User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

One Product, not yet available

I came across RevoPower and am confused. It seems to have been written solely by one contributor, which is not a problem in itself, I suppose. There is lots of text, and even diagrams, so L has done a lot of research, or has insider knowledge. However, all the references are to the product's website and the product does not yet exist, except within the confines of the company. There is one reference in the web site to a Popular Science article. Isn't this using Wikipedia as a publicity site? Bielle 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Lets see how it goes eh!?--Vintagekits 21:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. just keep cool and, if you see a problem developing and Fozzie or Alison aren't about, feel free to come to me before it gets out of hand. I'll do what I can to help you. Rockpocket 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do.--Vintagekits 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, and this made me laugh. Rockpocket 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just doffing my chap to some detractors. Also I wasnt too impressed by CR's description of my as being "This chap is so stoopid".--Vintagekits 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

VK, I'm here if ya need me - Alison ☺ 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:84.13.156.208‎

Other editors have been referred to as "terrorists" and "retired insurgents" on this page. Brixton Busters 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with punitive procedures on Wikipedia (other than my own 28 day block), but I assume that appropriate action will be taken in regard to these personal attacks on me by User:Brixton Busters [1] ? W. Frank ✉ 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Brixton Busters. Regarding the above comments, I notice that a few editors now have asserted their belief that that anonymous editor is W. Frank. I don't know why editors are making that assumption, but I have not seen any evidence presented to justify it. If you believe this editor is a involved in disruptive or abusive sockpuppetry, I suggest you make a check-user request. If there is not sufficient evidence to merit that, then there is not sufficient evidence to justify making accusations against another editor. From Frank's comment above, it is safe to assume he is stating that he is not this editor, as a matter of good faith, we should respect that, or else provide evidence to the contrary.

Considering the prior unfounded allegations made regarding your identity, I am surprised you feel it is appropriate to do the same to others. As you may, or may not, be aware - this is a difficult time for W. Frank, so please stop making such allegations against him unless you can substantiate them. Thank you. Rockpocket 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion you would have been better served at least making a cursory investigation of this incident before making your rather hasty comments on my talk page (copied above for ease of reference, see below for reasoning), as your comments ignore what happened. Had you taken a few minutes to check my contributions, you would have seen that I did indeed request a checkuser with the evidence I had. This was "declined" on the rather bizarre grounds that "We will not 'out' IP addresses save in exceptional cases". This seems to me to give a green light for people to log out of their account (by their own admission) and harass and abuse other editors by describing them as "terrorists" and "retired insurgents", with little possibility of being caught. I tried to discuss this with Mackensen ([2] [3]) and he suggested I try the "Incidents" noticeboard, where I made a report which was strictly on the conduct of the IPs edits and had no mention of the person I believed to be responsible, due to the checkuser being "declined". Since then I have made absolutely no comments regarding this, nor did I have any intention of doing so. That said, due to the evidence I fully stand by everything I said. Due to the incorrect and accusatory nature of the thread title (from an editor with a documented history of abusive sockpuppetry and attacks on other editors) I will be removing it from my talk page. Thank you. Brixton Busters 08:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply here since you have removed the comment from your page (as you are permitted to do, of course). You are right, it was remiss of me not to scan the checkuser logs prior to my commenting on your page. I'm sorry about that, my only excuse is that I was rather busy with some other delicate issues at the time. I see your point, and indeed it can be frustrating when a checkuser is declined. However, that is outwith the control of (most) administrators and there is good privacy reasons why it happens. If it is declined, there is little one can do, since blocking an established user on the basis of co-incidental evidence will not stand. What we can do (and we did pretty rapidly) is block the offending IP account, which solves the immediate problem. If such abusive behaviour pattern continues from other IPs then the "special circumstances" may be invoked, but there is little to be gained by publically accusing the individual you think it is in the meantime. Its not going to reverse or influence the check-user decision, and if you are wrong (and believe me, from experience I've found that sometimes the most apparently obvious case turns out to be wrong) then you have contributed to the bad faith generated by the IP by fingering an innocent editor. Thanks, anyway, for your clear response. Rockpocket 08:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I agree in full that there is little to be gained by any accusations at present. The comments that W. Frank complained about were made before the abortive checkuser. Since then I have made no further similar comments (and as stated, have no intention of doing so), not even in the "Incidents" report. Brixton Busters 09:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, I would propose that the best course of action, should it be required in future, would be to request a checkuser prior to accusing an editor publically. If it is rejected than you could make your evidence available to an admin and see if they are willing to take action in the absence of checkuser data. If they are not, wait till the next sock appears and go through the process again. Eventually someone will bite or the sock will slip up. Its tedious, I know, but thats how the game is played i'm afraid. I'm sorry about my initial hasty comments, apart from the initial accusations you did exactly as I would have asked. Rockpocket 09:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In the unfortunate event a similar circumstance arises in the future, I will bear your advice in mind. Brixton Busters 15:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to have a look at this. The IP spells "biased" the unusual way of "biassed" ([4] [5] [6]), as does W. Frank ([7]). Given the IPs edits (M62 coach bombing, subsequently targeted by W. Frank in the exact same way, and edits which matched similar edits to different articles by W. Frank earlier the same day), interaction with Vintagekits and the same ISP, I believe this is strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence they are one and the same. Brixton Busters 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reply to this please? Thank you. Brixton Busters 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidently you'll not get help here about people who are actually up to no good, but plenty of time for others though.--Vintagekits 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arsuf

Rockpocket, could you have a look at the above? I expanded the far from adequate original as a result of an RD question. I would be grateful for your 'wikifying' support. I thought I would put the page forward for DYK (the hook about Saracens and tarantulas is quite good!), though I'm not really sure how to go about this. Again I would be pleased to have your assistance. Regards. Clio the Muse 05:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vicious slurs

It may surprise some to realise that Gaimhreadhan was a life long atheist. I used to rib him about it, since G was also a regular church-goer and ribbed me in turn by adopting my signoff of "God bless" at a time when we both found the "sockpuppet allegation" frivolous rather than deadly serious and defamatory. That was, perhaps, typical of the man's sense of humour.

However, his much younger wife remains a staunch and traditional Roman Catholic and, if she came to know about it, would take great offence at the despicable machinations exhibited here. (It is fortunate that she is not a computer user and that they have no internet access at home).

He did not "attempt suicide". He has been in great pain the last few weeks and, while he was depressed by this response [8], I never once saw him despair. To the contrary, he always said "Be an optimist in your heart, Frank, but a pessimist in your planning." Our duties as executors have been made easier by the meticulous planning evidenced in his last edits on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the edit summaries [9] of "final preparations" were an indication of a planned suicide and, despite the animus that I still bear against Tyrenius, I would like to thank her for her timely intervention here: [10].

I firmly and resolutely believe that the quantity of painkillers that G took on Wednesday evening was simply to try and deaden his pain and achieve a good night's rest and not an attempt to end his life.

Although he had battled on well past the original prognosis of 3-12 months, G was a "fighter" (in the best sense of that word) all his life.

God bless and keep you, G!

