've accepted, given the silence, that the bureaucrats as a group are unlikely to respond here (for reasons I'm not entirely clear on, as discussions of allegations of RFA canvassing would seem central to their remit, but I won't push the matter further). Carcharoth (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many other ways you need to be given the hint, Carcharoth. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In case it is not clear to others, the above post by Ncmvocalist was a response to a post I made at his talk page asking him why he had cryptically posted in an unrelated venue (the ArbCom election talk pages - remember that it was others, not me, who brought up ArbCom election guides in the context of this discussion) referring to arbitrators making 'nonsensical' interpretations of WP:CANVASS. Despite saying above that I would leave this matter for now, I will be responding where people name me directly (e.g. Count Iblis and J. Johnson) as it would not be right to leave those questions unanswered. As for Ncmvocalist's point about 'nonsensical' interpretations, given the amount of discussion that has resulted, I'm satisfied that the matter is not as clear cut as he thinks, and that discussion was needed here as there seem to be differing opinions in the community on what is acceptable and what is not. Given that several more bureaucrats have now posted to this discussion, I have also struck the last bit of what I wrote above, and I apologise for the impatience I showed there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be advisable for Carcharoth, and other members of the wiki bureaucracy, to avoid imposing personal opinions on others just because of their (former) positions on Misplaced Pages. My post was actually in response to comments here, not those that were made on my talk. But seeing the post has been fragmented from my talk to here, Carcharoth, I will make a response to that here as well - you are indeed one of the users who has been directly or indirectly advocating for nonsensical interpretations of policy since the close of a particular case which AC confessed was an exceptional one. The agenda that has been pushed in this way is not what the wide Community wants; several reasonable people ('others') see it resembling a form of censorship and totalitarianism. That this isn't your exact intention misses the point, and frankly, when someone has still not gotten the point after all this discussion, I'm not inclined to make it a priority to test my patience (by trying to spoonfeed them). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you would be more direct, and not tiptoe around the issue, it would be easier to discuss this with you. I have tried asking you on your talk page what you meant by certain cryptic pronouncements you have a tendency to make, but you have refused to reply that. As far as I can tell, when members of the "wiki bureaucracy" (as you put it) make statements you personally disagree with (or that you think need to be opposed 'on behalf of the community'), you then come out with veiled passive-aggressive advice ("It would be advisable"; "consider whether they can afford") for those people to stop making such statements. The impression I get is that you are trying to shut certain people out of the discussions because of the positions they hold, worrying that they will unduly influence the discussions. You may have a point (and I do agree to a certain extent), but you could state that much more civilly, and try and have an open and frank discussion about the degree to which members (and former members) of the "wiki bureaucracy" should feel constrained when participating in such discussions (i.e. find out what the opinion of the community is, not your own opinion). If you start such a discussion somewhere appropriate (i.e. not here), I will happily make a statement there, but it should be an open discussion, not one where you accuse me (and others) of imposing our personal opinions (for the record, I don't try and impose my opinions, I try and persuade people of the logic of my argument, but it is difficult to have a proper discussion when people tell you to stay out of the discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to test my patience beyond this response to the above. I think I've been personally civil to you for as long as I can remember, even here; I don't think it's reasonable to expect more unless you expect me to treat you as if you're a baby (but even that's unreasonable given the context of our interactions - Misplaced Pages). One can expect some sensitivity to concerns but each person has their own nature, and trying to change it is not always the best use of one's time (it is unrealistic to expect a leopard to change his spots just because a hyena demands it). As for my advice, I'm not the one who gains/loses (at most, my patience remains in tact), but I cannot say the same about others (or in the case of wiki-bureaucracy, their positions on Misplaced Pages). Whether you are willing or you refuse to take the advice, or if you're able or unable to understand comprehend it is your own problem. It's unreasonable to think I've told anyone to stay out when that's contrary to what it is I'm saying; I'm saying don't dictate (or pretend there is a consensus when there isn't) and don't try to silence. Personally, I think it's fine that you've made your proposal (because let's be frank; that's what it was always going to be, a proposal). Several people have provided their thoughts. All that's OK. The problem arises when instead of heeding the indications you were given, you keep pushing - and if history is anything to go by, this sort of pushing will continue until something stupid happens.

