Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 3 December 2008

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

/archive

/archive2

Reinstatement

Hi. We've never met. I'm Rlevse and a current arb clerk and saw your thread on Raul654's talk page. I've emailed the current arbs (Raul is a former arb) about this. Since I'm not familiar with you at all, other than seeing your name on WP:AC/C before, I asked the arbs and other clerks about whether you should come back as an official clerk or as a trainee for a brief refresher time as official clerking requires arb approval. Welcome back! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're an official clerk again, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Current_Clerks and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard#General_discussion. Please add your time zone to "Current Clerks". — Rlevse • Talk • 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back! Anthøny ✉ 11:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Allegations

You picked an unfortunate time to return; your reappearance at the same time that the Poetlist sockpuppet brigade has been unmasked has caused a few people on Misplaced Pages Review to conclude that you are also part of that sockpuppet ring. I hope you don't mind, but I ran a quick checkuser, to be able to refute this allegation if possible. For anyone watching, you are totally  Unrelated to those other accounts and editing from an entirely different continent. Sorry to barge in like this, but it seemed best to get this nonsense out of the way as quickly as possible. Happy editing. Thatcher 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you're wondering what on earth this is all about: When your name popped up it was a definite wtf? sort of moment. rootology (C)(T) 04:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Christ almighty, if it wasn't so ridiculous I'd be offended. I was trying to talk a situation down, or at least escalate it to more definitive action. Looks like I got caught in a Big Hairy Deal.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got no idea. Even after a couple hours, a dinner and drinks away, I'm still scratching my head at the absurdity of it all. So who are you really a sockpuppet of? Is this Jimmy? :P rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HA! You know, I think thats the second time I've been accused of that, and back when I started, people thought I was a sock because I was a very... uppity and competent newbie.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Errm, Thatcher seems to have beaten me to it. I can corroborate that checkuser result:  Unrelated - sorry about all the hassle - Alison 04:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that claim on ANI threw me for a loop too. I went huh? Glad it's okay. And yes, the timing was not the best, with a 2y 7m gap and all ;-) Glad it's cleared up though! — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at AN/I

Re: this , go right ahead. Be my guest. Regarding the issue of Kirker's block, it was a very bad block and I called it as such. If you cynically wish to view me as some kind of puppet for doing so, I guess that's your privilege. If, on the other hand, you choose to actually look into the situation that has aroused my ire so greatly, I'm sure you'll be somewhat more sympathetic. You are also more than welcome to look into my edits to see what kind of user I am. All 2400+ of them. Once again, be my guest. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 24.207.237.221

The edits by 24.207.237.221 follow an existing history that are purposefully have run counter to the guidelines established in WP:TVS -- he refuses to contact or converse with anyone about his edits, and when his edits are reverted, he shifts to a new IP number and begins anew. He is referred to among the members of the WP:TVS project as the "St. Louis Vandal," primarily because many of his edits are tied to St. Louis television stations. Recently, the St. Louis Vandal has been tied to BenH, who has also created an established pattern of abuse. There has been an ongoing discussion over time regarding his abuse on the talk page at WP:TVS. --Mhking (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, to me it looked like BenH. I could be wrong, but the edits, with adding "KMOV-TV/DT St. Louis, MO" to the call letters, looked like a BenH edit. If I was wrong on tagging 24.207.237.221 as a BenH sockpuppet, I do greatly apologize. - NeutralHomer • Talk 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...just let me know of the link to the AN-AN/I discussion and I will be glad to comment. BenH (and Dingbat2007 too) need to just go away. One of those new global blocks would do the trick. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

You requested a UBX for inviting people to improve an article on the IRC. Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to post this there, but I've just created one for you. Use {{User:UBX/improvepage|]}} to show the following:

Tznkai invites you to improve ].

I know it's a little bland so feel free to change it and spice it up a bit if you so feel the need :)

