User talk:NuclearWarfare

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Room for one more?

Hi NW. I saw on the SPI Clerk page that you wrote new clerks are needed and I was wondering if I could help out too. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd be a great fit. Could you pop a note on the Clerks' noticeboard to make sure no one else has any objections? Thanks. NW (Talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexcas11: International Man of Mystery

The last checkuser did uncover a link to other socks. I was a bit surprised about the IPs connected, as any of the IPs that I ever found that were Alexcas-ish (same style and linking to deleted Alexcas articles) were Mexican ISPs, but the related IPs in the sock reports that are now in the Alexcas fold are US based ones. Darn, not only is he a pest, but it looks like he gets to travel :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, not fun. Dealt with the most recent batch of articles, but I dislike this new development :( NW (Talk) 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it doesn't really change things, although I was hoping that a rangeblock was a possibilty. (I think that might have been showing through on SPI :)) But at the end of the day, he is always going to have to create a new account if he wants to make a movie article and although I will be clearing most of my watchlist out in the next few days because its getting way too big and I want to do other things, I'll keep the usual suspect articles on it. Actually I was bored enough one day to count the pages I have watched on account of Alex and it was about 120 or so; I might, without getting spammy about it, drop a note on a few talkpages of anyone who is running into him on a regular basis pointing them in the right direction. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

This edit- User is blocked for socking around a 3RR block. This seems like openly stating his intention to flex WP:VANISH despite his active block. --King Öomie 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not good. Looks like Spitfire handled the SPI case. NW (Talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Brian Leiter

Hello! I see that you locked the Brian Leiter entry. Do you believe that my edits were false or poorly sourced, or did you simply lock it to slow down the edit warring? If the former, then I'd like to discuss that with you. If the latter, then I would appreciate your okay for me to change it back. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which IP you were using, but if you were the one adding this information, I am afraid adding controversial information to an biography of a living person, attributed solely to blogs and Urban Dictionary, is a violation of our biographies of living persons policy.

Feel free to discuss anything you wish with me though. NW (Talk) 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the information I wanted added. I would first like to differentiate between using a blog as a source of factual information, and using a blog to cite the opinions of the bloggers.

Example: if the entry reads, "Miss Piggy loves Kermit", and the source is some fansite or fan's blog, then I would agree that this is not acceptable as a reference.

On the other hand, if the entry reads, "Miss Piggy loves Kermit", and the source is Miss Piggy's own blog, then wouldn't you agree that this is permissible? That is, blogs may be taken as evidence of the opinions of their writers.

In this particular case, Brian Leiter has been involved in some very high profile spats with other public intellectuals, and the record of that is contained mostly in his own blog. Furthermore, I also included an article in the National Review as a source, which whatever you think about it politically, is not a "blog". Thanks for your time and consideration.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The NR link is this: [1] Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The way that the material was added was inappropriate. I'm not sure if you are part of this dispute with Mr. Leiter or not, but this situation is in no way, shape, or form unique or even uncommon among professors. Any such sources on this dispute need to indicate that this is a significant and notable controversy; this will be indicated through the presence of multiple, reliable secondary sources, not just one and a couple of blogs. NW (Talk) 21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never met nor corresponded with nor had any personal contact whatsoever with Leiter at any time ever. Nor have I met, corresponded with, or had any personal contact whatsoever with his disputants. His very public nastiness however is undeniably the most salient part of his public persona, to the extent that he has one. I have no doubt that there is sufficient evidence to support my claim that these are significant disputes. What would you consider a sufficient threshold for "multiple, reliable" secondary sources? If I include such citation, would you be willing to reverse your decision to blank out the section? And you will note again that one of my sources was a nationally distributed print newspaper. Do you consider that a reliable secondary source? Should I just find more like that?Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A single freelance publication from the National Review is certainly not significant enough. It can be used as an example of a dispute, but more is required first. Multiple major publications, from something major such as the Chicago Tribune or the Chicago Sun-Times (for examples of Chicago-based papers), would definitely be preferred to show that this is a significant dispute, worth of mention in an encyclopedia article about the man's life. NW (Talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if your threshold for what counts as a "major publication" is the Chicago Sun-Times, then 80% of wiki articles probably ought to be candidates for deletion. Nothing else in Leiter's biography seems to meet that standard. This is clearly inconsistent policy, since Leiter's blog is cited in other wiki articles, often in support of positions attacking the people mentioned in my edit. Read and . The former (under References) describes "Leiter's line-by-line examination of Romano's Rorty essay, a demonstration of the subject's attributed incompetence in the history and practice of philosophy". That description, it should be mentioned, was likely added by Leiter himself, who ghost edits about his disputes on wikipedia. The latter provides two links to Leiter's blog as "evidence" that there was controversy in the philosophical community regarding a book review. Indeed, if you search for "leiterreports.typepad.com", you will find it listed in the references of numerous wikipedia articles. It seems absurd to me that you wouldn't allow that same reference in the article about the man himself. And if you think it is insufficient to demonstrate that a controversy exists (taking no position on who's "right"), then ALL of those many citations in other articles should likewise be deleted.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Introducing controversy sections (no matter what it is titled) is a fairly big deal. While other sources can certainly supplement the section, at least one solid source (of which I don't believe the National Review article is) is required to provide a basis for the section to make sure it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. And as for the blog that you mentioned, there is actual a provision for allowing blogs to be used as sources as long as they meet certain criteria. However, I agree with you that a good number of them ought to be removed. NW (Talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, what say you about the following Boston Globe article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=3. Read page (3) in particular.

