User talk:JzG/Archive 14
Avoiding critical mass
Hello Guy. I'm Joel from Wikia. I do not edit articles here, but I am very interested in the process as it relates to the collaborations at my site. Several of my fellow Wikians and I have created a project to investigate the critical mass of vandalism at Wikipedia in order to avoid it on our pages. To aid us, we are asking several dozen administrators about their blocking and support of blocking decisions in regard to other editors who have significant positive contributions and who are acting in good faith. My question for you involves a decision to support SlimVirgin's indefinite block of User:Xosa and decline the unblock request that he made on User talk:Xosa2 after SlimVirgin locked the User talk:Xosa page. In this case, an indefinite block was created by an administrator who was involved in a content dispute. Do you feel that your support of this block moves Wikipedia toward or away from critical mass? --24.10.172.236 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion either way. I looked at the block of Xosa2; the account was clearly created to evade a block. A block of Xosa2 allows for debate to continue on that Talk page, but not for the user to edit. The editor is in dialogue with SV and others, I am choosing to accept two findamental premises here: first, that SV knows what she's doing and is prepared to be open-minded about the possibility of an error; and second, that Zephram Stark is indeed a serial vandal who should be excluded from the project. If I am wrong in either of these assumptions I would like to know about it.
- One thing I would say: Wikipedia has now achieved a critical mass in another sense. It is now big and significant enough that it is a primary target for people aggressively promoting fringe theories, and for the vainglorious vandal. It is probably the prime attraction for both classes of people. That fundamentally changes the dynamic, I think. I was very taken with William Pietri's comments, which I worked into an essay at WP:TIGERS. Sometimes you have to keep the tiger on a chain, other times you have to shoot it. Guy 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- WP:Tigers is a very interesting premise. I’m sure most people, vandals and administrators alike, agree with it. The only dispute would be over which editors constitute the tigers. At Wikia, we assume a premise that there is a little bit of tiger in all of us. As such, we need to be aware that all “truths” are opinions. WP:Tigers says it best with it’s quote from WikiEN-I:
- You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.
- I think that quote can apply to anyone who adopts “the truth” of another person just because she is established. Avoiding critical mass, something we have been able to achieve so far at Wikia, is primarily a function of assuming good faith. In the context of assuming good faith in Xosa, everything he has done is for the betterment of Wikipedia. Since Xosa has broken no policies or guidelines, it takes assuming bad faith in Xosa to think that his obviously positive contributions might have an ulterior motive. For SlimVirgin, however, we don’t have to assume bad faith to see that she has permanently banned an editor with whom she was having a content dispute.
- Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback on my question. You have shed much light on the reason Wikipedia is having so many problems with vandals. --24.10.172.236 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, SV blocked a sockpuppet of an already banned user. Maybe she should have asked someone else to do the needful, but there is credible evidence that this was indeed an abusive sockpuppet and thus a righteous block. But I have found this exchange illuminating, thank you. Guy 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- It might be a righteous block and it might not be. Observers only see that SlimVirgin has broken policy, and the person she effectively banned has not. Anything else, we can only assume on faith. Are we to presuppose that everything SlimVirgin does is righteous? This goes against the Wiki concept of peer review. In fact, the only neutral conclusion that observers can reach in this matter is that they better never disagree with SlimVirgin. If that is what Wikipedia is trying to portray, why have open editing at all? --24.10.172.236 22:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is a difficult one, though. If an admin is an active editor on an article and a sockpuppet of a banned user appears to insert POV for in a manner for which they were banned (which is what I understand happened here), then it is not unreaosnable for them to block, but in such circumstances openness is important and posting on WP:ANI is clearly a good idea. I've been beaten up for this before myself, in the case of egregious violation of WP:LIVING; in that case I was very much convinced of the validity of the actions because defamatory content was being added to an article on a serial litigant. If you want to take it further I can't stop you, but I don't see this as a big deal. Maybe I'm wrong, the identity of the user means I really don't care sufficiently to get wound up by it. Guy 22:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in fixing Wikipedia in the slightest. However, the ramifications of letting the same type of self-reinforcing vandalism movement happen at Wikia are repugnant to me. I desperately want to get to the bottom of it. People are naturally going to rebel against authorities that make secret judgments that appear to only serve their personal interests. Secret judgments are naturally going to increase in a system that allows them, especially when vandalism is growing. So my root query is: why does the system allow them? How did Wikipedia go from being a peer review environment to one of grunts and incontestable authorities? How can we keep the same thing from happening at Wikia? --24.10.172.236 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Guy, I've not seen any plausible evidence that User:Xosa is a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. As such it is undeniably bad form for SlimVirgin to be blocking him when she's involved with a discussion over a content dispute with him (or her for that matter). (→Netscott) 05:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- First up, I don't see Wikia as being particularly likely to suffer the same problems. It's not as popular or as widely discussed, it doen't have the policies regarding original research and neutrality which underly most of the really vicious content disputes, and it doesn't appear to encourage schoolchildren to replace images in Wiki templates with penis.jpg. It's less of a target. In reply to Netscott, the diagnosis was, according to SV, supported by one of the original arbitrators in the Zephram Stark case. They know more about that than I do. Guy 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think there are enough vandals to try a random test on the effectiveness of different approaches. I suspect some new users come here with only a mild inclination to be vandals. There are only so many times adding a swear word to an article can be interesting. This is magnified by the negative reaction they receive at the start. Stephen B Streater 08:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think the problem stems from the fact that people who aren't vandals are being accused of being vandals in order to control content. Take Xosa, for instance. His contributions clearly show a shyness about contributing unless everyone is in agreement. There isn't anything in his edits that could remotely be considered vandalism. He appeared to spend most of his time making suggestions on the talk pages, changing articles only when everyone agreed. Xosa didn't make a single edit to the article where he had a content dispute with SlimVirgin. He only made suggestions on the talk page. His suggestions seemed to be centered on parts of the article that he thought were better suited to another article. Looking through the 7 pages of archives and 2 pages of mediation arguments, we find that the same dispute has come up many times. I can understand how SlimVirgin might be tempted to simply accuse Xosa of being a sockpuppet instead of going through all that again, but I believe her actions have much broader implications for the vandalism movement in general. While it appears that Xosa has quietly slipped away, other people might take extreme offense at being called a sockpuppet or a vandal with no viable recourse. After all, how would one prove that he isn't a sockpuppet or vandal when there is no evidence that he is in the first place? Instead of falsely accusing contributors in order to avoid rehash a common dispute, this problem could be solved by creating a Frequently Addressed Disputes page summarizing and citing common issues with a delicate article. --24.10.172.236 03:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at Talk:Roman Catholic Church you will see that frequently addressed disputes will be dragged up frequently until the people with very strong opinions get their own way. Some people are absolutely intent on righting great wrongs, User:WikiWoo being an example. There is no way we can accommodate that within policy, nor should we aim to. User:Xosa engaged in behaviour which caused SV to diagnose it as a sock of Zephram Stark; this was backed up by a member of ArbCom; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark applies - the problem here was tendentious editing, not vandalism. Incidentally, I don't see any credible evidence of the supposed use of blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute in the case of Xosa, so perhaps you could provide diffs.
- There are users who are falsely accused of vandalism. My Talk archives will show that several POV pushers have accused me of vandalism in the past for removing their biased edits. Can you cite diff evidence of admins falsley accusing users of vandalism? Guy 08:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can cite diff evidence of hundreds of cases already and I am still continuing my investigation. I intend to post it at Wikia and at Meta when I'm finished. I would be happy to post a copy of it here as well. However, you may not find it very flattering. I use your actions as an example of how Wikipedia has failed to avoid critical mass. There are "tigers" in the administration and they are quite easy to spot. They are the ones that ban editors with whom they disagree and get their friends to back them up with secret evidence. But that's not where Wikipedia fails. Wikipedia fails when the administrators looking for tigers turn a blind eye when its one of their own, or actually accentuate the malfeasance by denying an unblock request based on technicalities. --24.10.172.236 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Seriously, if all your examples turn out to be trolls as disruptive as Zephram Stark then I'll not be too worried. I think you have failed to allow for the extent to which Wikipedia is now a magnet for every fringe theorist, vainglorious opinionated idiot and troll on the Internet. The higher our profile gets, the more we're going to have to fight off determined, intelligent and extremely persistent people who have an agenda to hijack parts of the project for their own ends. Blaming the janitors for the tiger shit is missing the point somewhat. Guy 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Guy, for the time you have taken to answer our questions. My name is Virginia and I have been heading up the task force to research the causes of vandalism at Wikipedia. You have been more forthcoming than most. The Wikia members involved with this project and I appreciate that very much. We are in the process of compiling our results. We will provide you with a copy of the report when we are finished in a day or so. Thank you again for your time and honest opinion. --Virginia from Herndon, Virginia 24.106.36.98 18:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Gastrich
[1] Arbusto 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked. My favorite contrib was this [2] KillerChihuahua?!? 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, linking wikipedia to personal attacks on other websites is always a good way to get unbanned. And at least, he had the guts to use his wikipedia username because if he didn't that would be something a weasel would do to hide his tracks. {Sarcasm} Arbusto 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gosh, I wonder who this "maleboge...@yahoo.com" could possibly be? Let me think, now, where have I seen that kind of crap before? Guy 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Guess who Ccirulli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This new user created an article for an unaccredited school president. Russell H. Dilday is not notable at all. Arbusto 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Revert the links wherever you see them. That hits Gastrich where it really hurts - his pride. Guy 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Lion's cage
Well you seem happy to put your head in them from time to time <g>. If you are bored and can't find anything to do (I know ok) there are some rumblings (ramblings?) similar to logo in Talk:Old-time radio. It does seem that there are some people that think Wiki should work their way whatever happens. If you'd rather I hadn't put this here sorry & ignore it and me. Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi; thank you for your kind comments. I did try, as instructed on the block page, to cut and paste the message, but I think that the software is corrupted. When I clicked the link, I found a pink page superficially as I expected, but it said I was blocked by "someone" (quote) and the reason given was "being cool". This did not seem right to me.--Anthony.bradbury 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Let me have a look. Londheart has been using sockpuppets, incidentaly, which is not going to help here. Guy 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk page abuse
Please have a look at this:
I believe that this is a crystal clear abuse of WP:TPG, WP:SPAM and, indirectly WP:NPA. The fact that it is being made by a blatant and exposed sockpuppet just makes the situation even worse. It is my belief that that sockpuppet account should have been banned after exposure, under Wikipedia policies. Why wasn't it?
Please look at the contributions of Orkadian (talk · contribs). Mallimak (talk · contribs) has used that account to post the identical spam at Talk:Shetland Islands and Category talk:Orcadian Wikipedians.
I raised this at WP:ANI#Talk_page_abuse, but was just subjected to totally unfounded snidey remarks. I demand that Administrators take a far more adult, and informed, approach to this situation. Please look into this case, because I feel that this idiot is making a fool out of the whole project. I am very angry and upset with how numerous Admins have just let this situation run away. It ought to have been nipped in the bud some time ago. --Mais oui! 08:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't demand stuff, ask nicely. We are all volunteers and frankly there is blatant POV pushing on both sides here. Guy 10:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
GLF (again)
Guy. It has been brought to my attention that Gregory Lauder-Frost is currently suffering from a very serious illness. Not wanting to cause undo distress to himself and his family at this difficult time I wonder if we could consider reducing the article to a stub on compassionate grounds, at least until such time as he has made a full recovery. Sorry to bring this matter up so soon after it was seemingly sorted but I thought you should be informed. Clearly this article has caused a great deal of upset to GLF and seeing as many of us don't see the need for an article on him in the first place I really don't see the point of kicking a man whilst he's down.--Edchilvers 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mind deleting it altogether. The one thing that is not an option is telling half the story. Guy 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Ed. Do you have more information on this?