Talk:Beagle

That's a scary goldfish! -- Hongooi 10:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Without anyone's permission, I have moved (verbatim and complete) the following section from my talk page and re-titled it to "Housekeeping". Since I know you are both sensitive and punctilious in being quoted out of context, Rockpocket, I would be grateful if you would immediately do the following if you disagree

delete this entire section from your user page
restore the relevant passages to my user talk page

if, however and as I hope, you agree with my move. then please would you immediately instead

simply tell me that this was not an inappropriate move I made:

Hello W. Frank. Regarding you recent comments about your friend, Gaimhreadhan's terminal illness. I wonder if you would consider, either privately or publically, informing an administrator on the sad event of his passing. There are a few (administrative) things we typically do in on the death of a Wikipedian. Thank you for your consideration, and my sympathies at this most difficult of times. Rockpocket 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand.

Please would you ask a senior administrator or bureaucrat to e-mail me.

(He or she needs to be a real person with a physical address. I need a promise of confidentiality before I send the relevant documents.)

Since I have spoken with Fred Bauder before, he would seem the obvious choice.

I shall also comment on some housekeeping matters on your user page, since I think it inappropriate to comment here at this time. W. Frank ✉ 08:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. There is no need for you to send official documents; considering your relationship with him, your word is sufficient. As per tradition, I will presently protect his user-page with a brief notice of his passing. Gaimhreadhan's contributions to our project, and the impression he made on others, were certainly significant enough to merit a brief notice at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. However, I'm aware some people may rather not be remembered in this fashion. Perhaps you could offer you thoughts, Frank. If you think it is something he would have been comfortable with, it would perhaps be more appropriate if it was written by someone who was more familiar with him than I. However, I'm happy to do so if there are no other volunteers. It used to be policy to block the account of those Wikipedians who have passed away, though I'm not sure it currently is. I'll inquire.

Finally, with regards to your comments on my page: I will look into that and comment there. Rockpocket 00:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank, got your email. Responding now ... - Alison ☺ 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank, Alison informed me of some delicate issues I was not previously aware of. My apologies for that, I hope my actions have not caused additional problems. I'll leave this in Alison's capable hands now but, as always, if there is something I can help you with please feel free to let me know. Rockpocket 07:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have always had the highest respect for both your diplomacy and editing skills, Rockpocket and I do understand that - with the exception of one major and continuing running sore common to all administrators I have encountered - you have always been scrupulously fair in your dealings as an administrator. No apology is necessary at all from you since you have always acted (and, I believe, will continue to act) from the purest of motives.

There are a number of intertwined issues here and I will deal with only a minority now.

I still expect an official e-mail from the administration concerning identities and appropriate documentation.

If Alison is content to continue to deal with any issues arising with regards to G's user page then I believe that, save the difficulties caused by different time zones, no further difficulties are likely to arise there.

As regards G's talk page, I now require your explicit permission (or objection) to my completing, on G's behalf, the plan he outlined here: User_talk:Gaimhreadhan#Controversial_Cupboard and, if I am given that explicit permission, your prompt and radical assistance as an administrator in dealing with any continuing breaches of WP policy on G's Talk page that I bring to your attention. In other words, communications there need to conform to both WP policy and G's clearly expressed wishes.

In a nutshell, any naughty comments will be moved by me to a "naughty cupboard". Frank.

W. Frank ✉ 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frank. My only concern is moving text out of context, whole conversations moved to an appropriate forum I have no issue with. I thought perhaps Alison may have taken receipt of the appropriate documentation. Fred Bauder (talk · contribs), your suggestion, is currently on vacation. I'm happy to ask him to act in this regard, but it will likely be next week before he could so so. Alternatively, I could ask another member of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or a Wikipedia:Bureaucrat, or if you would prefer, I am more than happy to deal with it myself (I can email you from my business address and verify my identity). Just let me know your preference.

Regarding Gaimhreadhan's talk page, I think Gaimhreadhan made his wishes quite clear and we should all respect those and use common sense and sensitivity in doing so. I have no problem with giving you my permission to go ahead with his archiving plan. Please just note, in the edit summary, that you are acting as per his stated wishes. As I see it, there isn't really any reason anyone should be posting anything on his talkpage now (though, of course, editors not familiar with the situation may continue to comment of prior edits). I am happy to deal with anything inappropriate that you bring to my attention. Rockpocket 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any rational objections, I intend to complete the archival plan outlined above later today with respect to G's talk page. I confirm that I will only move whole conversations (ie sections). W. Frank talk ✉ 12:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappointment

I am disappointed that neither Fred Bauder (talk · contribs), nor another member of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee nor a Wikipedia:Bureaucrat has contacted me, but that is just symptomatic of the priorities and little courtesies of this place.

During the course of this week I shall cease to be contactable by telephone or SMS or post and will only occasionally look at e-mails. Other than in extremis, I shall not reply to any further comments left on my talk page but, after reading and noting the contents, simply delete all comments there until I am blocked or banned.

Thank you for the professionalism, sensitivity and hard work you have exhibited as both an editor and administrator. You are very wrong about some matters - but that is only because you have been deliberately misinformed and lied to and not because of any fault in omission or commission on your own part that I have been able to discover.

Farewell! W. Frank talk ✉ 12:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thanks rockpocket, as for editing at ungodly hours, i'm far too busy changing nappies, for someone so little, it is a inverse amount of shit they produce! Perry-mankster 12:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arsuf

Did you know? was updated. On 13 August, 2007, a fact from the article Battle of Arsuf, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that quick! Clio the Muse 23:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

On August 14, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minnie D. Craig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good to see you again.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick Questions (Misc. Ref Desk)

Nice answers! Bielle 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Its not like we haven't heard that asked before. Rockpocket 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

World fame

Er, according to the diffs on Talk:Gerry Adams the Vatican deletion of referenced material was reverted within minutes, but then returned to the Vatican-deleted version by Vk!

I hope you don't mind, but I've quoted you in an RfA post [11] because I thought the point you made was important and very well put. I've also added it to my user page. Tyrenius 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes more sense! The wrong diff was quoted in the Adams talk page, which led to the confusion. I should have checked it more carefully, thanks for letting me know. You are welcome to use that quote, I'm glad to have helped. Rockpocket 06:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Guidance please

Is it acceptable to say "You have hated me since I joined wiki and have tried at every turn to get me banned"? Seems like a breach of WP:AGF to me. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there are plenty more. I pointed out to Vk that these sorts of comments are breaking the terms of his unblocking, he deleted the post and went on wikibreak. I'm not going to reblock before the promised ANI thread appears and the community can have its say. Rockpocket 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you look at the type of articles he is editing on as well please see this. I thought he was banned from these? It's not the only one.. Kernel Saunters 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think removing a request for a citation for something that is already cited is time for witch burning. Brixton Busters 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Weggie, it is nice to see you following my edits so closely and gagging for the moment I put a foot wrong. However, I think you need to check the terms of my return, I was agreed that formating without adding content is fine. I am sure you will get an opportunity to get me banned soon - and you'll have the support of your local admin also. If you really had an issue with the revert why didnt you just come and talk to me about it.--Vintagekits 15:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:S.dedalus/temporary, also RD post

Hi Rockpocket, I’m done with User:S.dedalus/temporary if you want to delete it. Thanks for resurrecting it for me. Also, SteveBaker has pointed out a comment of mine he feels was medical advice. I agree with him in part, but I would appreciate your judgment as to whether my actions were inappropriate in this case. Thanks! --S.dedalus 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A copy of an email which I sent to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org requesting that the duration of the 6 month block which "Georgewilliamherbert" imposed on my account be reduced:

I am User:24.168.46.238 who was recently blocked from Wikipedia for six months by a Wikipedia administrator named "Georgewilliamherbert".

