Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:50, 12 December 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Blocked user has returned

Just letting you know, anon user 85.83.19.103 you blocked for edit warring on UFO Hunters and making personal attacks has returned as a sock puppet. Dan Frederiksen, a newly created account has also made the exact same edits to UFO Hunters. Both account talk pages also have bizarre rants going on about abuse of admin powers and other conspiracies, so no doubt it's the same individual here. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree, based on the edits and modus operandi shown on the rants. tedder (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tedder. A few days ago I welcomed User:Dan Frederiksen, an account started a couple of years ago but only used fourteen times. He (or she) replied, complaining about mistreatment by other Users. I now see that he has been blocked indefinitely. Dan Frederiksen made his first edit a couple of years ago, and has only made seven edits since 15 April 2008. Two of those seven edits were to his own Talk page, leaving five substantial edits since April 2008. I have examined those five edits very closely, and I find nothing offensive or in the nature of an edit war. When I looked at Dan's User page the block banner contains words about Please refer to SPI for evidence. When I attempt to see SPI for the evidence it says Page does not exist.

Cyberia23 advised you that Dan Frederiksen was a newly created account. You replied, saying I agree. In fact, this account was started in May 2007.

This looks like it might be sinister. A User makes five unremarkable edits and is blocked permanently. The banner notifying this User that he has been blocked says that the page with the evidence for the blocking does not exist.

Immediately above, you have written I agree, based on the edits and modus operandi shown on the rants. Please let me know which of Dan Frederiksen's five recent substantial edits constitute the rants, and which of the five show a consistent modus operandi, such that permanent blocking is appropriate. Thanks for your assistance in helping me get to the bottom of this. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the editor existed, but an account that has been inactive for years and then becomes active again can still be a sock. The user posted the exact same content with the same source to a page, and actually did so several times. This matches how the IP's edit-warred content ended up looking. A rant by the IP is really similar to a rant by the user, and the capper is that the user never had interactions with User:Hu12, but the IP certainly did. Finally, the SPI link appears simply because it's part of the template. tedder (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I agree that this diff (1) and this diff (2) suggest that Dan Frederiksen is a sock of 85.83.19.103.

At WP:SOCK/ACCUSER the following advice is given to every person accusing another of sockpuppetry: Make your case. Now write up your evidence in the "Evidence" section. This should describe why you believe there's puppetry occurring, however obvious it might be.

At WP:SOCK/SUSPECT the following advice is given to every person accused of being a sockpuppet: If the accuser has not formed a proper evidence page, you should remove the notice. I believe that no proper evidence page has been formed in relation to Dan Frederiksen. Misplaced Pages’s advice in this situation is that Dan is entitled to remove the notice!

I remain concerned that Misplaced Pages has not followed its own due process. Misplaced Pages has permanently blocked Dan Frederiksen, apparently without adequate explanation as to why he has been permanently blocked. Regardless of how strongly you believe Dan is a sock of the IP address, Dan is entitled to an adequate explanation of the reason behind the block. Similarly, Dan is entitled to the opportunity to defend himself against the accusation. Even though Misplaced Pages guarantees that every accused sockpuppet will be given this explanation, and this opportunity, they appear to be missing in Dan’s case. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Those sections deal with how to handle a sockpuppet investigation - in other words, through WP:SPI. Where does it require that an SPI is used? It doesn't. Further, Dan's account is open for "appeal" through an unblock request, which hasn't been used. tedder (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My view is that Misplaced Pages has failed to adequately explain to Dan Frederiksen why he (or she) has been blocked indefinitely, especially as the block is not related to anything written from the account Dan Frederiksen. The fact that Dan has not yet used his prerogative to contest the block is not a fact that Misplaced Pages can use in its defense.

