User talk:Alansohn: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Archives

1) August 30, 2005 - February 1, 2006 2) February 2, 2006 - April 28, 2006 3) May 2, 2006 - June 28, 2006 4) July 1, 2006 - December 29, 2006 5) January 1, 2007 - March 31, 2007 6) April 1, 2007 - June 30, 2007 7) July 1, 2007 - September 30, 2007 8) October 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007 9) January 1, 2008 - March 31, 2008 10) April 1, 2008 - June 16, 2008 11) June 17, 2008 - August 3, 2008 12) August 4, 2008 - September 17, 2008 13) September 17, 2008 - October 23, 2008 14) October 23, 2008 - November 16, 2008 15) November 17, 2008 - December 15, 2008 16) December 16, 2008 - January 2, 2009 17) January 2, 2009 - January 15, 2009 18) January 15, 2009 - February 1, 2009 19) February 1, 2009 - March 2, 2009 20) March 2, 2009 - March 22, 2009 21) March 22, 2009 - April 23, 2009 22) April 23, 2009 - May 16, 2009 23) May 17, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

David Carradine has been reincarnated as Noah Ringer. But, thank you for caring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.157.147 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Mehmed Necmeddin had no children, there are no descendants. Once I had written this Articels, but it is wrong.Please read the Turkish information on this subject .......

• Harry Harris (director)

		100,000 Edits
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

Everything i said about brett delaney was true! i work at rebel sport, you dont, therefore i think i would have more accurate information than you, wouldnt you agree?

why did you deleted my last edit? that one was a true one.. becouse i am a real harajuku subculturic guy. for the toher things before that i am sorry. but for now i want to edit somethings that are waayy to old and waayay out of time for that page.

WP:ANI#96.32.188.25 WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Edit warring, Personal attacks may be of interest to you, based on 96.32.188.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s edit of your talk page. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Hello, Alansohn. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? ---kilbad (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from name-calling and incivility at CFD. Calling me a troll out of the blue in multiple CFD discussions because I have criticized your lack of civility in other discussions is completely uncalled for.[1],[2],[3] The comments of yours that I criticized were unnecessarily personal arguments (in the most recent instances, against User:BrownHairedGirl), making them a comment and judgment on the contributor rather than the content.[4],[5] These comments, apart from doing nothing to advance any legitimate argument, violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and especially WP:AGF.

Perhaps I made a mistake by trying to bring this to your attention in the middle of the CFD rather than on your talk page, as that could be seen as unnecessarily confrontational, in which case I apologize. But the underlying point is that you need to comply with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, regardless of how much you may disagree with others. Your comments often suggest that you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is honestly working to improve the encyclopedia, and in conjunction with your personalized remarks, you frequently do not fairly restate the positions of others, and I don't know that I've ever seen you try at CFD to better understand them. I sometimes might agree with the underlying substance of your arguments, were you to present it neutrally rather than as an attack.

I'm very impressed with your contributions in other areas; I've noticed how many new articles you've written and expanded, how many DYKs you're credited with, and how prolific of a vandal fighter you are. That makes your hostility at CFD all the more disappointing, because I don't think you're someone who has to attack others in order to make a point. Perpetuating a hostile environment at CFD certainly doesn't make it any less "broken," but rather makes it harder for those with disagreements to resolve them, or even to listen to one another.

Please believe that my intent has never been to stop you from voicing your content-related opinions, however much or little I may agree with them. My objections have always been only regarding the manner in which you do so. postdlf (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these issues going to be addressed? I too would be anxious to see a resolution to the problems outlined above. Nothing can happen without all parties coming together, though. Apologies if I've pre-empted your response preparation, Alansohn, but I just didn't see anything happening here and I wondered. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incidents sited are so trivial and so in keeping with remarks from "trusted" administrators such as yourselves as to not be worthy of mention. If BHG has an issue, she will be given every opportunity to address it. While I will tone down my comments as it is clear that sensitivities among admins are rather delicate, I will not respond further to trolling and demands. Where there are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, I will continue to bring them to the attention of violators, regardless of an alphabet soup of claims from the Postdlf / Good Olfactory tag team. Any further trolling here will be deleted; any further trolling from either of you at CfD, where your comments are attempts to manufacture knowingly false disputes, will be ignored. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, in the spirit of trying bring some resolution, I noticed one point in your reply that seemed to be specific: you said "Where there are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, I will continue to bring them to the attention of violators".