- My first reaction: I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to be compassionate. On the other hand, request of the subject is not normally cause to delete an article. I think I'm going to run this by some journalist pals to see how the pros handle this sort of thing. Were we to go for deletion, I think we'd have to do it through a full AfD process; if we're going to make precedent here, we'll have to do it right. I also confess to a little suspicion at the timing; after pro-GLF partisans have abused all and sundry for months, it makes me wonder if this is something heartfelt, or just a change in tactics. Thanks, William Pietri 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Lets do the AFD process. I do not wish to betray the confidence I have recieved but suffice it to say that I trust 100% that what I hear is the truth. It explains alot, not least the aggresive behaviour by certain anons towards this article. We are talking about a very minor politician, one who has never even stood for Parliament or even a County Council seat. I dont think Wikipedia would be worse off if this article were to go altogether--Edchilvers 22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- A degree of scepticism is not entirely surprising under the circumstances but I'm content to trust what you say, Ed. I will start the AfD now, if you wouldn't mind including a statement to that effect it would probably help. Guy 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. I may stay out of the AfD, as I'm still chewing through the implications. But I'll follow it with interest. William Pietri 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Autoblock
Hi there; your last posting appears to indicate that I got autoblocked yet again, and that you cleared it. Thank you. I was at work and did in fact not notice this one. I see that in my distress I posted a comment just below another editor's article without creating a fresh heading. If you want to tidy your talk page please do not hesitate to move or delete my earlier comment.--Anthony.bradbury 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Guy 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
A message from the Paris Caped Crusader
Hello, I just noticed your message on the Administrator's notice board. I'll try not to take too much of your time.
I am most certainly not alone. john k, Captain scarlet, Bob, all knowledgeable on the subject, have all made it very clear that the present title is wrong - and this wasn't a "hmmphyes" agreement, all have taken the time to lengthily lay out precisely why. Knowledgeable contributors on Paris things are all too rare on English Wiki, but all the same, the jury's in on this one.
I can understand your exasperation with my insistence on this, but publishing fiction is wrong. Perhaps to the limited knowledge of some the present title is acceptable, but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia based on existing fact. The two wikipedians opposing the move, especially one, has done his best to paint any opposition to their "reasoning" - shared by no reference at all - as a bad-faithed fool. This is not at all the case, and this is one of the very reasons for my resolve. I can show you concrete proof of this person's antics that have been going on for over a year now. Wiki, thanks to this person, has unverifiable information seen nowhere else in the world. You can see a concrete example of case-in-point Original Research - here. The "Tallest structures" super-spat is just more of the same. This is what happens if anything "fiction" is corrected that turns out to be a certain editor - revert, oppose, oppose oppose, even without fact, and it all becomes a big wear 'em down campaign. So after a year of this I've decided not to give in for once, and thankfully it seems that I am not alone.
In light of the above, I'm sure you can imagine what I think when I see a) Hardouin making completely false and unfounded allegations on administrator talk pages and the same on the administrator's notice board and b) you indicating that I will be the one "in trouble".
I may be a pain in the a*s on this, but you're targeting the wrong party. THEPROMENADER 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have no reason to disagree, but it still seems top me to be a very heated argument over a trivial and pedantic issue. Guy 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite know what to say to this.
Hmm, so in my RfA I'm described as part of the "scientistic cabal" but that I'm one of the more reasonable members so I get a support vote from that, then you think I'm Christian, and now this. I don't understand. I know I'm not this NPOV. JoshuaZ 03:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well prove him wrong and help out on that wonderful page he is writing. Explaining WP:OR would help. Otherwise we'll have to assume you are an undercover employee of DI. Just because you make a plethora of logically improbable edits leading others to complex assumptions which could not logically occur over a long period of time because the processes would require multiple concurrent subprocesses (sockpuppets?), and the transitional stages would be disadvantageous to your success in the natural selection of wikipedial editors.....pause for breathe.... does not let you off the hook. What was my point again? David D. (Talk) 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Richard Hammond
I've reverted at least five cases of vandalism to the Richard Hammond article today and thats just me. Mostly they are 'get well soon' messages or links to charities. I think we need a 'semi-protect.'--Edchilvers 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sprotected. Guy 14:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sig
Sorry. But thanks! Drahcirmy talk 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) (well, I removed the image)
- Sure. I've toned mine down over time, it gets duller by the month :-) Guy 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Carlos Whitlock Porter
What's your point in deleting and blocking CWP article? As an adminstrator you have, I believe, an obligation to act responsibly and explain yourself. You are not the only person on the planet whose opinion merits credibility. Proskauer 14:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Forgive me for butting in, but I was dropping by to see if Guy had responded to a question above. If you look at the delete log you'll see that the page has been deleted by three different administrators. If you think the page merits inclusion, you should start by assuming good faith in your discussions with fellow Wikipedians; civility is the fastest way to get things done here. For a biography, you should gather citations for reliable sources that have enough verifiable information that we can write a biography, one that complies with our policy for biographies on living persons and hopefully with our notability guidelines for biographies as well. You may want to present this information at deletion review, so that you get a number of perspectives at once. And as you read these documents, make sure you follow the spirit rather than arguing the letter; to do otherwise is not appreciated here. Thanks, William Pietri 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
"Good faith" would include a discussion by adminstrators doing the deleting. I have now seen the record you mention and find only terse remarks. This is not "good faith" discussion. As far as the merits of the article are concerned, it's all relative. Proskauer 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I spent some time looking into this one, I saw no assetion in the article that this is a notable person per WP:BIO and saw that two other admins had come to the same conclusion. Feel free to take it to deletion review. I also looked in detail at many of your contributions. They leave a nasty taste in the mouth. You appear to admire some extremely unpleasant people, and promote some exceptionally vile ideas. Guy 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Saying that other people are not acting in good faith because they aren't doing what you think they should is not assuming good faith; it's just the opposite. If good faith were immediately obvious based on somebody's actions, we wouldn't need to make assuming good faith part of the core of this enterprise. Perhaps you could try it out for a while and see?
- As to the merits of the article, that a standard is relative (and I don't think WP:V particularly is) does not mean that you don't have to do the legwork to meet it. If your goal is actually get the article back, you'll need to show that it lives up to the policies and guidelines I mentioned. If you fail to do that, people will suspect that you are here for some other purpose than building a good encyclopedia. William Pietri 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, I don't care about the bad taste in your mouth. And the fact that two other administrators agree on the issue is absolutely irrelevant, in my book. The article had just begun, and I see many other stubs that are not deleted. POV and double standard. Proskauer 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- The argument that other articles of questionable significance exist therefore this article of questionable significance must exist, has never been persuasive. Neither has accusing admins of bias, strange to relate. Take it to DRV if you like. Guy 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Usually I let my interlocutors have the last word, if only to give them the sense of having won the debate whilst others have the chance of reading the discussion. In this case I have one word for you: "What-everrrr...." Proskauer 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
If William Pietri believes that to have good faith one must assume it in others, then what about the editors who peremptorily deleted the article because they found it to be distasteful. Were they assuming good faith in me? There are thousands of wiki articles on two-bit, third-rate actors, writers, and various other players on the world stage, which remain unmolested. THE ARTICLE WAS DELETED AND BLOCKED BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS A HOLOCAUST DENIER. Claiming anything else is hypocrisy. In any case, it is sheer idiocy to talk about whether an argument is "persuasive", as Guy does. Administrators have the POWER here and I do not. Power does not equate with quality of intellect or consistency of principle. It never has and never will. And, by the way, this whole thing is pretty much par for the course on Wikipedia. Proskauer 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I've looked into your claims and find them to be without apparent merit. I agree that people are more likely to delete bad articles that they don't like than ones they do. This, however, is a volunteer effort, one staffed with people, not saints or robots. If you would like to put in the time deleting those articles you think unworthy, then please do it. But absent that, inclusion is not an indicator of notability. We already have a number of articles on notable holocaust deniers; see Holocaust_denial#Notable_Holocaust_deniers_and_revisionists. I've looked for evidence that Carlos Whitlock Porter is notable under the appropriate standard and found nothing. If you have some so that we can construct an article with facts verifiable from reliable sources, then post them here. If not, I (and likely all the other serious editors) will continue with my belief that he's in the 99.99% of humanity that don't qualify for an encyclopedia article. William Pietri 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"Hi. I've looked into your claims and find them to be without apparent merit." This is fairly typical of the narcissistic rants found among exalted wiki administrators and editors. Utter claptrap. It purports to be a serious discussion but has as much substance as a cupful of deep outerspace. "Without merit" is legalese. Are you a lawyer? Have you been abused by too many judges or senior partners? I'm not interested in deleting articles, but apparently you are. Proskauer 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, calls may be monitored for training purposes. The grounds for deletion are as stated: no assertion of encyclopaedic notability per WP:BIO. Feel free to work up a new version in your user space, including references from reliable secondary sources to allow others to verify the neutrality of the article. Alternatively if you feel you are being hard done by you can go to deletion review, dispute resolution, the administrators' noticeboard, or, as far as I am personally concerned, hell, because personal attacks from people who have failed to get their way are as unpersuasiveas they are common. And that, I think, concludes our little chat; I'm off to delete some articles. Guy 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm still wondering what your stake is in this deal and why you found it imperative to cut the article. Certainly, currying favor with your American counterparts will earn you some badges. Or is the Holocaust a particular interest of yours? I'll admit that CW Porter is a minor figure in the vast panoply of Holocaust revionists. Did you know that Dr. Johann Paul Kremer recanted his testimony about Auschwitz once he got out of Soviet-Communist controlled Polish prisons, back into Deutschland? I know, I know, these are all minor irrelevancies in the gigantic scheme of the Holocaust. But just humor me for a moment and "consider the possibilities" as Woody Allen's pal in Annie Hall once said about a pair of vixenish twins. Proskauer 06:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Let's turn that around shall we? I'm wondering what your stake is in this deal and why you find it imperative to recreate the article on what you freely admit is a minor holocaust denier - it was, after all, deleted three times by three different admins. I outlined your options above, I don't believe that imputing motives - while ignoring the rationale I gave you more than once - was on the list. Guy 06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. Well, you are answering a question with a question, and you are repeating your original argument, which I stated I didn't agree with and that I think it has to do with power rather than any rationale. However, in answer to your second question first, I find it imperative to have the same rights that other people enjoy, to wit, free speech. If three people with a shared agenda can get together to shut down my right to free speech on no more basis than taste and opinion, then I have suffered a loss and defeat of sorts. As to why I care about the Holocaust, perhaps it is something inborn in me that when I see untruths being touted and expounded as history, I feel the need to question the record and point out the discrepancies.
