Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ohiostandard (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 1 June 2011 (→Thanks for comment at AN/I: Why a bright-line response is needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• If you leave a comment on this talk page, I will reply here, not at your talk page. If you're of the type who's really reliant on the Orange Bar of Death (AKA the "New Messages" indicator), let me know and I'll give you a note that I've replied here.
• If I've left a comment on your talk page, I have watchlisted it, so you can go ahead and reply there; don't worry about letting me know here.
• Please don't forget to be civil. But note: If you see someone else leave an uncivil comment here; please do not revert it unless it's simple vandalism or a drive-by personal attack with no substantial criticism.

Common names

I'm getting a little confused as to your exact point over at the UN names discussion Heimstern. Do you then agree that Ireland is more a common name in en than Republic of Ireland? Ditto China rather than People's Republic of China? I know both are wrapped around with all sorts of other debates, but on the common name point? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ireland is the more common name, as is China. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I guess the next question is how to get them there. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Ireland, that's going to be completely impossible per AC ruling. The problem with common names is that we also have to deal with disambiguation, which comes into play for both of countries. Sometimes the most common name is ambiguous and we have to do something to clarify what exactly it is we're talking about. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I understand about Ireland, I was really just saying I realise it would be very difficult. On China, I feel the disambig has gone the wrong way pretty clearly - the general international usage common short name in English, "China", invariably means both the modern PRC state and the historic entity(ies) - I think this one in particular calls for revision given it's centrality in the listings as the largest populated nation, etc. Would one way to approach this be some sort of reference document citing all principle media and organisational labellings of how China is used? I still, possibly naively given the way things are often conducted in Misplaced Pages, believe in evidence. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Orange Bar of Death ;)

Sorry I got bitey, I had gotten pretty badly smeared by the IP and pals on Commons, and overreacted to you. Thanks for keeping balance.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about your bad experience. I did notice that that IP was being pretty thoroughly unpleasant (I found his/her description of you as "violent" inappropriate, though kind of amusing in how absurd it was), which contributed to my willingness to block him/her. Anyway, just stay away from edit warring in the future and we'll be fine. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing this user has done since being unblocked ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/210.165.133.93 ) is to edit war on my talkpage. What recourse do I have at this point? I don't need more trouble, but I don't need badgered either.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry to be unpleasant to you, Heimstern, mainly because I do not know the reason. If you think that calling someone retard is not a violent action, for sure is not a kind one, and Kintetsubuffalo did that on me. I was just trying to remove an useless file from this wiki, and you can check the comments of the DR in Commons to confirm that. Kintetsubuffalo is alone on this, and my recent adds are just for restore the warning message he got in his discussion about his edit warring. He just erased it. You can check the original one in the message of 3RR that led him blocked. --210.165.133.93 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon, I sense that you are perhaps a non-native speaker of English? If so, OK, I understand; I'm an EFL teacher. Still, you need to realize that describing a person as "violent" means they act in a physically damaging way, and it's a serious accusation that should never be thrown around without actual physical acts to back it up. True, when applied not directly to a person, it can be non-physical, e.g., a "violent outburst" might simply mean a loud and hostile one, but when applied to a person, it cannot reasonably have this metaphorical sense. Furthermore, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Do not re-add it; it is edit warring.

Kintetsbuffalo: You are exempt from edit warring restrictions such as 3RR in your own userspace except for adding blatantly disallowed content such as libel or copyright violations, so it's OK to revert the anon. If he continues, report him for edit warring. Feel free to talk to me about it, though note that I'm about to head for work. The edit warring noticeboard might be a better place to go. Hope that helps. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, English is not my language. Everyday I learn new things, like that I must stop no matter I was right in the edit warring, or that warning messages can be deleted from your own discussion. Also your explanation clarifies about the term violent. Maybe more appropriate will be intimidating behaviour or harassment? That user used on me these words:

• retard
• blow me
• should be obvious to anyone with half a brain why the rename was done
• His original snotty post was unsatisfactory, I don't need his vomit on my talkpage.