That seems to me to imply that you have already encountered "clear violations of Wikipedia policy" at CFD. Please can you clarify whether that's the case, and if so give some examples so that we can discuss them?

If you are right, and admins are violating policy, then I hope you can be relied upon to do the right thing and set them out so that they can be discussed ... and if you do not feel they have been resolved, you should take them to an appropriate forum for further action. However, sniping about them at CFD clearly isn't producing any solution that you find satisfactory, and this situation needs some resolution. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, here's an easy one: Can you point to the policy that justifies deletion based on "superfluous for navigation"? Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just a difference of opinion between editors? Not every opinion a user voices requires 100% policy backing. If it did, guidelines and policy could never develop in the first place. The OCAT, CLN stuff, etc. are all just guidelines, not policy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You folks have steadfastly refused to define "defining". Now you want to turn WP:IHATEIT into policy? This is merely "a difference of opinion between editors"? CfD deserves better than that. If you were closing this CfD, would you count that as a valid justification? Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of what postdlf is talking about. I didn't say I wanted to "turn WP:IHATEIT into policy". I'm just saying that I don't think an admin voicing an opinion constitutes a violation of policy by the admin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The game resumes. Are you responding or just claiming that you've been misquoted? Is "superfluous for navigation" a valid justification for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the user's opinion it is, and I suspect that in yours it is not, but that's not really the point. The point is that it's an opinion, not policy. There are very few "policies" that justify deletion (the speedy delete criteria being the only real exception). But we base deletions on consensus opinion and guidelines, not just policies. BHG asked for examples of admins violating policy, and you raised this. What is the policy that was violated? I'm not trying to play games here, but it would help if you could answer BHG's question. We are trying to help. Maybe you're just saying "policy" when you mean "guideline"? I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make life and (mostly) death decisions on categories an average of several times per day.If there are no policies or guidelines on deletion of categories, how is it that you manage to decide that some votes are more worthy than others? Is "superfluous for navigation" a valid justification for deletion or is it not? This is a rather simple question thatall three admins here have refused to answer. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, you say that you folks have steadfastly refused to define "defining". Not so: I tried a few years ago (see Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive_10#Defining_attribute), but there was no consensus. I think it would be a good idea to reopen that discussion.

As to the incident you refer to, the documents you have cited are guidelines, not policies. They exist to to clarify existing consensus, not to form a code of law. They evolve over time, and they do not cover every situation; when consensus changes, the guidelines are revised. So, I'll ask again: where are your examples of POLICY violations?