For the record, you are not in a position of outlining my options. You are not an authority over me and it is offensive for you and others to suggest so. Proskauer 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, I'm pointing out that you appear to be interpreting your own bias as neutrality, accusing three admins of gross bias as a result, with no evidence to support that claim, and not listening to anything you don't want to hear. You also appear to share a fundamental misconception about Wikipedia: it is free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech. Your rights in Wikipedia are limited to the right to fork and the right to leave. You have no other enforceable rights, this is a matter of simple fact. Your assertion that conventional wisdom on the holocaust amounts to untruths is a classic case of tendentious editing; Wikipedia does not exist to Right Great Wrongs, it exists to reflect what is known form reliable secondary sources, in neutral terms, without giving undue weight to fringe theories. Your options at this point are: deletion review, dispute resolution, or go away. Contrary to your assertion, I am in a position to enforce these options by blocking you from editing, just as I prevented you from re-creating an article which several individuals had agreed made no claim of significance for its subject. This, also, is a simple statement of fact. Now, if you would be so good as to pick one of the three options above, we can all get on with writing an encyclopaedia. Guy 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm listening, believe me I'm listening. Can you block me from ALL editing, or just editing here on your space? I'm genuinely curious, since I don't know. Can you block my entire address, or just this incarnation thereof? Do you have to go to a higher authority, some guy in Tennessee or in the Silicon Valley? Jimbo himself? Anyway, Wikipedia, like all egalitarian efforts, is quickly becoming an oligarchy (see Animal Farm) and again I'm not surprised. What I am is concerned and possibly disappointed because I earnestly hope that products of the British educational system such as you will maintain an objective and critical viewpoint, since most Americans are incapable of doing it. As far as evidence, ain't no evidence here, bro, ain't no evidence anywhere where the Holocaust is concerned, ain't nobody here but us chickens. (That's cultural reference which I don't expect you to get.) I don't see you offering evidence. Oh, I forgot ... you're an editor, you are under no obligations to adhere to any strictures with regard to reality outside of Wikipedia itself. "Fringe theories": ah yes, Galileo and the like. Rest calmly, good sir, Wikipedia will soon become all of reality and there will be no fundamental challenges in your life. Soon we will all be immortal in cyberspace. Proskauer 14:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can indeed block you or any other editor, block your IP address, lock your user and talk pages so you can't ask to be unblocked, delete any article I like or lock it to prevent editing. But most of the time I don't, because Wikipedia is not actually an oligarchy at all, it's a very egalitarian place where editors who earn the trust and respect of the community are given the ability to do these things and generally respond by using these tools only for the the benefit of the project. Three such trusted members of the community have deleted the article on what you admit is a minor holocaust denier, and others flagged the article for deletion. The only common point here is you, so asserting that the bias is on the part of multiple others not yourself cleary violates Occam's Razor. The idea that I would be ignorant of there ain't nobody here but us chickens is somewhat odd - for the record I prefer the BB King version - but I would remind you that throughout history there have been many, many examples of individuals or small groups who thought that they were right and everyone else was wrong; almost all turned out to be completely wrong, and those who didn't mainly pre-date or were part of the scientific revolution of the 18th Century. These days when every reputable authority in the world says you are wrong, it's probably because you are. To say nothing of holocaust denial being a criminal offence in some countries. Guy 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Alrightalready. You're one up on me since I never knew it was a song. I heard it in the form of a joke from my uncle out in the country many years ago. I can guarantee you he never heard the song either, but it's quite possible the joke was popularized by the 1940's song. Anyway, I'm not particularly concerned about being blocked, but I suggest ALWAYS viewing ALL evidence from a fresh viewpoint without preconceptions. Just spend some time, actually a lot of time, looking at the photgraphs of the gas chambers and let the evidence wash over you. Allow yourself to come to your own conclusions. Proskauer
- I have already spent all the time I can bear to spend looking at the pictures, thanks all the same. And please do not be tempted to try and convert me to your way of thinking, just accept that you would be wasting your time even trying. Guy 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Guy, what you should also keep in mind is that Proskauer's biographies of Holocaust deniers are all copyvios. For example, the Porter article was a direct copy of this. His François Duprat article was a direct copy of this. His Mark Weber article was a direct copy of this. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all surprising. He does not strike me as the sort to go beyond the superficial in this matter. Neither am I for that matter, but I'm not trying to rewrite history. Is it time for an RfC? Guy 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Request for advice
I am concerned with the situation on Old time radio and related pages. You have been an uninvolved contributor with more experience in Wiki than I have. I am left with a feeling that there are some factions here who are following their own agendas rather than Wiki's. In the case of Dnyhagen he is not helping towards any positive agreed solution while working extremely hard on the page that is for his website (the page on Wiki nows comes second on my google search which makes me consider the rationale for it). Into this throw OldRadio who wants his website linked and Wikiotr whose comments suggest a (bad) history with Dnyhagen to say the least.
There are already rather too many external links on the page (in my mind & I've removed some) and I can see that, in trying to compromise, we may end up with a page of links rather than a quality article.
While not as involved as some editors it looks to me as though this may require some outside assessment by a broader body of Wikipedians to try and draw it to a conclusion as soon as possible and allow people to use time more productively. I hope you do not mind me contacting you but I am not sufficiently experienced to know the best way to settle this in a lasting and positive way (& no I have NO interest in any old time radio type sites!). Thanks & regards --Nigel (Talk) 12:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see here a campaign by Dnyhagen to promote his own site, without doubt, and the removal of his self-promotional links has led him to remove other links (acceptable) but only those related to sites supported by other users with whom he is in dispute (unacceptable). This needs to stop.
- Yes, the article has too many links; as a rule of thumb any link with a ~ in it or on a free web host can generally be removed unless there is credible evidence of authority. Domains are cheap. The best way of addressing the spam event horizon is to ruthlessly prune the list to a couple of reputable authorities and then take the entire list to Talk, discussing each in turn with the rationale for removal or inclusion. Links are there to support the content, not the other way around.
- Keep up the good work, Guy 11:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced allegations
You, again, made an unsupported allegation of violation of Wikipedia guidelines against me, removing two of three links under discussion on the article's discussion page. The discussion was underway and the proposed links on their way to obtaining consensus one way or the other. Please provide me your rationale for disrupting that process. Thanks. Dnyhagen 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do not bring your battles to Wikipedia. Guy 10:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Law of the playground
You seem to have forgotten the AFD discussion page for this nom (unless you are working on it now). Cheers, Yomanganitalk 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- AfD helper script crashed, I think. Done now, thanks. Guy 11:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Link removal
OK - which page or pages would you particularly like me to review the links on. I will get to it as soon as I can. Regards --Nigel (Talk) 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Old-time radio is a good starting point, being the core of the problem, let's start there and see how it progresses. Guy 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Xosa
Guy, just to let you know that I've reprotected User:Xosa's talk page. There's almost no doubt that it's Zephram in terms of the writing and the edit pattern, and a check user has returned that it's "likely" in terms of the technical evidence too. He's made only 47 edits to articles; any innocent editor would just have set up a new account by now, but instead he's calling for a United Nations inquiry into his block, which was always what Zephram did, aiming for maximum disruption. Hope that's okay with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that I couldn't create a new account as long as I was blocked. Which is true? --Xosa3 02:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Using admin power to solve content disputes
I find it objectionable that the two people who were involved in a content dispute with me blocked me, removed my unblock request and locked my talk page: User_talk:Xosa. If I did something wrong, I ask that an administrator not involved in the content dispute decide what appropriate measures should be taken. --Xosa3 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- So you say, but without credible evidence to back your assertions, and given the discussions on your Talk, especially in respect of the apparently non-existent Wikia user, I'm afraid I am no longer interested. I will leave this to other admins. Guy 08:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Evolutionary musicology merger
I'm happy to do the merger, by the way. Uncle G 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris Robertson article
Tyro nominated Chris Robertson for deletion and it was then speedy userfied by you (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Robertson). I was the orignial creator of the Chris Robertson article - and the article I wrote was about the sqaush player Chris Robertson, a former professional player who was once the world junior champion and ranked No. 3 in the world. I suspect that what happened is that Urbanaddict then changed the article to one about a different Chris Robertson (who may well be himself). I've now recreated the Chris Robertson article in a similar format to when I orginally wrote it. I think it should stay as the squash player is, in my opinion, encyclopedicly notable. But the page may need monitoring to stop Urbanaddict tinkering with it. Zaxem 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
RFA thanks
|
Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs |
RfA message
|
My RfA video message | |
Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Support
I just came across the Arbcom case concerning ParalelUni and I would like to offer you my support. Comments like the ones he made have no place in Wikipedia, or in real life and I hope his ban will be endorsed by the Arbcom. Anyway, I hope this won't stop you from editing. If you ever need any help to get through a rough patch let me know. I'd be happy to share my recent Esperanza-ness with you. - Mgm|(talk) 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Countries
What are these two countries?? Georgia guy 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There has been no activity on the talk page for over a month, and there's little precedant for keeping articles protected indefinitely without WP:OFFICE action. I'm tempted to unprotect, but I'll wait another week or so. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp
 |
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia.
With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
RfA
Your thoughts welcome. Arbusto 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bisexual erasure
Do you have any evidence of its being "commonly used"? The very low unique Google count indicates otherwise.
When will you learn? People don't need to provide evidence for stuff like this. They just know what they're saying is fact. -- Steel 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Note to self
Possible merge of Henry Willis and Henry Willis & Sons; also possible merge of Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell and Organ of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell. Both subjects indivisible and ocntain significant redundancy. Guy 14:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Template:ChoralWiki
I fixed your request on Template:ChoralWiki just to let you know. —Jared Hunt September 10, 2006, 20:17 (UTC)
- Oh great, thanks. Guy 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this article since I think the concept of wiki on a flash drive deserves to be widely known. I have nothing to do with development or promotion of this software. In my view wikipedia has a lot of articles about far less useful software, but that’s only my opinion which is not enough to suggest article deletion. I checked wikipedia policies and didn’t find anything obvious that this article violates. Please compare this article with others listed here List_of_wiki_software#Desktop and here List_of_portable_software#Wikis. I'm really confused why this article deserves deletion while say MyWiki is OK to keep. Please clarify the reasons for deletion. Thanks Abune 11 September 2006
- Wikipedia does no, I'm afraid, exist to promote thngs which deserve to be known, but to document that which already is known. Wikinfo may be the place you are looking for? Guy 08:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Bazzajf
About the stalking allegation, he's reminding me of someone. I may try and get a checkuser request performed. --Lord Deskana (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
Thank you, JzG, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The first thing he did was apparently create an article about himself, then he created an article about his unaccredited Bible college alma mater by copying promotional text from the website. I left a non-newbie-biting message on his talk page, but it's a just-slightly alarming pattern. So, you know, have your mop ready, just in case. A.J.A. 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Examples
Hi, I gave some more examples as requested. Thanks. -- Ekantik 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Go raibh maith agat!
Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.
Sláinte!
hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Freestylefrappe/Tchadienne/KI/Republitarian/NOBS etc
I thought you might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing community impatience ban for Freestylefrappe as I think you were involved with him (as Tchadienne) at the same time I was. Apologies if this is of no interest. --Guinnog 12:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed. Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned identified in the case, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits.
For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC).
Non-notable collectible card game players
I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Kastle
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivier and Antoine Ruel
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommi Hovi
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Selden
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kai Budde
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Long
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Finkel (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering people
Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 01:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Fuck salt!
WTF? why are you so against tourettes guy? I mean, even if you don't think it's funny, everyone i know has heard of him. It's more notable than most articles on this website.
- Deleted, deletion reviewed, end of story. Guy 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
With reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Nandini_Rajendran I gind that your ONLY contention seems to be verifiability. Since I have given citations from leading news papers, I expect you to revise the vote as the article is verifiable at present Doctor Bruno Talk 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Revert war[5] over cruft needs some attention. Arbusto 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
ytmnd
I think we're ready to blacklist it. Could you whitelist www. and wiki. before we proceed? MaxSem 07:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Input at the blacklist talk page, thanks. Guy 09:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Legal threats at Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine
Legal threats posted on the St Christopher page, with more specifics than usual. Note that the most specific recent threats have been reverted, but can be found in the history. Not sure whether to assume it's already taken care of, leave this with you, post on AN/I, or refer to the Office. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- No need, I think. Let them contact OTRS if they must, but this is not a WP:LIVING issue. Guy 09:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think FloNight has given Brad P. a heads-up just in case. Generic legal threats generally don't come with the name of a specific lawyer, etc. Newyorkbrad 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Advance Fee Fraud article
Regarding [6] - The blog link here is my reference for the fake escrow stuff. WhisperToMe 04:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
DRV
Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a wikipedia policy on copying other peoples userpages in their entirety?
I stumbled across the user page of Hitman990 (talk · contribs), an account that was made on the 13th of September, who has amassed a fair few warnings on his talk page. However his user page seems to be copied in its entirety from Deepujoseph (talk · contribs) and did this edit. I'm pretty sure this is a vandalism only account but for future reference I was querying about does the copying of user pages constitute vandalism? –– Lid(Talk) 10:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- No policy against it, but as it's a vandalims only account this is moot anyway. I have nuked it and blocked the user. Guy 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Date correction
Hi JzG, sorry if my phrasing was not accurate enough. Hopefully it's clearer now. Thanks, Crum375 12:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Strange
This Vic Troy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) person has been removing controversal elements from Republicans in close election races. Could this be a bot? Arbusto 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Could you look into why and how and under what rules Mindy Kaling's bio was deleted for several days a few days ago? It didn't meet CSD criteria. I think someone was trying to get rid of some negative comments permanently, which I support. I just want to understand the reasoning behind the deletion, and since I don't have the tools, I'm asking you, an adminstrator. Thank you so much. Billy Blythe 10:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- This was a WP:OFFICE action, I think, to remove defamatory content from the edit history. You need to ask User:Dannyisme for chapter and verse. Guy 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am proposing a merging with this article and WP:GREAT due to the similarity in content. Agree? Please reply on my talk page.
