User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 45

Sanctions template

The template you made at User:Salvio giuliano/Castewarning looks great. Would you mind moving it into template space, then we can start transcluding it as needed on article talk pages? As mentioned at WT:INB, I don't think we should just try to tag all of them now (there's a lot), but we can tag as issues occur on each page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I only adapted Template:Uw-sanctions, so my input there is incredibly limited. Let me add a documentation to the template and then I'll move it to template space. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's now live. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Salvio. Qwyrxian suggested at WT:INB that it might be posted on article talk pages but I am less certain because of: "If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban." That sentence reads to me as being a little too personal for an article talk page and more apposite as a user talk page warning, as indeed its "uw" prefix indicates. I am going to inform Qwyrxian of this note. It may need to be discussed at some higher level - WT:INB or a template forum, for example - but I think that we can probably iron out any kinks beforehand. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, {{uw-castewarning}} is only meant to be used on user talk pages; if you want a template to be placed on article's talk pages, I can adapt {{Article discretionary sanctions}}, but I fear it would take forever to tag every article placed under discretionary sanctions... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We would tag as events emerge, I think. Articles such as Nair and Ezhava would qualify for tagging now; others, such as Koraga, are clearly insignificant in terms of contention at present. There are a lot of articles that cannot even be picked up from the categories - mainly due to non-cat'ing or obscure choices - but I feel that the notice needs only to be inserted where there is extant evidence of problematic contributions. A shot across the bows, for want of a better phrase. I have actually used your template as a pre-emptive warning at User talk:Ror Is King in the last few hours, primarily because there is a bit of history relating to that user. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the first version: Template:Castewarningtalk. Feel free to tweak. And I'm happy to see "my" template is getting used! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Q of the developments in this thread and I have also left a note for AshLin in case they feel that it needs discussion at some higher level. However, and writing as someone who is pretty clueless on these matters, that article talk page template seems ok to me. I appreciate the effort in trying to sort out this messy caste/community issue. Ror Is King had a bit of a rough ride at WP:ANI in November and has just returned to contributing, none of which may be obvious from their talk page. Hopefully they will take on board the recent developments but I must admit that it is going to take me a while to feel my way through them and so a degree of leniency is probably appropriate elsewhere. I am frequently amazed about how little I know of WP procedure! - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I said "leniency" above - no such word, I fear? "Lenience". - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

AshLin has said that he does not intend to pursue the matter further. Honestly, yes, it could have been kind to inform the WikiProject of the ongoing discussion, but it's not like we tried to hide anything: AN is one of the most heavily watched noticeboards on Wikipedia – more than 3000 people watch it – and the thread was open for five days. Well, this will be useful should I ever decide to propose discretionary sanctions on another topic – and I sincerely hope I shan't have to do that any time soon. Regarding leniency – which does exist –, I tend to agree. But I believe we will be able to fine-tune our collective approach as we go along: not that many established editors, or admins for that matter, edit in the topic area... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Signature syntax

<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; (class=texhtml)">  '''[[User:Salvio 
giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]]

This is currently your signature. However, there is a part of the code that does absolutely nothing, which has been placed in parentheses. The correct code for the texhtml class is this:

<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio 
giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano| <sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]]

The result being this:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Σ is using this signature for demonstrative purposes only.   Salvio  Let's talk about it!

You may find that it is a change that you do not want. If so, please remove the unnecessary code. Thanks, →Στc. 06:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thanks! I have made the change you suggested!

I really wasn't aware that part of the code was superfluous, because, to tell the truth, I copied that code a very long time ago from a page somewhere using View > Page Source... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dodgy username

I have no idea what it means but User:Debbarmasitush is clearly commenting in some way about me in their choice of username, and has posted at Talk:Nair. Should I report the name? - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, I don't have a clue as to what it means either, probably you should contact Mike Lynch. I don't believe a report to UAA would yield any results as the name does not appear to be blatantly inappropriate... If Mike can't help either, I'll have a chat with the editor. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Belay that, I've just indeffed under WP:NLT... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Looks like a Tamil slang word, something I loosely recall from my travels in Western Tamil Nadu. I don't think its very derogatory, but it would have been definitely something worth watching. But well, its indeffed now anyway. Lynch7 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Mike. I must admit I was kinda curious. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lustywench