Oh, and your final question: "superfluous for navigation" has frequently been accepted (by consensus) as grounds for deletion. Not every list or template needs a corresponding category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More recently Alansohn started a discussion on it: here. I participated—I certainly didn't "refuse" to entertain a definition for it—I was just a bit confused by the proposal, because I had suggested a negative definition previously, which had been rejected by Alansohn, but then the proposal seemed to incorporate what had been rejected. I don't think repeated no consensus discussions constitutes anybody refusing to define it. We have all tried; it is very difficult to gain consensus on it. Again, an example of where it would be better if we could assume the best about everybody rather than the worst. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you must have an answer on the beside-the-point issue: I would consider it essentially as I would consider any other non-policy based opinion expressed in a discussion. If consensus agreed with the point, then it would be a valid reason for deletion. Now, back to where are the policy violations by admins at CFD? Or are there some other things concerning you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I have this all in writing. There's no argument that's any better or worse than any other. We now know that "superfluous for navigation" is just as valid justification for deletion as claims of WP:OCAT and that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is just as worthy as an argument for retention as a stack of books showing a characteristic to be defining. Consensus is just a numerical counting of Keep vs. Delete. Yet somehow arguments for retention are routinely "discounted" as being less worthy than others by closing admins such as yourselves. Is that how this game works? Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we—just for this one conversation, if nothing else—put aside disagreements about how CFD should or should not work? Can we please assume good faith for the purpose of this conversation? Can you try to assume that our intentions are good—even if that requires a suspension of disbelief on your part? Can you cease paraphrasing what others have said to frame it in the worst possible light? The initial concern expressed by postdlf was clear that the purpose of this section on your talk page is not primarily concerned with content of arguments, we're concerned with manner and tone: "Please believe that my intent has never been to stop you from voicing your content-related opinions, however much or little I may agree with them. My objections have always been only regarding the manner in which you do so. " That's what is troubling me, at least. Could you address these issues, please? Perhaps you are uncomfortable with me participating here. I'll withdraw from commenting here, and let you (hopefully) respond to postdlf's original concerns. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the supposed "tone" issue. See above. As both WP:CAT and WP:OCAT are not policy, and as any guideline can be safely ignored, how is any delete vote "better argued" than any keep vote? Remember, you do this several times each day and compile statistics (of whatever value) of the results of all such decisions for a year. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is no further trolling of the watch out or "problems result" bullying see here I cherish your participation. We are teasing out details of how the deck is stacked at CfD with each further contribution. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow missed your question here; not sure if you're still wondering. I'll just briefly say that determining consensus in most discussions is not too difficult. The essay What is consensus? is a good place to start when you have a more difficult one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see your statement above that you will "tone down" your comments. But within the same paragraph, you accuse us of "manufactur[ing] knowingly false disputes." That's exactly the problem we've identified here and elsewhere. I take you at your word that you consider these incidents trivial, but you need to accept that we do not, and to take us at our word that we believe what we say. We have found the tone of your comments to be a non-trivial problem, which is why we have all tried to bring it to your attention at various times.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or everyone else on everything at CFD, and I have no problem with explaining myself or my rationales, or discussing competing interpretations of policy, guidelines, and editorial judgment. I don't assume that you are trying to destroy CFD or undermine Wikipedia simply because you disagree with me, or because I don't always understand why you think what you do. I try to understand by asking questions to tease out your underlying premises (sometimes pointed rhetorical questions, which is fair game, but never personal ones I hope), and I try to make you and others better understand my arguments and conclusions. To the extent I want to change your mind about any substantive questions of content or policy, I only want to do so through persuasion. That's all I am asking from you, nothing more. Assume that everyone else is working here in good faith rather than playing games, trying to delete categories because we hate the category's subject matter (I've always been confused by that accusation), or saying or doing anything that we think is "knowingly false." On top of those negative assumptions being contrary to WP:AGF, they aren't helping either of us understand or persuade one another.