Crazy nut is talking about his lawyer and adding uncited things about this accreditation mill.[7] And while this person is trying to pass off this accreditation mill as real, see what he did at the criticism of alternative medicine.[8]
More fake med schools on wikipedia
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/UHSA The purportents of this seem to be role accounts.
Weasel Words on LBU Entry
- Louisiana Baptist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Come and see the weasel words on the LBU entry. Your input is needed. - JD
Town Traffic Test
I have changed this name to Audit methodology for sustainable transport. Perhaps this is more acceptable. The format needs work, the need is undeniablejwgardner
With literally no break at all, permanently blocked user Eatonsh aka Continueddonations is back, this time exclusively focusing on the main Schizophrenia and the Talk:Schizophrenia page. That they all are the same user is obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that IMHO it does not need any further proof. However, I am not sure how to deal with it any further; I admit I am somehow involved in this by now (he has called me a Nazi perhaps once too often by now), and reverting him all the time is a drag and looks, in spite of my explanations, odd to some other users on the page in question, some of which are helping him. Thus, I am herewith asking some of the users, admins and ArbCom members who were involved in this case previously to check and to either suggest what to do or to initiate some remedial course of action. Many thanks in advance. Ebbinghaus 23:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, just a note that this user is still engaging in violations of Wikipedia content and conduct guidelines using the sockpuppet Cestlogique (talk • contribs); Icankeepthisupforever (talk · contribs) is another probable sock. --Muchness 08:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
67.77.215.178...BenH sock?
Hello. I noticed that you have already blocked one of BenH's IP sockpuppets. The style and contributions of this particular IP in the headline look just like the contribs of BenH and the other sock. Could you please check if my hunch is a correct one, because I have never reported anyone like this and have no idea how else to do it except asking a familiar admin like you. Thanks. Thistheman 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, characteristic. Blocked, deploying rollback. Guy 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
London Street Commune
No, it wasn't created verbatim. I expanded the suggestion of notability slightly. Creating very short stubs may not be the preferred approach of everybody, but I am doing so with good intentions. I am not vandlising or putting nonsense into Wikipedia. Why are you so concerned with these being added? What problem is it causing? Trevor Saline 21:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's causing a problem of very sort and unreference articles. A red link might invite someone to create a full article, wehrea s avery short sub seems as if an article is there when in fact there is not much beyond a restatement of the title. In this case particularly you created two articles about the same subject. I have redirected 144 Piccadilly. I have nothing against articles on 1960s London counter-culture (my mother was a Young Socialist in London in the 60s) but you really should include enough information to make it obvious why we should care.Guy 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- What about the people who don't know about it and are just looking? Surely there are far more of them than people who would actively create or edit an article? If there is no article at all, then there is not information for those people, hence just a sentence or two is better than no article Trevor Saline 15:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of TaskJuggler entry
Hi,
I believe the deletion of the TaskJuggler article was a mistake. It is a widely used software. On UNIX/Linux it is _the_ MS Project equivalent. The project description language that was developed for the program is a major innovation to break out of the limitations that commonly used GANTT chart editors impose on their users. It is shipped with almost all major Linux distributions and has a Freshmeat popularity ranking of around 830. It has been covered multiple times by the international Linux press. Articles in English can be found at [9] and [10]. So, I kindly ask you to undelete the article again. There are equivalent articles in the French and German Wikipedia as well.
Thanks, 85.214.61.61 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please feel free to take this to deletion review, let me know if you need help jumping the hoops. Guy 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What are YOU doing?
Thanks for banning me for a week for wikistalking without even giving me a chance to defend myself. Okay, we can debate whether my comment on User:Kiand's talk page constitutes wikistalking but when you banned me you said "repeat offense". As far as I know I have never been banned for wikistalking before. Lord Chess 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Is listed for afd. Arbusto 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article
I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me. Guy 13:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of TaskJuggler entry
Hi,
I believe the deletion of the TaskJuggler article was a mistake. It is a widely used software. On UNIX/Linux it is _the_ MS Project equivalent. The project description language that was developed for the program is a major innovation to break out of the limitations that commonly used GANTT chart editors impose on their users. It is shipped with almost all major Linux distributions and has a Freshmeat popularity ranking of around 830. It has been covered multiple times by the international Linux press. Articles in English can be found at [11] and [12]. So, I kindly ask you to undelete the article again. There are equivalent articles in the French and German Wikipedia as well.
Thanks, 85.214.61.61 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please feel free to take this to deletion review, let me know if you need help jumping the hoops. Guy 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I need a second opinion on an admin ruling, and I wonder if you would be willing to help me out. I know that you are an extremely reasonable man. The admin above removed my speedy delete A3 tag on List of insular languages, saying that the AfD should run its course. I think that's a waste of admin time and editor time. I've seen him do this before, and it's extremely frustrating. I've never seen another admin do this. I've found that it's customary to tag things at AfD with a speedy delete tag if they qualify. I'm going to put up the tag again, and maybe you could delete it. Thank you. If you would like me to contact another admin on the matter, I will. This is an unacceptable situation, as the article is clearly crap and speedily deletable. Billy Blythe 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see what you mean but it's not really an A3, any more than any other list (not that I'm a fan of lists), and it's already at AfD so I see no particular problem letting that process run its course. Guy 13:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletion review
I can understand you getting frustrated over the Kept woman et al discussion (you aren't be the only one!). Be careful with your comments and particularly edit summaries though. I don't have any problem with "Oh FFS." but just make sure that that is as far as you go - the last thing this needs is for tempers to boil over and accusations of personal attacks to start flying around!
I'm about to put a note at WP:AN about it - hopefully some more people expressing an opinion will help things progress. Thryduulf 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- PS: in your latest comment, you linked to WP:IRA. If as I suspect you meant WP:IAR you may want to go back and correct it. If you do, feel free to delete my comment about it. Thryduulf 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- See above for endless argufiying over these sub-trivial one sentence "articles". Perhaps I did mean WP:IRA - blow them up wioth ANFO :-)
- If you can contain any collateral (sp?) damage, then go for it - it would certainly give him something new to complain about, if nothing else! :) Thryduulf 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have commented on this. I really am not complaining, I just don't think that the right decision was made here. Isn't it normal to debate these things? Trevor Saline 15:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
London Street Commune
No, it wasn't created verbatim. I expanded the suggestion of notability slightly. Creating very short stubs may not be the preferred approach of everybody, but I am doing so with good intentions. I am not vandlising or putting nonsense into Wikipedia. Why are you so concerned with these being added? What problem is it causing? Trevor Saline 21:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's causing a problem of very sort and unreference articles. A red link might invite someone to create a full article, wehrea s avery short sub seems as if an article is there when in fact there is not much beyond a restatement of the title. In this case particularly you created two articles about the same subject. I have redirected 144 Piccadilly. I have nothing against articles on 1960s London counter-culture (my mother was a Young Socialist in London in the 60s) but you really should include enough information to make it obvious why we should care.Guy 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- What about the people who don't know about it and are just looking? Surely there are far more of them than people who would actively create or edit an article? If there is no article at all, then there is not information for those people, hence just a sentence or two is better than no article Trevor Saline 15:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletion Review on those four articles
Hi,
You know, the CSDs weren't written by dim-wits. Every one of the deletions you did was arguably covered under a CSD; as long as you make an argument, most sane people will support you. Citing IAR just confuses people and/or excites tempers. The debate would have been a lot simpler if you had kept Wikipedia's own Pandora's box out of it. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I tried explaining patiently, it didn't work. I'm pretty convinced this is one or other of our resident trolls come back for another poke at our collective hot buttons. Who else is going to go to DRV and start citing policy so early in their editing career? Guy 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you really think somebody's a troll, ignoring everything they say is always the best option, right? Best wishes, Xoloz 16:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- If only it were always obviuos from the outset... Guy 21:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you really think that I am "troll", because I have argued about these deletions? Incidentially, the deletion policies are not hard to discover. Do you believe that you really presented any valid arguments to support the deletion criteria, other than SNOWBALL, IAR and "fuck process"? If I am completely without justification, why did some other editors say that the deletions should be overturned or "didn't technically match the criteria" and why was one recreated exactly as I created it? Is calling me a troll just a way to dismiss my arguments? Trevor Saline 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What are YOU doing?
Thanks for banning me for a week for wikistalking without even giving me a chance to defend myself. Okay, we can debate whether my comment on User:Kiand's talk page constitutes wikistalking but when you banned me you said "repeat offense". As far as I know I have never been banned for wikistalking before. Lord Chess 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Uncivil?
I'm trying hard to go by the rules here. I was just being descriptive, and I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I don't understand how that was uncivil. This place is very hard to understand, because there are so many people who claim that what someone says is uncivil to discredit their statement. It seems that it's up to the discretion of individual admins, and that seems very arbitrary. I'm really unhappy and upset about this. I was trying to save work and time and now I'm getting crap for it. This is very unsatisfying. If I wanted to be insulted, I'd go to USENET. This makes me so weary that I don't believe the page on editors should act like admins if they want to and be bold. It seems like that is a lie. God, I'm upset. Billy Blythe 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure you weren't trying to insult, but you managed anyway. Tricky, isn't it? Happens to me all the time and you're right it can be very puzzling, and quite usetting when someone takes offence at something that was not meant offensively. As long as you stick to the articles and not personalities you should be fine. Guy 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's very tricky, and I fear being blocked for a perfectly harmless statement that someone who is overly sensitive interprets as an attack. There are a lot of emotionally unstable people on this site, I think, and they have really short fuses. I'm sorry if I offended. I guess I'll have to speak like Lamb Chop or Barney the Dinosaur from now on. BTW, I don't understand why you added to my user page. It seemed like a prank, which was okay with me. I didn't consider it vandalism, because pranks are different. Billy Blythe 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- As you'll see from your talk page, you were in no danger of being blocked, it was a mild rebuke. I'm sorry you seem to have interpreted it as more than that. Please don't try to read more into the comment more than is actually there. Guy 06:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's very tricky, and I fear being blocked for a perfectly harmless statement that someone who is overly sensitive interprets as an attack. There are a lot of emotionally unstable people on this site, I think, and they have really short fuses. I'm sorry if I offended. I guess I'll have to speak like Lamb Chop or Barney the Dinosaur from now on. BTW, I don't understand why you added to my user page. It seemed like a prank, which was okay with me. I didn't consider it vandalism, because pranks are different. Billy Blythe 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've just sent you an email. JoshuaZ 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on the Ales Hemsky talk page
I agree that revert warring is bad, but I believe that if you looked into this further, you would agree that I have good reason to revert it. Jaskaramdeep admitted that the Ales Hemsky page is one he "wrote from top to bottom."[13] On his talk page, he put the following at the top:
it was said that a young hemsky would be entrusted with four labors of the hockey gods, the successful completion of which would culminate in the oilers' sixth stanley cup
Even after all the discussion, during which every outside opinion agreed that my edits improved the page, he still re-added quite a bit of unsourced, unverifiable, non-NPOV material. It wasn't even original writing. It was the exact same as it was before, just copied from older versions of the page and pasted back into it. Jaskaramdeep has stated that I am not allowed to edit his work (read above on the Ales Hemsky talk page), and put the following on my talk page: "If I need tips, I'll ask someone I respect." Jaskaramdeep has even criticized me for "refusing to work with" him just because I requested comments by outside users. I feel as though I am holding strong against an uncivil, biased editor, not simply "revert warring." --Muéro(talk/c) 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, I know. But rather than revert war I would suggest a request for comment. I absolutely agree that Jaskaramdeep is an editor of an incredibly trying kind. Guy 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Is listed for afd. Arbusto 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Rebecca Cardon
Hi, I saw you nominated Rebecca Cardon for deletion. Mike39, who seems a little new and may not be fully acquainted with Wikipedia's policies, removed the nomination. I have reverted to your last version, but you may want to add this page to your watchlist in case the nomination is removed again. Cheers, DRK 03:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think he's in the grip of fandom :-) Guy 08:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Unblock template
I've replied on my talk page. Usually I reply on both talk pages but it's a long discussion so I'll just link to it: User talk:Thebainer#Unblock template. --bainer (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Almeda University
I can accept everything as it is now regarding Almeda except the part about the dog. If a person filled out an application using a fake (dog's) name, I assure you that the content of the application stated nothing about playing with children and wagging a tail. Furthermore, if someone did complete the application with enough fake personal details to be awarded the Almeda degree, with the sole intent of discrediting Almeda, then it violates several laws including fraud and entrapment. All applicants have to sign electronically that they are at least 18 years of age and all information contained within their application is true and correct. Furthermore, the dog story was not created by a news team investigation, but was an uncorroborated story told to the news – which they chose to print without verifying the details.