Kind regards

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits on Template:Islam

Dear Tznkai, editor user:Enzuru removes the "Politics of Islam " and "Jurispudence of Islam" from the template of Islam. The view is shaped by User:Enzuru's understanding of Islam and based on his perception of Politics and Jurisputance rather than the factuality. Removing these issues (look at this edit ) or moving beyond the visible sight (look at this edit ) is a clear violation of POV. these concepts are currently, and correctly, represented by many sub articles in Misplaced Pages. The editor also accepts that removal of them is a NPOV violation (look at this edit ). The editor claims that NPOV tag can stay at the template forever. (look at this edit ) The editor claims that he will support only one link to these concepts. The articles regarding "Politics of Islam" and "Jurispudence of Islam" are not single articles (complex issues). They are not created by me. It can not be claimed that they are reflecting my point of view. Besides, there is not a single article regarding "Jurispudence of Islam." This editors activity is a clear violation of NPOV policy. As an administrator, could you guide this user to be more sensitive regarding to the policies of wikipedia. I tried to achieve this but I have problem in understanding why he is linking these major concepts to "Prayer." If he thinks "Prayer" is a major concept, he can add that to the template. I do not see the link between these issues. If he thinks the template is too big, the shape and size can be changed (format of the template). The content has to be true to the concept. Thank You--TarikAkin (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me Tznkai. What he said isn't true, I am the one who put politics in there, I said over and over that we do not need an entire section for each topic in the template. I am the one who put the link to politics in there. I said yes, the NPOV can stay in there if you want, but that won't make me budge my situation. He has repeatedly ignored what I have been trying to say: that we don't need a category for each section! If we had a section for each topic, we would have a very long template: we just need a single link. --Enzuru 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Its clear to me from the article's edit history that the two of you, and the two of you alone, have been fighting over this issue. There is no consensus, there is an absolute loss of good faith, borderline incivility, personal attacks, and fighting over the definition of policies over common sense I suggest you both visit WP:DR, but first take a multi hour wiki break. This message is cross posted to both of your talk pages--Tznkai (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping calm me down and avoid a possible block. I don't usually get into issues like that, I've been on here for years. To be honest, if we had a third-party voice from the beginning none of this would have happened (unfortunately we didn't, the people I tried getting before didn't come). Thanks again. --Enzuru 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User 76.117.6.149

Thank you; looks like someone else took action and blocked him . Magidin (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerking

Do you feel there are any problems associated with leaving Misplaced Pages for two years, then immediately reassuming your role as clerk upon your return? I personally have some concerns about it—at the very least, shouldn't there be a readjustment phase, catching up on everything that's happened in the last two years and how things may have changed in ways relevant to arbitration? Everyking (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I gathered that from the first section on this page, and of course I realize it was approved; I'm just concerned about whether it's wise to hop immediately back into such a role after such a long absence. Everyking (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So you aren't going to explain it? The long absence, the desire to immediately reassume a position of substantial responsibility upon return? What about the concerns—are they valid? Did you follow Misplaced Pages issues, particularly arbitration issues, to some extent during your absence? In other words, do you feel sufficiently "up-to-date"? Everyking (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add that those who are used to seeing the usual suspects clerking cases may be confused when they see a new name suddenly pop up clerking. 30 months is an awfully long time on Misplaced Pages. As I said on AN, some degree of easing your way back in first would be good. Things do change, and you weren't around for the discussions involving Sceptre's block. Please don't take this the wrong way. Just consider that those who weren't around when you were editing two years ago will take a while to adjust to someone returning like this. Carcharoth (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Tznkai. I started nosing around to see if you were a renamed account, but then I did the obvious thing and looked here for the explanation. It might be a good idea to announce yourself at WP:AN and WT:RFAR to make sure the current regulars know who you are. Jehochman 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakhtun Tanoli

The vandal I reported is everything else but a confused newbie. Please check this guy and his vast list of suspected socks and you will see how all the edits are similar. Actually this is the fifth or so time an IP in that range has been spamming my talk page with some Tanoli tribe nonsense. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's a list of edits: , , and corresponding admin action, and . De728631 (talk)

What is strange though, is that Pakhtun Tanoli has a number of confirmed and blocked socks, see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Pakhtun Tanoli, but his original account itself seems to be open. I'll move this to WP:ANI. De728631 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WB

Welcome back! My goodness, Tzn, I didn't think I'd ever see you again. This is good news. :-) KillerChihuahua 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I never encountered you the first time round, but you certainly seem to be the sort of person we need more of around here with all the sheer crap that goes on. Welcome back. Orderinchaos 18:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi thing

In the interests of disengaging, I'm not going to respond further, I'll let others decide what, if anything, needs done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin, oil and gas, and 99RR

You gots it? My spousal unit is looking neglected. KillerChihuahua 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

At your service. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The edit was not exactly a revert - Books commented out my version, can you see the new "< !-- ... -- >".

Thanks & goodnight. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin stuff

Just FYI - if you're going to walk into the bear pit of the Palin articles, here is a rundown of the current memes. Yes, I know it's just a blog and not an RS, but it's a first introduction of some of the stuff that's been circulating, and has some useful links to real reliable sources. At some point or another, I have seen every single one of these memes pushed at the Palin articles. Thanks so much for stepping up. With respect, and best wishes - Kelly 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of recurring memes, Tznkai, that ground rule against accusations of cabalism didn't last long. MastCell  03:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. However, it would be difficult to call it "tag-teaming" if two editors didn't make the exact same edit as each other over and over. Kelly 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are alternate explanations: for example, that jossi and I agree on that particular issue. That's where good faith can be useful. You seem to be moving in the opposite direction by adding a side of insinuations of bias. I'm not willing to discuss this further with you as long as you persist in ascribing all disagreement with your position to "cabalism" and "tag-teaming". MastCell  04:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the cabalism and tag-teaming are not my primary concern, I'm sorry for that. But I find it disturbing the identical edit is repeatedly inserted by both you and Jossi without addressing the BLP and REDFLAG concerns, in addition to the serious problems with the source. Kelly 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If the two of you continue fighting on my talk page while I should be sleeping, I will be most displeased. For the record, this conversation should have gone.