I have left a message on Dan’s Talk page explaining the reason for the block, and explaining the opportunity for contesting the block. Hopefully this will improve Misplaced Pages’s performance in the matter of the blocking of Dan Frederiksen. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your reply- thanks, and I'll try to use some form of that text in the future on "new sockpuppet" accounts. tedder (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion in art

In light of your instructions on the talk page when you issued the page protection, could you please take a look at this: . Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your help very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Sigh. tedder (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh- I knew I forgot something. Make sure that you ALWAYS use full edit summaries on that article or talk page. For instance, this undo, while obvious, should at least state "vandalism" or "POV" or something. tedder (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You are absolutely right, and I'll be careful about that from now on. (I did it as a rollback of obvious vandalism, but forgot that I shouldn't do it that way for this particular page. I should have known better.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I figured you knew, but I wanted to state the obvious, especially because of how nitpicky I'm being about edits to the article right now. tedder (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you told me (no guarantee that I know the obvious!) :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Blind Side (film)...

...is a good one. It's interesting to see a film do better at the box office its second week and even better its third week. That's "word of mouth" in action. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow many things I find via WP:RFPP (see the thread immediately above, they tend to have that much drama!). Anyhow, I might have to add it to Netflix. Haven't heard of it, but I thought about teasing you for being a Sandy Bullock fan. Hi, BTW. tedder (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's in the theaters now, so I doubt it's on Netflix yet. Its being in the theaters probably accounts for vandalism, though. This has been a pretty good year for Sandra. This is a better film, as films go, than The Proposal was, but that was only supposed to be a light comedy anyway. Sandra's not really my type, but she hits a chord with a lot of viewers. Oddly enough, in The Blind Side, with her hair tinted blonde and puffed-up to match the real person, she kind of looks like Kathy Lee Gifford. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

KLG perhaps, but not now- KLG doesn't even look like KLG.. sort of like Kathy Griffin looks like someone doing an impression of Kathy Griffin. Oh- and Netflix lets you put things in the queue basically as soon as it's announced. OBNothing, I mentioned you the other day, great magnet at work since we haven't chatted in a bit. And you know User:Peteforsyth now works for the mothership, right? tedder (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Always glad to be of service. A guy "thoughtlessly" called a band a bunch of fags? Wow, we've come so far since Dire Straits used that term on themselves, mocking the subject of "Money for Nothing" who he got it from. "Thoughtlessly"? I'd like to see the "thoughtful" version of that. Though the retort was pretty funny.

Good for Mr. Forsyth. A good face for the organization. Now if only we could get Michael Oher in on it... ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Pete is sitting very near Mike Godwin. I think I'd be shown the door in about 3 days for loudly using comparisons to Herr Hitler every hour just to see if he'd yell "I'm invoking my law!" tedder (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be feel pretty special to have something named after you, such as a law, a coined word, or a disease. "Hey, Lou, we're sorry you're dying from ALS, but the good news is we're naming it in your honor." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty much a net-negative. I mean, Willie Sutton has Suttons Law, but even that is a push- nobody knew why he did it until he was caught. tedder (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Elbridge Gerry would be thrilled to know that his name is still taken in vain nearly 200 years after he died. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, you made me learn something. Why, Bugs?! Any others to lay upon me? tedder (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's one of my oldies: Do you know (without looking) why an ampersand (&) is called an ampersand? Also, do you know what punctuation mark a "Nathan Hale" is? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got me on both of those. I generally know stuff that non-wikipedians don't know, but I can't compete against folks like you :-) Want to give me links, or is it just ampersand and Nathan Hale? tedder (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming the ampersand article explains that & is a stylized Latin "et" (and) and that "ampersand" is a slurring of "and per se and", kind of a 27th letter of the alphabet once commonly seen in "samplers". The other one is an old joke that I doubt has a reference. Nathan Hale's "real" last words were, "I only regret that I have but one * for my country." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'et' thing is at the top, which I remember from my French class days. Nathan Hale? Eh? Was it truly an asterisk? Hmm. tedder (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The abbreviation "etc." was once often rendered "&c." which is perfectly valid and means exactly the same thing, but it fell out of fashion. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I put into Google and found plenty of references, most of them suspiciously similar-looking. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Har, I get it now. Heh. tedder (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you hangin'. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*, leave it to Bugs.. tedder (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One last try ...