I do not understand why you refuse to print both sides on the Almeda issue, but have no apparent problem printing an uncorroborated news article that, even if true, was created by committing fraud. This is akin to sending a friend with your birth certificate in to take your drivers license test for you and then bashing the Department of Motor Vehicles for issuing you a drivers license when you can't drive.Veronica678 17:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have tried to print both sides. You've simply removed news sources. If you have sources for the "other side" present them, but removing sources is not acceptable. Arbusto 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Third opinion request and explanation
First, I'd like to explain that when I used the phrase "sloppy long hair" with regard to User:Fut Perf, I was just being descriptive. No malice was intended. I'll apologize to him shortly.
Second, I wonder if you'd give a third opinion on a dispute on Mindy Kaling. It's with regard to a nipple slip. I don't think it's encyclopedic, and User:Eleemosynary, a troublesome user, has been inserting that info. The article was deleted by Danny, and I think it was for that very reason. I've been removing the info because it's negative. It was also poorly sourced, as the source was a blog. Would you help out, please? You're known for being extremely reasonable, and being rouge. Billy Blythe 18:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the first matter, well done; in the second, I'll be along. Guy 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Trailer Park Boys
Hi Guy. I've just noticed that the articles on cast members from the show Trailer Park Boys (although not the article on the show itself), and in particular Robb Wells and John Dunsworth have been cut and pasted, almost in their entirity from the show's official website http://www.trailerparkboys.com/. Isn't this a copyright violation???--Edchilvers 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is indeed. Guy 21:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- So what to do??--Edchilvers 12:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Tag as copyvio (have you found the template list yet, incidentally? I find it very handy at times). Can't be speedied as they've been around for more than 48 hours. Guy 14:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:LEGAL
See [14], this IP is the active whitewasher to the article. Arbusto 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Midland Institute of Hypnotherapy claims to be a legit UK school. Thoughts? Arbusto 04:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Who deleted the Instantdegrees.com redirect? I re-created it, but I want to explain to that person that it is the same place. Arbusto 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- It was vandalised and the vandalised version deleted. It is now protected as a redirect. Guy 09:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
GLF article summaries from history?
Hi. I imagine you're as relieved as I am that the drama around the GLF's article looks to be coming to a close. Just in case it reappears at some later date, I wanted to save my summaries of the news articles on him along with the articles themselves. Unfortunately, the talk page has been deleted. Would you mind fishing them out of the history for me? Just a quick copy-paste into an email is all I need. Thanks, William Pietri 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done, see your Talk. Guy 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
has been removing my perfectly legit comments from his talk page. Isn't that a big no-no that should result in an extended block? I've restored the comments. Billy Blythe 15:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk FloNight 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Mossley
I thought you may be interested in this. Could set a standard which other users would want to role out elsewhere. Jhamez84 22:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Checkuser request
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. Also, a checkuser has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 01:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.
What is this all about? Aren't you the original creator of Primogeniture?? Thought I'd give you a heads up because it says you are under the image and the nom in this MFD is claiming it's his/her creation. Stubbleboy 01:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not me, guv. I just made the "official cabal decree" logo. Guy 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that now. Well I apologize for any inconvienience. Stubbleboy 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
{{db-spam}} - Hurrah !
Three rousing cheers for pushing out the {{db-spam}} CSD so quickly. As fate would have it, spam is avoiding me, but I'm sure I'll get plenty opportunity to use it soon. Thanks and all the best ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Again
Okay, I would still like to know why you think I was banned for wikistalking for a week before. This is my last attempt for I request arbitration; I feel that you were incorrect. To the best of my knowledge I have never been banned for wikistalking before and by you saying I had been banned for a week before you were incorrect. I'd like proof so this can resolved. Lord Chess 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- See your block log for the previous stalking block. This block was the result of another complaint from User:Kiand, see [15]. Leave Kiand alone. Guy 20:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, you must one of Kiand's pet admins. I made a note to avoid you from now on. Lord Chess 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Requesting copy of deleted article Walled garden (wiki)
Hi Guy ... when you have time, could you dig up a copy of Walled garden (wiki) for me and place it somewhere in my userspace? I'm not looking for the final edit of the page (it was apparently turned into a redirect and then speedily deleted by User:Kingboyk for reasons unknown), but the actual article that existed right before it was made into a redirect. Thanks, --Aaron 20:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- It was moved to Wikipedia:Walled garden and the rsulting redirect deleted. Nothing sinister at all :-) Guy 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. It had a grand total of zero incoming links from mainspace, and around 100 from elsewhere. That was all the proof I needed that it was a wiki topic and not an enyclopedia topic. So, I moved the page, deleted the resultant cross-namespace direct, and cleaned up all the links. All nice and tidy :) --kingboyk 20:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Duh. I just never noticed. Thank you, guy and Kingboyk! --Aaron 23:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Riek Machar has been getting hit by the same IP for the last 8 months. He's had four warnings and knows what he's doing.--Arbusto 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- That IP has earned a block with five warnings. Arbusto 01:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
BGC/Brian G Crawford
In a recent comment from BGC, he stated he was from Montreal, Candada. Also, Brian G. Crawford's contributions bear no resemblance to that of BGC, so I don't think they're the same person. Hope this helps! - Dudesleeper 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK, Brian's been very open with me and hasn't listed that as one of his alternate accounts (I watch them) so I'm content there. Guy 20:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Update: an alternate account that Brian did not notify me about has been indef-blocked following a repeat of his earlier behaviour. I am greatly saddened by this. I was rather hoping that his meds would help him to resume productive editing, but he seems to be using Wikipedia as a playground for trolling - mind you, even this time he did manage to make at least one change for the better to Mindy Kaling. Guy 10:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of Peter Blunden article
Why'd you delete the Blunden article? The reference quoted doesn't make it POV. That was a recent controversy regarding him. And as the editor-in-chief of the HWT, there should be an entry for him. Obviously it'd be better if someone had more biographical details, but once the article is created, presumably those will follow. Garth M 12:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Resoning as per your Talk. Guy 12:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's not "reasoning"! You just baldly declared that it had "violated our core policy of the neutral point of view" but without justifying why. You declared that "It was also judged to violate our policy on biographies of living individuals." but without a skerrick of explanation of why. And you threatened to ban me.
- Ridiculous. There should be an article on Blunden. If there was a problem with the Media Watch content (and I'd say there wasn't - the majority of the reference was a direct quote from Blunden himself), then perhaps you could have edited that - but you shouldn't have deleted the whole article. Garth M 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
DRV reopening of cases
I noticed you reopened a case that was speedy kept per this. As an highly-involved party, I'd rather leave doing this one, which is closely related (same closer etc.) to you. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 00:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
A.J.A.
copied from User talk:TenOfAllTrades for context
I do nto see why you blocked A.J.A., he was removing content added by single purpose accounts which served to promote an unaccredited college. Neither of the two users he reverted has any edits outsid eof this subject, and both are identifiably associated with the college (one as principal and one as trustee ([16]) and now indef-blocked. I don't see A.J.A. doing anything wrong here, please point out the problem for me. Thanks, Guy 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- While both User:Gary Lorentzen and User:Enewberg are associated with the college, that does not – in and of itself – bar them from contributing to the article. I note that neither one of them has tried to hide their association with Kepler; indeed, both have expressly identified themselves as officials of the College.
- As far as I can tell, Enewberg has never been blocked from editing [17]. Lorentzen has been blocked, but not for spamming or edit warring; rather he made an ill-considered remark that was (reasonably) interpreted as a possible legal threat.
- While some of Enewberg and Lorentzen's contributions to the Kepler College article were inappropriate for Wikipedia due to length, format, or tone, they weren't spam, nor vandalism, nor whitewashing. A.J.A.'s response to their edits has been to uniformly revert without comment, and with rude and misleading edit summaries ('rv', 'rvv', 'rvv', 'rvv', rvv') that suggest that he is simply reverting vandalism to the article.
- A.J.A. was asked twice ([18], [19]) by me to avoid implying that the edits were vandalism, and to consider incorporating some of the useful factual material into the article rather than flatly reverting. (See, for example, this removal, which included information about the College's founders and various dates in its history.)
- I will note that prior to the involvement of Newberg or Lorenzen our article about the College focused solely on criticism: its lack of accreditation, and two quotes from officials at other colleges heaping on sarcasm and derision. For the record, I happen to agree with the critics that an unaccredited, online school of astrology is a pretty stupid (dare I say laughable?) idea—but I can also see how including a response (of moderate size) from school officials or other individuals might be appropriate in our article. I can certainly understand why school officials would be concerned that they weren't allowed any comment at all, and that they were bitten so thoroughly by A.J.A.'s hostility.
- Summing up, then, A.J.A. was blocked for using deceptive edit summaries, falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, biting newbies, and a general lack of civility in his discourse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. A.J.A. has indeed behaved badly; hopefully they will learn form the brief block. I am less comfortable with Newberg and Lorentzen editing an article where they have a vested interest in the content. I will deal with this matter myself. Guy 07:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but huh?
You edited my user page "to reduce link count inflation" and thanked me for understanding, but I'm afraid I don't understand; what's link count inflation? (Also, the sheer irony of editing my request not to edit my user page is mind-boggling.) CaptHayfever 04:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- There were at one time around 400 links to YTMNDs on Wikipedia. We have now reduced that to a manageable number, and prevented the addition of new links directly to YTMNDs (www.ytmnd.com and wiki.ytmnd.com can still be used in relevant articles). Guy 06:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Enterprise Resource Planning
Hello Wikipedia
i requested an IMPARTIAL editor consider adding an external link to http://www.listensoftware.com/hrxp/silvercacheinfo.asp?txtGlobalVariableName=1002 on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning
However the response i got was from the same editor who reverted my original edit: "No, your edit history clearly shows that you've simply inserted a spam link to your corporate pitch page. I can see no text or 'paraphrase' from the link you originally inserted to the text in the article. I have additionally reverted your latest addition, which was to simply vandalize the article by hijacking links and inserting your opinion about your product. Please stop. Kuru"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning "the PeopleSoft HRMS and Financials systems are generally considered better than SAP's HRMS solution. And SAP's manufacturing and CRM systems are generally considered better than PeopleSoft's equivalents[citation needed]. So an organization large enough to justify the purchase of an ERP system, may choose to purchase the PeopleSoft HRMS and Financials modules from Oracle, and their remaining applications from SAP"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Just_zis_Guy%2C_you_know%3F "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information"
- This last applies to biographies of living individuals. Addition of links and content to promote corporate bodies is strongly discouraged, and per recent comments from the Foundation is likely to remain so. Guy 06:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Arch Coal delete-review
Hi JzG, Jimbo has recently given his blessing for the Arch Coal deletion review. You seemed like you were in favor of keeping the endorsing the undelete... I'd appreciate if you would clarify in light of the new information. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
request
Hi, JzG - I happened to notice the Usman Farooq case at RFCU when I was there for an unrelated proceeding; the initial indef-block seems to have been based on pretty flimsy evidence. The checkuser request has been declined, I think WP:AGF demands unblocking unless guilt is firmly established. What happened to the guy seemed kinda unfair to me, didn't want him to remain blocked any longer than necessary. - Valarauka(T/C) 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
An indef block seems a bit harsh per WP:SPAM#Warning spammers. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38 6 October 2006 (GMT).