"There's a whole category of posts called 'The Less They Know, The Less They Know It,' under which one finds headlines like, 'Carlin Romano: Total Ignorance of Philosophy Is No Obstacle to Opining About Richard Rorty.' [...] Those whom Leiter finds wanting are deemed "morons" or "zombies" or "demonstrably incompetent." Peers then treat him in kind: University of Wisconsin legal blogger Ann Althouse called Brian Leiter a 'jackass,' to take a famous example. (She also called him a 'nerd.') [...] But in another sense, the various Leiters seem to be at war. If the stakes are really this high - and they are, because, to take one example from Leiter's blog, philosophy must help us defeat intelligent design - then it's surprising that Leiter would act so low, being the man of higher thinking in the classroom, and a shepherd who helps grad students around the world find the best possible home, but then the troglodyte in cyberspace. Looked at that way, Leiter's rankings may be more worrisome than he would admit. By increasing competition in the profession, by promoting envy or Schadenfreude, by writing a blog that alternates philosophy with verbal soccer hooliganism, Leiter runs a great risk: He may be demeaning the very profession he rightly wants to democratize."

Mind you, this is an article that is mostly complimentary toward Leiter, and the writer still sees fit to describe his personal combativeness. At any rate, would you say that this is sufficient warrant to include the other material?Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A report in both the Boston Globe and the National Review is enough to make me reconsider. However, I feel that any such section ought to follow the BLP and NPOV policies strictly. Could you please post a draft of what you were thinking of adding to the article on Talk:Brian Leiter? Please be sure to draw most of your information from the Boston Globe and other such reliable sources. NW (Talk) 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the events on this page, and wanted to chime in with $0.02. The original section that was so problematic was sourced to numerous highly unreliable sites (urban dictionary, an anonymous messageboard, a variety of strange blogs), and defended on the discussion page on the grounds that those citations were not for the purpose of demonstrating the truth of what was said, but for the fact of the criticism. But that makes no difference.

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

It is quite clear from that text that the reliable sources requirement applies to the reporting of "criticism" as criticism just as well as to the reporting of criticism as truth.

There's a big difference between a short note saying "the subject's blog has caused some controversy" with links to reliable sources like the Boston Globe (and, I suppose, the National Review), and a lengthy "controversy" section which gives an unnecessary list of individual disputes that seems almost cherry-picked to provide a vessel for the most inflammatory citations to the most unreliable sources.

Also, I think that part of the problem may be that the person making the edits is just not familiar with academic culture. Academics sometimes say strong things about one anothers' positions -- particularly in philosophy -- and academics often get criticized for what they say by the media, bloggers, political activists, etc. If every academic with a wikipedia page had a list of the public arguments in which (s)he had participated, the notability standard would become a joke. --Paultopia (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Paultopia - I don't think you entirely understand the claim here. 1) it is not an issue of reporting "criticism" per se. The links demonstrate that there have been ugly personal disputes. The issue is not criticism of Leiter, but rather a history of disputes for which he has earned considerable notoriety. Evidence of those disputes is easily demonstrated by linking to those disputes. Indeed, it seems to me that this is more solid evidence of disputes than if CNN or the NY Times reported that those disputes occurred. It is not an endorsement of either disputant, or anything remotely like it. In some cases, the people that Leiter attacks do not even respond. The point is not that he has been criticized, nor is it my opinion that it is the role of an encyclopedia entry to give voice to such criticisms. However, it is well known that Leiter has a history of personal attacks against other academics. The National Review article and Boston Globe article seem to me sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he is well-known for that peculiar form of rhetoric, and the blogs where they occurred are good evidence that those particular academic celebrities were his foils at various times.