For the record, when you failed to persuade people through "the logic" of your argument previously, you've aggressively attempted to impose your opinion on others, even on protected pages, and other members of the "wiki bureaucracy" (as I put it) have engaged in similar (though much clearer) acts more recently in 2010. And then *surprise surprise* when the Community refuses to dance to those tunes. The fact is that wiki-bureaucracy is elected to do the Community's bidding, not to find ways to dictate how all of Misplaced Pages and its assets must operate (the assets being each of the good-faith users who spend their time and effort here). Unfortunately, it seems that few people see things very clearly once they've become vested into the wiki-buro political framework. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are linking to diffs from over two years ago (September 2008) and misrepresenting what happened there, and the diff that you described as 'don't try to silence' is not a post by me, but is a post you made about ArbCom election guides (I don't oppose the writing of such guides, and have at times considered writing one myself). As I've said to Hans elsewhere in this thread, I'm happy to continue this particular discussion elsewhere, but it really is not a matter for this noticeboard. Please, if you must respond to this, do so on my talk page or start a general discussion in the appropriate place and leave me a note. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you (C) have a rather involuted concept of "communication", which is why something that seems trivial, trite, and even nonsensical to others looms very large in your reckoning. Central to that concept seems to be your notion that some topics are improper for user talk pages, which smacks of censorship. This ought to be discussed; please advise if you have a more suitable venue. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that I find most surprising about this is the mentions of totalitarianism and censorship. That wasn't my intention at all. The point I've been trying to make all along is that there is a time and a place for most edits, and many people (me included) post without thinking about that. I strongly believe that discussions fragmenting over different venues does degrade the overall quality of the discussion, and that polite attempts to consolidate discussions in the right place (something that Ncmvocalist among others does) is often needed. I also think that discussions take different directions depending on where they are held and who is present (that is human nature). Which is why discussions on user talk pages are worrying because groups can congregate around user talk pages and act like an echo chamber, aggravating existing problems if those discussions are seen as consensus forming ones. Maybe the real solution is to see user talk page discussions as just informal 'water cooler' type discussions, but not capable of forming consensus. Real consensus needs to be forged in the truly public fora of article talk pages and Misplaced Pages namespace talk pages. As for places to continue this discussion, I would suggest WT:USER. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a very dangerous precedence to restrict expression to improve the quality of the discussion, and in particular to restrict open discussion elsewhere to improve it in its "proper" venue. Somebody already mentioned free speech zones. Your premise is wrong - all people discussing in one place works better if there are maybe 10 or fewer people. If there are several million, that form of discussion is not even possible. "Let's forbid discussion of the Vietnam War in colleges. The proper place to discuss this is in Congress." "Sorry, letters to the editor are only printed in Pravda." But what is more, I think you are flailing now, with "discussions on user talk pages are worrying if those discussions are seen as consensus forming ones". First, which discussion are you talking about? Let me repeat this, for emphasis: Which discussion are you talking about? Secondly, nobody has suggested that, say, a consensus at my user page would overthrown an existing RfA (or maybe suffice to recall an Arb ;-). Discussions outside of the well-defined venues for certain community processes certainly can help forming consensus, but they cannot, usually, be used to demonstrate consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, user talk space can be and is used as a 'water cooler' type space, but discussions there should be respectful of discussions held elsewhere and not unintentionally (or intentionally) usurp the purpose of other pages (e.g. a recent reference to a user talk page as 'lurk central' for a particular topic area). See also the comments about civil and courteous interactions. If something is being discussed in one place, it can be rude to start discussing it loudly and crassly in another venue. Discussions in different venues shouldn't be antagonistic, and if they are, some way to reconcile the discussions should take place before things get out of control. And, we can definitely agree on this: Discussions outside of the well-defined venues for certain community processes certainly can help forming consensus, but they cannot, usually, be used to demonstrate consensus. - I agree absolutely with that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) As an aside, I don't mind jokey comments about arbitrator recall, but please don't upset the new arbs next year with jokes like that... :-)

Now that's something I, too, can agree with: distinguishing the informal "water-cooler" discussions, at any convenient venue, whereby editors thrash out consensus, and the demonstration or documentation of consensus regarding some article (etc.), which should be in the proper venue. But my question still stands: if some issue can be discussed only at the "proper" venue, and some editor is banned from that venue (for reasons which seem rather petty, or for someone's arbitrary condition of "respectful"), then where can he speak? Lacking any alternative, that editor is effectively censored. (Do we need to get into the big issue of why censorship is bad?) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hidden assumption of polarization/factonalism?