By the way, as an EFL teacher maybe you can help me with a question. The sentence How is this spam? is correct? --210.165.133.93 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

uh? --210.165.133.93 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"How is this spam?" is fine in English as long as what you're asking is in what way something constitutes spam. Sorry about the late reply; went on vacation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it does help.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

I said, in my statement, that I did things wrong, I apologized and I promised not to let that reoccur (I elaborate on that more in the "Response to Offliner", so if you have not read it, please do). What else can I do? A 10-page length essay in which I tear my clothes, salt and feather myself? Rather than amuse the crowds with self-humiliation, I prefer to propose solutions.

Regarding the topic ban, please note that I have already been allowed to contribute one EE article by proxy (it has reached GA thanks to my edits), and edit the WT:POLAND page (like those or those), all not only without any controversy, but my WT:POLAND activity has led to several editors expressing their support. I have also been active in EE areas on other projects (pl wiki, Commons), nowhere any controversy was raised.

Regarding the fine line, well, no topic ban has a perfect line, current included. But if the topic ban is narrowed (in a fashion similar to this one) it would be obvious to me that while I could edit NC article with regards to most of its areas, I should stay away from the nationality section (and frankly, I'd prefer to stay away from the entire article, in any case - I am fed up with battlegrounds like that and do not with to even get close to them again).

Regarding oversight, as you can see, there is a lot of editors who are happily monitoring my activities for every small misstep, and you can be assured that they will report me whenever they think I've crossed the line :>

Lastly, while this is one of those "forgotten or ignored" policies, please keep in mind that remedies are supposed to be preventative, not punitive... my topic ban will expire in half a year. Unless you can point out that there is some "damage" that will be done now that will not be done in half a year? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible I've missed something. Right now, I'm pretty tired; I'll come back and read those sections you mention and then see if I need to reconsider my statement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair. PS. Do you think it would clear your concerns if I added a statement like this to the beginning of my request: "I am sorry I became radicalized and violated WP:CANVASS, I apologize and promise not to repeat those mistakes?" I do believe I say all of this, but perhaps not so strongly at one time in any one place, hence potentially confusing cursory readers? PPS. Actually, since you are the second editor to raise similar concerns, I went ahead and modified my statement per my previous comment here. Please let me know if you have any other questions/concerns/suggestions. Thanks, PPPS. Regarding "Apparently I'm now going to join the scorned "Piotrus is evil" crowd" - I hope my jest at the page was not inappropriate; anyway, I do not consider anybody really joining that crowd unless they contribute to the ED hate page (the one which gives out mine and others real life information and calls for our harassment and even assassinations :/). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping - did you have time to look into the matter? No rush, though, I understand we can all be busy with real life and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I really regret how long this took. As you may have seen, I was on holiday for a bit, and then I had a second brief overnight trip that I didn't post on the talk page. That and all the work I had to do playing catch-up put me ridiculously behind on all kinds of things (if you could see all the emails I haven't replied to in my personal inbox, you'd be aghast). Anyway, I've read some of what you said and have made an appropriate strikethrough and addition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly will tell your students

Hahaha! Give me a printout of your edit, please, so I can annotate it in my special student shorthand: "adj/adv". Chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle... Bishonen | talk 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

I tend to do something similar during my students' oral exams (I teach only spoken English, so grading essays and such is not really in my jurisdiction). For me, it's "adj. as adv." Guess I'm a little longer-winded. In my case, though, the students never read it; it's just to justify my scores to the administration. Not that they ever read them, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This term, I've been running into a lot of "adj/noun" problems. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Obviously, we see things differently here. But I appreciate your letting someone else weigh in. I've gone down this road more than once with others -- some editors aren't as sensitive to this issue at first blush as I am, I know, but the guideline is pretty clear. And there is no non-frivolous reason given for the deletion of this article of 100K and its 150 footnotes. Giving a frivolous reason is not sufficient. Feel free to respond here (or not at all).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I've pretty much already said all I have to say on the matter. We'll see what the other admins do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They protected the article so he can't continue deleting it for a week, and opened up an AN/I. Moves it in the right direction--that has the same effect as to the article. Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Where I'm off to

Just to let everyone know why I'm away: Life is really kicking my arse right now, and I need time away from Misplaced Pages to deal with it all. I'm already doing better than I was a few days ago, but I still need a little time away (OK, I came back to support an RFA I thought merited it). I'll be around at least to participate in the elections soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Misplaced Pages Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