Since my user talk page was protected by "Mr.Z-man" only 4 minutes after the block was issued by "Georgewilliamherbert", I was denied the opportunity to post an unblock request. I'd like to request that I be give the opportunity to do so now:

I know that I was wrong for threatening legal action against "CyberGhostface", but I had asked him to stop bothering me by posting repeated warnings on my user talk page for minor violations of Wikipedia's rules, and he refused. I believe that he had a vendetta against me, as he seemed to be tracking my every edit, just waiting for me to do something in violation of Wikipedia' s rules so he could post another warning on my user talk page, which he knew would aggravate me and cause me to lose my temper. "CyberGhostface" had previously gotten me blocked for personal attacks, and I was stupid enough to fall for his ploy to get me blocked again. I lost my cool, and posted things on my user talk page that I shouldn't have. I know that there was no excuse for my behavior, and for that, I am very sorry.

I'd like to respectfully ask that you shorten the duration of by block, as I feel that six months is far too harsh of a punishment. I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Wikipedia), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.

I promise that once my editing priviliges are reinstated, I will no longer engage in the kind of conduct (personal attacks, threats of legal action) that got me blocked. After reinstatement, I intend on creating an account on Wikipedia, and I will make constructive additions to the project. I invite you to check up on me periodically to see that I am keeping my word to you!

I also promise to you that will have no further contact with "CyberGhostface", and since I have no intention of violation Wikipedia's rules in the future, he has no valid reason whatsoever to contact me or to post warnings on my user talk page.

I feel that a reduction in the duration of my block is warranted, considering the questionable circumstances of how my block was arbitrarily increased from 48 hours to 4320 hours.

Again, please accept my sincere apology for my past behavior on Wikipedia, and thank you for your consideration!

Note: I am using a friend's computer (IP Address: 64.38.198.61) simply to post this notice on the user talk page of the administrator who increased my block from 48 hours to 6 months. I am not a "sockpuppet", and I have no intention of using my friend's computer again.

64.38.198.61 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the statements made by 24.168.46.238 are false. Specifically, the claim 'I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Wikipedia), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.'

24.168.46.238 got the 24 hour block at 16:01, 16 August 2007 [12]. At 16:41, 16 August 2007, he threatened 'I will, however, be in contact with a private investigator in order to find the true identity and location of CyberGhostface' [13]. Edward321 14:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, the "minor violations of Wikipedia's rules" include blanking the page of User:Spirot, an editor who had left, with "Good riddance!" Nor did I have any ploy to get him banned. I could care less about this editor. I actually told him that once he stopped vandalizing Wikipedia, I would leave him alone. Before making any further judgements, I strongly suggest you look at this editor's contributions.--CyberGhostface 16:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at his contributions, and up until his interaction with you, CyberGhostface, he seemed to be making positive edits and contributions to wikipedia. Now let's be honest here... aren't you gloating just a little bit now that 24.168.46.238 has been blocked? If you didn't "have any ploy to get him banned" as you claim, then you wouldn't have continued to antagonize an obviously irate editor. I would advise that in the future, you exercise a little better judgement in dealing with editors who you are having problems and/or an edit war with ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you! 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits again

I'm unsure what to make of a pile of abuse from Vk, which I received in email. I'd be interested in your thoughts (whatever they are!), if you have the energy: see my post to the section on his talk page at User talk:Vintagekits#Should_the_community_waste_any_more_time_with_Vintagekits.3F. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:IR

I would like to refer you to my user page, and the project template at the top of my talk page, the link is quite clearly WP:IR. Check the history of my discussion page, you will find it has always been that way. Could you possibly tell me who added the link WP:IRA, because I would be very annoyed. In Ireland, based only on the “Word” of a chief superintendent of the Garda (Police Force), a person can receive up to five years in prison. Could you confirm on my talk page, that the link your raised on the discussion page of WP:IR had nothing to do with me, and my template on my talk page refers to Irish Republicanism, and always has. Thanks --Domer48 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, I have seen a number of editors refer to editors as WP:IRA, but assumed they were just having a pop, a bit like W Frank and his team jib’s. Which I have now told him is getting boring. I might just bounce back up to Wikisource/quote, I say up because I consider Wikipedia the trenches. I came here to improve articles, and look what happens! Unfortunately, improving has become a battle a day, and little editing gets done, but I’m like a dog with a bone, if I believe I’m right I will not let go. If I’m shown to be wrong, I’m easily pacified. --Domer48 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR?

Hello Rockpocket, could you let me know whether I broke the rules? ([14], [15], [16]) I did inform the editor here. Thanks for reviewing and feedback. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please help with this

Could you have a look at these comments by Aatomic1, and do you consider this appropriate, or a completely reprehensible misrepresentation of my views. As you have been engaged in the same conversation, would you consider these comments, correct. I said quite clearly that VK if they did do it they could …. Off. Aatomic1, are obviously canvassing, and attempting inflame an already charged situation. [17] and [18]. Aatomic1, have also been engaging in edit warring, despite repeated discussion. [19], [20] and [21]. This is not the only article, the same conduct here [22], [23]. This has been going on for long enough, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].This is what causes trouble! --Domer48 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S I already had this [43], talk about staring trouble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 17:35, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I have given him a final warning for his inflammatory comments, they are not the first. I have also asked him to stop edit warring. However, it takes two (or more) to edit-war, and I note both you and Padraig have been reverting his edits. Both "sides" appear to be claiming consensus on this issue, yet I can't see more than a handful of people voicing their opposing opinion on the talk page. My suggestion to you is to open a wider RfC or request external mediation to get to the bottom of this once and for all, because continual edit-warring across a number of articles is becoming disruptive. Rockpocket 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some background of issue of Edit Warring. There has been a number of discussions on this issue, resulting in this [44]. See also discussion here [45] and here [46] and most recently here [47]. They know what the issues are, and are just ignoring them. So what would you suggest! --Domer48 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the admin closing DRV, he is not in a position to rule on what can and can't be added to an article. Consensus for the addition of disputed content is no more required than consensus for its removal. If a consensus cannot be generated on the talkpage, and I really do not see one there, then outside help should be sought. Either a wider request for comment or WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFM. Reverting and re-reverting is not going to solve this other than get people in trouble for being disruptive, it looks to me like some sort of dispute resoltion is required. Rockpocket 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment User talk:Vintagekits#Blocked for threatening administrators?. Please consider User:Domer48|Domer48]]and padraig support of VK's actions]