I think Carcharoth a priori assumes that there exist a pro-William faction on Misplaced Pages who will oppose anyone who is a climate sceptic, even on issues where someone's opinion on climate change is not relevant. There isn't any evidence for this. In fact, there was an RFA for someone sceptical of global warming some time ago in which almost all of the editors active in the CC area voted in favor. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen some mention of a "WMC faction". From the context I gathered it meant everyone that doesn't get their science from the WSJ. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but my objection to this sort of post is a general one, regardless of who did the posting. It was the blatant campaigning aspect to the edit that drew my attention, and I would have reacted the same way if any other editor had made an edit like that to their user talk page. The complicating factors here were two fold: (1) The user was the subject of recent and ongoing arbitration matters; (2) The user was currently blocked and hence could only post to their talk page. I would have had no objections if the edit had been made as a civil oppose on the RFA page itself. But consider - if it had been made to the RFA page with the same wording "Just say no", that would either have been ignored, or prompted a storm of protest as people objected to such exhortations being used on an RFA (though actually, it is no more rude than phrases like super-dooper, strongest possible oppose). With the hindsight of several days discussion of this matter, I actually think the edit was in part designed to provoke a debate like this. Despite one editor calling my interpretation of WP:CANVASS 'nonsensical', I think the amount of debate around this edit shows that this is a debate that needed to happen. WMC just happened to be the editor whose page I was on at the time (due to my being engaged in discussion with him at the time on another matter). To answer Count Iblis's point directly, my assumption is not one of factionalism, but one of genuine puzzlement that WMC thinks that user talk pages can be used as a campaigning platform. The assumption I made was that WMC was campaigning for a particular result in that RFA. Clearly, most people will and do ignore him, but that doesn't make the campaigning behaviour any less egregious and blatant. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've seen votes like a simple "No" or "Oppose" or "Yes" or "Per the answers" in nearly every RfA I've seen. Sometimes they are challenged, often they are not. But nobody goes to RfB and complains about "inappropriate votes", and I don't think there has ever been an attempt to sanction users for them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I would have had no objections if the opinion had been expressed at the RFA and discussed at the RFA. As at least one bureaucrat has said, users who are blocked need to accept that they are (temporarily) disenfranchised as a consequence of their conduct (or they should appeal the block). Getting frustrated because they are blocked and using their talk page as a way to participate 'at a distance', is (in my view) not acceptable. If you disagree, I would suggest asking the bureaucrats for clarification on whether blocked users can participate in or should be attempting to influence RFAs while blocked - I don't think it is completely clear-cut as some think. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your communication in this thread has not been very effective so far:

• You opened the thread with the question whether a certain edit counts as canvassing.
• The phrase "so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration" looks very much like an attempt to unduly influence the bureaucrats reading your question. Here is a translation of your first post into plain language, assuming this interpetration: "Hey, an Arb here. For a technical reason I can't block that miscreant. Can you take out your rubber stamps please."
• It appears that the phrase was really a statement of intent not to push any specific interpretation.
• For some reason you couldn't keep that promise. You have been one of the most active editors in this discussion and eventually also found your way to the follow-up discussion at WT:Canvassing#Possible canvassing. You are arguing several rather strange and, AFAIK unprecedented ways of applying WP:Canvassing, including one in which it is relevant whether a user is blocked or not, even though blocks are mentioned in WP:Canvassing only in the context of blocking users for canvassing.
• It is now becoming clear that it's really about finding some way of justifying your intuition that WMC's post was sanctionable. It doesn't actually have to be via explicit rules such as WP:Canvassing. It's also fine to rephrase the situation in a biased way ("whether blocked users can participate in or should be attempting to influence RFAs while blocked") that hides at least three key uncertainties (whether this was an attempt to influence the RFA or just venting; whether this had a chance to influence the RFA; whether the number of talk page watchers can be held against a user) and hope that that's enough for the bureaucrats to come to a decision you like.
• All of this appears to me to be more consistent with the behaviour of a disappointed block shopper than with someone who asked a question in good faith in order to learn the answer.