- I have no objection to review, but actually this was as blatant a bit of astroturfing as you will find. Four separate accounts with identical style, creating and repeatedly re-creating the same articles. Fact idiot (talk · contribs), Ecopave (talk · contribs), Helping (talk · contribs) and Webmasters (talk · contribs). Ecopave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ecopave Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Cereplast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Binder shift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a term of Ecopave's own invention which was also repeatedly added to Road-traffic safety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), Geo320 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Warm mix asphalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As I said at WP:ANI, I don't mind if this user wants to pick a single account and sit down and talk about it, indefinite does not mean permanent, but the problem behaviour needed to stop and stay stopped. Guy 20:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- <Edit conflict> Since the other threee are also blocked, perhaps we offer to unblock one a/c subject to no spam? Rich Farmbrough, 20:32 6 October 2006 (GMT).
- OK I left the offer of good behaviour on his talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49 6 October 2006 (GMT).
- Happy with that. Guy 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK I left the offer of good behaviour on his talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49 6 October 2006 (GMT).
- <Edit conflict> Since the other threee are also blocked, perhaps we offer to unblock one a/c subject to no spam? Rich Farmbrough, 20:32 6 October 2006 (GMT).
Indef block of User:Urek
Hey Guy. Urek just sent a request to unblock-en-l complaining that he was falsely accused of trolling. I just flipped through all his contributions and the various responses, and I don't know that the available evidence supports the conclusion that they are in fact an experienced troll. I can easily see this also being a newbie who walked into the touchy-admin blender.
Do you have a suspected sock owner / troll for the account? Have you performed a checkuser?
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've undone a block of yours.
I was engaging in discussion with Urek (talk • contribs) prior to your block. Once asked to stop posting to MONGO's talk page, he did so. I had quite specifically said that he could post on ANI still, but that I didn't recomend it. He did once more, in what I'd describe as a mild flare up. Rookie mistakes, all of them. I'm going to try talking to him some more. - brenneman {L} 04:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Guy 07:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guy. The evidence is suggestive that MaverickInUrFace (talk · contribs) is Usman Farooq (talk · contribs) (Kilo-Lima's comment on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Usman Farooq summarizes it well) but agree that it is all circumstantial. I'm pretty sure it's him based on editing patterns on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and the users he chose to flip out on. Still, the evidence is circumstantial, and if you wanted to unblock, I wouldn't object. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 00:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at the diffs, the users Maverick flipped out on (User:Lostintherush and User:Deepujoseph) seem to indicate that he isn't a sockpuppet of UsmanFarooq - if you take a look at the history of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 around the time UsmanFarooq was editing (10 to 14 Sept), his major edit conflicts were with different users entirely (Idleguy, Jaiiaf, a couple others)[20]. The first user Maverick attacked (Lostintherush) [21] only has two minor reverts in that article, one on 30 Aug [22], and one on 15 Sept [23] - both entirely unrelated to UsmanFarooq. The attack on user Deepujoseph [24] only came after he posted a NPA warning [25] on Maverick's talk page because of the first attack (not article-related). UsmanFarooq doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, except an unfortunate shared name. As an impartial observer, I hope you unblock the poor guy soon. -
Valarauka(T/C)06:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- I asked the blocking admin, Samir (I do not like unilaterally undoing other admins' blocks) but since there is no reply as yet I have now unblocked, I am satisfied that this is a case of mistaken identity and have let Samir know this. I've also emailed the user. Thanks for your help. Guy 07:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fine with me, Guy. -- Samir धर्म 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Appreciated. Thanks. Guy 22:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fine with me, Guy. -- Samir धर्म 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- I asked the blocking admin, Samir (I do not like unilaterally undoing other admins' blocks) but since there is no reply as yet I have now unblocked, I am satisfied that this is a case of mistaken identity and have let Samir know this. I've also emailed the user. Thanks for your help. Guy 07:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Arabistani
Hey JzG. I'll make the checkuser request, but what should I state as the policy violation? —Khoikhoi 21:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sockpuppetry to evade block or ban (citing diffs to show similar edit patterns) is the best one here. Guy 22:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Your fresh Farrell afd
There is really some strange stuff going on.[26][27] Also the article should be kept at least until after the election since the race is so close as verified by newspapers, etc. Arbusto 06:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- You think it's strange that I correct a ref so that it accurately shows as a website rather than a news source? Weird. Do you also think it's strange that I cleaned up all the errors on that page, and it's now nice and neat and tidy? Sandy 06:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey JzG -- just so you know, I've responded and declined to unblock, but since I'm not a new set of eyes, I think it's inappropriate for me to change the {unblock} tag. Mangojuicetalk 13:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. The evidence is, I think, compelling. Guy 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Stalk
Could you look at this and give your opinion.[28] Arbusto 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's possible that Bagginator is watching large numbers of articles on Christian theology and related topics, and that is why you keep running into that particular editor. Stalking is also possible. Guy 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, i'm not watching a large number of articles on Christian theology nor am I stalking. Rather, i'm working with others on the Intelligent Design article. On my talk page here I asked FeloniousMonk a question. The next day I hadn't seen an answer so I went to his talk page to see if he provided an answer there. Toward the bottom of the page I saw this and was compelled to check it out and see if I wanted to put in my two cents, which I did. Maybe Vivaldi was right when he posted here that Arbustoo calls certain editors into action, specifically citing FeloniousMonk. I don't mind that so much but it bothers me incredibly that not only does he call certain editors into action but tries to intimidate other editors who see that call and become interested.Bagginator 06:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Any editor who knows an admin will tend to ask that admin if they think something needs the admin tools. We learn, over time, when to step in and when to politely decline. Felonious is not stupid. I strongly suggest that you do not debate Arbustoo on user talk pages, leave it to discussions of actual content on mainspace talk and related debates. Guy 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Where have I debated Arbustoo on user talk pages? With the exception of my own, of course, where he continues to harrass me and accuse me of stalking him.Bagginator 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- YOu are debating him on your user talk. You are allowed ot simply ignore him, and I think that's the best thing for you to do here. Guy 12:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds like excellent advice. I shall definately take you up on that.Bagginator 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- YOu are debating him on your user talk. You are allowed ot simply ignore him, and I think that's the best thing for you to do here. Guy 12:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Where have I debated Arbustoo on user talk pages? With the exception of my own, of course, where he continues to harrass me and accuse me of stalking him.Bagginator 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Any editor who knows an admin will tend to ask that admin if they think something needs the admin tools. We learn, over time, when to step in and when to politely decline. Felonious is not stupid. I strongly suggest that you do not debate Arbustoo on user talk pages, leave it to discussions of actual content on mainspace talk and related debates. Guy 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, i'm not watching a large number of articles on Christian theology nor am I stalking. Rather, i'm working with others on the Intelligent Design article. On my talk page here I asked FeloniousMonk a question. The next day I hadn't seen an answer so I went to his talk page to see if he provided an answer there. Toward the bottom of the page I saw this and was compelled to check it out and see if I wanted to put in my two cents, which I did. Maybe Vivaldi was right when he posted here that Arbustoo calls certain editors into action, specifically citing FeloniousMonk. I don't mind that so much but it bothers me incredibly that not only does he call certain editors into action but tries to intimidate other editors who see that call and become interested.Bagginator 06:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Diane Farrell
Hi there, maybe a good idea to stop the AFD for the time being since we currently have the following discussions active on the issue:
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 8#Diane Farrell
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Diane Farrell
- User talk:The wub#Diane Farrell article (why it should be undeleted)
Thanks/wangi 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nah. All these discussions should rightfully be at an AfD. DRV is moot since it is undeleted, admion noticeboard is not the place for it, and the article's talk page is not going to attract enough attention. Guy 20:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Let confusion reign! I think i'll wait till tomorrow until making my speel - just so I can do it once at whatever place we end up discussing this at :) Cheers/wangi 21:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- You may be interested to know that User:Francisx, who is being unusually obstreperous about this matter in the DRV, just reverted your entire AfD. --Aaron
A revelation
You may not remember me, but I remember you. I got into some trouble with putting references to YTMND in a few articles. Well, I have had a revelation. YTMND is one of the stupidest things on the Internet today. It is one of the most hateful and uncivilized communities, no, better yet, cesspools, the Net has to offer, and there is no room to spread any of it's shit across the Net today. I truly apologize for my actions and applaud your efforts to take it out of the picture. Good day :) Bubby the Tour G 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- LOL! Yes, of course I remember you. We've come to a workable compromise regarding YTMND, and it's now on the spam blacklist. Guy 08:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good, finally. Even more so now that YTMND has their own Wiki so they can shut up now. Bubby the Tour G 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I tagged it for G11, and neglected to tag it for copyvio, but it is a copyvio from http://www.crtllc.com/private_bios_william_marshall.aspx - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good catch. Thanks. Guy 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You moved a number of pages into this user's area back in Feb. They are now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Student e, They seem to be long abandoned, but I'd thought I'd let you know in case you can cast any light on the matter. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd completely forgotten them! They can go, of course. Guy 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain
Please refrain from lecturing me about accusing people of sockpuppetry when I am the one being accused. Take the time to check your facts before you spout off. That is the least you can do, considering I was cleared. Or do you just enjoy alienating people from Wikipedia, because I am cerainly alienated now. Timmy12 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am struggling to see the relationship between this and what I wrote, which was: See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd); note that at least one univolved editor does not see a sockpuppet relationship. Please do not accuse people of being a sockpuppet unless you have substantial and credible evidence, prefereably in the form of a CheckUser.. Since the referenced CheckUser explicitly states that you are almost certainly not a sockpuppet of Matisse, which was what I was saying, I do not really understand what you are complaining about here. Guy 09:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry that you do not -- too much of a struggle undoubtedly to figure out what is really going on, or why you would leave a message on my talk page to begin with when I was the innocent party and you were not involved in the first place. I was cleared but nevertheless received lectures from the likes of you. Also, I only found out accidently that I was cleared. Wikipedia is a very ugly place. I did notice that you did not leave any kind of messages on the pages of the people who were ganging up on me and have been doing so for some time. Probably friends of yours. Why would you bother with my talk page at all? Gratuitious (but typical) nasty Wikipedia behavior, I conclude. Timmy12 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Consider the possibility that the message was not aimed at you, a fact entirely obvious by reference to the linked CheckUser. Guy 09:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why was it posted on my page if not aimed at me? And why from you? Any references to CheckUser are over my head. I do not know how to use it or what it shows or what you were suggesting I do there at CheckUser. (Besides, I was upset and not in the frame of mind to ferret out and read obscure Wikipedia instructions.) So whatever you thought was "entirely obvious" was not so to me. All I know is that two different (and unknown to me) people left essentially the same message (threat I now know) on my talk page and one of them subsequently followed through. I was never notified that I had been cleared. I was treated like a "thing". I still don't understand your message on my talk page, or why you left it there especially if it wasn't "aimed" at me. (This contributes to my feeling that my talk page was being used as a conduit for messages having nothing to do with me.) My talk page was a bummer from the beginning with people leaving long, obscure postings there starting immediately after User:999's first posting (part of the harrassment I decided later) and I quickly stopped doing little more than scanning it because it was all negative. So, sorry if I was not capable of understanding the CheckUser thing. Timmy12 13:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- My fault entirely for not being clearer in the first place. Guy 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why was it posted on my page if not aimed at me? And why from you? Any references to CheckUser are over my head. I do not know how to use it or what it shows or what you were suggesting I do there at CheckUser. (Besides, I was upset and not in the frame of mind to ferret out and read obscure Wikipedia instructions.) So whatever you thought was "entirely obvious" was not so to me. All I know is that two different (and unknown to me) people left essentially the same message (threat I now know) on my talk page and one of them subsequently followed through. I was never notified that I had been cleared. I was treated like a "thing". I still don't understand your message on my talk page, or why you left it there especially if it wasn't "aimed" at me. (This