2) My academic bona fides are none of your concern, although I happen to teach at a "top-ranked" institution myself. I have no personal beef with Leiter. I've never even met the man at a conference. I haven't even read any of his papers (our research interests differ). I do have an issue with bullies, though. The issue with Leiter is not that he puts things in strong terms, nor that he attacks the positions of others, but that he resorts to name-calling and personally maligning his opponents. You can find any number of other top legal scholars and philosophers who have quipped on Leiter's propensity for personal attack, and his inability to focus on the topic of discussion rather than the character of his opposition. I'd direct you to his slew of insults famously directed toward Carlin Romano for a perfect example of this. No matter how mistaken Mr. Romano might have been, trashing the man personally was not justified, and it is absolutely not common practice in academic culture to tolerate this sort of boorish behavior. He does not attack the argument, he attacks the arguer, and he has a well-known history of doing this. Why else would the Boston Globe article close on pondering whether he is not a blemish upon the profession?Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please view my proposed amendment to the article on the discussion page as requested.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"No matter how mistaken Mr. Romano might have been, trashing the man personally was not justified, and it is absolutely not common practice in academic culture to tolerate this sort of boorish behavior."

I don't think this is quite right. Leiter's remarks about Romano were stronger than normal, it's true, but were nothing unprecedented. See, for example, Colin McGinn's review of Ted Honderich's book on consciousness, and Honderich's reply, among many other examples. (Or some of the exchanges between Ronald Dworkin and Richard Posner in the NYRB, among other places.) I don't love the style myself, as I am, or try to be, a "more flies with honey than vineger" sort of guy, but it's false that Leiter's remarks about Romano were clearly outside the bounds of academic discourse. If someone wants to note that Leiter is often a harsh critic, and link to some of his own criticisms, that seems fine to me. But the links that were actually made weren't substantive or reliable and don't show anything worth while. It was good to remove them and I hope they'll stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.215.154 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

NW: I hope you will notice that these IP's from the University of Chicago neighborhood (where Leiter resides) are very suspicious in their writing style, the posters' knowledge of specialized literature in Leiter's field of expertise, and heartfelt defense of Leiter. Also, the insistence that Leiter's responses must be included, if any mention of disputes is mentioned (the content of which I have been careful NOT to delve into, in my proposed article amendment) is difficult to reconcile without concluding that these are all sock puppets of Leiter himself. In fact, the autoadmit.com article on wiki notes that the admins of that website have accused him of such very same sock puppetry. I won't respond to these anonymous Chicago/Austin IP's on your talk page anymore, but would urge you, in light of these facts, to weigh them with a grain of salt.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So I actually live in Chicago, though do not have a U of Chicago IP address, and I alerted Leiter to this campaign against him. I do not know who jeanbatpistemuiron is, but he seems to have a vendetta. I will note that the last IP address is from Philadelphia. The user before that is a registered user, so NW can verify who it is. 98.206.162.185 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I found your revision entirely acceptable.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you reorganized a bit. Well, a minor note (not regarding content): his ranking list is only available online, so that would really count as part of his "online activities", too. I'd suggest (purely as a matter of good housekeeping) that you merge the two sections, and I am indifferent on whether you used the section heading "Other projects" or "Online activities", since his blogging and ranking lists both fall neatly in those categories. Otherwise, thanks for your assistance in this matter. I appreciate your willingness to hear my side of the argument, and the opportunity to revise. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Went ahead and merged the two sections. If you have any ideas for the article, please feel free to implement them. NW (Talk) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like the dispute is not yet over, unfortunately. The remaining pickle seems to be the wording of "On his blog, he has famously attacked Keith Burgess-Jackson...". I would be amenable to rewording that, but "criticized" and "has had disputes with" (the latter being grammatically quite ugly) seem to miss the point altogether. The salient fact is not that Leiter has disagreed with colleagues, nor that he has criticized their positions. By now, you probably have read more about Dr. Leiter than you might possibly care to, but you must surely recognize from your brief perusal of links that the reason his behavior is worth mentioning is because he resorts to personal attacks and insults. Calling colleagues "mentally ill", "incompetent" and "stupid" can hardly be characterized as "disputation" or "criticism". The term "dispute" is also a particularly poor descriptor (unless contextualized in ways that Leiter would likely find even more objectionable), since a couple of the disputants listed never responded to his attacks. I personally found "famously attacks" form your original proposed revision entirely appropriate. If this strikes you as NPOV on reconsideration, I think it's entirely reasonable to reword it, provided the rewording points to the salient fact that he targets the arguer rather than their arguments. That's what he's gotten in trouble for, and that's the whole point of the criticism that the Globe article was raising. Thanks again for your patience. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the truly deranged blog that Keith Burgess-Jackson set up about Leiter some time ago (I'm not sure if it's still up- I haven't looked in ages- you'll see that calling him crazy is far from unsupported. It's truly nuts. It's not nice, maybe, but Burgess-Jackson is so nutty that it's hard to say anything nice about him. I'll further add that "Jeanbaptistemuiron's" strange idea that anyone defending Leiter must _be_ Leiter makes me suspect that he's not a reliable source nor one that you'd do well to have making edits on this entry. It's a paranoid delusion and shows he's not reasonable. I'd give any edits he makes a very serious review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.215.154 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether Burgess-Jackson is crazy. I've heard people (other than Leiter) say that he's crazy, but in the same breath they same the same about Leiter. I don't really think it's my business to judge that, and it's certainly not the role of an encyclopedia to endorse any such judgment. I don't think anyone defending Leiter must be Leiter himself, but I do find the impassioned defense of him and the desire to whitewash his frequent unpleasantness curious. Particularly when considering his history of using sock puppets. You may or may not be Leiter. I don't know. But in any case, I think this matter has been (and is being) resolved equitably, so I hardly see the sense in singling me out for trying to get some accurate reporting on a notoriously unpleasant fellow. As to my sobriquet, Leiter has a history of exacting "revenge" on colleagues he deems "enemies", so I am not particularly interested in divulging my identity and professional info, but suffice it to say that I have no personal grudge (or contact of any sort) with Leiter, although I am in a good position to know about him. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My talk page isn't really the right place for this. Do you think you guys could continue this at Talk:Brian Leiter (which I have watchlisted, and will continue to discuss at)? Thanks. NW (Talk) 18:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. Honestly, I hope you'll be rid of both of us shortly. I'm more than eager to get past this episode. And we're down to one point of contention, anyway. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded to your message.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant on my talk page.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN#Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy

• Thread archived. NW (Talk) 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like some advice. I've tried to apply some subheaders to the thread in order to make it more manageable and readable, but Tbsdy has reverted them. I feel he is possibly deliberately trying to keep the thread confusing to look at, because that would benefit him. I know WP:AGF and all, but still, the thread could use some organization. What should I do? Equazcion (talk) 20:44, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) I'd also like to basically hide the mess of irrelevant exchanges Tbsdy facilitated, as I feel they muddy the thread and further confuse potential outside commenters. I'm hesitant to do this myself. Do you think you could, using your own discretion, clean up the thread of any irrelevance, however you see fit? Equazcion (talk) 20:55, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) Sigh, that's not the case here, seriously. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Sorry NW, I tried a compromise to try to implement your suggestion, which is to leave the article alone but do some copyediting and fact checking later on when Giano was finished, but even that wasn't working. Honestly, I did try! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) What happened there is what I knew would happen there, if we moved the discussion: Tbsdy pitched a fit, muddied the waters, and someone closed it with no result. He wins, and lives to harass Giano, and cause chaos at Talk:Blenheim Palace another day. He has made it clear that he's not stopping, as he thinks he's done nothing wrong, NW. How does archiving the entire proposal with no action (as opposed to collapsing his off-topic rants) help the current situation? It just puts it off on another day, instead of dealing with it today. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I actually was willing to make a compromise, I was willing to discuss if further, but then you started your ban proceedings and well, that conversation was somewhat derailed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Tell us now, then, what exact concessions you're willing to make in compromise. Equazcion (talk) 21:20, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) Helps to read the thread on the talk page, Equazcion. The thread title is confusingly entitled "A compromise". You did read this before you supported my ban, right? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The thread was "confusingly titled", since you didn't do anything remotely resembling a "compromise", but rather made a list of ultimatums. No editors who have commented there have supported your distorted view of the situation. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Already done a long time ago, didn't see any compromise. The problem, again, Tb, is that you're promising to edit the page once Giano enacts his draft. Most editors feel you shouldn't do that. What is your proposed compromise to satisfy us and you? Equazcion (talk) 21:25, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) No one is in the proper mood to deal with it today. In 24 hours (or so), this particular dispute will be behind us, and we can try from scratch to build a proper consensus as to what should happen at that article. We can afford to let things lie for 24 hours; the wiki won't explode if we do. But if we are going to let sleeping dogs lie, then we actually have to try. Could you all please disengage from this entire topic for the next little while?? Thanks. NW (Talk) 21:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC) As long as Tbsdy leaves Giano alone, and leaves that article talkpage in peace, I have no problem doing so. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I never caused the consternation on that talk page. Seriously, the only one making personal attacks and being incivil was Giano! I even managed to have a very civil discussion with others about the infobox, and though I'm not entirely convinced I agreed with the editors that an infobox is not required. I didn't take a ban proposal, I didn't make rude comments about other's ability, I didn't intimidate other editors like I saw Giano do (the guy literally told Giano that he was stepping down, but Giano hounded him at his user talk page with insults!) and I certainly didn't try to ban anyone from making constructive comments or say that I would refuse to work with another editor on the article. I have asked a few people now to show me precisely where I was causing trouble, and so far nobody has been able to provide any evidence that I have been. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Given that they just tried to ban me, this is a bit of an ask. However, I'm really about to drop so sure :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I'm up for waiting 24 hours, if that's the consensus... I'm honestly not sure a break period will help matters, but I'm willing to do it, if everyone else thinks it's the way to go. Equazcion (talk) 21:33, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, huh? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The only reason you're not article banned right now is because you muddied the waters so much at AN (which I knew you'd do, and which is why I thought it best to keep it at the article page) that NW archived it. It's not that the ban "didn't succeed", it's that you successfully evaded it using muddying tactics. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You wouldn't possibly be assuming a foregone conclusion there, would you? You may want me banned, but the way you all went about it was really pretty shoddy. You caused your own confusion! And I believe that NW archived it for the same reason that other threads have been archived - nothing to see here, move right along. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, NW. You closed the AN topic, and said to ask any questions here. Now you've closed this topic. All these closes are doing is fueling Tbsdy's mistaken impression that the discussion of article and interaction banning him is over, when it's not. I'd appreciate a response from you on this, as I may well reopen it at the article talkpage. There was pretty strong consensus in the unofficial discussion that Tbsdy should leave Giano and the article alone. Yet now he somehow thinks that how he has behaved these last few days is just fine. This must end. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's over for the next 24 hours (ish). For that time, I expect that Tbsdy will refrain from posting on the article's talk page. After that, a well-structured, moderated AN discussion can take place. NW (Talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That sounds fine. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ACC Account