• MastCell: "Tznkai, you may want to look at the talk page, it seems things are getting ugly again"
• Kelly: "I feel like I'm being ganged up on by Jossi and Mastcell"
• Mastcell: "I assure you I am not ganging up on you, I just agree with Jossi on this issue."
• Kelly: I still feel like my concerns are not being addressed, could you do so please?"
• Mastcell: "Certainly."

--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. :) Goodnight! - Kelly 04:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

At AN, you said of Cenarium's post: A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. Not so. Only one was a proofing effort, and it was a bad one which moved the article from being inside the guidelines to being outside them. While drama reduction is good, best ensure one does not attempt it at the expense of the facts, especially as an admin commenting on admin actions. 86.44.28.222 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable Usenet personalities

Thanks for the offer to have a look at this page. I've summarised the issue in the discussion section, below your comment, in as few lines as possible. I think the issue was an over-zealous admin lockdown of the page associated with reverting to a version preceding the creation of a section about Doug Bollen, which had not been controversial and which seemed to have reasonable agreement in the discussion section. Lotaresco (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin page

I think your suggestions are reasonable. For my part, I'm happy to do other stuff, as I find the editing environment there currently untenable. I don't really have enough investment in the page to make mediation worthwhile; I got involved because I saw repeated and egregious violations of 3RR justified with BLP, and my involvement was focused on pointing out that a BLP exemption to edit-warring did not apply in this case. I regret being sucked in further than that, but when the attempted resolution met with aggressive posturing, I felt that a 3RR report was justified. I've already been on self-imposed 1RR at most on the page, and I think I'll limit my talk-page involvement to further discussion of the Washington Times article, if that. I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to deal with editors who are convinced they're at war, and some of the behavioral issues are bothering me to the point that I'm not sure I can edit effectively there. I do hope you find a solution to the ongoing edit-warring, and I'll keep an eye out; if the atmosphere becomes more tolerable, I'll probably resume editing, though again under self-imposed 1RR. Good luck. MastCell  17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the environment around those articles is not conducive to a healthy perspective or approach to Misplaced Pages, and I'd like to stop going down that path sooner rather than later. Experience tells me that the people who most need to take a break are the least likely to do so voluntarily, but the more cool heads there, the better. MastCell  17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock thing at ANI

Hello Tznkai. Can I give a character reference for a couple of people involved in this debate? I've only superficially looked at any new data, and it is certainly possible that people who've behaved well in the past could really be socks. I've interacted with AlasdairGreen27 on some sockpuppet cases, and his contribs were made in good faith, though I didn't always agree with his deductions. Rjecina has been involved in many controversies, and admits his limited knowledge of English. He's always seemed to me well-intentioned, though anyone can get carried away in the heat of a debate.

An additional quirk is that many of these editors have had sockpuppet cases filed against them in the past, or have filed cases themselves, and they by now are very familiar with the SSP and RFCU machinery, as well as ANI. The case that Rjecina has just filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc seems to me sweeping and excessive, though Velebit is a true sockpuppetteer dealt with long ago. Enter this realm only if you are willing to be very patient :-). EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I was told about that sockpuppet request too and made a comment there about how excessive it is (it actually needs the original sockmaster, per the instructions). As User:Rjecina told me, "Because of my "interesting" vandal revert policy I am always in contact with administrators and until now I am OK." Can you offer a suggestion how to make it clear that repeated sockpuppet allegations, especially on evidence like "he used the word 'we'" and "they supported each other", aren't going to help things along? I'm almost tempted to block Rjecina for repeated sockpuppet allegations against everyone who disagrees with them. Also, sorry you got dragged into this mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good night free of stalking sockpuppets! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You asked

... so here it is:

1. 03:34, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Israel */ rm per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG per long-running talk page discussion")
2. 16:46, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Endangered species */ NPOV again")
3. 17:02, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Lobbyists */ section still NPOV, single source. See talk.")
4. 21:08, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ removing prayer mention per WP:BRD, undue weight - see talk")
5. 22:08, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Oil and gas development */ non-notable quote, not a political position")
6. 22:09, 8 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Iraq */ non-notable quote, not a political position")

And that is only today/

—≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the acknowledgment on my talk page.

You might look at this if you have time- need all the input possible (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

... would be best to leave semi-prot as per other US elections related articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there Tznkai. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology block apology

I just made this comment on the Parapsychology talk page, and inserted it beneath my original comments, not at the bottom. As an apology it needed to be placed closer to my offending comments, I believe. I wanted to be sure that you saw my apology.