I wish to draw your attention to and the good faith proposal I had made there some time ago. There has been no attempt by the other parties on that page to address the WP:NPOV concerns there. I can't resolve the dispute if they refuse to participate in the discussion.

WMC has rejected my proposal, and rather uncivilly at that.

Will you place the {{POV}} template on the page or must I take this to WP:AN? --GoRight (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You have my blessing to ad the {{pov}} tag- it's been some time, the issues still aren't resolved. Go ahead and add it, make sure your editsummary explicitly says you've been "blessed" to do so. As far as the actual POV and content concerns, that'll need to be resolved through WP:DR. But you have my okay on the tag. tedder (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I do believe there should be a sunset provision on this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On what specifically, SBHB? tedder (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the presence of the tag. Some articles are so inherently controversial that they could be tagged forever; requiring everyone, no matter how entrenched their POV, to agree in those cases is unrealistic. At some point we need to say we agree to disagree. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that should to happen after it goes through WP:DR. tedder (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you spell out what you think the process should be, and at what point it should end? since i hardly think that this is ArbCom stuff. I've just asked GoRight to gain consensus for an RfC on the issue. DR seems to me to be written primarily with disputes between two editors in mind, which isn't the case here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not be ArbCom, but it might need to go to the WP:MEDCAB. Keep in mind there are a handful of these climate-change articles that are hotly contested- they should be lumped together. tedder (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The template has been reverted, see . May I restore it? --GoRight (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I restored it and warned the (new) user. tedder (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --GoRight (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tag again, before I read this page. All this is just troublemaking by GR. There is no POV dispute, there is only GR's dislike of this and similar articles William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I believe that this is the second example of WMC edit warring over the tag AFTER you explicitly warned him not to. For easy reference, this was the first. --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, just consider it WP:BEANS. He said he removed it before reading the information. WMC, leave the tag. I know you two have a dispute, but don't edit war over it or let it spill to new arenas (like this page). tedder (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I was actually about to remove the tag as I see no current, valid, and specific dispute. Verbal chat 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over a tag, move to the discussion phase. Verbal chat 19:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Verbal, please discuss it at the talk page and ask for GoRight to explain rationale for including the POV tag. tedder (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on Verbal's talk page pointing him to where the discussion is located, i.e. . I also noted that the tag itself contains a pointer to where the discussion is located. May I restore the tag? --GoRight (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored it. Let me know if it gets removed again. tedder (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make an attempt to consolidate things into the new section that Verbal demanded on his talk page. This will be located at . Hopefully this will resolve WMC's issues over "discipline". --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

or let it spill to new arenas (like this page)... I agree. The discussion should be on the article talk page. I think it was a bad idea for you to give GR "permission" to re-add the tag here, rather than joining in the discussion at the article (the discussion there is so ill-disciplined as to be unreadable, of course, and that could use some action, but that is another matter). Also, please note GR's failure to make sure your editsummary explicitly says you've been "blessed" to do so - no explicit indication of blessing was given; had he done so, people would naturally have objected. This discussion can be closed as soon as you make it clear that you are not going to answer GR's May I restore the tag? with a yes William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the editsummary didn't say it, but it wasn't a complete lack of an editsummary either. At least it gave pointers here. As far as moderating the issue on the talk page, there are enough editors already. I'm trying not to be involved, and have given alternatives. tedder (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want the discussion not to continue here, you need to help close it down. I tried to do that with This discussion can be closed as soon as you make it clear that you are not going to answer GR's May I restore the tag? with a yes. You've ignored that. For removing the silly tag, no you haven't given alternatives, you've enforced GR's will. You've reverted that tag 3 times already today - anyone else would be getting a 3RR warning (I give you one now, informally). A third revert with an edit summary of Do not edit war with the tag is rather ironic. If you're trying *not* to be involved, then I suggest you simply back out - you are no longer being helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, while you violently want the tag to be removed and to control the discussions, I won't give in to that pressure. I'm quite willing to full-protect the page and/or block users if the tag is removed again, and I'm justified in doing so because I'm not involved, not in spite of not being involved. If you feel this is EW or 3RR or admin abuse or anything else, please take it to WP:ANI. tedder (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, please do not act as a proxy or encourage edit warring. WP:3RR applies to everyone. Verbal chat 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