Thanks for speedy-closing the discussion, I'm sorry I initiated it. --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. And don't be sorry, you were thinking, in good faith, that your actions would improve Wikipedia, which the really important thing. We all make mistakes, after all. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In a spirit of good will, I have changed my signature to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Thanks, -- Lustywench (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lustywench tried to add this comment here at the stated time, but for some reason the edit filter blocked it as a personal attack. I've copied it here because I can't see what's wrong with it. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyttend. I honestly can't see why this message was blocked... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your mess

[1] So now I am unable to add RS tags to Op-Eds being used for statements of facts? Which I brought to the RSN board [2] and which TG is well aware of [3] So well done for helping TG continue with his blockshopping and editwarring. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And see here [4] if you ca nbe bothered to. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the only user who disagrees with him here. Don't know how him alone bringing the topic to RSN makes it ok to be in the article (since no one commented on it as of now). This is simple editwar. He surely hasn't learned how to discuss. On second thoughts, I reported him on AN3, so you can review there, lest JCAla & DS accuse me of blockshopping (though they will still do it there). Wont bother you on the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for me to intervene: you appear to have started a request for comment. That was indeed the best thing to do! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do these two edits count as a violation? [5] [6]? He added tags instead of discussing in second. He has previous history of editwar on tags. Do you count these as reverts (I think any edits count towards it regardless of content)? And I didn't edit against him this time or drive him into one either, clearly he made a change and I reverted with a reason (I kept his edit with some corrections). This will continue under different pretext and get a blame on me. Also, you should tell him not to try this [7] when I wasn't editing against him (one being a removal of an IP's copy paste and the other being a revert against another user, not DS.. and by no way near to gaming him into an editwar since he's not even related to that edit). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your view of an issue at Columbo

I am dragging around begging for help as usual. This- it bothers me. It is an uncited list of all the countries where Columbo was shown and is presently airing. It has nothing else, not even dates aside from "2012" listed next to the 1 or 2 countries where the show is airing. That, in my opinion, shouldn't even be there. A sentence stating "Columbo was and remains popular worldwide" seems sufficient. Input?- please reply on my talk or the article talk. If I don't get a sharp, accurate opinion I think that gigantic box with useless WP:TRIVIA will be kept there.--Djathinkimacowboy 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC help

Hey I started an RfC on Richard Feynman, but it was something I added a little bit later, and I subsequently added a more neutral question, but it doesn't appear to show up. How do I fix that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like I managed it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Told ya