This comment makes no accusations whatsoever Aatomic1 18:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider for what? Maybe no accusations. But is something being implied?BigDunc 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Who said is was an "accusation"? Rockpocket 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well at least Rockpocket , you know what I'm up against now, [48].--Domer48 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory Editing

Despite of your comments above. I note this edit by domer [49] with the comment Would you please stop, and join the discussion. This needs concensus. And yet Aatomic1 made 8(?) entries on the page; all of which Domer has ignored [50] . At what stage does the Assumption of Good Faith cease to apply. Banksareas 10:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obvious sockpuppet of User:Aatomic1 to evade his block. 217.44.10.252 10:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm disinclined to address gripes raised by abusive sockpuppets. Though I'm sure you, anonymous editor 217, didn't just stumble upon this incident by accident either. Logging out to make reverts and complaints (even in response to obvious sockpuppetry) is a type sockpuppetry itself. The propensity for individuals on all sides to act under a cloak of anonymity is the real problem here. If an edit is not something you are willing to justify under your usual identity, then you shouldn't be making it. If I have the wrong end of the stick here, then I do apologise, but you surely must see that swimming in the sea of socks as we are, more SPAs is the last thing we need, no matter how well intentioned the purpose. Rockpocket 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Master of understatement

When I imagine the kind of discussion that must have involved, I couldn't help laughing when I read you describe it as "For various reasons consensus could not be reached on that." Masterly. Tim Vickers 23:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. ;) By the way, I think I may have interviewed with you at Dundee (I choose Edinburgh instead, in the end). Did you start your PhD in '99? Rockpocket 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so, we might actually have attended a seminar together! I'm a huge House of Cards fan myself. Never mind on choosing Edinburgh, some people call it "The Venice of the North", but others call it "The Glasgow of the East coast". Tim Vickers 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Though oddly enough, no-one thinks badly enough of it call it "The Dundee of the (slighly further) South"! Still, Dundee offered good practice for living in the cultural mecca that is St. Louis, I expect. In contrast, even beautiful La Jolla pales in comparison to Edinburgh (yeah, right). Rockpocket 23:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thinking

Hey Rockpocket - I know this probably sounds crazy to you, but I'm thinking about running for adminship. I realize that my chances are practically nil - but I'd like to give it a shot - and frankly if it doesn't work out it's not like I can't try again in 3 months or so. What do you think? Appreciate the feedback --daniel folsom 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess an admin can't be an adoptee at the same time ... hmm, this is probably the hardest one. Nervousness is probably what I need to get over - simply because even recently I'm aware I've made mistakes (some pretty big ones) and it's hard to imagine how many mistakes I'll make when I'm not allowed to ask you "what should I do here?". I guess I'll accept it though - grudgingly :D.
Will do right after I finish this.
Yeah that will be another weakness- I used to hang out at the AfDs more - but then I decided I should try and improve [[:Category:Candidates for Speedy Deletion" as I told you about in a past convo. I'll try and get back to that. While I don't think I'll ever be that good at nominating (simply because most of what I come across is speedy deletion material - I don't think I've ever really come across a good AfD) - I can definitely tell what should be deleted or not in votes. I'm also worried that while I know what the rules are - I really don't know their initials (in deletions you have a1 a7 g1 ect. - I can not remember the order) - so I'll work on that a lot. If you had a poem or anything to remember these that'd be great!
This shouldn't be too difficult - I think I know most if not all of the rules - and now it's just a matter of following them.
Images would also be my biggest weakness - I don't even know how to find out copyright status - so that would be the thing I avoided the most.
I think I would probably be most active in the speedy deletion candidates - since, not to be immodest or anything, I think I have a good eye for what can be improved (imo anything that can be improved into something at least close to an encyclopedia article should be improved or nominated in AfD) and what can't. That is actually probably one of the biggest reasons I'd like to become an admin - I think I could really help with some of the more tedious tasks.
Yeah ... gulp.

Thanks for the help! Oh wait! This might be a problem - I was thinking I would just avoid all "list" articles - because I'm kind of biased against those (we have categories - what do we need list for?) - is that ok that I just avoid them or is that a problem?--daniel folsom 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks for the userbox (damnit now it's too late to change my mind ... XD) - I put it right below the {{adoptee}} one at the top of my userboxes!--daniel folsom 03:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha - I'm definitely fine not seeing the back of you yet (since there's a backlog - can I be ungraduated?). And more experience can never hurt --daniel folsom 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for the experience part I was talking about regular experience before I go into the program - yeah I was joking about being ungraduated. (but if i wasn't - you should know that you would've really hurt my feelings :'( <-- that's a crying face). Lol - sorry I'm kind of on dentist drugs right now ...--daniel folsom 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes I hope you're still on - if you have like 2 minutes can you give me some feedback on this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion_by_User:Jagzthebest - it's the first time I've ever commented in that area or on anything of that subject.--daniel folsom 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - so given the fact that there's a 3 month backlog - should I perhaps just really focus on my edits for three months and skip the coaching? I hate to seem impatient but it just doesn't look like that backlog is going to go down any time soon--daniel folsom 01:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It does look that way. Yes, perhaps that is the best idea. I'll try and keep and eye on your edits and offer advice from the perspective of an admin in the meantime. If I come across some interesting admin related incidents, I'll draw your attention to them and we can discuss it. Sound good? And of course, as always feel free to ask any questions you see fit. Also, when I have a moment, I'll drop you an email this weekend... Rockpocket 01:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sweet- thank you! Just don't overload yourself! --daniel folsom 01:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I finished the GA think with Tim - which was a pretty fun experience, aside for some troubles following the review... however, now I'm left with - now what? I mean because frankly - barring some insane clean out of the request page - I'm not going to get coached for like - a year, and by then I could've run for admin and failed -so should I just go for it? Or is there anything you think I should do? I never got that email from you, just to let you know - for some reason it didn't go through. But hey, thanks for all the help - I'll just wait on your response.--daniel folsom 04:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You still with me? Just want to make sure you haven't fallen off the face of the earth.--daniel folsom 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Daniel, I keep on missing messages when there are more than one delivered at the same time! My fault, I must be more careful to check. I totally forgot to send the email (my excuse is that I was bogged down in what promises to be the most complex ArmCom case ever). I'll write you one soon with what I wanted to tell you. In the meantime, here is something to sharpen your admin skills. These are all the sorts of things you may be asked to do as an admin. Take your time to consider them, there is no time limit. Some require more simple answers than others. Fell free to read up on policy to help answer them, but try and avoid WP:RfA, as I stole some of the questions from there, and it isn't going to help borrowing their answers. For most of them there is no "correct" answer (though there are some incorrect ones!), its more about showing good reasoning than being right or wrong. As they used to say in school, show your working out and you will be fine! Rockpocket 08:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rockpocket - ok, sorry it's taking me a while on this - I will definitely do it this weekend - but sadly I've been extremely busy in non-wikipedia matters, so again, sorry it's taking me so long.--daniel folsom 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Phew - sorry it took me so long - however I did just finish the quiz - and I'll try and start what we discussed in the email - that might be a long list.--daniel folsom 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah - and I am about to email you about the users thing.--daniel folsom 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You have mail!--daniel folsom 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this please

There has been eleven changes made here[[51]] since this morning they are trying to get it blocked with the names of the dead included against consensus.BigDunc 13:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got to this very late. It appears to have been taken care of for the moment. I have to say, though, that I really think this issue should be opened up for wider comment. I struggle to see any consensus either for or against their inclusion. This problem isn't going to go away with Aatomic. Rockpocket 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky

Howdy! Back in May 2006 you participated in an AfD discussion on the Anna Svidersky article. There is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving a disagreement over the state of the article and the use of the Anna Svidersky title as a redirect to the Mourning Sickness article that was created during the 2nd Svidersky AfD. I hope you don't mind the interruption. Any additional or outside input would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 14:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

VK Offer

Could you show me where the diffs where you offered to show me the threaths made by VK thanks.BigDunc 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for posting here, but it seems that even identified IP's are not able to currently post on 303's talk page. Perhaps some kind Admin could post my response (added below at the end of the subsection) there?