. Sigh. --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edit warring to your preferred version and then immediately protecting the page? Very very poor behaviour. I expected better. I hope you will reconsider your actions. Doesn't bother me, but it doesn't help the project. Verbal chat 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll note it isn't my preferred version. I don't believe I've stated my opinion about the article one way or another. I should have protected it a few hours ago, but I was WP:AGF and assuming involved editors could behave and discuss it on the talk page. tedder (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid by ignoring 3RR, despite a warning, and protecting after reverting (also a no-no), you have acted wholly inappropriately. You should revert one of your two actions, probably the revert as it would rectify both issues. Please do so. Verbal chat 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

May ask as what your definition of consensus is? Is it unanimous agreement between parties? We seem to be stuck in a position where 2 editors (w. possibly a 3rd) are holding a dispute alive, despite >9 editors disagreeing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

High schools notable?

You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors whose consensus inspired that debate. ɳoɍɑfʈ 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks- sometimes I inspire debate, sometimes outrage, often disgust, occasionally even inspiration. tedder (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A whale of vandalism

Thanks for the protection of the whaling article. I was wondering if you would consider extending it further than just two weeks? The cause of the vandalism is due to the nature of the topic. While it does indeed peak when whaling is in the news, the controversial issues related to it are ongoing and unlikely to diminish over the course of the next fourteen days. You will see from the history that anon vandalism is ongoing and not restricted to the past few days. Cheers, --Swift (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi- generally, the protection should lapse, show signs of vandalism/POV/etc as it opens up, and then the next protection period will be longer. That proves that longer protection is necessary. tedder (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From the article history and logs you'll find that the article has been temporarily semi-protected twice in the past. In the 494 edits since the last there have been 97 vandalisms, thereof 88 by anons (edits by anons that have been undone or reverted). The first hit the day after it expired.

Instances of vandalism seem unrelated and will thus not be affected by a protection unless they land on the page when it is in effect. A temporary protection will therefore not have any long term effect. Anonymous accounts do contribute to the article, but with over a sixth of all edits being easily preventable vandalisms I think this qualifies for an indefinite semi-protection. --Swift (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are under a bit of a load these days. Please let me know if you're unable to respond at this time so that I can take this to a less embattled admin. --Swift (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Swamped by vandalism!

The List of micronations page is experiencing an unusually high number of attacks today from anon users. Could you up the protection level for at least a day, please? It would be appreciated. Outback the koala (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note it's pretty much all from one IP, who has been blocked. Ping me if it resumes and I'll protect. tedder (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

3rr: Scientific opinion on climate change

You've broken it on Scientific opinion on climate change and then protected the page to win a dispute. This is inappropriate. I've reported you to AN3. -Atmoz (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See a few sections above. I'm aware of WP:3RR and intentionally broke it. I should have protected the page earlier, I assumed editors would quit edit warring over the tag. tedder (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You made 4 reverts. The next highest was 2. Nobody else had more than one. If there was edit warring, you were a major part of it. Admins are not exempt from 3rr. -Atmoz (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, you know better than to "intentionally" breach 3RR and then protect your version of the page. I don't think a block is really necessary, but please do take more care in the future. –Juliancolton |  21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tedder. If your intention was to set up an editing restriction that nobody was allowed to add or remove the POV tag, you should perhaps have asked for consensus at WP:AN for such a restriction. As it is, things are too confusing and the casual observer might think you were edit warring on the tag. I don't object to your full protection of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comments and warning above. I have asked Tedder to reconsider. Verbal chat 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As one of the other basically uninvolved people trying to keep a lid on this family of disputes, I endorse the result. I started this morning to put a plea for calm and consensus-based editing at that talkpage, but got distracted until after this blew up; meh. It would have been better if you had not done the placement yourself, but a dedicated discussion to address the issues raised by GR has been started on the talkpage. Perhaps they are overbroad and perhaps this can be perceived as a "victory" for one "side", but edit wars over tags are also WP:LAME. As long as discussion remains on topic and moving forward, there is no great harm in letting readers know that our articles could be better. When the consensus of editors there indicates that it should be removed, so mote it be. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton: acknowledged. EdJohnston, thanks, it's nice to have feedback on what SHOULD have been done. Do you have any ideas on how this should be dealt with from this point? 2over0, thanks for your feedback. tedder (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I've raised your protect at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scientific opinion_on_climate change_- review_of_Tedder.27s_actions William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious concerns