New section link at AN3

Regarding this edit. I believe that Tony Sidaway added that the new section link so he could submit 3RR reports from his iPhone. There was a discussion somewhere but I have to look around for it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems we've been getting a rash of reports with no diffs lately, and I was hoping we could help stop that. If there was a discussion in favour of including that link, by all means restore it, though I'd like to see if there isn't a way we could try to get people not to use it the way they have been. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

One option is to just close them out immediately if they have no diffs! I wish we could get everyone to use the 3rr.php script, which is quite convenient if you try it. That might require changing the documentation to explain it better. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Per TS, he is OK with using 'Click here to add a new report', so we can leave out the newsectionlink. He had never noticed that button. Time to make it larger! EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010 Edit Conflict

Note: Please see this for context. -Heim

No worries - To be honest, I didn't notice the removal until I edit conflicted myself in trying to respond to a comment that didn't exist anymore. Gotta love Mediawiki. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message earlier Heim, feel free to email me if it's important. Cheers, Skomorokh (Narodnik) 11:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just FYI, you struck almost your entire guide - which I think was an typo in the wikicode - so I fixed it. Amend as/if appropriate. –xeno 14:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, you were right. Thanks for the fix. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Brill brawl?

Wut brill irc? Election brawl? Fun fun fun? little ankle biter

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. I'll also take your more critical comments into account as I continue my service during the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks also for your advice on ignoring incivility. I will try to practice that as much as possible. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say

I saw your comment at MFD re User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say. I have no wish to offend you, so I should make clear that the page is precisely what it says it is: a list of things that people have said; some good, some bad, some merely interesting to me. Anyone who claims otherwise has been lying to you; pay them no attention. You'll be aware, no doubt, that I've had my own troubles with arbcomm; so I was interested in your . But if you don't want it recorded on that page, I'll be happy to remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't really mind. It appears that, in a somewhat surprising move, the MFD has been closed as a delete, so it may not really matter. Then again, it's practically guaranteed to go to DRV, so who knows what's next. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

IRC shock

Casting an eye on my IRC window, what is this I see? In fact Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?

This:

"Well, if I want to get to Saigon tomorrow, I should probably sleep around now."

I am appalled! Also, not getting the Saigon connection. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Tee hee. Looks like I should have thought about how I phrased that one! For the record, the phrase "sleep around now" meant "sleep at a time around this general time", not "get promiscuous". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You know what they say. "Never apologise, never explain." :-) Bishonen | talk 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

The good old Fifth Amendment, eh? (Yes, I know I'm being Americentric, but hey.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead for GZ article

Please see the rationale I gave regarding my revision. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI/3RR

Hey, you recently closed a 3RR report because I failed to include the requisite number of reverts. I looked at the page and found one that I had overlooked. Would you consider re-opening the report? On a related note, I know how close to the line everyone's toes are and I'm trying to keep it on the talk page. - Haymaker (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reaffirmed my closure for reasons I've given at the noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Pmanderson case

Could I ask why my comments were deleted from the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pmanderson reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result:1 week)? I thought that while only administrators render decisions, peons can make comments. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they weren't deleted; they were simply archived by bot along with all comments on that particular case. In any case, I certainly didn't remove any comments by you, so if that's not the explanation, I'm not sure what's up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Not sure what happened there — I think I followed a link to an earlier version, which was not the final one that was archived. Sorry, sometimes I'm an eejit. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No prob. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Removal of delete tag on Wee Shu Min article

Hi there, just to point out that the recent spate of edits/removals of the nomination for delete tags on the article was apparently triggered by an external canvassing which took place on an external site ]. On top of the notability issue, I was more worried that wikipedia is being used as a Coatrack attack source, but hopefully the edit furore goes away after the mentioned elections ]Zhanzhao (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, canvassing is not good, but the thing about PROD is that anyone can challenge it for any reason, even if that reason sucks. Actually, they can even challenge it after it's already been deleted, in which case the article will be restored, so there's no point in keeping the tag there once anyone's removed it. Still, I want to clarify that I do take POV and coatracking issues seriously and that I would not object to its being sent to AFD if you think there are POV issues that cannot be fixed any other way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to AE!