I need to apologize to Tznkai. I have just now followed some links through various arbcoms, RFC, RFAs, etc., etc., and it is like walking through a war zone in Bosnia. Can't people just get along?? Based on the history between these two, of which I was not aware, I understand better your determination to bust in when you did. I apologize for saying that you overreached. --nemonoman (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre

Can you please indicate to me where the decision was made to revert the indefinite ban? Never mind -- found it here. Redelete on its way. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk template

I've created a template shortening the work for you, it is the same thing as used on your userpage, converted to template form. Cheers. —Sunday 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder this morning. Guettarda (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

and thanks for a different reason. --Abd (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Look at the history. I didn't want to put a time limit on the semiprotect because that also limits the moveprotect. Feel free to remove the semi whenever you want. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sarah Palin

This seemed like a fairly clear-cut case of edit warring to me, and I did block him; however, I suppose I should have been more descriptive with my edit summary. I'll try harder on that in the future, thanks for the note. GlassCobra 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

locked page

Perhaps locking it is best, I have no desire to get into an edit war, however with 4 or 5 editors involved it might turn into one anyway. Let's hope this forces everyone to actually use the talk page and obtain some consensus. Sorry if I made your job a little harder. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

let me see if I can say this correctly without putting my foot in it.

I assume your comment was directed towards me regarding abuse of process. If it wasn't then I have put my foot in it, and please accept my apologies.

If it was directed towards me then I don't really understand. By the time I had edited that article for first time in my wikipedia history, the user in question had already made six reverts. She had already been warned for 3RR on that article by another user - she was well aware of 3RR. I'm sorry but I don't see it being my responsibility to warn a user who has already made six reverts, as they have already gone way over the threshold - if I was an ass, and goaded someone into making their 4th revert, then jumped straight to making a 3RR report, then yeah, I would agree with you.

I don't see her edits being within the exceptions to the 3RR rule, maybe 1 or 2 were borderline, but it certainly the vast majority were content disputes and in my inexperienced opinion, well within what the 3RR is there to prevent.

But then again, I may have totally misunderstood what you were trying to say, either way for my own curiosity I would love it if you could indulge me and clarify this. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, what you put on my talk page made sense. I think it is hard to count reverts, especially when they are different reverts on the same article and you are working on several closely related articles. It would be nice if the 3RR rule require a specific warning relating to the article you are about to/have just made a 4th revert on, before a 3RR report could be made. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(old stuff deleted and now new question)

Is it important to put in my complaint against Kelly her incivility and Kelly's insistence that her own research trump all published sources? Or should I just put in her reversions? (34 over 3 days and I honestly don't know how many of them fit the technical defintion of "reversion")GreekParadise (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have decided - on Doug's good advice -- not to file a complaint against Kelly and to start anew. But I am curious. Can you file a report on someone in general for incivility? Or for insisting that own research trumps published sources? Or just 3RR? You may respond on my talk page if you like and delete this.GreekParadise (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The committee acknowledge...

Read American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement for why "the committee acknowledge" is acceptable (as well as being the wording used by the committee). DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - we already had the discussion of it on the case talk page! DuncanHill (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly block

Since Kelly alleges that you're not a neutral admin in this situation, I've asked for someone to look into it at WP:AN. Cla68 (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw the ANI notice. Cla68 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, as a gesture of good faith, may I suggest that you to undo the block and let someone else impose it. I agree that you may not be an uninvolved admin in this case. You two seem to have been going at it for a while. Hope you accept this in the helpful spirit in which it is offered. Ronnotel (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I think consensus at ANI has turned against the block. Would you please unblock Kelly?--chaser - t 04:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Bstone (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to refrain from getting involved in these kind of matters so soon after your return. It is only natural that you'd need an adjustment period to familiarize yourself with how the community functions at this point. With regards to admin matters, I'd suggest sitting back and observing for a while. Everyking (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodness! I would have to say that Tznkai, though maybe a little inexperienced, did a reasonable thing. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the community is currently divided over the concept of civility blocks. I for one think that civility blocks cause more disruption than they prevent, so they should not be used. It is better, I think, to point out incivility and get neutral parties to ask the editor to refactor. People become uncivil when they lose their cool. Pressurizing them does not help. Jehochman 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, minus the part about "neutral parties". As I explained in ANI, I am not involved, I am "neutral." I operated only as an administrator, and used that discretion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If I can offer what I hope is constructive feedback, based on my observations and my own trial-and-error process: I think the ultimatum ("You have ten minutes") backed both you and Kelly into a corner. It basically left Kelly with no "out" - he could either grudgingly and humiliatingly capitulate to the threat of force, or defiantly force your hand. There was no face-saving way for him to back down or refactor at that point. Similarly, it painted you into a corner - you lost the ability to de-escalate and negotiate a better solution, because once Kelly disregarded the ultimatum, you had no face-saving alternative to blocking him. I'm not speaking from the moral high ground here - I've painted myself into similar and worse corners - but just offering advice as one admin to another. FWIW, the tendency for people to unthinkingly swallow and regurgitate the "involved admin" line is one of the more annoying idiocies which have recently come to dominate Misplaced Pages, but such is life. MastCell  16:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Block is ok, IMHO. People should remain civil at all times. (I'm open to anyone explaining to me why the block would be wrong?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, yeah... I'm pretty busy, but still casually active. Thanks for noticing! David Bergan (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Debate