contributes to my feeling that my talk page was being used as a conduit for messages having nothing to do with me.) My talk page was a bummer from the beginning with people leaving long, obscure postings there starting immediately after User:999's first posting (part of the harrassment I decided later) and I quickly stopped doing little more than scanning it because it was all negative. So, sorry if I was not capable of understanding the CheckUser thing. Timmy12 13:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Consider the possibility that the message was not aimed at you, a fact entirely obvious by reference to the linked CheckUser. Guy 09:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry that you do not -- too much of a struggle undoubtedly to figure out what is really going on, or why you would leave a message on my talk page to begin with when I was the innocent party and you were not involved in the first place. I was cleared but nevertheless received lectures from the likes of you. Also, I only found out accidently that I was cleared. Wikipedia is a very ugly place. I did notice that you did not leave any kind of messages on the pages of the people who were ganging up on me and have been doing so for some time. Probably friends of yours. Why would you bother with my talk page at all? Gratuitious (but typical) nasty Wikipedia behavior, I conclude. Timmy12 23:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Guy, if you have time, I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Attribution. It's a proposal I've written with a view to getting rid of NOR and V by combining them into one policy, and also getting rid of RS in its current form. I'm arguing that all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source (i.e. must not be OR), but of course need not actually be attributed to one, because a lot of material needs no citation. I think the page is easier to understand than the current versions of NOR and V, and people are always complaining about RS so it would be good to make that redundant. Your views would be most welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You removed the link to my php version of Konquest. Me posting a link to a site with my username in it looks a lot like spam but if you read the konquest article or have played konquest or ask someone that has and ahve a look at my php version of konquest I think you will see that the link to deserves to be there. --Adam1213 Talk + 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- User base? External reviews? Are you the best person to establish the significance of your own work? It doesn't even have its own domain name! Guy 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I just put it up recently, its hosted for free, I think it is best to get the opinion of someone that has played konquest and linkes the game on it. --Adam1213 Talk + 14:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can't agree. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I wish you luck with it, but I really don't see it adds anything to the encyclopaedia. I have asked on the admin noticeboard to see if I'm alone in this view. Guy 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Pingus has a link to 'Gallipoli: the game', tron has a link to Armagetron Advanced (Armagetron advanced is very highly rated though), Frozen Bubble has a link to a version for java -non Symbian- mobile phones, Flash version and - Applet version. I personnally have a problem with the link to 'Gallipoli: the game it should be on the lemmings article instead. If links to another copy of something like the game (or copy into another programming language) would appear to be accepted in these cases why not on konquest? --Adam1213 Talk + 15:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- That is the "some foo exists, therefore all foo may exist" argument, Im afraid. It is not persuasive and never has been. WP:EL is your friend here, check out "links to normally avoid". Guy 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- 11 April 2006 [30] I had posted a link to online konquest, it seamed to be almost done to what i thought and i had nothing to do with it, next edit someone fixes up my bracket (the link was noticied) I ended up removing the link because the site was no longer there. The point is how long a link to online konquest in PHP that never worked in the end lasted, compared to my online konquest that worked from day 1. I agree that if there are heaps of links and they are like each other they should be removed. --Adam1213 Talk + 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing the point rather. There is no rule which says we need a link to an online version of the game at all. It is, after all, a rather minor game. Guy 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is not a minor game it is included with a lot of distributions of linux, 99.9% of the people that have played it say its a good game. [31] "I cannot believe I wrote over 400 words on this game, but as it comes free on a free OS, which has many advantages, you might check this out. if you have Linux play this. " notice how they point out the fact that its linux only, the point is my version is os independant.--Adam1213 Talk + 07:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- 11 April 2006 [30] I had posted a link to online konquest, it seamed to be almost done to what i thought and i had nothing to do with it, next edit someone fixes up my bracket (the link was noticied) I ended up removing the link because the site was no longer there. The point is how long a link to online konquest in PHP that never worked in the end lasted, compared to my online konquest that worked from day 1. I agree that if there are heaps of links and they are like each other they should be removed. --Adam1213 Talk + 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- That is the "some foo exists, therefore all foo may exist" argument, Im afraid. It is not persuasive and never has been. WP:EL is your friend here, check out "links to normally avoid". Guy 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Pingus has a link to 'Gallipoli: the game', tron has a link to Armagetron Advanced (Armagetron advanced is very highly rated though), Frozen Bubble has a link to a version for java -non Symbian- mobile phones, Flash version and - Applet version. I personnally have a problem with the link to 'Gallipoli: the game it should be on the lemmings article instead. If links to another copy of something like the game (or copy into another programming language) would appear to be accepted in these cases why not on konquest? --Adam1213 Talk + 15:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can't agree. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I wish you luck with it, but I really don't see it adds anything to the encyclopaedia. I have asked on the admin noticeboard to see if I'm alone in this view. Guy 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I just put it up recently, its hosted for free, I think it is best to get the opinion of someone that has played konquest and linkes the game on it. --Adam1213 Talk + 14:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Minesweeper gets distributed with every single copy of Windows. It's still a minor game. Guy 09:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Redirects to Shock site
Hey Guy -- I recently nominated a bunch of redirects that point to Shock site for deletion on the grounds that they aren't covered in the article anymore. As someone familiar with the history there, I'm interested to hear what you think on the issue at WP:RFD. Mangojuicetalk 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well done, let's nuke the lot. Guy 22:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
eAthena on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of eAthena. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Joshuaali 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why no...
Simply question, why no link in your sig? It's a fair pain in the arse having to mess around to get here! :) /wangi 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Eh? There's a link, it comes here. It doesn't render on this page due to wikicode, but it works alright for me! Guy 22:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you harass innocent people accused of being a sockpuppet?
No answer from you yet. Do you have any justification for what you do? Timmy12 23:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- You posted the question above at 23:24 GMT, and this at 23:08, so you obviously didn't read the reply above before posting this. Be aware, too, that these times are late at night in the UK. Guy 09:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about the time thing and me being spaced-out regarding it. I appreciate that you have actually answered me (even if I don't understand your answers) and seem to be trying to explain what the heck was going on, since I still don't get it. Only recently have I been getting any kind of confidence back regarding doing anything on Wikipedia. And you are the only person who has tried to explain anything to me. So I thank you. Timmy12 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is College of Psychic Studies a notable London institution? --Arbusto 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Have a guess :-) Guy 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for apology
But I still don't get why you didn't leave those messages on the talk pages of the people who actually did make the accusations of sockpuppet. Why my page? They were the ones who sent me into a turmoil shortly after I had taken the big step of actually obtaining an account and making small edits. I never even got one of those "Welcome to Wikipedia" things that everyone else has on their talk page -- not that I want one now. Timmy12 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Because it was being discussed by more than one person, that's all. It's hard toi follow discussions which get fragmented. Guy 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Request for talk page restoration of Mythic: Role Playing
Hey Guy,
Would you be willing to restore the text from Mythic: Role Playing to the talk space of User:Doc Halloween?
According to Doc, the article was primarily his original work, but was deleted as a probable copyvio. (The deletion log is here).
I agreed to serve as his advocate, and after some discussion, Doc thinks that he probably can't establish notability at this time, but would like access to his text he wrote for personal or off-wiki use. He assures me that the text is either his original work or is used with permission of the game's owner, who owns the copyright to any quoted items.
According to Wikipedia:Deletion review, the next step is to ask an admin such as yourself to restore the text to his talk page. Would you be willing to help us out?
Thanks, TheronJ 17:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing this was meant for you
Note at UserTalk: Guy. I guess this is a new user, not sure how to contact you. Fan-1967 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, dealt with. Guy 19:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can help
The same group of people are starting to harass me again, now that I have become active once more.
I removed reference price lists from the body of perhaps 10 articles in situations where there were already multiple links to the same site. There are hundreds of articles that reference that same outside site multiple times. I received the note displayed below from a third party (one that was involved with the users who made the sockpuppet accusation against me previously for essentially the same behavior on my part.)
Please stop removing references to rosencomet.com. It is not a personal website, but a website of the organization that the articles are about. Thanks. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- (I replied that the links I removed were price lists for events.)
- No, they weren't. Please leave Rosencomet and his articles alone. You are engaging in harassment. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- (I replied by asking him if he thought price lists were O.K. -- some of the links weren't price lists and I did not remove those. )
- They are not simply price lists. They are lists of performers who performed at each event, and serve as documentation of the performance. Removing references is not proper Wikipedia behavior. I assume you will be back tomorrow adding "fact" tags. Your behavior disgusts me. Phew! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- (I asked if he had ownership issues about articles and suggested we consult an authoritive third party. And I added some unnecessary provocative and unwise statements about someone pulling his strings.)
- yawn... Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I know what will happen next, as this is a replay of before. The "yawn" indicates that the two big guns will be after me soon. As I recall, the person who settled the previous accusations by and large agreed with the tags I had added.
Is there a way or a place to go to handle this? A small group of people basically scare off anyone who starts to look at the maze of interconnected Wikipedia articles that involved Rosencomet and the various festivals he is promoting.
Now, I can just back off and consider them sacred if that is the wisest thing to do -- and I know it is. However, my respect for Wikipedia continues to plummet accordingly. It is so against my understanding of what (I originally thought) Wikipedia stood for. Timmy12 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Looking at my contribution history, it looks like I removed 3 Rosencomet links. Timmy12 19:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- We seem to have around 75 links to rosencomet.com, which is a commercial website. Many of these are of no obvious rleevance to the subject and appear to promote the website or Starwood. I am not one of the admins noted for tolerance of linkspam... Guy 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- What you don't understand is that those links are there because other editors insisted that the person's performance at the festival be documented. That page is the documentation of who performed in what year. In particular, looking at the edit histories, it seems to have been Mattisse and confirmed sockpuppets of Mattise who insisted that the appearances be documented in the first place. I also notice on User_talk:Timmy12, that this is the same user that Timmy12 was accused of being a sockpuppet of. Strange, that. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't care about the personalities. I am not persuaded they should be there, and I will be researching the issue. Guy 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- You should care about the "personalities:" Timmy12 is clearly a sockpuppet of Mattisse, who has tried to get admins involved in her irrational vendetta against Rosencomet before ([32]), and then when that didn't yield the desired results, created half-a-dozen sockpuppets specifically to harass Rosencomet. I've researched it myself and the Starwood Festival is probably the largest as well as most long running pagan festival in the US. Many, if not most, of the speakers and performers are notable in the pagan community, even if they are not well-known in the mainstream. Of course, this is the case with all religious sub-cultures, and such behaviour would not be tolerated if it was obscure Hindu or Hasidic personalities, but apparently it is okay to bash pagans on WP, at least according to Mattisse and her three-dozen + 1 sockpuppets. —Hanuman Das 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly I don't care about the personalities. I am not persuaded they should be there, and I will be researching the issue. Guy 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- What you don't understand is that those links are there because other editors insisted that the person's performance at the festival be documented. That page is the documentation of who performed in what year. In particular, looking at the edit histories, it seems to have been Mattisse and confirmed sockpuppets of Mattise who insisted that the appearances be documented in the first place. I also notice on User_talk:Timmy12, that this is the same user that Timmy12 was accused of being a sockpuppet of. Strange, that. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- You assert this as fact, but CheckUser suggests otherwise. Guy 10:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It is starting to intensify. This message was sent to Ekajati by Hanuman Das publically labelled "Timmy12" in the edit summary, after Ekajati and Hanuman Das had already left essentially the same message on your talk page, part of a strategy to smear my name again. The next step is the actual sockpuppet accusation.
