User talk:David Fuchs

Hello David Fuchs,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [1], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [2]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

Hey Fuchs, would you have time to have a look at my peer review or A-Class review for GTA V? I liked the feedback you gave on Skyrim so I thought you'd be a good help. CR4ZE (t) 11:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CR4ZE: I'll try and take a look; my usual caveat about badgering me if I haven't gotten to it in a few days, and that it will likely take me a while, apply. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. CR4ZE (t) 03:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

• This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
• Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
• The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
• An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David. I wonder whether you would be willing to have a look at an SPI that has been waiting for a CheckUser for nearly three weeks. I am close to closing it as a duck case, but for several reasons I would prefer to have a CheckUser opinion if possible. The case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on Scholarscentral. But did you get a chance to check on Srinubabuau6 (talk · contribs)? See here for the rationale. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot for dealing with this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you or someone could make a comprehensible summary of sections 1.1 through 1.4, that could be used to create a second article titled Sovereignty of Puerto Rico during the Cold War. That would split the current revision into two separate articles, only leaving the current political line under the original title. However, do not confuse my willingness to cooperate based on your personal perception with satisfaction, because tagging and criticizing an article that is: 1- New and hence unpolished, and 2- The work of months of formal research and writing -and just floating away- was incredibly rude.

BTW, it may "ramble", but in its original incarnation it was barely 1k bytes. I have seen several biographies that go well over 100k (and that is without counting their sub-articles), and a single biography is rarely as complex as writing a concise summary of a multisectoral and diffuse political movement. Hell, just take a look at the merger proposal of a 11k article into the already bloated 150k Grand Theft Auto V and tell me that my political article is "too long". Seriously, how "academic" and complex can a video game be to deserve such a huge article? That article is truly ridiculous and should be tagged for having an inordinate length when weighted against the notability of its subject. El Alternativo (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@El Alternativo: There is nothing "incredibly rude" about tagging an article, especially if it's a problem that cannot be ameliorated by any simple tweaks. I have thus restored the tag. Setting up false equivalencies and combative language is what strikes me as less helpful than opening a dialogue on the tagging. (If you want to tag Grand Theft Auto for length, no one is stopping you—I have had no involvement with it, and even if I did that's not any reason to argue against suggestions for improvement.)

As for "rambling", I read the entire article and still came away confused—there are people dropped into the article with no introduction, blow-by-blow accounts of elections a general presumption readers know Puerto Rican politics. That's not useful for a general purpose encyclopedia and if you want people to actually *read* the article instead of clicking away bored or frustrated, that's a serious issue.

I would say comparing the Free association movement to a video game as to merits is a singularly folly task. To play the "opposition" as to why GTA merits a longer article—it is the fastest-grossing entertainment property in human history, and players quadruple the population of Puerto Rico. More people probably care or know about GTA worldwide than care or know about Puerto Rico—so you see where this game of "My topic is more important" is not conducive to actually improving articles.

When I have time to go through the article again I will be happy to post a more in-depth list of issues on the article talk page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are simple minded and shallow, so its likely that more "care" about GTA, but that does not change the fact that it is an academically irrelevant topic. Like all fads, their relevancy is tied to the attention span of people, bring a superior product and it is suddenly replaced. You must have seen the critics that appear every time that one of these games is featured in the main page, so I'm not exactly in the minority. Back to the matter at hand, I gave you an alternative to change the article and cut its length in half, if you can't do it then you should at least help to bring someone capable of doing it since you seem so bent on keeping the tag. Condensing the first sections into a summary should deal with at least that concern. I don't have any problems with applying other changes, as long as the reviews don't involve quips. El Alternativo (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now 160k, if you can condense the content that was moved to Sovereignty of Puerto Rico during the Cold War into a summary of 10k or less, length should not be an issue. El Alternativo (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is now about a third shorter, the format has been changed and you haven't said or done anything in a while, I will remove the tag within a day. Any other issues that you have with it, post them on the talk page. El Alternativo (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't click "thank you" anywhere here, so thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I left a reply to your comment, in my section at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Cirt_and_Jayen466.