Understanding the weight of appearances against you might make it easier for you to understand the opposition you are getting. Hans Adler 11:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I really don't like your tone. Carcharoth is one of the kindest, most good-faith assuming editors I've met on Misplaced Pages. Just because they are perhaps in the minority in the conversation does not mean they are doing something wrong. Jehochman 11:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it either when I have to point out such things. Carcharoth is clearly involved here to the point that he didn't feel it appropriate to block WMC himself. Now he is pushing for changes that would bring Misplaced Pages closer to a totalitarian system so that the edit he didn't like will be illegal in the future, and maybe even for retroactive application. I can live with such behaviour from some kid who is not being taken seriously, but from an Arb it is disruptive.

My impressions of Carcharoth in the past were mixed but mostly positive. I cannot remember any specific details either positive or negative. My post above was based almost entirely on his behaviour in this incident, but also informed by his pushing a hard line in an earlier CC-related discussion, which went far beyond the wording of the topic ban decision. I am under the impression that Carcharoth is having trouble with the concept that if you want to restrict someone's actions you must communicate these restrictions clearly and unambiguously. Hans Adler 11:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth and I passed RFA the same week. You might say (s)he's my good hand sock.  :-) In any event, it's a heavy accusation to say somebody has been block shopping. That would be an odd thing for Carcharoth to do since (s)he's never blocked anybody for real. I suspect that Carcharoth is trying to identify an objectionable behavior and convince the person to stop, not to get them blocked. Jehochman 12:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Arbcom says there is too much polarisation in the CC area. That's true. What Arbcom doesn't understand is that this polarisation is between three parties, one of them being a heavy-handed Arbcom itself. Arbcom's power comes almost exclusively from its influence on the community. The 2008 Arbcom completely ignored the limits of its power and overplayed its hand, resulting in a huge crisis. The 2009 and 2010 Arbcoms have been much better overall, but their approach to the CC case was a gamble that didn't work out because WMC is not cooperating and they have neither the power nor the moral authority to force him to or remove him from the project. As a result we now have power games between some Arbcom members and WMC and some of his friends. Arbcom has lost its moral authority in the CC case, and consequently its power, by blaming the scientists and established content builders for the polarisation that is being carried into the project by bloggers and sock puppets and enabled by a few established social networkers. Having myself had disputes with WMC in the past, I can see how one can misidentify him as the core problem, so it was an easy mistake to make. But now it's really time for Arbcom to understand what's going on and correct its course. Instead it is exacerbating the situation by getting more and more draconian.

An approximation to the situation as a family metaphor: In a fight between two children the parents did not notice how the youngest brother is systematically needling the eldest, but did see the eldest's overreactions. So they punished both "equally" in a way that hurts primarily the eldest. Many of the children are outraged now, and the father is trying to make up for the loss of authority by handing out harder and harder punishments which he cannot enforce, without discussing them with the mother.

An Arb should simply not be wikilawyering about application of a clear guideline in this way. It's unbecoming. Hans Adler 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a red herring. What is under discussion here is a non-neutral posting to a user's talk page that ran afoul of the canvassing guideline. That being said, no one here has suggested WMC should be sanctioned for the posting and I do not see one forthcoming. BN is not an appropriate place to revisit the CC case, or discuss how it was handled. I think that this thread has outlived its usefulness. –xeno 17:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you Xeno. Given that you've said BN is not an appropriate place to revisit the CC case, I will pass over those aspects of what Hans said in silence. What I will say (about the other points Hans made) is that Jehochman sums this up better than I could have done: when starting this thread, I was pointing to what I thought was an objectionable behavior and asking the bureaucrats what they thought (and what they see as current community consensus on such matters). My subsequent comments were attempts to explain and clarify my position (in the face of a rather strong reaction). I was not shopping for a block, but seeking clarification about the matter. In particular, I object strongly to Hans characterising my initial post in this thread as being a post in my role as an arbitrator. It should have been clear from the initial post that I was posting here as an editor who participated in the RFA, not as an arbitrator. I'm really going to try and drop this now (as the discussions are producing more heat than light), but I would hope that I've handled myself with more restraint than Stephan and Hans did here (edit summary: 'appalled') and here (edit summary: 'disgusting'). I dislike the assumptions of bad faith made, and would ask that Hans in particular take a moment to calmly read all ten (eleven) now of my posts and try not to assume the worst (for example, where did I come across as acting like an arbitrator rather than an editor?) and to try and understand what I've been saying. If Hans (and others) still have concerns, I will be happy to briefly discuss things at my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