- Ekajati, I see you are having trouble with Timmy12. You should be aware that this user is most likely a sockpuppet of Mattisse, who previously went on a vendetta either against Rosencomet or maybe pagan authors and performers in general. She likes to tag pagans with "importance" tags, even when they have 20 or more books or albums credited to their name and listed in the article. Refuses to do the least amount of research or even a Google search before tagging. Refuses to discuss issues on the talk pages of the articles. Won't acknowledge the comments or opinions of other editors more knowledgeable in the field. I'd advise against posting on her talk page - she gets emotional and then will harass you on your talk page - at least she did this to me.... A real piece of work, this one... Sees conspiracies everywhere - I see she's accused you of being Rosencomet. That's pretty typical... —Hanuman Das 10:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, in the last 12 hours or so Ekajaki, Hanuman Das, and User:999 are using reverts to remove anything I do on Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, a Rosencomet-related page. I have looked for help on various Wiki help pages/forums on how to deal with this but no one can direct me to a place that addresses my concern. I have been advised that when this type of thing happens (and I gather it is common) the best thing to do is back down. (I admit I have a stubborn streak and perhaps need to let go and admit that these people do effectively own the Rosencomet pages.)
If I am in the wrong, or if you think I should back down, I will follow whatever advice you give me. Hanuman Das stalked me on Chuck Berry a few hours ago and I am getting scared to do anymore editing. Timmy12 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Remember this kid?
The kid named Stephan who kept reinventing fake names and titles for himself as a British Earl or German prince? Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus von Hessert. -- Fan-1967 02:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's obviously the week for it, we had Tuatafa Hori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) back the other day as well. Guy 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unverifiable princess of a tiny South Pacific island nation? Oh, yeah, I guess they all keep trying to come back. Fan-1967 12:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the history on the Hessert article had some IP edits that show he's in Argentina. I had always assumed he was a Brit, though there's no way to tell since all the previous activity was AOL, and their proxy addresses don't seem to give any indication of where they're coming from. Fan-1967 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unverifiable princess of a tiny South Pacific island nation? Oh, yeah, I guess they all keep trying to come back. Fan-1967 12:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Trolling IP
The same IP that was messing with the Diana Irey article is now playing games withme and Tupsharru, while not contributing to wikipedia. Can you block? Arbusto 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Reported to the community.[33] Arbusto 01:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Time for a block or a semi-protect on the Murtha page. See the noticeboard for details. Arbusto 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Timmy12 and checkuser
Please link to the checkuser result. I checked WP:RFCU and didn't see a request. Also, if you are going to warn me about "following" Timmy12 around, maybe you should warn her about stalking others. She's been stalking Rosencomet for some time, and I note from her contributions that she went out of her normal set of article to edit Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article that both Ekajati and I worked with to resolve WP:BLP issues. —Hanuman Das 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Clarification
I'm trying to understand your comment "should we just block the warring parties" (plural). The New York Times mentioned Diane Farrell's AfD; I suppose these articles are noticed during a hot campaign. WP:BLP is—or at least I thought it was—an important concern for Wikipedia at the highest levels. Copyright violations are also an important concern. I've been watching all of the election articles for a week, making sure everything is well-referenced, and removing BLP violations. I've referenced the content that was there, and tried to make sure text is accurately sourced across the election articles. Since I don't know all of the candidates well, I don't know if some of the articles are good, bad or different: I'm sourcing the text that's there, placing fact tags where needed, removing BLP violations as they occur, and making sure new edits are correctly sourced—detailing and explaining all of my edits on the talk pages.
When Francisx (talk · contribs) originally inserted the campaign ad text, it wasn't correctly sourced, and still isn't (CNN. 8/31/2006 and CNN. June 24, 2005 are examples of her sourcing). As I was trying to locate sources to fully reference her text, I discovered the source of the text was the campaign ad;[34] this was after she inserted the weasely "some critics however allege" comment, also sourced to campaign material, not a reliable source. For my efforts at explaining policy on talk pages and avoiding edit warring on the articles, I've been on the receiving end of a failure to assume good faith and lack of civility (diffs listed on FloNight's talk page,) accusations of Wikistalking on my talk page from Francisx,[35] and lack of civility[36] because I removed a completely inaccurate direct quote attributed to Shays,[37] a BLP violation.
I understand that there's a civility issue among the Wiki admins right now, which is sapping everyone's time and attention, and no one may have time to consider BLP, copyright, and civility against those of us in the trenches trying to uphold Wiki policies. You've been, so far, the only admin to even respond to the issue. It seems no admin has time to look at the history and the broader issues of copyright, BLP, and lack of civility down here in trenches, where we're trying to write an encyclopedia, based hopefully on reliable sources rather than partisan campaign material. Since you referred to "warring editors" (plural), I'm wondering if you are really suggesting that I should be blocked from editing for removing BLP violations and copyvios? Aaron Brenneman brought the issue to AN/I: I thought I was trudging along fine, discussing policy on the talk page, but I did request admin help, since I'm the only one watching out for BLP violations on those articles. I hope my contributions to Wiki are viewed as more than one of the "warring parties" who are sourcing edits to campaign material and copying TV ads. Clarification would be appreciated. I've put a POV tag on that section of the article, since no one seems willing to help me remove the copyvio and POV campaign material: it's no longer my problem. Sandy 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I thinkt here is a huge problem with highly partisan editors fighting it out in Wikipedia articles. The higher our profile gets, the more of it there is. More and more politicians, companies and individuals come to see Wikipedia as a key ingredient in their promotional campaign. That is why I think we should simply stop covering political races and other current events and leave them to Wikinews - the fights over neutrality are virtually unmanagaeable. I advocate waiting until a year after any event before covering it in any depth, to allow a perspective to develop.Guy 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's the argument many of us made on AfDs, but the situation continues. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding over just what constitutes an encyclopedic, bibliographic entry. Shays' article is already being loaded up with criticism, always inserted as tendentious POV, and that's unfair to an incumbent, because a challenger doesn't have a well-established record to criticize. At any rate, my larger concern is where the admins are on this, why the civility issues have been allowed to continue, and whether you were suggesting an editor who is enforcing BLP should be blocked. At any rate, the incivility problem seems to have subsided as result of the light shone upon it by the AN/I commentary. I hope you're enjoying your travels, Sandy 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Messages from others to Francisx (talk · contribs) about civility and good editing practices are falling on deaf ears. She has now added accusations of sockpuppetry on my user page (later deleted and moved to my talk page) to her list which includes incivility, failure to assume good faith, and accusing me of Wikistalking. Incivility continues on article talk pages (I asked for a source for an edit; she labeled it as "disruptive", "wasting time" and "pedantry").[38] She is not getting the message about the importance of Wiki policy on civility and good faith. Rather than focusing on learning policy, making productive edits, and building a neutral encyclopedia, she seems to be focusing most of her energy on me. If she could be convinced to focus on learning about NPOV, original research, reliable sources, citing sources, and tendentious editing, rather than on me, better articles and consensual editing might result. While each incident of incivility and failure to assume good faith appears minor, the pattern is becoming a concern. Sandy 12:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
"Weasel Words"
Chris Shays claims he is an independent in Congress. His critics (the DCCC, which I cited) say he isn't. Right now, the article seems to side with Shays -- I think at least a rebuttal is in order. I don't see how partisan spin from Shays' website is considered NPOV while sourced rebuttals from his opponents aren't admissable. The question of Shays' independence is fundamental to understanding his role as a Congressman -- it is't just an issue in the election. Even if we need to reword things, it seems like the deleted material should be returned.Francisx 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, we should always include the oponent's knocking copy verbatim in every political bio :-) Guy 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Here's an ad from Farrell's opponents: how 'bout we slap some sources on it (easy to do) and add it, to build a better encyclopedic bibliography—we wouldn't want to leave something important out ;-) Diane Farrell: Coffee talk with the Taliban ... followed by interesting, sourcable commentary. Sandy 20:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hate to bother you more
I asked a Policy question at the Village Pump:
A third party just wrote me: Please leave Rosencomet and his articles alone. Can this third party enforce this, especially given that the person in question, Rosencomet, has edited hundreds of articles, perhaps more? Any articles involving certain themes are being considered his, even if he did not originate them.
If this is not the right forum to ask this question, please point me in the right direction. Thanks! Timmy12 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is, as you guessed, the wrong forum for this question. Try Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). --cesarb 03:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions above. I tried them but none are appropriate for my problem which is becoming more critical. I need actual help and protection. I need access to a source that can give me some real information. A pattern of harassment is being repeated toward me that started a few weeks after I got an account at Wikipedia a month or so ago. That resulted in me being accused of being a sockpuppet. The charge was ruled false but it was a horrible ordeal for me. The same people have started again. Can you direct me to a source, place, or person before something bad happens. Timmy12 12:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't let "Timmy" fool you, take a look at "his" contributions. He didn't try your suggestions at all. Also, talk a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse, especially the note about posting on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for help, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) for why Timmy perceives this as happening "again". —Hanuman Das 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't get what is going on or why these people are after me so. What I am being accuse of, exactly? I can't believe that the edits I have made warrant this type of aggression toward me, even if they don't agree with my edits. Yet this is an exact repeat of the previous sockpuppet accusation. I looked at the Timmy12 and checkuser above with the Michael Roach Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and but I am not understanding what that is supposed to prove.
I will not edit again until I hear from you that it is safe to do so. Timmy12 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Alex Han
I see you've deleted Alex Han as copyvio (and then it was deleted as vanity). We've gotten permission to use the text so it's no more a copyvio, and as a good faith sign, I?m restoring it, but it not being a copyvio doesn't mean it cannot be dleeted by other means, so aFD it if you consider -- Drini 19:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh dear, why do people do this? Doesn't the man realise that he can't possibly be dispassionate about his own son? Wait until someone else writes a biography, I say. Guy 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
wp:Stalk
How can I deal with this: [39] Another afd he has disrupted. Also look at his edit history for the past few weeks. This is the type of editor wikipedia can do without. Arbusto 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's stalking. Honestly. Just don't take it personally; I get frustrated by inclusionists advocating keep on dire subjects of no conceivable interest to anyone but the subject's mother, the best thing is not to care; if they keep yet another article on an unaccredited bible "college", just do what you can to make it honest. If there aren't sources to make it honest, leave it a month and document that fact. Guy 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
How to rectify
Jz...
I am fairly new to wikipedia and recently managed to have a page removed by you. I am a little embarrassed, I must say. I had written an article about the company that I work for. I had seen many companies with their own page and wanted to be sure that our company went down in history with the same fair and balanced (to the best of my ability) page as the others. If you'll notice that on the third party logistics page there are several links to other company pages. I was not aware that by signing up and creating the page that I would create such a controversy or bad name for myself. I would like to see our company listed and would not mind if anyone else created the page for it in a tone that was appropriate. I had reached out for assistance to be sure that my tone was fair only to discover today that I was posing my question in the wrong area.
So, how does one go about getting pages listed as these that are listed on the third party logistics page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3PL
Examples of 3PL providers
ATC Logistics & Electronics, Hanjin Logistics, ICSA Group, Transplace, Ryder, UPS SCS, Penske Logistics, Comprehensive Logistics, Blantyre Merchants Logistics,Modern Freight Company, Freight Hauling Logistics (FRHL), C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Total Logistic Control, Total Quality Logistics, Inc., Mærsk Logistics(Maersk), Federal Express, DHL, United Parcel Service, TNT N.V., Trinity Transport, Inc., Kenco Group, Inc., BAX Global Inc., ECS warehouse, TVS Logistics services, Wincanton PLC, USXL Worldwide, Transfreight, Nexus Distribution, Menlo Worldwide
I've looked at the ip of a couple of creators to find that they yield no useful information on whether the person was an employee or not. In hindsight I suppose it would have been best to create from home?
Thanks for your help and have a great day.
- Step 1: remove all redlinks, weblinks and unlinked names.
- Step 2: verify that the remainig blue links all meet WP:CORP and nominate any which do not for deletion (see WP:DP)
- I have already done step 1 :-) Guy 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Opinion please
I am under the impression that we don't need a list of every (non notable) hospital in the entire world. Clearly someone disagrees, because we have articles like List of hospitals, List of hospitals in Africa and List of hospitals in Egypt lying around. I was thinking of putting them all up for AfD, but I'd like a second opinion before I do. Thanks. -- Steel 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh christ - I can hear it now: "All hospitals are notable, keep all hospitals..." Yes, AfD them. This is what categories are for. Guy 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, good. It'll have to be a job for tomorrow though. -- Steel 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)