On the Abortion debate talk, I've proposed removing the "Church And State" section. As a contributor to the article before, I'd like for you to weigh in on the article talk page. Thanks. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design Talk page

Tznkai, in response to your comments:

Danny, let it go. We can't synthesis Behe's views from various of his quotes without it being original research. Further revisions back and forth of the talk page constitute edit warring, and while I can't shouldn't block the people who are doing it myself, I have no problem wasting my time putting together a 3RR report that will probably end with two 24 hour blocks. Now, do we have a reliable neutral source on whether Behe is a creationist? (Note, Dawkin's as quoted in the Behe article doesn't count. He's an expert biologist, not an expert on creationists)--Tznkai (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to respond:

Please don't lecture and threaten. It's tedious and annoying. If you can offer suggestions that will improve the article or encourage dialogue then do so. This pointless diatribe is exactly the kind of frustrating, non-productive banter I was referring to in my comments which Dave Souza removed. - DannyMuse (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of historical editing history, I am including this additional comment on your post from Jim62sch:

Tznkai, who is even near 3RR on the talk page? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has become MySpace

Hi Tznkai. I just noticed this mess. I just skimmed it, but let me get this straight - the block was undone because you aren't considered "uninvolved" re:FM? Granted, it was a couple years ago, but if my memory serves me, you disagreed with FM more than you agreed with him on the ID pages. I mean, not serious angry clashes, but fundamental enough differences. Or have I confused things? Guettarda (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This place has gone beyond crazy. As I recall, clashing with someone because you called them out on their misbehaviour wasn't considered "involvement". Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about FuelWagon. A good example of why simply agreeing with someone ideologically isn't reason enough to want them to stick around. Guettarda (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's half of it. If you want, look into the User:Moulton saga. After getting banned from Misplaced Pages he spent half a year on WikipediaReview building what became the "IDCab" meme. It got re-imported here in a fight a couple months ago. Actually it was more of a "perfect storm"...we (the ID editors) fell afoul of the image-deletion crew. One of them identified himself as being in the US military, and was editing pretty much all day...so Jim asked whether he had permission to edit on the job (Jim works for the government, knows the regulations for using government computers). Anyway, the editor filed an RFAR against Jim for harassment, and then quit Misplaced Pages. (He had posted his picture, identified his unit...probably realised he could get in real trouble for editing on the job.) OM, as a former officer, jumped in. Anyway, Jim has never been one to mince words. He got slapped around a little for incivility, said "don't threaten people", nothing too serious. But it earned both of them the enmity of that editor's friends.

Fast forward a few months, and OrangeMarlin was a bit too quick to assume ill intent on an edit to a vaguely ID article. And I managed to make things worse. Ended up on AN/I, we had a couple threads dedicated to us at Misplaced Pages Review, and User:Sceptre filed an RFAR, which grew into two competing RFCs. Oh, and then User:Filll sent out a few emails notifying people of an RFA by a WikipediaReview regular. So, Jim's incivility means that all ID editors are "highly uncivil" (and thus, you're free to be rude to them). Filll's canvassing (three emails apparently - in an RFA that hit 100 supports within a couple hours, and hit 300 supports before it crashed and burned...someone was canvassing supports) means that "all" ID editors canvass votes. Or some crap like that. I miss the old days when I was only getting hit with that sort of venom on talk:ID.

It's far too late to undo the mess, but it has turned into a real slur. A. Define someone as a member of the "IDCab". B. Use that assertion :) of membership (sometimes very tenuous indeed) as the reason to attack them. C. Use B. as a reason to dismiss all other arguments. Guettarda (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More than trust in admins...politics and the evolution of the community. Misplaced Pages has become MySpace. Too many people focus on becoming admins, or on trying to become someone on ANI. The community is just terribly fractured. Guettarda (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ay, reaching for my {{npov}} and {{OR}} tags for that version of the origin of the ID cabal meme and how it relates to civility on Misplaced Pages. Now, a balanced version might also account for how scores of hardworking FAC and FAR editors saw some distinct unpleasantness on a widely followed talk page and formed their own opinions, without ever going anywhere near WikiReview. But yes, the community is terribly fractured, not only because of admin abuse, but also because of IRC abuse (and other backchannel and off-Wiki cabalish forms of communication) and a failing and partisan ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust in admins at all time low?