When an arbitrator speaks about a policy matter on which he or she has recently decided as an arbitrator, it's reasonable to assume that he or she is speaking as an arbitrator. Given that this case was very recently decided and is still "hot" in terms of clarifications, amendments, and the like it would have been helpful for you to have stated more explicitly that you were not speaking as an arbitrator. It's a bit unfair to take Hans and Stephan to task for not parsing the indirect indications that you weren't wearing your arb hat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I hope it has been made clear now. It is unfortunate that because others raise the arb-hat issue (see points made by Ncmvocalist elsewhere) that I've had to respond to that here. As I said, a discussion (for the benefit of incoming arbs next year and the arbs that remain on the committee) to clarify the extent to which arbs are able to meaningfully participate in community discussions (even saying you have taken off the arb hat to participate in or start discussions doesn't always help), would be useful, but as I said to Ncmvocalist, that should be discussed elsewhere. I have a fair amount of thoughts on the matter that I hope I would be allowed to add. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless arbs communicate they are commenting in an arb-role, it is well assumed that they are simply commenting as editors. If someone assumes otherwise, it's their fault, not an arbitrator's. And if there're editors who believe that arbs should be limiting their comments on other forums because they are arbitrators, then such editors need to get a policy/guideline passed through consensus before enforcing such a proposition. Wifione _....... 16:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg

A quick dip through some talk pages shows that this problem is much worse than any of us feared. For example User:Antandrus, who will be familiar to many of you as a highly disruptive editor, uses his talk page to tell Ling.Nut If people can't see how someone like you would be a benefit to the project with admin tools, I just shake my head in bafflement. And User:SandyGeorgia, another notorious troublemaker, regularly posts her views on which Arbcom candidates deserve support. Carcharoth is right; editors must stop expressing their sentiments on these and other policy matters anywhere but on the page expressly intended for this purpose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, a little-publicised tactic (cf. WP:BEANS) is for much-watched editors to ostensibly support one candidate in the certain knowledge that those that hate them - and sadly there will always be some - will vote in the exact opposite direction. WP:Reverse canvassing represents a real danger to the Wikimodel and must be sought out and stamped upon.

But perhaps the most iniquitious example of all is when the much-watched editor says nothing at all. Naturally, as his watchers hang on his every word, they can divine his intentions and vote in droves in precisely the direction he wants. It's high time the applicable guideline "Canvassing by stealth" was promoted to policy so Action Can Be Taken.  Roger 13:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be really happy if people stopped publishing their ArbCom "guides". I think it is rude to talk about somebody behind their back. RFA comments belong on the RFA page. ArbCom comments belong on the designated question, answer and comment pages. Posting to one's own talk page (or user space) in order to stimulate one's friends to vote a certain way is not in accordance with the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 13:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never been wild about them either, especially as the candidates are supposed to just grin and bear it when people trot out inaccuracies or misconceptions.  Roger 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mere inaccuracies or misconceptions would be an improvement. Some of the guides are used to settle scores or grind axes by people hung up on particular conflicts or issues. Jehochman 13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is that too.  Roger 13:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it Arbcom election guides are part of the process e.g. User:Juliancolton/Arb and actually included in the template Template:ACE 2009 guides, we are encouraged to go along and see what our favourite user of the moment thinks about the candidates. Whether you think it is rude or not WMC posting his own opinion on his own talkpage is not something to be dealt with here in isolation and would need a major overhaul of policy. I am not against such an overhaul as I disliked the guides intensely. Maybe the best solution is to continue to allow this on users own pages but as soon as these user opinions become offically linked to that is where the problem really lies. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard occasional rumors that inaccuracies and misconceptions can occur in the real world too (tho I've never seen such Wiki-specific things as score settling or axe grinding occurring off wiki, of course). Like pretty much everything else, this is obviously an Important Problem that new, more restrictive rules and more activist administrating will fix. I suggest we follow the lead of our betters in the real world, and create free speech zones to make sure these troublemakers expressing their opinions can't actually affect any change. Seeing how perfectly such an attitude has worked in the real world has restored my faith in our ability to create a Utopia here through the strict enforcement of more rules. Energizing the usually-reluctant admin corps to stick their noses in more places, and giving them the tools needed to warn, lecture, and block people for expressing their opinions anywhere but the "designated page for their opinion" is an excellent idea, and I don't see any possibility of it being misused as another tool to attack opponents and people whose opinions differ from our own. RFA is currently inhabited by a cross section of people that perfectly mirrors the editing community at large, and any comments by outsiders that could affect what goes on in that perfectly-run process is so obviously a bad idea that I won't waste all our time explaining why that is. If new people show up at RFA, people who don't usually participate, they might bring rudeness and foolishness to a currently polite and wise process.