Thanks very much for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I've lowered the block on 71.202.123.2 to 72 hours, as that's a dynamic IP which really shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Legoktm (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Got your name form checkusers list, I suspect following users to be involved in sockpuppetry and subsets of the following may be from same IP ,some of them are heavily involved in edit warring and disputes over fully protected article Dawoodi Bohra and other Bohra articles and giving other admins a hard time. One of the user Araz5152 created a hoax article [Qutbi bohra] which had to be completely transformed by another reliable author. So do let me know about the investigation

Mufaddalqn SamanthaPuckettIndo

Markdrows Md iet Murtazajamali DistributorScientiae Araz5152 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 09:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently reading through a lot of old threads back when I was starting out and thinking about all the editors that I bumped into on the site, I realized that the ones that I had great interactions with disappeared over the years. So, all I want to say is, thanks. We don't interact as much but its good to know that you're still kicking it these days. GamerPro64 05:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, David. I've finally finished work on the Looking Glass Studios video games GTC, and I'll be nominating as soon as the last few articles pass GAN. For a few years, I've planned to ask you to make a mirror graphic to be the topic image when the time came. It would be a massive help. If you're too busy, could you recommend another Photoshop whiz for me to contact? Thanks a bunch. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few. I envisioned it as a slightly ornate mirror, shown at a 45 degree angle like your Guilty Spark icon. Colors like the blues or grays you've used in a lot of your other images. The main thing was that I wanted it to be in your style, which I've always thought was slick and cool. So don't feel too constrained by those suggestions. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I should add that you agreeing to this is like a dream come true. Huge thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on some ideas and send them to you by the end of the week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're super busy, but I was wondering if you've had any time to draft image ideas yet. There's no big hurry--just wondering. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I'll post something this evening. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JimmyBlackwing: sorry for the delay. Here's some rough concepts. Let me know if there's anything you like in those sketches and I'll work from there. [3] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the delay. And wow, this stuff already looks great. I love the bottom left one, but I think my favorite concept is the one on the bottom right—with the LGS text reflected in the angled looking glass. I can't wait to see where you take it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell ya' what, I'll develop both of them a little further and you can make the final decision. I'll try and get that done tonight or tomorrow. Harass me if I don't! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one... [4] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Can't wait to compare the two. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the other [5] Make your choice! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second one just blows my mind. So good. It's like a significantly better version of the image I've visualized for the last few years. I can't wait to use it as the topic image. Thanks a million. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. You can grab and upload that one if you want (it's a PNG) or you can wait for me to get home tonight and upload it to the Commons. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's your work, and I don't have a clue how to upload to Commons, so I'll let you handle it. Thanks again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yar. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LGS_topic_icon.png Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I don't plan on leaving Wikipedia entirely, though. User:Mitaphane is getting rid of his Next Generation and EGM collection, and, as it stands now, it looks like I'll be picking them up and taking his place at WP:VG/RL. So, I'll still be around to help anyone who needs a scan from those magazines. But I doubt I'll return to article writing unless one of the LGS articles gets sent to FAR or GAR. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist please on editing this page? Many users who have said the same thing ad naseum with an interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronn_Torossian and this related page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5W_Public_Relations Richielapiock (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Right here we have a discussion about what's appropriate to list as a media adaptation of Journey to the West. The page states that obscure references to the story, or else the featuring of one character doesn't count, but another editor disagrees. What are your thoughts on this? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping, as requested czar ♔ 23:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, as you shared your thoughts in the recent Peer Review, I thought you might like to know that I have opened a new FAC for Proteus (video game). It would be great to hear your opinion on the article again. I added the changes you suggested in the PR, apart from the source archiving; it's quite a time consuming task that I don't really have time for at the moment and as far as I'm aware it shouldn't be a deciding factor for FAC. Sam Walton (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you and your peers repeatedly to undo my abusive ban so I won't have to keep creating accounts. Just as you accuse me of disrupting the project, you all equally guilty because if you would just undo my abusive ban that should have never been allowed anyway, none of this would be necessary. Just undo my ban so we can go our seperate ways. I am willing to stop if you are willing to allow me too but its up to you all. I can't unban myself. Kumioko Neversurrenderobullies (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you and your peers repeatedly to undo my abusive ban so I won't have to keep creating accounts. Just as you accuse me of disrupting the project, you all equally guilty because if you would just undo my abusive ban that should have never been allowed anyway, none of this would be necessary. Just undo my ban so we can go our seperate ways. I am willing to stop if you are willing to allow me too but its up to you all. I can't unban myself. Kumioko Neversurrenderobullies (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]