[8] Has of course not bothered to use the talk page[9] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While you were busy courteously proving that all claims regarding your battleground mentality are ill-advised, I was issuing a final warning to the editor de quo. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No idea what you are on about, I do not see how a new editor who reverts only on one single article (the only one he has edited) constitutes a battlefield. A battlefield would be across more than one article no? I just saw your warning to him, so I will remove the one I left. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you settle a problem at Columbo?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sal, I request your input on this[10]. I'm not accusing the other editor of edit warring, but it's starting to look that way because in general no one will comment on the talk page. I keep removing that list. That entire list of Golden Globes from 1968-whenever does NOT need to be there. Columbo awards are already clearly addressed.--Djathinkimacowboy 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Actually, I believe it belongs on the article... That template is quite useful when someone wants to jump from an artile about one Golden-Globe-winning show to another one. Many articles have those template and, to be honest, I don't understand why you think it's inappropriate... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Sal, what has that entire list to do with Columbo? Isn't that the proper question? The award, if you'll look, is already mentioned along with all the show's other awards. Sal, if you will assist further, I don't need to endure things like this[11] when that editor and the other one simply refuse to talk on the talk page. They can't just keep having their way with that unproductive junk and then accuse me of these things. And this editor in particular just uses "please talk on talk page" as a blanket excuse- only twice has the editor input anything.--Djathinkimacowboy 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC) That list could be useful to an editor who's interested in the general topic of Golden Globes, for instances; it is a navigation template... Regarding the behavioural issue, the cycle is bold, revert, discuss, you were bold (removed the template), were reverted, a discussion should have ensued, not two other reverts (one by you and one by the other editor), but that's an incredibly minor issue, not even worthy of a message. I have also taken a look at Rangoon's edits to the article's talk page and, again, I see nothing warranting any kind of admin action either – he was commenting on your behaviour, on your edits, not on you: the distinction is disappointing and misleading behaviour (allowed) vs. you're a moron (disallowed). Granted, not terribly pleasant, but, if I can, just shrug it off. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Sal. It's fine, I told Rangoon to keep the list and made my apologies which were neither acknowledged (nor even paid any mind, I suspect). OK, I can see it that way and shrug it off- this is what bothers me, when editors send these silly messages in the edit summaries then refuse to talk on the talk pages. Rangoon has been doing a lot of that. Can't we at least make these guys understand the edit summary is not the talk page of an article? Or are we just letting them do as they please without comment.... See, it isn't what they may say about me or my editing: it's what they do! Ben Franklin said, 'Better to hear the words "Well done" than to hear "Well said".'--Djathinkimacowboy 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Salvio, I wanted to put this to you another way, so that I'm clear, whilst (I hope!) not assuming bad faith. If an editor is working and reshaping an article- even just reorganising- and mindful of the rules, that's as it should be. But then, other editors come along to start screaming their heads off and soon you have accusations of trolling and spamming. These are the same editors who order others to discuss on the talk pages of the articles, whilst they do no such thing as that. They communicate through snarky edit summaries. So I want to ask you this: is this something I can somehow raise perhaps at the village pump? Or someplace a bit more highly profiled? The main point: the edit summary is no substitute for the article talk page and anyone avoiding the talk page is edit warring? That does not assume bad faith- that is addressing a big problem we have here. Do you realise how many good editors are chased off articles because of this problem? Honestly. How many would you say are chased off, or too frightened to get involved?- too many, I have observed. As I said to you above Sal, this isn't about me, my edits or the names I'm called. This is about the way some editors are working here, gaming the system and being supported in doing so. It needs to be reined in a bit.--Djathinkimacowboy 11:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Let me emphasise one thing first: I understand where you're coming from and I don't wish to minimise this issue! I have taken a look at the article's history and Rangoon appears to have a (very, very mild, to be honest) WP:OWN issue. I also know that one of the most common reasons new editors stop editing is because their edits get constantly reverted. Now, you're no longer a newbie, but I know that the frustration one feels when all his edits are reverted is the very same. That said, there is very little any user can do. In cases such as this, there is no real venue – it's not edit warring, so no WP:ANEW, it's not really incivility, so no WP:WQA, and it's definitely nothing WP:ANI will do anything about –. You can raise the issue on Rangoon's talk page, if you think that'll be beneficial, but, apart from that, not much you can do... Sorry... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Well, I know what you mean of course. But as I have been trying to tell you, it isn't about me or my edits. I told those editors they can do what they want. Nor do I wish to complain to get them into trouble or anything else- I want to have an influence in changing the way rules of editing are honoured here. Don't use the edit summary as if it were the talk page. Don't tell other people deliberately misleading things just so they will stop editing. Finally, as I well know, it isn't good to start hurling accusations. That is what I am talking about, getting some rules applied where they are most needed- nothing else. If I were to get into trouble along the way, it would be my own doing: that's the point. Everything an editor does is his own doing!--Djathinkimacowboy 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Oops, I hadn't understood your goal, I'm sorry... In that case, yes, a thread on one of the village pumps (policy or proposals, I'd say, but that's not an area I'm particularly familiar with) would be the first step! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you for being a terrific shoulder-to-lean-on, Salvio. Wish me luck, I'm trying to word a proposal now and shop round for the best place to have it discussed. It is tough for me, you know, I get so many enemies from the past and whenever I try something like this, here they come to insult my ideas and call me names. Gives me comfort that I heard something in the Tron: Legacy film and it struck me that I should do this A LOT moer often: remove myself from the equation. Of course that is an old Zen teaching but I have been a piss-poor Zen student.--Djathinkimacowboy 11:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible ARS list MfD relisting

The DRV I initiated on the MfD appears to have gotten some support for relisting. I am curious if you can tell me an appropriate and effective method that I could use to get more outside input since those most directly notified are obviously going to be people frequenting the page who are much more likely to support keeping it. Looking back at the TfD, Ironholds counted 89 editors who commented there. My preference would be not having to notify all those editors, and other interested editors who may not have commented there, manually.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand why you want to get more outside input; however, I don't know what methods can be used to publicise the discussion without violating Wikipedia's policies. DRV is watched by many uninvolved editors who have nothing to do with the ARS and, furthermore, everyone who has participated or even seen the two debates on WP:ANI will probably know about the deletion review. The only thing you could perhaps do would be to add a request for comment tag on the page. I don't know how that will go down, however.