• nod* Mostly due to RFA being wrong-headed. Actually, there's not much right-headedness left around here :-/ Still, gotta keep trying eh? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Issue

I think I agree with the above users concerning Misplaced Pages. anyway, I have a topic I would like to discuss with you. I would prefer to do that off Misplaced Pages, if you will oblige me. I can appreciate that you have a pretty good sense of humor. regards to you. Moonlight25 (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Related discussion

There is a related discussion taking place here--Domer48_'fenian' 13:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your actions on AE

I know that the topic probably has you tensed up, and you're probably reading ahead, waiting for the first inective so here it is.... F@*$ing well done. No joke. I've spent the best part of a year trying to get everyone to behave.. the fighting is pretty much non-stop (and the guy who asked me to look in on it has now left WP for good apparently. I didn't comment more then the base because well, at this point I was in so deep that you probably didn't want people who hadn't stepped knee deep into the muck trying to clean it out (Alison and I both qualify under that category). If you ever want background, or want to know my thoughts on working with various editors, please don't hesitate to contact me here, via email or (when I'm on it), IRC. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why I have been placed on 2 months probation for disruptive editing. I can not find any. Or will I just get the usual wall of silence that has been pervasive from admins lately.BigDunc 08:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Other notes

I have already made the comments on the board mentioned, apologies however i have only just noticed your comments to bring any further advice on the editors conducts be brought to your talk page; as follows:

Tznkai i think you have been very fair with a very difficult situation administering everyone here. Further to user Ryan Postlethwaite comments regarding the edit warring of user Sarah777 , I would also like to add that this user (Sarah777]] is less than civil on the talk pages with this shocking statement comparing British people to Nazi`s here and a futher more worrying comment here which was commented on by a admin as being racist here --Rockybiggs (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

probation

What edit warring?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They call that ignoring all the rules. Leaving that edit intact rewards an editor for taking advantage of a block, she would have waited for the other two to wear themselves out, and then changed the article to suit herself. That is not the kind of behaviour that can be tolerated. aside from which, one edit disruption does not make.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not what is right, what my opinion on the content is largely irrelevant. The point is the behaviour was cynical and unacceptable. Also, that one edit does not warrant probation.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you TU and can you honestly say that I have edit warred on any article in the month of September. BigDunc 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't attempt to. There have been far more problematic months than this, it is a strange<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script> concept to try to clam a storm that has, for the time being at least, passed.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'm entitled to be shown the diffs for the "edit warring" you refer to? Please show them. Sarah777 (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

@Sarah777, I've posted a detailed analysis of your September edits on your Talk page. @Tznkai - I encourage you to take a look. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai; i believe this editor Highking should be considered for possible probation, as this user has a very long history of being involved in the `troubles` articles as well as removing the British isles from Misplaced Pages.--Rockybiggs (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a specific and recent diff, or don't bring it up at all.--Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tznkai. In fact, Rocky couldn't be further from the truth. I avoid all article relating to the troubles - I've no idea why he's trying to stir up mischief (or maybe someone else does....anyone?) --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tznkai. Your last edit on Sarah777's talk page was to say "I will reexamine the issue after I have responded to the other editors sanctioned". Can I ask how you're progressing with that as I think it's important that the issue is re-examined, and quickly. If it's going to take some time, I recommend that we use an innocent until proven guilty approach and lift the probation unless and until we're certain it's necessary and justifiable. I'm minded to lift it myself but don't wish to start a wheel-war. If in doubt, perhaps a discussion at WP:AN would be a good idea to see what the wider admin community thinks. Cheers, Waggers (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Email en route. Risker (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocks of Giano...

...always wind up at ANI, so I've brought this one there myself: . Just to let you know. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I included the context I thought was necessary; I apologize if I missed anything material. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could add this Admins behaviour on my talkpage to the case? Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

...don't work. Jehochman 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest in future you leave Misplaced Pages to those who wish to write it, and confine yourself to IRC, where you are doubtless more at home. Giano (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a very nice thing to say. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The truth seldom is. Giano (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this Admin/editor(?) realise that it's a long way to China if he insists on keeping on digging that hole he's in. Surely there is a limit even to where the 'Admin Community' will go to defend the indefensible? Or am I naive? Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense...

...but it's becoming pretty apparent that you're out of touch with how blocks work on Misplaced Pages nowadays. Maybe you should ease yourself back in - how long has it been since you wrote a quality article for Misplaced Pages? Kelly 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, in light of your long absence and controversial record since your return, have you considered standing for RfA again, or opening yourself to recall? I feel that your administrative conduct has been unwise, and I also feel that an active administrator ought to contribute to articles at least occasionally. Everyking (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai: You're doing a good job. I prefer different methods these days, but your approach has results, and is not particularly wrong. Of course, by being forceful, you're also going to be questioned.

Do keep checking to make sure you're not making any errors, and do engage with others and explain what you are doing.