Of course, technically I don't think WP:BN is the designated place to plot out the exact methods we're going to use to stifle discussion we don't approve of, so you're all blocked indefinitely until you learn to be good little Borg-lettes and do what you're told, where you're told to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but did either of you fill in their X-15-666.1984s? I certainly don't remember authorizing these statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you not checked your sekret mail? Please feel free to remove my comment if there any any errors on the form. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

JEH: I'm sorry that you'd be 'be really happy if people stopped publishing their ArbCom "guides". '... but I don't plan to stop. Mine has a talk page and I've engaged with candidates there, to mutual benefit, more than once, and I get a lot of positive feedback about it. The suggestion that the questions are somehow a replacement for guides really misses the mark, I'm afraid. We are apparently to be restricted to one question each, and the process for getting more generic ones into the overall list seems to have stalled. I will be presenting candidates with my entire list, as before, and they can choose to answer or not, as they like, which will form part of my evaluation process. I just may not be doing it in the "official place" since that apparently is verboten. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is that your guide gets put up on the template and from my feel of wikipedia, as a much less experienced editor than you, I really think people wanting to get on in the world of wikipedia look at what you say. Therefore I feel that having a link to your "guide" on the election pages is really very inappropriate. I am not saying you posting your opinions is inappropriate, just the link to them. However, this is not the place to discuss this and is going off topic. Has this been discussed in detail elsewhere and if so where so we can move the discussion to the appropriate place. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(a) Lar, your guide is not so bad. Some of the others are. (b) What I'd like to see is one thing. What this process requires ought to be something else. To paraphrase Austin Powers, I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards, now is it? Jehochman 10:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's start writing up Misplaced Pages:McCarthyism before it is too late. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Jehochman 10:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a real danger that well meant efforts to bring in more rules based on the arguments by Carcharoth will lead to editors getting banned or blocked for purely procedural reasons. I have experienced this myself on PhysicsForums where they have very strict rules (this is because one needs to keep crancks out, but the way the apply the rules has been corrupted over the years). Many professors who used to contribute there have left. The problem is exactly analogous to McCarthyism. What happens is that while no one is in favor of booting people out for merely violating some rule on a technicality when no real disruption has happened, what you do get over time is gaming of such rules. Polarization and false impression of intent leading to distrust against which one cannot defend oneself, is inevitable. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you that people should not be blocked on nebulous basis. There is another response besides ignoring improper behavior: one can point out the problem and politely explain what would be better. For instance, "Please don't talk about the candidate here. Post your comments to the RFA page where the candidate can respond, and everybody else can see the conversation." Jehochman 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those who would like to put a stop to these things, though I do not think it is possible. Too often, people use them to grind personal axes, under the cover of highly dubious interpretations of policy which they say that the candidate's in violation of.--23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)

WP:McCarthyism is lacking in i18n. I propose WP:17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) ("because of 1,996 party members present, 1,108 were arrested, and about two thirds of those executed within three years"). Maybe we can completely wipe out all those old-wikipedians who got the encyclopedia to this stage. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: There is a discussion about the ArbCom election voter guides discussed above here. Please comment there. Skomorokh 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unresolved" note

Opinions seems to be divided here given that this was a posting to the users' own talk page. Is this considered "sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion"? This is perhaps something that should be clarified to prevent future disagreement. In my opinion, the post tends towards the inappropriate side of the WP:CANVASS scale. Though transparent, it was clearly biased. Whether it addressed a partisan audience remains to be seen - William M. Connolley's talk page is watched by many. This makes it unclear whether it would be considered a 'limited posting' or a 'mass posting'. Had this occurred earlier in the discussion, actions might have been taken to ensure a representative sample at the RFA. I would advise the subject against further such postings. –xeno 13:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