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you back on here, even if it is only for the arbcom-case-from-hell. Good to see ya :) - Alison ☺ 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello ONiH, welcome back. I hope you can be convinced to stay past the conclusion of this RfAR; the project is poorer for your absence. Rockpocket 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But based on the current batch of disruptive editors editing the articles I like to improve that's not likely. As I said in my statement the problems go far deeper than the actions of one editor, whether VK edits or not the problems are still exactly the same. The views of the average man in the street do not equal NPOV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Infact, there is a pragmatic argument that, since there is little doubt Vk will be back anyway (if he isn't already), we may as well let him and others edit from an accounts that we are aware of. Anyway, like you, when this is done I'm going back to the relative harmony of animal rights articles. The amount of grief is just not worth it. Rockpocket 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting pragmatic position, Rockpocket, which I, for one, would accept in conjunction with what I propose here:User_talk:W._Frank/Accusations_of_collaboration:_3RR_hurts_WikipediaFrank84.13.10.123 16:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly, I was intrigued by what you posted on BrownHairedGirl's talk page here, 303: "VK is pretty much a lost cause. Any Arbitration Committee case shouldn't really look at his conduct at all, apart from rubber stamping his current block. But ignoring that the other problems are ongoing and need looking at, which is why a seperate case might be better. The problems involve too many editors and different articles for anything like RfC. CEM has been rejected, so something needs to be done to sort it all out. One Night In Hackney303 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)"

Does this mean you intend to stick around and improve articles, 303 - or would that be intended as your lasting "legacy"? Frank 84.13.10.123 16:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask. I'm back to do my best to ensure certain disruptive POV pushing editors are either article banned or banned from editing Wikipedia entirely. Happy editing.....for now at least! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this please

Could you have a look at this please, before it gets out of hand [52], thanks.--Domer48 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting the vandal, Domer. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? W. Frank talk ✉ 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this, guys, seems like I got to the party late, though. Rockpocket 21:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder to mentor

Hola Mentors!

Im sending you this reminder because you volunteered to mentor my students in English Advanced B as they become contributing members of the Wikipedia community. We start working with Wikipedia in earnest next week. I ask you to take a look at your entry in the Mentor Table at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors

Please update the information, esp. with what your technical and informational expertise is or, if you have decided that you no longer want to participate, please remove your information from the table. Please watch the pages associated with the project. Students will contact you via your user page and as soon as my students have user pages, I will put them on the navigation bar associated with the project.

I don’t need to remind you that your job is NOT to write their assignments for them, of course. I certainly will tell my students that… and the fact that you are volunteers that don’t have to help them… so they need to be nice. If any students misbehave (tho I don’t expect it) don’t hesistate to contact me and I will take care of it. The goal of this project is to integrate successfully into the Wikipedia community. Anyway… what I really need your help with is helping students get oriented to Wikipedia, make appropriate changes and write about appropriate topics (see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Syllabus for assignments). I also need your technical expertise… I am only an English teacher after all! I appreciate what technology does for us but I am no technical expert!

Again, thank you for volunteering and you will hear from us again soon! Thelmadatter 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

House of Cards

It's brilliant. Thanks ever so, Rockpocket. Clio the Muse 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Turn It On Again

I have been seriously chastised for an inappropriately flip post I made on the Ref Desk. I don't disagree that it was inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Turn_It_On_Again:_The_Tour_in_Texas.21.21.21. The problem expanded because I wasn't around to apologise soon enough. I have posted to SteveBaker's discussion page (See "Wow, Again"; I don't know how to link it directly.) in response to his tirade. In your opinion, which I value, is there more I need to do or undo? Thank you Bielle 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No. We all make mistakes and apologising and withdrawing the comment is the appropriate course of action when an error has been pointed out to us.

I don't know about you, but I always prefer an individual request for clarification prior to making critical assumptions such as Steve did. I genuinely didn't see the problem when I first read the thread because I misread the awkwardly phrased question. I don't know how he could have known you didn't do the same. When reasonable individuals are involved, such as in this instance, a simple talkpage query would have yielded the same result without the the need for the public inquisition. Rockpocket 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. As it happpens, he was right about me being flip, but a personal query would have stopped it all right away, as you suggested. Even James Joyce didn't get this much flack for a "Yes", so no, I won't, no, I won't. No. Bielle 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin edit

Hi, Rockpocket. No one objected this proposed change. Can you make it, please? A.Z. 01:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry A.Z. The technicalities of template editing is not my strong point at the best of times, and I'm extremely disinclined to edit a protected, high exposure one. You should use {{editprotected}} above your request on the talkpage and someone who some knowledge of templates will be along before too long to help you. Rockpocket 01:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite an easy edit. You just have to click on "edit", then find where it says "protected from editing" and insert the words "by non-administrators" after it, then click on "Save page" :-) A.Z. 02:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not being an administrator and therefore never having done so, how do you know how easy it is to edit a protected template? Perhaps I never made myself clear, it is not a good idea to change anything in high use templates without consensus among those that regularly edit such things, whether it is practically trivial or not. I, personally, am not comfortable making any edit that has not even had a second opinion, nevermind have consensus. This article has presumably been protected to stop edits being made without some oversight, I am not going to over-rule that. Sorry. Rockpocket 02:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I understood the social part, and I had already done it. I was only talking about the technical problem that you mentioned. I would expect that editing a protected template is the same as editing any template, if you're an administrator. A.Z. 02:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

22 hours is hardly enough time to gather consensus, or anyone who objects to voice their opinion. --lucid 10:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, but I don't think this is a really sensitive issue nor a huge change that needs a strong and clear consensus from the community. Even if someone has an objection to this change, it shouldn't bother them too much that the change be made after 22 hours, and then any objections be made afterwards. A.Z. 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Contemplating templates

Hello, Rockpocket. Once again, I need a sanity check. Increasingly, or so it seems, I see templates filling up the top and sometimes entire visible part of the window when I click on articles. Example: Lightning. Is this really all an interested reader should see at first glance? I'm interested in your feedback, and if you know of a policy, forum, noticeboard, project, essay, guideline or fatwa adressing this, that would interest me as well. Thanks in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, not much wiser in templatonia yet, but thanks for letting me learn a new word. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Prabhakar Manikonda