That said, can I strongly suggest you drop the stick? I fear this might end badly: you saw the reactions to your filing the DRV... There comes a point when you just have to accept the consensus of the community and move on. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I saw something that makes an even stronger case for canvassing and the kind of problems ARS creates with this list. It has nothing to do with WP:STICK, because a true consensus has not been allowed to emerge. ARS cannot just rig "consensus" in their favor by flooding a discussion with votes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Salvio giuliano,

Extended content

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students. So a few things about the interviews: Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes. Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.) All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so. All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time. The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly. Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead. If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you. Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you. Sincerely, Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yjune.sah, thanks for your kind note. However, I feel I have to decline. I'm very sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD and subsidiary talk pages

Every now and again I come across content in subsidiary talk pages entitled Talk:X/Comments and similar. There are linked from the main talk page header and they cause the article to be added to a category such as Category:India_articles_with_comments. Of those that I have seen in the last week, none had any recent content (per history), none said anything that could not have been said on the main talk page, and none of them were signed/dated. At least one was a comment from 2008, the contents of which were completely banal. Are these candidates for MfD or do they have to stay there for ever? Is it permitted to merge the content into the main talk page and, indeed, is that even really feasible if archiving has been turned on & the comment would chronologically end up on an archived page?

An example is Talk:Barnwal/Comments, which appears to have been created as a consequence of an assessment made on 1 Feb 2007. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, technically those pages can be sent to MfD; there is a very high probability, however, that the very few people who'll comment during the discussion will say something along the lines of "meh, if we keep them where's the harm?". So, in short, I don't think the game is worth the candle. My advice is to just leave them alone; chances are nobody will ever get to see them... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that might be the case. However, leaving alone means that the category list just keeps growing. Does that not become a problem, if only from a maintenance point of view? - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know... To tell the truth, I don't even know what the purpose of such a category can possibly be. Perhaps the best idea would be to discuss the issue at WP:INB and see what the members of the WikiProject think. If there emerged a consensus that those pages are all superfluous, they could be speedied per WP:G6 as housekeeping, without having to go through WP:MFD... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Proposed decision

Re this edit summary: Is there some policy/guideline that prohibits people from discussing a case on one of its talk pages after it is closed? I can understand closing down the evidence/workshop/PD pages, but the talk pages? That doesn't make sense to me. Where better to discuss a case than there? Or, is discussion of a case not allowed once its closed? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best just add {{archive top}} (and bottom) tags to that without reverting anything. I was concerned about the developments there myself. See User_talk:AlexandrDmitri#.CE.94_case. As for a general venting place after a case is closed, the "discuss this" link points to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Betacommand_3_closed for this one. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)After a case has been closed, its various pages should no longer be edited – with few exceptions, such as logs, motions, amendments. In this instance, if you want to comment on the case, you can do it here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could you please stipulate where in policy / guideline that this is the case? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's commonsense, I'd say. If you disagree, feel free to raise the issue on WT:ARBCOM. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your common sense isn't my common sense. However, thank you for confirming this isn't written in policy / guideline. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Would you object to me restoring the comments you removed, then adding the archive top / bottoms as ASCIIn2Bme suggests? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I would. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• ? Why? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Justice: why keep those comments, when all the others will be removed? Or are you suggesting that, as long as they're placed between the archivetop/archivebottom templates, all subsequent comments should be kept? The point is that the case is closed. And closed means closed: no more comments on the proposed decision (which is no longer proposed but is actually enacted), no more evidence, no more workshop proposals. Les jeux sont faits. If anyone wants to comment on the final decision, they can do it in the appropriate venue, of course, but the case is closed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It does some justice to this unwritten rule (and actually to the whole situation), that the first editor to violate it was actually one of the Arbitrators in the case. Actually, they violated it twice (diff, diff). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think perhaps this unwritten rule needs to be codified somewhere. I inspected the PD talk pages from all 16 of the 2011 cases. I found 6 cases where discussion on those pages continued after closure; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Only in #3 of that list is there any movement to move discussion elsewhere, and some of the post closure discussion is still there. Continuing discussions without intervention post closure happened in 5 of 16 cases, and was partially 'allowed' in the 6th. The only other case than this one in 2012 allowed it too 7. I'm seeing similar patterns into 2010. What do you think Salvio? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's interesting and I think I'll start a discussion with my fellow clerks and with the members of ArbCom as soon as the bulk of the ongoing cases is closed, so that we can formalise a clear policy. That said, I'm not going to change my decision, in this case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record, I found 4 of 12 cases in 2010 where discussion edits continued past closure without intervention, and none with intervention. If you include the one other case this year, that's 10 of 29 without intervention, and an 11th with intervention. The common practice seems to be to allow the discussions to continue, and this is exemplified by a number of arbitrator edits to those discussions, post close. I'm not trying to be critical here, but the evidence seems to indicate your removal is not in line with common practices as exemplified by the last two years of arbitration. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you Hammersoft, I find this information very helpful. I actually think that those discussions should continue. I think that deletion of those posts like here, especially without precedent, is giving a bad signal - it could be interpreted that the ArbCom is actually actively trying to stop any discussion about their decisions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Not that it matters in this case, this discussion is now, unfortunately, stopped, and I don't think it will revive. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Translation and notification request