" talk page is watched by many. This makes it unclear whether it would be considered a 'limited posting' or a 'mass posting'." - do you mean to imply that it is now the responsibility of a user to check how many people watch a given page before posting on it? This is not remotely reasonable - I do not even know how to do this, although I'm fairly certain I can find out by looking at all the small print around a page. Moreover, I'm fairly certain that there is no reasonable way to find out how many people watched a page at a given time. The number of page watcher is ephemeral and non-obvious. The decision if something is a mass posting or not can reasonably only been determined by how often something is posted, and in particular in how many different venues it is posted, not on how many people may or may not become aware of it. I do not check all my watchlisted pages, much less all the individual edits to them. Does anybody? There is no slippery slope here, and there is no space for compromise on this particular issue. Posting something only once in one place is no mass posting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. There may be many issues with a particular posting to a single solitary place, but "mass posting" is not among them. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the unresolved comment by xeno is off the mark. Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean to imply the canvassing guideline might need to be clarified. Even if we set aside the issue of mass vs. limited, it is still a biased posting made with the intent to inform about a community discussion that trends towards the inappropriate side of the canvass guideline. Posting such as this should be discouraged; if users want to opine on an RFA they should do so on the RFA, and if they are blocked they should seek unblocking or accept that they are disenfranchised. –xeno 15:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the canvassing guideline may need to be clarified, but certainly the other way round. If we start to regulate reasonable statements of opinions on user talk pages, and even try to infer intent, we are indeed on a slippery slope. Nobody is forced to read user talk pages. Those that do presumably are not mindless robots. I find the potential disruption from trying to separate allowed and forbidden discussions on user talk pages to be much MUCH MUCH larger than the admittedly abhorrent thought that maybe a user may be able to inform some others of his opinion on an issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think you seem to be discounting the fact that it is generally accepted to express your opinions on candidates for various posts on your own user page and if you wish to curtail this then this is a tightening of wikipedia rules that is unwelcome to many and should not be attempted by an "unresolved" summary on the BN noticeboard. Otherwise there is a whole can of worms you are openning up. Polargeo (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll move my comments from an "unresolved" tag to simple opinion in this section. See the below excerpts from the CANVASS guideline and explain why they do not apply to this instance. –xeno 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1. "Canvassing on Misplaced Pages refers to the sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."
2. "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate because it could serve to compromise the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore may be considered disruptive behaviour."
3. " Inappropriate notification: ... Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" .

Yes all statements taken out of context though. The context is when you post a message in multiple places or self selected forums it should comply with these rules. Not when you post your opinion on how people should vote on your own talkpage. If you start to restrict that you are talking about a major change in wikipedia policy. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

#1 is the very first sentence of the guideline - how can it be out of context? Canvassing can be inappropriate on any of the four scales. This one was inappropriate on at least one. I'm not sure where you got the idea that user talk pages are an appropriate place to canvass for a particular result on an RFA: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." –xeno 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to wikilawyer about it I would pick you up on the word "sending", if you wish to apply "sending" to posting a message on your own userpage then I would suggest that goes against the generally accepted definition of canvassing and would need a redefinition across wikipedia. Whilst users are allowed to post election guides on their own userpages suggesting how to vote on arbcom candidates I don't think your argument has a leg to stand on. Polargeo (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WMC was just talking to himself, then? No, he was posting to "Anyone watching". As I understand it, arbcom election guides came about because of the way arbcom elections have been run, that's another can of worms altogether - but it doesn't trump the canvass guideline with respect to RFAs, which have an appropriate place to post your opinion about the candidate - on the RFA itself. It is my opinion that the post strayed into inappropriate canvassing, WT:CANVASS would be an appropriate venue to seek additional opinions. xeno 17:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that your interpretation is badly wrong, or, alternatively, that the policy that you are interpreting is badly broken. However, I have requested input at WT:CANVASS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, just get rid of procedures requiring voting on Misplaced Pages. Only good arguments should count; decisions should be based on the presented arguments, how many times certain arguments are repeated should not be a factor. Count Iblis (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Can anyone name any process on Misplaced Pages (RfA, RfB, ArbCom election, RfC, Arbitration, AN/I, AfD, MfD, etc.) where side discussions about the process do not take place off the 'main' page from time to time, and where this isn't an accepted – or at least tolerated – practice? Editors will communicate with other editors about these processes, and the place where this communication often takes place is their own talk pages.