Re: your opinion that we have "steadfastly refused to define 'defining'", notwithstanding the obvious dictionary definition of that word (which I note you yourself use quite frequently in your CFD comments without elaboration as to what you mean, and without regard to whether the deletion nomination argued that the category was trivial or non-defining), I accept that you want more guidance on that. Apart from general concerns of instruction creep, I personally don't see how it could be more than a case by case judgment particular to the subject matter of the category. But regardless, you dropped out of the the last substantive discussion you started on this issue after several contributors offered their thoughts. Further, my comments in that discussion in particular tried to lay out the premises that I basically operate from in CFD; I'll leave it to others to say how much that explains their view as well. I was hoping for you to read that and better understand our different perspectives, and then we could have a real discussion, but for some reason you didn't participate further. postdlf (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent assistance in reverting the edits of the gentleman from Detroit who keeps vandalizing the article on the Armenian Youth Federation. The IP in question has been responsible for a significant number of hateful and relatively mindless attacks on a number of articles relating to the Armenian Diaspora in the United States. It is encouraging to know that I am not the only one determined to protect the integrity of the information source I hold so dear. Odarmenian (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew more details about the issue, but the vandalism was clear in this case and was removed as part of my standard patrolling. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that it's generally not a good idea to suggest that others are being "disruptive" by voicing their opinion. If I understand you correctly you are speaking of "disruption" to the category system, as in a category being deleted, but given the special meaning of "disruption" on WP, you might want to find a different word to express the idea. I mention this here rather than the CFD discussion because it's not particular germane to the issue being discussed there. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rename here is the least disruptive approach, plain and simple, and I'm not sure what your motive is in opposing it as an option. No rational person would see an issue with the wording. The result you seem to prefer, to delete the category, remove the category from the 12 articles, have a new category without the word "Current" created and then have all 12 articles retagged, borders on a WP:POINT violation of deliberately trying to disrupt Wikipedia where there is a logical alternative of a rename that addresses the nominator's only legitimate issue. You're really grasping here to try to manufacture something where nothing exists, in a CfD that should be open and shut. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I just agree with the original nomination. Users disagree; it's normal. (What you've set out as my preferred approach is not what I prefer though, so you must have misunderstood.) My point here was about the use of the word, not to continue the substantive disagreement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry too, but your actions are disruptive here. You disagree; it's normal. The difference is that I have never abused administrative powers to impose or to threaten to impose a block where you have a rather blatant conflict of interest. Your continued threats are not normal or acceptable. Just voicing my opinion. Alansohn (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see T:TDYK#Charles Kleibacker - you need one more ref for the article. Thanks, Ucucha 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur E. Bartlett, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eunice Walker Johnson, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Kleibacker, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The WikiProject New Jersey Newsletter
Volume II - Issue 2 25 January 2010
Project News	Article Alerts
New Statistics Table There has been an upgrade to the WP 1.0 bot that updates our project's summary table. The new table lists all page classes including Portal-class, Redirect-class, and Disambig-class. We now have a better picture of the scope of the WikiProject and the pages that we cover. New York Times to charge for access The New York Times is an invaluable resource for properly referencing articles, but especially due to its extensive archives and coverage of New Jersey issues. The announcement that metered content will be started in 2011 has the potential to make article sourcing much more difficult. It also causes a need to update linked sources in articles before all of the NYT links go dead. Any link can be archived on demand by using WebCite. We can help avoid dead links by archiving any article sources from the NYT.	The following articles may be in need of attention: Featured Article/List candidates: List of Governors of New Jersey (FLC) Good Article nominees: U.S. Route 30 in New Jersey
All BLP, All the Time	New WPNJ members
BLP Issue Boils Over There are discussions all over the 'pedia about deleting close to 50,000 unreferenced Biographies of Living People. We won't get into a rehash here, but let's just look at what we can do. There is a new item on the project task list for sourcing BLPs. All articles that are in both Category:People from New Jersey and Category:All unreferenced BLPs are now available on this work list. These articles need to be sourced, PRODded, or sent to AfD. An ounce of prevention Unreferenced BLPs are one of the catgories regularly listed in the WPNJ Cleanup listing. New articles are also a prime location to find articles that do not yet have references. You can keep an eye on the New Articles list to help prevent the workload from getting any larger. Can we do more? There are bots that will automatically add the WPNJ Project Banner to all articles in our designated categories if we have consensus to request it. Join the discussion here.	Please welcome the following new members to WikiProject New Jersey: No new WPNJ members since the last issue!