This appears to be a non-notable individual who should be a speedy delete. The article is basically a very short resume. However, he does claim to be significant, though I don't, personally, buy the argument. What do you think? (And, if it has to go to AfD, I don't have the skills to take it there.) Thanks for your help. Bielle 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably could have speedied it without too much complaint, but I decided to give the guy the benefit of the doubt on his claim and AfD'd it. Feel free to comment. Rockpocket 09:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I shall now do the bit I can do. Bielle 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed something when I went to add my comments to the AfD that I should have done last night. Perhaps you have already looked at some of the articles and come to the same conclusion. I don't want to leave you hanging after I asked for your help, but I have no way of assessing the content of the articles mentioned as Google hits, or the reliability or credibility of the vehicles in which they appear. You had a right to assume I had done the groundwork before I brought you the name. I hope I have not been precipitate. Bielle 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Experience tells me that articles like this are vanity pages, especially as the only sources provided after I had initially used the {{prod}} template was blogs and self published webpages. However, I did do a littel due dilligence before listing - Google and Google scholar found nothing that would support notability. If someone (including the author himself) can come up with reliable sources establishing notability then I will change my !vote. I doubt it though. Rockpocket 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have just trusted you would have done it correctly, whatever errors I might have made. I shall remove the qualifier on the "Delete" as the article stands. Bielle 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User Names and Signatures

Is there a guideline somewhere about which (signature or blue User name) we use when referring to an editor within a discussion page (own or others)? I thought it was polite to use the form presented by the editor. Not everyone agrees. Do we have to ask firts or is there an acceptable fallback position? I am having a bad week for causing unintended offense. Thanks Bielle 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mocking his signature"? Why on earth would he think reproducing his chosen way of representing himself is "mocking"? Really, some people are so touchy! Anyway, with such sensitive folks around, the safest way to create a link to another named editor is by the {{User|Bielle}} template, giving Bielle (talk · contribs), or the {{User0|Bielle}} template, giving Bielle (talk). There are actually many different variations of this, which can be useful depending on the context. See Template:User#Other user signatures. Rockpocket 01:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a full moon about? Perhaps that's the reason. I guess this isn't the time to point out that, while he/she may "loathe" the whole topic, she/he is only "loath" or "loth" to make corrections in other users' comments. Thanks again. You are a great voice for sanity in a troubling time. Bielle 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ninjawarriordex

Dont know 100% what blocking policy says about this, but right before you gave him/her a 24 hour ban for recreated deleted content, they went on a 15-20 page-blanking spree. Q ^{T C} 08:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. She has claimed she is leaving the project permanently (presumably because we will not permit her to write her article about a non notable subject) and I guess this is her way of saying goodbye, probably in a fit of pique. If she does comeback after the block, I will keep and eye on her to ensure she doesn't start another spree of deletions. Rockpocket 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

80.169.129.163

As you were involved in the same "debate" on my talk page I'd like some advice. I wish to report and demand some action against the above IP (whom I suspect is possibly a regular editor):

Your POV is therefore undeniably anti-British on an ethnic/racial, rather than political, basis and I really cannot see why you pretend otherwise. You hate the people, not the state, or any institution within it 80.169.129.163 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This breaches WP:NPA is the most appalling manner; if I had said it the posse would be rounding up now. Can you block this IP or must I go through some process? (The practice appears a bit arbitrary based on my experience). Suggestions? Thanks (Sarah777 21:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

You have a point about that comment from the anonymous editor. Speculating on the motivations or beliefs of other editors is not acceptable. However, we are not permitted to block an IP for a single comment like that (just as I couldn't block you for a single comment like that either). I will leave a NPA warning, though, and if it continues past the warning levels, then action can be taken.

I expect it may well be a regular editor, however there is a problem in these situations. The only way we could link this IP to a regular editor is via WP:CHECKUSER. I, like most admins, do not have checkuser access, so I cannot do that. Moreover, you need to give them an account to compare the IP to, they will not "go fishing" for an account. Even then, only in the most serious of abuses do the people with checkuser access do checks on IPs (this is because in doing so they would reveal personal information on editors, with the obvious privacy implications). This request would never be accepted (though you are free to make one if you wish to).

The fact is that many editors who are involved in editing on The Troubles use IP and other accounts to make attacks, avoid 3RR, !vote stack etc. This is why it is so difficult to keep things under control. Looking at this IPs history, he is probably not involved enough for ArbCom to request a checkuser, so my advice to you is simply to ignore him for the moment and if he continues to make such attacks let me know and then we can block the IP and go to ArbCom (though the block is unlikely to make much difference, as he will probably just jump to another IP). However, I am absolutely serious about providing evidence of other editors who use the term "terrorist" in relation to Irish editors. These disputes have gone on for so long across so many articles that it is impossible for me to provide evidence outwith my own personal experience. I have provided evidence against both "sides" that I am familiar with, but a number of Irish editors are refusing to participate. If there is evidence of unnaceptable behaviour that you are aware of then provide it, as it should be considered. Rockpocket 21:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the link you supplied to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Some "dust-up" as they say in Aussie footie. I'm not sure what the point of the case is; it isn't to review Vk's ban (didn't realise he was gone again) but to ...what? Review how all Irish-British disputes are handled by Wiki? (Sarah777 09:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Indeed it is a bit of a stramash (as one sockpuppeter noted). I think different editors see the case as serving a different purpose. It was first mooted to review Vk's ban, but Vk refuses to participate, preferring to accuse others from the sidelines of his own talkpage, and no-one else seems particularly interested in arguing his side (except Thepiper, who is obviously a sockpuppet). It then moved on to an attempt to get to the bottom of the persistantly poor behaviour from editors on "both sides" of the complex and wide-ranging dispute over articles related to the Troubles. I, personally, hope ArbCom will come down hard on the most persistant of the POV warriors and send a clear message that what we have been seeing will not be further tolerated. I don't think you have much to be afraid of, as you are not a named editor, and your foray into the subject area has already been considered by them. However, you clearly feel that there are other editors who are "as guilty" as you are (in the eyes of ArbCom). This would be a good opportunity to present that evidence so that all editors who are warring over this issue can be placed under sanction. I'm telling you this because, although I support the ArbCom decision with regards to you, I also do not believe it fair that you are placed under sanction while others who are much more heavily involved eascape. Rockpocket 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Mind you, I don't agree and I still feel aggrieved; firstly I believe the "synthesis" charge was incorrect, and worse, it wasn't supported by any argument. The charge was simply repeated and deemed correct. Secondly, how I became the main focus of an Arbcom that began about a dispute I wasn't even involved in! Reading it all again, it seems clear to me that Sony's contribution placed me at the centre of the "troubles" - if you'll excuse the pun. (Sarah777 19:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