Misplaced Pages editors use their userspaces to express opinions about Misplaced Pages-related topics all the time. Those expressions range from broad statements of principles to gestures of support for various factions and policy standpoints (with or without the use of userboxes) to messages of endorsement and rejection for candidates for assorted Misplaced Pages functionary roles. I cannot reconcile Misplaced Pages's usual broad tolerance for free- and wide-ranging discussion with this sudden attempt to curtail the expression of an editor's opinion. Under this extraordinarly broad interpretation of WP:CANVASS, it would also constitute 'inappropriate canvassing' to visit the candidate's own talk page and declare "I don't think you're a good candidate for adminship, and I think the people reading this page should know that". For that matter, it would be inappropriate canvassing for a candidate to announce on his own talk page that he was running for adminship. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Would suggest this continue at Misplaced Pages talk:Canvassing#Possible canvassing. (Responding to your very last sentence: {{RfX-notice}} is a generally well-accepted method of advertising one's RFx at their user/talk pages and the only scale that might violate is audience.) –xeno 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While not forbidden, using user talk pages (even your own) to opine about a candidate is clearly uncouth. Call it what you will, canvassing or not, but this sort of chatter amounts to gossip and creates a petty atmosphere of cattiness that is in serious opposition to the fourth pillar: Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner.

Just as Carcharoth said, "the correct place to express an opinion on an RFA is at the RFA page set up for that purpose." The proper place for discussion about a candidate is on the candidate's candidacy page. To me, this is not a question of policy, it is a question of civility. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If somebody must discuss a candidate on their talk page, the should invite the candidate to join the discussion. Jehochman 10:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I just commented at WT:CANVASS:

I think that in general, this should be allowed. And to not be considered canvassing. After all, we do allow the person up for RfA to note it on their own userpages/talk pages.

That said, this all presumes WP:AGF of the users in question.

Thinking about this specific case: This would seem to be a blocked user apparently using recent events (which involved the said user to be sanctioned by the community/arbcomm) which may have made their talk page more watched. Which to me sounds like a continued attempt at disruption. And if it is determined to be so, would warrant further appropriate sanction (such as losing the ability to edit one's user pages). The issue may be moot, now, of course. (The RfA is closed.) But there is always the future to consider.

So if this is indeed intended disruption by a currently blocked user (a seeming attempt at something akin to meatpuppetry), what is suggested for how we should proceed forward? (Note: As far as I recall, I've personally had no contact with WMC. Though the name seems familiar. I'm still playing catchup trying to read all the history.) - jc37 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And as I asked Carcharoth: if one is not allowed to comment at the "the correct place", where is one allowed to comment? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to pre-suppose that one is allowed to comment in the first place J Johnson, which is, of course, not the case. Pedro :  Chat  23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

While I think the whole "what if one is blocked" is a bit of a red herring, the only answer I can give to Pedro is: Yes one is. Yes one is. Yes one is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Being blocked is what makes this an issue. (And WP:AGF has seemingly been used up at least somewhat for this editor, from what I've been reading.) Otherwise, I would think it would fall under the typical latitude we give editors in userspace. - jc37 23:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would clearly treat blocked users lower in their rights access than I would treat non-blocked ips. In that tone, if ips cannot vote (or comment) in RfAs, so should the treatment be to blocked users. Wifione _....... 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of closure

As I voted in this RfA, and closed it on applicant's request, am requesting a peer review of closure of this RfA. Thanks. Wifione _....... 10:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You can close an RfA as unsuccessful per the applicant's request even if you voted. There is no CoI there. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sincerely. Wifione _....... 11:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for restoring my buttons

I dropped them a while back, but I'll have a bit more free time this winter, and frankly miss the busywork. I'll primarily be focusing on CSD, unblock requests, and perhaps (if someone points me in the right direction) doing a bit of moderation work on getting US politician BLPs steered back towards normalcy now that the silly season is over. --SB_Johnny |  21:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-). --SB_Johnny |  21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RTV request

I've sent Avi an email to RTV me here and on commons, but if someone else gets a chance, feel free to take care of it sooner. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)