I have serious concerns with some of your administrative actions recently. It appears you have edit warred on an article, and then used your tools to protect the version you were edit-warring to include. Please review WP:PROTECT, specifically the part that reads

Additionally, I am concerned that you have used your position as an adminstrator to "bless" specific changes to articles or tags. Please review WP:ADMIN, specifically the part that reads:

Finally, please review Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Avoiding_apparent_impropriety.

Please confirm that you understand that articles are not to be protected in a "preferred" version, and that adminstrators do not have a special ability to "bless" edits or tags, and that you must make every attempt to avoid "Making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue this at the ANI thread. tedder (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

India.Napier

Hi Tedder

I'm looking for your advice on what to do here. One of my friends pointed out this page to me before. It's a page about one of the Neighbours characters. My friend pointed it out because the page title is obviously spelt incorrectly and she was suggesting that we move it to India Napier. When I type in that name it redirects me to the cast list of Neighbours. When I look into the reason for this re-direction I've found that there was previously a page for this character but it was deleted and it was proposed that the page was simply merged with the cast list page for Neighbours. The reason for this was that the character is not notable enough as she is only a 6 month old baby!

My question is, what should I do about this second page that I've found for her? Should I request that it be deleted, and if so how do I do that? --5 albert square (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's the AFD. Since notability isn't really established for the article, I'd just edit the page, remove all the content, and replace it with a redirect to the Neighbours page. Okay? tedder (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tedder, done that now :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

Just want to say that I have sympathy for you in how you got sucked into all this. I think your intentions were (are) good. I could add some background but think I'll just leave it at that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SBHB. I really appreciate that. tedder (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tag on Scientific opinion on climate change

As you have admitted edit warring over this tag and incorrectly reverting and protecting, despite prior warning, please undo your fourth revert and remove the tag, or justify its presence on the article talk page. I do want to add that I feel you had good intentions, yet you still broke two rather basic rules and need to fix that. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the ANI thread, please. tedder (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realise you broke two rules, as I don't think I saw that anywhere. Will you be reviewing your actions or will you be taking no further action in regards to this specific issue? Verbal chat 18:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be doing whatever is prescribed at ANI. So far the thread has just been continued bickering by the usual suspects, not a consensus among administrators. tedder (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I reposted the question there as you asked, but now I'm unsure of one thing. Do you acknowledge you were error (3RR and PROTECT wise)? Verbal chat

Ironically, it seems, I as one of the people you actually BLOCKED in all this wish to thank you for your attempts to foster a neutral and collaborative environment, whereas those whom you went out of your way to WP:AGF for are clamoring for your head. Do not take offense, though, this is typical for the GW pages which is why so many admins shy away from the fray. You are to be commended to being willing to at least dip a toe in. --GoRight (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't clamoured for anyone's head. What I'm asking for is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and some action to rectify that. Washing ones hands does not solve anything. If Tedder had not broken two basic rules (one for all editors, one for admins), then we wouldn't be in this situation. Other than this issue I think Tedder is an excellent admin. Verbal chat 10:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic. He's not the first well-meaning admin to have been bamboozled by GoRight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page...

You said on ANI FWIW, I've asked an uninvolved admin to review my tagging and protection of the page. This isn't true. You've asked for your protection to be reviewed. You said on that admins page can you take a look at my protection of Scientific opinion on climate change; B himself has said Ok now please listen to what I am actually saying: my only role in this is reviewing/taking over the protection.