I think the synthesis charge was more to do with what it was about, in concert with the other charges, than the synthesis initself. As for why you became the main focus, well thats because ArbCom doesn't investigate, it simply considers the evidence laid before them. If most of the evidence presented was about you, its not really surprising you became a focus. This is why it is important that, during ArbCom, all stakeholders participate fully. In Vk's case, he is saying he is not participating because its a stitch-up. So ArbCom will not hear his side of the story, and they will likely find against him. Well, ArbCom are not going to vindicate anyone if they do not provide evidence on their behalf. Vk will then say his claims were correct, it was a stitch-up. To some extent you suffered from the same thing. You made a statement attacking ArbCom members (incorrectly!) before they had all voted, and refused to participate any further, and you wonder why the found against you? If you don't play by the rules of the game around here, you can't win. Though you certainly can lose, as you found out. Rockpocket 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I only refused to participate 'cos the proposed sanction was way OTT. And you know us Irish; better to die on your feet than live on your knees! I salute Vk. (Sarah777 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Thats one way of looking at it, but glorious failure is still failure. You didn't change anything by not participating, and very likely made it worse for yourself. Its the same with Vk. But its not only him that loses, the rest of us that want balanced articles lose a valuable resource of information. I would hope those Irish on Wikipedia to whom you refer would follow the lead of those guys who used to promote that philosophy in the Troubles itself. Better than dying on your feet or living on your knees is engaging, putting the past behing you and working for compromise together. Rockpocket 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If a JUST peace is an option, by all means...as for failure, 'tis but a stop along the way!(Sarah777 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Out of Thin Air?

Am I misreading the History/Contibutions of Common Sense Prevails? It appears to me that she/he just appeared and went almost straight to a tendentious article Negroid (via another tendentious article on WP:AN/I). Bielle 15:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are reading that correctly, and its not particularly unusual. There is usually one of two explanations for this, depending on your take on WP:AGF. Either an IP has been contributing and/or following the discussion on the article for a while and then decided to make an account to contribute to it more fully. Or this account is a sockpuppet of another editor involved in the tendentious article. I know which one my money is on... Rockpocket 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! I wish I were as certain about lottery numbers or that stock market; I'd be rich How do people maintain that level of ugliness day after day after day? I am drained after just a few exchanges and the realization that nothing will change. Thanks for your help! Bielle 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone else drew a similar conclusion. I am not disagreeing, but how how was he/she (a) able to identify the user so quickly (b)confirm the sockpuppetry and (c) get agreement for an indef block? I am not expecting a detailed answer; if you can just point me to some links, that would be helpful. Thanks Bielle 02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell:

A) The admin either tracked the editor's contributions or, perhaps more likely, had their attention drawn towards it by someone else.
B) He didn't confirm sockpuppetry, instead he blocked using the duck test. The stated rationale was SPA sock of one of the recently blocked users (Phral, KarenAER, Fourdee etc), but it appears that was based on contributions rather than checkuser evidence.
Agreement for an indef block is usually only sought for accounts with a productive history. Admins will often indef block vandals or sockpuppets unilaterally. There is always the unblock appeal, though, so another pair of eyes gets to review it (two pairs, in this case).

Its not unusual for blocks like this to be handed out. I mean, I think the chances are very high that the person was a sock of a blocked user. Nevertheless, there is always the chance the person is telling the truth, so I'm not sure I would have indef blocked myself. Still, I'm sure they person will be back under a different account before too long. Rockpocket 07:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rockpocket. In spite of motnhs of reading, I am still not sure how much of the process works. This is a help. Bielle 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical profession

I intend to answer your Q, but need to go to work right now. I think I will create a new page in my userspace and provide you with the link, as understanding my response requires that I explain the interactions my family has had with medical "professionals". Then you will understand why I believe patients should be "critical consumers", as opposed to taking everything a doctor tells you as the gospel truth. StuRat 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think pretty much every sensible person thinks patients should be critical consumers. Doctors are not perfect but unfortunately many of them act like they are. The article is in pitiful shape, but Patient advocacy is a (hopefully) increasingly popular thing. Friday (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think patients should be critical consumers. I think Wikipedia and the Internet help them with that, by providing information and reducing information asymmetry. Wikipedia and the Internet seem to also be helping people to be critical students, critical citizens, critical sons, critical readers, etc. A.Z. 02:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think people should be critical consumers also. But one non-expert's opinion based on personal experience is not a good source of information. Information and advocacy are two very different things. Rockpocket 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Luke Hrenko

This may be beyond me. The above-captioned article is about an actor whose only Google hits are for MySpace and this one on Wikipedia. The Speedy Delete I put on it has been removed; there is no explanation. I then noted that there are two "authors". One is an IP for which I have lost the link and I will lose this whole text if I go looking, but it is in the history of Luke Hrenko. The other is Hrenko24 who is the one who has removed my Speedy and has now added a large photograph of, I presume, Mr Hrenko. The addition of the photo caused an edit conlict with my attempt to undo Hrenko's removal of the Speedy Delete Notice. There was a previous Speedy Delete on this article, too. I have no idea what, if anything, to do now. Any ideas? Bielle 23:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your speedy tag is good, and as the creator of the article, Mr Hrenko has no business removing it. You should replace the speedy template (don't worry about 3RR, his continued removal would be is considered vandalism and thus 3RR doesn't apply to you) and place the {{uw-speedy1}} template on his talkpage. If he continues reverting add {{uw-speedy2}} and so on. Once he gets three warnings or so, you can ask an admin to intervene. Of course, I could just speedy delete the article myself now, but he will not learn that way. Lets go through the process and see if he backs off. Rockpocket 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. This is the 3rd time he has recreated this article after deletion - has had had more than enough opportunities to grasp the fact he is not permitted to create articles about himself. I'll delete it now and give him a final warning about recreation. However, the advice above is the usual procedure to follow. Rockpocket 00:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was called to dinner right after I wrote the original post to you, so I had no chance to follow your first plan. I will have to set up a page of useful templates on a Sandbox. It takes me so long to fetch one that usually someone else has intervened while I have been lost in the stacks, as it were.. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I don't learn a lot that way. As always, your help is much appreciated. Bielle 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. By the way, I find the following box quite useful for finding things quickly. The UW link lists all the user-warning templates you will ever need. Feel free to copy this if you think it would be helpful. Rockpocket 01:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

6° • [ A C I R S T ]fd • AN/ 3RR AE AIAV I RFI • Anon • Lonely • Bklog • Block/lst • Del • New • Newbie • Prot • Rc • Rfa • Rfar • Rfc • Rfm • Rfp • TM • UW • ?
MOS & Policy : 3RR ~ AGF ~ CITE ~ CITET ~ CIV ~ CON ~ DP ~ DR ~ EQ ~ Fallacies ~ NOR ~ NOT ~ NPA ~ NPOV ~ POINT ~ RS ~ SALT ~ TOPIC ~ V ~ WEASEL

Psssst: Loath as I am to copy edit . . .