In NJ, politics means article updates	Help Wanted
New Leaders in NJ Government Over the past 2 weeks, new legislators have been sworn in, the legislature has new leadership, the 55th Governor of New Jersey has been inaugurated, and we have our first Lt. Governor. All new members of the Legislature have at least stub articles, and many of the templates have been updated. Updating templates Many New Jersey articles utilize stadardized templates to convey information. With elections happening as often as they do in this state, January is always a good time to review these templates and update them with new information. Does your town or county have new elected officials? It's maintainance time on many of our articles on municipalities and counties as well.	Outreach Run across any new editors on New Jersey-related articles? Invite them to join WPNJ! Ask a question, make an offer
Editor's Notes
Editor's news Must have been some winter holiday season in New Jersey, because the project talk page has been unusually quiet. I thought with all that snow, many of us would be inside and doing things here at WP. I hope you all had a wonderful holiday season and are enjoying a healthy and happy 2010!! - Jim Miller See me | Touch me
You are receiving this newsletter as a member of WikiProject New Jersey. To stop receiving these messages, remove your name here.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, it's nice to see you using Huggle again! What was the long break for? Just curious, thanks. Schfifty3 23:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a week skiing in Vermont with the family. I thought I might have Internet access, but did not after all, which was probably just as well. It's hard to believe that my absence would be noted, but it's much appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		thanks for the help on Kel Mitchell andyzweb (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this comment about the intent of other users was appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this comment, suggesting other users are "obstinate", was appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disagree, but the evidence points to the contrary. Where is our definition of "defining", a concept so fundamental that CfD should not exist without it? Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your concern, you should explicitly criticise the process when you comment. A process can't really portray "obstinacy", but it's easy for use of that word to be interpreted as applying to individual users. That may be what you meant but it's important to be careful when expressing criticism about a process so it isn't interpreted as a personal attack. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have recetly done a major re-write on Liberty Island. There is some question as to wording and inclusion in certain categories. There is a request for comment on the talk page. If you are interested your input would be of value since there have been conflicts bordering on edit war. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making a "threat", as you suggested. I would appreciate you withdrawing that part of your comment now that I've clarified [6] the confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You make rather explicit threats to delete the category in question if community consensus goes against you at DRV. What's the issue here? Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predictions are not threats. Saying that a CFD would likely result in deletion is a prediction. An explicit threat to delete the category would be him saying "no matter what happens, I will delete this category." postdlf (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it was a prediction; nothing more, as I indicated in my clarifying statement. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that part of your comment now that I clarified the confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing to remove and nothing will be removed. You've already been warned regarding harassment here and any further trolling will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alansohn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see that manufactured "incidents" are what our admins deal with on Wikipedia. I have replied already regarding your continued trolling and harassment. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After reviewing the WQA, I came to the following conclusions:
  • Good Olfactory's comment could not reasonably be construed as a threat. However, you are not required to change your reading of it as such. Ideally though, you should've specifically clarified that that was how you interpreted it, or better yet, apologised for the overreaction and refactored it.
  • You are permitted to give notice and warn users that particular commentary will be deleted (other than block/ban notices) if it continues to appear on your talk page, and you've done so. However, you accompanied your notice with an accusation of harassment. Serious accusations require serious evidence; there was a failure to explain the (or provide evidence of) harassment by either Good Olfactory or Postdif - I would urge you to submit the evidence at the WQA if you have any serious evidence.
  • You've continued to engage in uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or other gross inflammatory commentary: [7] [8] [9] [10]. Of all the other diffs that were brought up so far, these were the ones that I considered relevant.
  • You were previously under a civility restriction as a result of an arbitration case, and you are expected to avoid repeating the improper conduct for which you were previously sanctioned, if you wish to continue participating at Wikipedia.
  • I note that there has been a significant improvement in your behavior since that case. but, there is still further room for improvement. Should you not make greater attempts to improve your commentary in the future, then as is standard practice, I'd urge that a sanction is (re)imposed on you. WQA cannot impose binding remedies, but a sanction proposal would be discussed either at an administrators noticeboard, or at an arbitration page. It is hoped, however, that you will make assurances to avoid repeating such conduct, and make those assurances mean something (by attempting to improve), so that the WQA may be marked resolved.