Please correct yourself at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done tedder (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the problem remains: no admin has reviewed your addition of the tags. I ask you to invite an admin to review your addition of the tags (this was effectively an admin action, and therefore subject to admin review). Perhaps not Beeblebrox - he seems to have become somewhat emotional about thse issue William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You've already invited admins to review it. tedder (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it hasn't happened. However *you* have invited an admin to review your prot (subsequent to that discussion starting, so you cannot refer to that discussion as the answer). Why don't *you* invite an admin to review your tagging? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I only asked for the prot to be reviewed because it was the immediate issue. I'm not going to admin-shop outside of the ANI thread. The lack of admin comment on that thread is telling- it's unfortunate that the bickering has spilled over from the various articles into other namespaces. tedder (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Chase Masterson protection

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong here. I added information from a highly reliable source to the article, a source that's recently become available through Google Books. Cubert reverted it with a phony explanation and a personal attack, then violated 3RR editing though an IP. As the diffs I provided should make clear, dialogue with this serial vandal is futile. And you then protected his version of the article. We're dealing with an editor who has a burn on for me because I've repeatedly caught him violating policy (note that earlier today I caught him uploading a non-free image with an obviously invalid fair use rationale) and has no interest in legitimate editing. I have more than 15,000 edits; a solid record of constructive editing, and have become a repeated target of vandals like this editor. It's very discouraging to find an admin siding with him without investigating. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I personally agree that you are correct. I'm asking for you to get the source reviewed at WP:RSN, which should be trivial. Why do you imply I'm siding with the vandal? tedder (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the RPP post was a crude and transparently false personal attack, and because the source involved is about as reputable as sources come; as I pointed out, it's from the leading publisher of reference works in the US. There's no good faith issue here. And you let him get away with an obvious 3RR violation by hiding behind an IP. And take a look at what's begun happening to my talk and user pages moments after your action. I've been targeted by vandals for some time, Cubert is one of them, and you've just put me back in a free-fire zone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to draw the AGF line on my part, no matter what Cubert's intent was. RFPP isn't the place to confirm/deny socking or to settle disputes. As I said, just drop a line past RSN, get confirmation, and I'll happily defend the changes against edit warring/deletion/socking as much as necessary. Otherwise? It's a generic content dispute. tedder (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation of what? Are really saying that we need to go to RSN over a claim that Google Books isn't a reliable source for the contents of the books it presents? The justification for the last revert was that Google Books is unreliable because it displays "A supposed photocopy of a shred of a book." That's utterly ridiculous, and if that sort of claim has to be argued on talk than you're leaving the vandals in charge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Photocopy" is definitely bogus. But if you want me to move the article from WP:WRONG, just jump through the hoops.

BTW, you probably saw, I protected your userpage for a month, and your talk page for 6 hours. Let me know if you don't want that done- I took your comment here as request enough, given the silly attacks. tedder (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for the prompt page protection. I've posted to RSN, although rather unhappily. Removing sourced content with an edit summary that reads simply "nope," followed by a personal attack on an editor with whom one disagrees, is not, to my mind, conduct that should be met with anything less than a metaphorical rap across the knuckles, and there are standard templates terming such conduct inappropriate behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just when you unwatched it.

I guess they didn't waste any time after you unwatched it: . --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Murphy's law. If there are one or two more blankings of that section, I should probably semi-protect it. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll watch it for a bit longer. tedder (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks about my user page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lauren Branning

Hi

Just a quick note to say thanks for locking this page meantime. I've now warned two editors about the 3RR rule and set up a discussion at Talk: Lauren Branning. Everyone who makes regular edits to the article has been invited to join in. Thanks again --5 albert square (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 5A! Let me know if I can help further. Cheers, tedder (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jody Trautwein

On December 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jody Trautwein, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(moved to awards) tedder (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of one of your images

Hello. I used your image of the Boardman Coal Plant by linking it to the Boardman Coal Plant article I just created. Is that okay? I'm kind of new to this. I hope it won't be a problem. Cheers! TimeClock871 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That article needed to be created, you did a good job at it, it seems. Welcome. I assume you are an Oregonian? tedder (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your protection at Scientology status by country. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)