(Also, I'd love to convert you to the light side of course, but that's a different story :-) )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

CU case

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ubgatsby, interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Article

I liked the policy link you provided to no-no... Gave me my laugh for the day. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

UDR

Tznkai I have tried but Thunderer just comes out with the same tired accusations every time I edit and if you look at the history you will see that every edit I have made has been reverted by him. What am I supposed to do consensus was reached on the talk page yet content is still not in the article. Could you please give me some advice on how to proceed here because I really don't know if it is possible to work with a WP:SPA who doesn't WP:AGF with any edits I make. BigDunc 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:

Were is the edit war which prompted the page to be blocked. Please bear in mind the article is under WP:1RR.

Show me, by way of diff’s what and were I have done something which warrants a Page/Troubles ban?

On the talk page, could you show me were I may have been uncivil or disruptive in your opinion?

On the Article, could you show me by way of diff's were I may have breech sanctions or been disruptive in your opinion.

I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Rather than address the questions I put forward here, you went to the AE and posed some for me, which I have now responded to here. I hope I addressed my self to the questions to your satisfaction. Could you now please extent a similar courtesy here, and address my questions in a similar fashion.

You have again proposed sanctions on me without first illustrating the reasons why? In your comment on AE you say quite clearly that you have not even started to catalogue them, and yet you propose sanctions. How can I respond to your accusations, when I don’t know what it is I’m supposed to have done? Please with respect, answer the questions above, and then allow me the opportunity to respond, thanks in advance, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Linked discussion here. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross posted from my talk

I haven't attempted to, nor do I attempt to impose anything. I have been engaging in discussion and making proposals: more than you or anyone else has done to attempt to address the problem. You have a better idea, go right ahead, thats part of the wiki way.--Tznkai (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously your research has let you down since you do not have access to my e-mails to parties in this dispute, nor have you noted my contributions to AE over the last 2 weeks, my comment to Domer48 on their talk page, messages to the Thunderer to slow down and a detailed proposal to try and facilitate a resolution through a detailed RFC on the article talk page. Nor have you noticed the big red away sticker at the top of my talk page pointing out that I have been unavailable for most of this week. I'm sorry if my e-mail offended you but you must admit that you do have a history in imposing solutions without first obtaining consensus and I took your recent comments to parties on their talk page to suggest you were planning further intevention. I'm sorry if I misread that but right now we need more discussion and less action until we have an agreed plan. sticking plasters do not work in this case. Spartaz 14:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

Tznkai could you have a word with this editor. Is he supposed to be neutral if he is too become a mentor for The Thunderer with comments like this he is staring off on an antagonistic vein and I will not stand for accusations about tag team partners any longer. As this was a cry of the Thunderer and now his mentor is echoing these cries. Thanks. BigDunc 15:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

will look at it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty and homophobia

I have to disagree with you on that last one. It is a well known fact that throwing child sex accusations into the face of homosexuals is a homophobic slur. That editor's consistent reduction of age-structured homosexuality (a phenomenon that ranges from legal to illegal, and from sexual to chaste) to child buggering is an attack on a legitimate homosexual practice. Having said that, what is your suggestion regarding dealing with an editor who gives proof of racism, chauvinism, or homophobia in his edits? Haiduc (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See my response at my talk page. Haiduc (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

yet another Irish Brushfire.

See discussion at Talk:Flag of the Republic of Ireland. Wonder if we're going to have to step in there, generally. SirFozzie (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert

The solutions to both problems, vandalism and stupidity, is very often the same. Treating them differently could lead to one becoming the other.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When does this stop?

and . The amount of abuse this editor is willing to hurl at me, not to mention other editors, is seemingly limitless. I don't really know how to begin to address this. Nandesuka (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Hello Tznkai. As I feared, the discussion at AE over this editor was eventually archived without resolution. It appears you may be busy, which I understand because I am also at the moment, but did you ever make any progress on your proposed solution? I ask, because whether on purpose or by accident, Vk has not got himself involved in another article on a geo-political conflict that would, by the original intent of the restrictions, have been off-limits. See Talk:ETA#Revisit terrorist discussion.

While I actually agree with his take on the subject, his comments on that page illustrate perfectly why those sort of articles should be off-limits to him indefinitely. He is aggressive, confrontational, rude and immediately personalizes the issue by accusing others of bad faith editing. This is exactly what we don't need when discussing contentious subjects, and this is why it was roundly agreed that Vk could continue to edit only if he avoided these subjects. I was going to inform Vk that this page was off-limits to him per his conditions. However that would simply cause more diversionary bleating about bias. Therefore would you mind having a look and addressing this however best you see fit (I have pointed a few other admins towards this also). Thanks. Rockpocket 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You really are an obessed little man arnt you. Havent you got anything else to do with your life but follow me around wikipedia? Please do explain how the ETA could ever be off limits to me? Is it an Irish/British geo-political dispute? Or is it a Baronet? No and no! nice to see you running to Tznkai where you know you will get a warm reception.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As this was also brought to my attention, I have responded here. Risker (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unified discussion is good, so I will be responding here as well.--Tznkai (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually British geo-political disputes includes Falklands and Gibralter. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Heart warming!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama talk thread on race