I see you are a native Italian speaker. Do you think you can find a bit of time to translate m:Requests for comment/Meta-wiki requests for comment on users in Italian an notify the their Wikipedia? The proposal is the only important part. Feel free to improvise on the background since it's not exactly formal the way I wrote it there. Sandstein did something similar for the dewiki. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting it now. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost forgot about this. Thank you! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of DRV

User:S Marshall closed the DRV per WP:NAC, but it does not fit the criteria for satisfying such a closure. I asked the editor to re-open it, but he has refused and made comments suggesting he was not being objective about the closure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the deletion review, I cannot do anything, as I consider myself involved, being the original MfD closer. I see, however, that you're brought the matter to WP:ANI. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Want to take a look?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Salvio, I made a proposal I hope will draw discussion at the village pump. This is not about you, I want you to know that - you're welcome to come comment but I don't insist that you do so. Just wanted to drop you a line. I wish there were a way to invite other editors and admins to comment if they want. Anyway, read the proposal and tell me what you think of it.--Djathinkimacowboy 12:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC) There is a way: {{rfc}}. That said, I think the proposal is sound, but I'll hold off on commenting on it for a bit, because, basically, I don't know what I could add or how the issue could be tackled... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Salvio, to answer your questions: I was wondering whether a newer and more specific tag than just "rfc" could be created to ask for the specific kind of help. Something requiring the answering admin to then alter the tag once it's been addressed, rather than just removing the tag because it's been noted. Notice that with the tags we have now, it is totally ignored or the admins are scared to look into it. Even if they look, they say nothing. It would be like a 'mild RFC', the way they used to be in the old days. Seems like these days it's some kind of big fat deal to request comment. Only this time I hope the thing would be treated more seriously and examined fairly. That does not happen as often as I'd like to see now.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC) There is {{adminhelp}}, but in these cases it's not appropriate, as this is a content dispute and we, as admins, carry no particular authority over them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Salvio, I did it and at least got one editor over to post and assist. Salvio, I wished to trouble you once more by asking you to have a look at what's being done. Begin here[12] to see what Rangoon began as compared to the article as it is now, and I'll then provide links showing all his subsequent edits: 1[13], 2[14], 3[15], and 4[16]. You'll see, they're all fairly good edits, albeit it somewhat nitpicking and not in the best style. But it is per talk page discussion in spite of the fact that Rangoon keep defiantly refusing to post one single comment or query. I also want you to note that Rangoon is sneaking in reversions of certain edits, and neglecting to explain it in the edit summaries. My point is that the effort to improve the article worked to a degree, but it took you and Ged UK to get involved... and still Rangoon11 edits away without a word on the talk page. Rangoon11 then, like all of us, should be ready to be edited/corrected as needed. This is what I wish, with my new proposal, that this type of editing be shaped up a bit with a new rule such as I have proposed.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I understand your goal and I sincerely hope your proposal gets some attention! I can only say that if Rangoon refuses to engage in the consensus-building process going on on the article's talk page, then he'll just have to accept whatever consensus will be achieved there. It may take longer and be a bit frustrating, but when you follow Wikipedia's processes, the results you obtain are usually more stable – and more easily enforceable... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much. I was thinking about what you said, earlier post- I wonder why admins have nothing to contribute to content disputes. There's a lot of nasty trouble that originates with content disputes. Wouldn't happen if admins helped to make suggestions that would end the disputes. But as you say, admins have no 'authority'. I always thought- and was always told- an admin is nothing more than an editor with a few extra 'buttons'. That being the case, why can't an admin actually help constructively in content disputes? That would also stop edit warring and discourage editors from trying to start edit wars.--Djathinkimacowboy 15:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Sal, I am a pest. I know it. But I want your input about the earlier problem of all that crap on the main Columbo page. Have you seen this: List of Columbo episodes? Why hasn't the TV series data from Columbo been moved to that other article? It wasn't even linked from Columbo until I just added it 5 minutes ago. That thing is a mindless mess. I'm afraid to fool with the tables and mounds of data, knowing I'll screw it up or lose something in the move.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Regarding content disputes, admins can (and do) contribute. What I meant is that we contribute as editors, not as administrators, meaning that our opinion does not carry particular weight due to the fact that we hold a mop. Regarding the List of Columbo episodes, my personal opinion is that all information regarding Columbo as a series belong in the Columbo article, all information regarding Columbo as a fictitious character belong in a Frank Columbo article and all information regarding the episodes, considered in their individuality, belong in the List of Columbo episodes article. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I just came here to query this rv and the associated edit summary ([17]) and I discover the above discussion, much of which should be on the Talk page of the Columbo talk page, and much of the rest which is little more than Djathinkimacowboy making attacks on my editing style behind my back. This is all pretty tawdry. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC) And it gets better - I look higher up this page and find another thread which is more of the same. Very poor form.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I should add that personally I don't enjoy spending time discussing and analysing either the editing behaviour of others or of myself. I much prefer to spend my time editing. I freely and happilly acknowledge that Djathinkimacowboy has done a lot of work on the Columbo article which I support and feel has improved the article. I think that we are broadly on the same page, and I have only reverted a small proportion of their edits to the article, and they were largely pretty minor (and the same is true the other way, Djathinkimacowboy has only reverted a small number of my edits as well). I have actually engaged the Talk page of that article, including to support a proposal made by Djathinkimacowboy. We actually agree far more than we disagree.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Sal, my apologies for all this. Rangoon11, you refuse to participate at all, you are not one to talk here. You make absolutely ridiculous accusations considering you're not willing to discuss anything, and since I've also caught you trying to falsely accuse me. Don't bring your arguments onto Sal's page. Sal, guess you saw this[18] and probably realise by now that Rangoon11 will be a lot more of a problem than we had hoped. Naturally it was this[19] caught your attention.--Djathinkimacowboy 20:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Salvio, with your permission, and perhaps your participation, I'd like to be fair to Rangoon and excise the pertinent portions of this thread- and move them in boxed-quotation form to Talk:Columbo. Will you please advise.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Let my subsection here[20] be noted. It is part of the rfc and I have invited any admin to read then delete the thread if desired. Salvio, you may move or delete this thread if you wish. I'll understand.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC) This is just too pathetic for words. Djathinkimacowboy you are all over the place, and seem to prefer wasting time on tedious finger pointing - when your own behaviour is in fact decidely uncivil, uncooperative and indeed strange - than focusing on what we are actually here to do (or I am here to do at least. I take an extremely dim view of the way that you have selectively copied part of my post above on the Columbo Talk page - pathetic, childish and unconstructive, just like the way you have been making comments here about me behind my back. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You must hear this