Hello; I am the account holder for "ESan013" on ACC. I wanted to know if you could re-enable my access. I have been busy these past few months and know that the account is suspended after 45 days of inactivity. Thanks for your consideration. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Account unsuspended. Cheers, NW (Talk) 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A question

I'd like to ask a question if I may, but I'll understand if you'd prefer not to answer, or would rather answer via e-mail.

If an editor's account is blocked here, so that they cannot create new accounts, what happens if they go to another wiki, say Commons, and create a new account there, where they are not blocked? Would the global login system automatically create the account here, despite the block?

This has nothing to do with my account, by the way, I'm curious about a brand-new editor's account. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure at all. User:Krimpet and User:MZMcBride are both pretty good with the technical parts of the site; perhaps you could try asking them? NW (Talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give one of them a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted content

Hi NW. I felt that List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors was deleted per I don't like it arguments rather than normal wikipedia arguments. Could you please userfy me a copy. I would like to see if this can make an article or not. If I decide it won't make an article then I will get it deleted as soon as possible. Polargeo (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing; see User:Polargeo/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. Could you please run this through DRV before putting this back into the mainspace? Thanks. NW (Talk) 15:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive boxes?

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to this thread. NW (Talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequent comments should be made in a new section." OK, I should have created a section header. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional1787

Hi, you blocked User:Constitutional1787 for sockpuppeting. But a checkuser has confirmed that he was not involved. See here:[2] 187.47.23.230 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser can *not* confirm that he wasn't "involved" (checkuser can't rule out meatpuppetry, which was clearly the case there). It's quite possible that this is an "editing from home" vs "editing from work" scenario. NW, the shenanigans are occurring across three articles, and need uninvolved admin attention (an admin who has not been neutral is now getting involved). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, IP 187 is removing the COI tag from Talk:Mark Weisbrot, although we now have CU confirmation that an editor using the name Mark Weisbrot has been socking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have no involvement other than seeing that a mistake happened, which I informed here. Claiming that it "might be" is ridiculous. You have absolutely no evidence that it was meatpupetry. You don't know the results of the check user. They might be from different continets form all we know. Better ask the person who performed it. Im quite worried that people are being hanged based on no evidence whatsover other than Sandys "opinions". 187.47.23.230 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)