Per your comment, I felt the need for an official welcome template for any incautious admin who is tempted to put their toe in the water there. Since a lot of AE cases are murky, it helps to have more than one admin giving their opinion on possible closures. Simple cases are often closed by a single admin. Hope you decide to stay. Other admins are invited also. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do over time. Life's busy now, though, so it could be not so much for a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I echo EdJohnston. AE is perpetually in need of reasonable, neutral, and experienced administrators. You satisfy those requirements, and then some, Heimstern; I do hope that you'll be active at the noticeboard in future. Regards, AGK 13:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your welcome, and also thank AGK for his probably-too-flattering comments on my qualifications. Real life is still being a jerk to me right now, though, so I may take quite some time to get to this stuff. Hope to be there soon, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

ping

;) Barong 09:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

just wondering if you've been tagging along. Barong 09:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

With what, all the fun discussions? Somewhat. I know who you are and all that, if that's what you're wondering. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ya; I keep an eye on them, too; the drama get pretty distracting here, sometimes. Carry on. . Barong 09:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comment at AN/I

Hello, Heimstern! I wanted to thank you for your comment at AN/I about the whole debacle over a checkuser having accused another user of character assassination. Since I know it's impossible to watchlist a particular thread at that board, I thought I'd also let you know that I made a change to the wording of the proposal to incorporate the light your comment shed over it. You could revert me eight ways to Sunday for doing that, i.e. for changing text that you'd already posted a reply to below, but I thought I'd risk the liberty in this case because your objection made such good sense to me, and because opening up a new level three subsection for a revised proposal would have been pretty silly. Since you were the only one who had responded, though, and since I made the change to respond to your comment, I didn't think you'd beat me up over it. ;-)

Anyway, I wanted to just let you know of this, and to explain that my hope is that (a) Ohana might yet change his mind, or, if he doesn't, (b) community consensus will nevertheless allow the comments to be struck through so they're not thrown in betsy's face every time she files an SPI for the next three years. Some people in the I/P area are just mean, I'm sorry to say, and would certainly repeatedly cite Ohana's comments on various pages, despite the seeming consensus at AN/I that they were uncalled for. It's disturbing, but the rule really does seem to be, "fling whatever mud is you can put your hands on, maybe some of it will stick". To be clear, though, I do not make these comments about any individual editor. If you want to have a look at the section again, here's a link. Thanks again for your comment, it was insightful and helpful. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned with your rewords; nothing looks problematic about it to me. I'm more concerned that it appears we've once again driven off a contributor rather unfairly. I'm thinking about talking with the checkuser team and asking them to review OhanaUnited's actions here. I think it's wrong for us to present this sort of reaction to attempts to deal with the very real problem of sockpuppetry in our most plagued areas of Misplaced Pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing me the change. It's was rather a liberty, of course, but since no one else has !voted, I'm going to push it just a tiny bit further to also go ahead and clarify the proposal in one very minor way. I shouldn't have used the word "redacted" because it could be construed as rev-deleted when I only meant struck-through. But may I ask whether you considered recording a preference re whether the comments should be redacted, i.e. struck-through? Maybe I believe in lost causes, but I also know that the ebb and flow at AN/I seems to operate in a momentum-driven sort of way, and if others were to see an additional !vote then perhaps the thread would attract more reviewers, which is always a good thing. But don't if you think the suggestion improper in any way, of course.

Re talking with checkusers, that couldn't hurt, I suppose, unless it were interpreted as forum shopping. And I certainly honor your intent, i.e. that you care enough to consider it. My concern would be that - I don't like saying it - checkusers might be as reluctant to sanction "one of their own" as admins at AN/I typically are. I'd thought of an RFC/U, actually, since those tend to attract more non-admins than are typically present on AN/I. But I do feel pretty strongly that however it's to be addressed, the situation shouldn't just stay as it is. That's just too harsh an outcome by half for someone who was trying to do the conscientious and responsible thing.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, certainly I suggest that they be struck through, but as I said, I'm not really seeing that the section you made is going to do any good at this point, so I'm recording no opinion there.