  • I sincerely hope further sanction proposals do not become necessary, and wish you all the best in (what would hopefully be) your attempts to further improve at least some of your commentary. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Good Olfactory and Postdlf, who have been directly involved in this conflict, have imposed blocks and threatened to impose blocks for various manufactured incidents, despite their rather clear and continuing conflict of interest. This pattern of harassment has continued despite rather clear changes in the tone that they have requested. Good Olfactory, in particular, has made an effort to actively misinterpret any form of communication, whether he was involved or not, and no matter how trivial, as some sort of personal affront. Just as you make the far clearer and ominous threat of some oogie-boogie "further sanction proposals", the word "threat" that has become the cause celebre here was rather clear as well; If the category in question was approved at DRV it would be deleted via CfD. This is a rather clear definition of the word "threat" as "an indication of something impending" straight out of Merriam-Webster. As such, your bad faith insistence that "Good Olfactory's comment could not reasonably be construed as a threat" is uncivil and unacceptable; I will not apologize or make changes for what you describe as Good Olfactory's "overreaction". Despite Good Olfactory's persistent and abusive efforts to shut me up, I will not be silenced. As has already been done, I will make further efforts to tone down my remarks so that even the most sensitive among us can not be rationally offended. Best regards, Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would've been a good assurance, had you not continued to engage in the same conduct that was found to be problematic. The problem is that when you make serious accusations as you've done, you don't provide serious evidence. This makes me wonder whether you do understand what one of the main issues is. You need to provide diffs of where they have imposed blocks and threatened to impose blocks for incidents where they have the conflict of interest you speak of. If you don't, then it constitutes a personal attack; that's why I highlighted the serious accusations require serious evidence part. Again, if you wish to maintain a claim of harassment, you need to provide diffs of that. I will more explicitly ask Good Olfactory to take care in his interpretations of what you say, though that should've been clear from the number of diffs I used in my conclusions. You are entitled to your opinion about my conclusions, but I have nothing to gain or lose by warning you (or in your individual interpretation, threatening you) - it's the standard way dispute resolution works (or even a consequence for) where an user fails to satisfactorily adjust his conduct voluntarily, and the standard way uninvolved users are likely to act. If you don't wish to heed the warning, that is your choice entirely of course. At this point, you've also accused me of being uncivil and I'm persuaded to suggest that the filers open the RfC/U so that the community can give it's view to you on what has been civil and uncivil. Unless you are ready to let your accusations drop until there is evidence (or further evidence) to substantiate your claims in the appropriate venue (RfC/U), I cannot in good conscience pretend that this is resolved based on an assurance that doesn't currently mean anything. Your response to this (if any) is likely to decide what happens next. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled by the lengths that are being taken over what you yourself call an "overreaction" on Good Olfactory's part and I have no interest in playing the Wikipedia justice game, a process even more dysfunctional than any other in Wikipedia. As I have no desire to play this game, I haven't sat around collecting diffs to prove what no one is denying regarding blocks made under a clear conflict of interest by Good Olfactory, though you can check my block log for details thereof. I am severely disappointed with your insistence that the word "threat" cannot possibly mean what it says in the dictionary, "an indication of something impending" plain and simple, and I personally find that insistence to be in bad faith. I hope you will be refactoring your remarks to indicate that this interpretation as something evil is a simple overreaction on Good Olfactory's part. As I have repeatedly stated I will tone down my remarks to avoid further misinterpretations and I am sick and tired of the continued efforts to manufacture a controversy where none exists. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been extremely patient with you. Please stop confusing comments about you with those about Good Olfactory - I haven't said Good Olfactory overreacted; again, that describes your view, and yours alone, and I've only noted that was how you described it. Also, a conflict of interest only exists if Good Olfactory was not a neutral party at the time of using tools (emphasis added); your block log has provided insufficient evidence of that - it only shows that Good Olfactory cannot personally block you at this time. So, either you don't understand Wikipedia policy on the matter or are deliberately continuing to make serious accusations without serious evidence. It'd be unsatisfactory if you mere toned down some of your remarks, yet repeatedly continue to make the same kinds of accusations without the required type of evidence, Alansohn. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I haven't sat around collecting diffs to prove what no one is denying regarding blocks made under a clear conflict of interest by Good Olfactory". For the record, I deny it. I had assumed such a denial would be implied by not responding to the original accusation. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your denial. Are you claiming that these blocks don't exist or are you claiming that you were not an active party to a conflict at that point in time? Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]