Sal, I just read this in the above section:

This is just too pathetic for words. Djathinkimacowboy you are all over the place, and seem to prefer wasting time on tedious finger pointing - when your own behaviour is in fact decidely uncivil, uncooperative and indeed strange - than focusing on what we are actually here to do (or I am here to do at least. I take an extremely dim view of the way that you have selectively copied part of my post above on the Columbo Talk page - pathetic, childish and unconstructive, just like the way you have been making comments here about me behind my back. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, I am afraid I have a small lecture for you. I don't want to seem angry or ungrateful! You should have just come over to the talk page instead of dialoguing here with me- I know I came here, but only to ask for help. Now you have Rangoon11 accusing me repeatedly of 'talking about him behind his back'. It certainly looks that way and I shouldn't have continued to post like this here. But Salvio, you should have come and posted at Talk:Columbo. One post in this matter would have been sufficient; your name is respected. You chose instead to avoid posting anything and thus encouraged Rangoon to just keep doing what he's doing. I'm sorry. It had to be said. Don't take this wrongly.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't take this wrongly and, trust me, there are no hard feelings on my part; however, I feel I have to ask you to please stop posting on my talk page unless mandated by Wikipedia's policies. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, I certainly read your post above- I just have to ask something. The previous trouble is 100% resolved. It was very pesky of me to post so much here. What I want to know is, are you saying you want me to stay off here for good? Usually I count on your advice- did you mean for me never to post on here again? I'll do it gladly, because you ask it of me, but I just want to be certain. It won't happen again, if that is what you meant by it. You should reply my talk page, if it makes it any easier for you.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. Just please note I'm sorry I felt I had to ask you this. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)