For the record, in case this matters to you or to Betsy, OhanaUnited isn't a checkuser. Rather, he's a checkuser clerk. Not that that excuses his behaviour in any way. As for RFC/U, that may well be something worth considering. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've not been clear enough, prompt enough, or direct enough at AN/I. I'm sure that has confused participants there, or irritated or bored them. A clause of our "no personal attacks" policy allows anyone to remove personal attacks, or at least suggests that it's the right action in some cases. And there's not much that's more attacking than falsely claiming someone has engaged in intentional character assassination to eliminate a POV opponent, and then following up when challenged on that by suggesting the person was part of a tag-team bent on harassment. And I'm not even proposing that the comments be removed, just struck through.

My point is that whether Ohana ultimately agrees to strike-through his comments or not, any individual who considers them a personal attack could reasonably do so. But it would be better, of course, if that action were supported by community consensus, and that's what I want to see develop with the !vote I set up. But I bungled the handling of it by not initiating that right away, and people lost interest. So I guess I don't understand why you think this can't do any good? If even half-a-dozen users would explicitly !vote for a strike-through, there would be no reason in the world we couldn't go ahead with that and provide justification for that everywhere we do it, in <small> text, with a permalink to the now-current AN/I thread. Do you disagree, or is there something else I'm missing here?  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick addendum: I see that our alphabet soup also includes WP:AOHA which says, in part, "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." So it seems like this does clearly qualify as a personal attack, and could appropriately be struck through without Ohana's blessing, for that reason.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I get it. I admit I've never really gotten the point of RPA or strikethrough of personal attacks except when voluntary on the part of the maker of the attacks. My main concern is simply having them not repeated.

By the way, were Ohana's allegations written anywhere except Betsy's talk? If so, it seems a little beside the point, as Betsy herself would be free to remove or refactor comments on her own talk anyway.

Anyway, I'm basically neutral on someone else redacting Ohana's comments because I don't really believe in the idea of doing so, but I also won't stand in opposition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why a bright-line response is needed

Hello, Heimstern! Please excuse me for being a little slow in getting back to you about this. As you wrote above,

I admit I've never really gotten the point of WP:RPA or strikethrough of personal attacks except when voluntary on the part of the maker of the attacks. My main concern is simply having them not repeated.

My main concern is also to that they not be repeated. But absent a now unlikely apology, if there's no concise, "bright line" response from AN/I, like a strikethrough, or a block of Red Stone Arsenal, or a censure of Ohana, I can assure you they absolutely will be repeated, although not by Ohana, and probably for years.

It's no exaggeration to say that many editors in the topic area eagerly "fling any mud they think might stick" to gain an advantage, and that they do so with zero regard for the truth or falsity of the accusations they throw out. It's extremely regrettable that such behaviour is permitted in the area, but it is permitted. And among its most prolific editors, amounting to fewer than a dozen, really, this behaviour is very much the rule, not the exception.

If there's no "bright line" i.e. incontrovertible conclusion to the third opinion requested affair at AN/I, I can assure you that every time Betsy suggests that some obvious sock might actually be a sock, and every time she files an SPI report, someone will certainly put up linked statements like,

• "Don't abuse the SPI process to eliminate others editors with different POV." or
• "You've already been warned not to engage in character assassination."

With the authority of an SPI clerk, no less, behind the repetition, these false accusations would appear entirely credible. It would be in vain that Betsy would reply, "But people at AN/I said OhanaUnited shouldn't have said those things!"

That is, simply pointing to a tl;dr AN/I thread that rolled to archive with a lot of opinions but no clearly demarcated outcome would allow Betsy's detractors to say, "Oh, sure. Everyone always has their partisan supporters, but it was an SPI clerk who said so." Without a "bright line" response of some sort, the comments will prove an Albatross around her neck, a Scarlet letter, for literally years to come, and one she did absolutely nothing to deserve.

If that seems hard to believe, I can provide diffs of a recent instance of the sort of thing I'm sure Betsy would be subjected to. I'd be glad to do so, as long as it's understood that I wouldn't be asking for administrative action here by presenting such an example. Neither am I doing so here, with anything I've posted above, of course.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm closing down my talk page now, but I just wanted to thank you for your kind thoughts. I don't think OhanaUnited's attitude is a good one for an admin or checkuser. betsythedevine (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)