I was just reading your post on Clio's discussion page and noticed something you are "loathe" to do. I think you meant "loath" or "loth", even if you were more inclined to hating than reluctance. :-) Bielle 02:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Thank you Bielle, I wish I could say it was a typo. I actually read it back and considered whether that was how to spell loath as in reluctant, and decided it was! Rockpocket 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has personal pet peeves; that is one of mine. If you remember that "loath" is less than "loathe", in emotion, as well as spelling, you won't get confused again. As A.Z. noted on my discussion page, I can't spell "consensus", even though it is related to reason (sense) and not to numbers (census). Bielle 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(Tee hee.) Apparently, you still can't spell consensus, Bielle. Do your glasses need replacing? :) -- JackofOz 05:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To my even greater embarrassment, I just noticed that Bielle had already pointed out the difference loathe and loath further up this very page, when another editor made the same mistake. Rockpocket 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch, JackofOz!. I am going to be kind to myself today and say that that one, now corrected, was a typo. (I am working with a laptop screen that is 4 feet, 7 inches away, which is my current excuse. I'll have a new screen sometime next week, and will have another excuse by then. I'll save the "new glasses" idea until then.) This is a good example of why a smart editor is never snippy about mistakes; laughter is always good. Bielle 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 17:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...stick around though please, and if you're up to it I'd really appreciate some background on this whole mess. My one worry about taking "Custodian action" in this particular case is that we might end up paying some consequences, as we're not quite ready to handle certain problems. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious entries

"Nice article, though it sounds a bit like a description of the contents of teenage boys' discussions."

Very funny, though it took me two readings to get it. Bielle 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get it. A.Z. 02:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I finally see it! You're talking about the *title*, not about the article itself. A.Z. 02:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The phrasing was a bit clumsy. Should really have said "sounds a bit like what teenage boys boast about". Rockpocket 03:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity

Rockpocket, a spammy advocacy of Wikiversity has appeared on the RD guidlines. Could you please have a look? I am totally the wrong person to take this matter up, as I feel sure you will understand. Clio the Muse 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

diff A.Z. 02:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, this edit summary seems wrong. Wikiversity is for interacting and learning, and a legitimate form of interacting and learning is heated debate. This is allowed there, and there should be a link to the Help Desk somewhere so a lot of people who come to the reference desk to debate can have a more welcoming place for doing it. A.Z. 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A.Z. If you wish to add a link to Wikiversity, do so under an external links section, like we normally do. Rockpocket 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that place was good because people, upon learning that debate was forbidden, would immediately be directed to a place where it isn't. A.Z. 03:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's merely your stretch of "learning and interaction", and it hasn't been proven in practice yet. Going through the help desk, I didn't see much debate at all. If and when Wikiversity includes formal debate in its curriculum, there will still be rules to follow, distinguishing it from the flaming you can see in any old online forum. I don't think Wikiversitarians will want pie fights anymore than Wikipedia does. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Formal debates seem so silly to me, with "judges" and things like that. I prefer informal debates. It would be wrong to assume that all informal debates degenerate into flaming. Even sillier than having "judges" is to have "each side being either in favor or opposed to a statement." What if you want to debate and change your opinion as the debate happens, or you want to debate without having an opinion, or you find out that you actually want to debate about other statements, different from the original statement? A.Z. 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a test-tube setting, but I know what you mean. Nevertheless, it's one method to teach people a thing or two about debating. The formal construct probably helps them focus on learning, exercising and improving these techniques. Unless there's an agreement that pie-fighting, stubborn contradiction, or any other pointless strategy is intentional and done in jest, most people will walk away from a debate with opponents who never learned how to debate at all and who ignore all implicit (and admittedly variable) rules of debate. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed

Hi. What did you refer to when you said indeed? A.Z. 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a response to the question, probably rhetorical, "What kind of 'intelligence' could embrace that?" Rockpocket 07:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Donnalangton

This is a very odd user page, even aside from it being all in capital letters. Perhaps there was an attempt to make it into an article that failed. Something about it isn't quite right, and I do not refer merely to spelling, grammar or syntax. It seems to be a user oage set up to promote a personal website. I might be wrong. Would you take look and let me know what, if anything, I should do? Thanks Bielle 20:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Troubles

Just in case you missed it, please see my comments here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vk

No more replies for now; I'm off to sleep - knackered, as we say over here! I will resume my case for the defence tomorrow. Regards (Sarah777 02:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Thank you

for the Bearnstar. It's my first ever. --Nricardo 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Special Award

		The Special Barnstar
		I, Thepiper, award you the Special Barnstar for dealing with events in a sometimes engaging, but nevertheless, amicable manner, and to let you know, that we too are aware of the pressures that you Admins are under! Thepiper 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh can I co-award you that? I was actually popping in just to tell you how much fun I've been having on RD/Science... I had never really paid it much attention before, but it's proving fun to excersize some parts of my brain that I've not had opportunity to use as much over the past several years (and will be needing to use again soon as my daughter's questions become a bit more complicated). So even though it wasn't your specific intention to do so, thanks! --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Its a useful and timely reminder to me that, among the cut and thrust of conflict that admins sometime find themselves emersed in, this is just a bunch of people typing a bunch of words on a bunch of computers.

Thepiper, my only issue with you is that you are clearly not a new editor. That in itself is not a problem (I'm a firm believer that non abusive socks should be left alone), but among all the abusive use of sockpuppets in this complex its very difficult to assume good faith when a new account pops up and starts being overtly critical, even if the criticism is potentially valid. For all I know, you could be Vintagekits (though I don't think you are), which makes it very difficult for me, and I think anyone else, to see your comments as constructive, rather than an underhand attempt to discredit. This may be doing you a disservice, and you may have entirely valid reasons for starting a new account, but I hope you can see it from my perspective. Nevertheless, it does bother me that someone, whoever they are, considers my tone to be unhelpful and that is something I will attempt to work on. Thanks again.

SB_Johnny, i'm glad I was unintentionally of help! Rockpocket 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the badge, it was well deserved, I know a bit about having to choose between make-or-break decisions. it's not an easy task, and whatever one believes, it does take its toll. My time left here on EnWikipedia is questionable, real-world reasons beckon, but might come back for some very special articles I have in mind. That will take some time. I have tried to be as openly honest as I possibly can, and I can't understand for the life in me, why I wrote that you were irritating, because I find it's certainly not true. Well, I'm human, and am prone to mistakes. The present "Troubles ArbCom" case is symptomatic of WP. If erring accounts just got blocked for a week, or whatever, it would pre-empt much of this "carry on" happening. Wikipedia is failing to grab hold of the situation, and frankly no-one of calibre would want to edit on it at times like these, and the situation vis a vis disruptive trolls and vandals seems to have deteriorated since I first edited here almost 3 years ago. Also, the Admins seem to be making decisions behind closed doors. Furthermore, there wouldn't be need for a quarter of the Admins, if run properly. And RfA has much to be desired, though I must compliment Alison, SirFozzie, BHG, and yourself. Much of Admin's time is spent chasing and squatting vandals, in what seems to be a game in the vein of "fox-hunting". All very unsavoury, and it does negatively impact the other serious self-respecting editors. Don't know what the future holds for WP, I'm pretty certain that changes will be made. -Thepiper 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I didn't try and second guess that, only that were Australian or Canadian, for some reason or other. Well the troubles seem to involve British and Irish articles, only, and I guess that's why I said it. I'm from mixed race myself, and really have no probs with nationality. It got some response anyway, sometimes it's the red-herring that can focus minds again. Cheers! Thepiper 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)