Would you please consider refactoring your set-up of the Obama race discussion, and not being such an aggressive traffic cop in favor of your set-up? I'm afraid that when you close an AN/I thread to restart a perennial discussion with the accusation that other editors have engaged in "ridiculous behavior" you are blurring the line between administrative work and content editing, and doing yourself exactly what editors are not supposed to be doing on the Obama talk page: accusing other editors of bad behavior. It may be unwise to begin with to star the discussion with a threat that it should not be archived. The RfC process is possibly better suited. But in any event, the bolded statement that other editors engaged in "ridiculous behavior" will probably act against consensus and goodwill. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to cause problems but I strongly believe that he was calling me insane, not you. I would appreciate if the very top of the thread did not refer to me as having sanity issues. I don't guess it's a big deal but I'd like to see it removed. I'm not all that offeneded, but it is a personal attack no matter how you spin it. Landon1980 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was never meant for you; we edit-conflicted. I have now moved it above yours so it is clear. Hugs and kisses and ice cream for everyone now? Tarc (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter who it was directed at? I'm the one with a POV now aren't I? Peronal attacks are personal attacks and should not be tolerated, you are even willing to edit war to keep it there. Landon1980 (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom statement

Your statement was well over 400 words, and I've removed it pending trimming.--Tznkai (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"You stated it was +650 when it was 629 words (according to MS Word). Thats 3,620 characters including spaces spaces. -- Cat 04:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also why did you even blank it? Bishzilla was kindly warned, I wasn't given that courtesy. -- Cat 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My word counting software said 651, but either way its over 400, and Bishzilla's was more questionable since it was a gif, and it was initiated by another user. At any rate, just trim it and put it back, or link to something in your userspace.--Tznkai (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You do not count the invisible words like the one in links that are not shown to the reader. :)

Giving me the courtesy of a warning before blanking wouldn't hurt you know. I created a sub page as I am not going to compromise from the meaning over a mere 129 words.

-- Cat 05:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal details

"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on WP:RFAR, 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill.

The Arbcom have very conscously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my personal problems can prevent them from abusing their "secret knowledge" about me. I shall refrain from saying what I think of them for that trick. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc

This is directly contradicted by the quotes that I provided at the bottom of the page. He clearly took the section out of context, and is trying to say 100% opposite of the source. This needs to stop. He needs to be banned from these pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Setanta747

Sorry, we edit-conflicted. I don't think this is a controversial block - can you suggest why it isn't a simple violation of the arbitration? Black Kite 19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Any article in which edit-warring occurs involving the insertion/removal of the Ulster Banner is automatically included in the probation - that's why it was specifically included in the Arbitration Probation statement. It was one of the main loci of the original problem. To be honest, if I'd seen S747's edits without the AE thread I would've blocked without a second thought. Black Kite 19:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Please don't remove it from the page until they answer my question about AfDs. Everyking (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's please wait for further comment. Everyking (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Googlean and User:Avinesh. So shouldn't the related SSP case also be closed? --vi5in 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, ok! Thanks! --vi5in 20:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Section_break_2 This should help you to understand the real facts !-- Tinu Cherian - 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

In case you hadn't seen it, Haiduc stopped by the noticeboard. Grsz 02:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude

I'm not claiming you're wrong, but revert-and-protect always looks bad. You might want to reconsider. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements

Please undo your protection immediately. Not only were you in an edit war on that page, you reverted the other warrer (with rollback no less) immediately before protecting, thus violating protection policy. There's no reason to keep hiding that thread pretending it never happened. Please undo and leave it be. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can supress the truth and Jimbo and tha Arbs wil admire you for it - but you can't stop it coming out! Giano (talk) 23

08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suppressing the truth? Its like, everywhere on the wiki by now, just not on the withdrawn candidates talk page which has, I'll wager few users that are not in common with Jimbo's talk page. You've got your message on the public forum.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protection on ACE page

(Originally a response to How do you turn this thing on)

Not all edit wars were created equal - In this case, there is blatant drama mongering. The standard course of action would be to block Giano, but since I am trying to control the forest fire and reduce drama, I obviously am not going to do that. I am not enforcing a content position, I am stamping down on disruptive editing. Giano can, and has taken the issue up on Jimbo's page, RfAr and a number of individual talk pages, none of which I particularly care to do anything about, as those are logical places to take up the argument.

And no, there wasn't harm for a while. The previous Scott v. Secret argument was shut up after I shut the thread down the first time, Giano brought it back up, but the argument had essentially stopped, so no big deal. Giano's last entry however, was inflammatory, and as I have stated, drama mongering. That takes the thread out of useful/harmless to disruptive, thus the action.--Tznkai (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Gerard's block was out of line, as has been acknowledged by admins, arbitrators, and checkusers alike. Let someone else be the judge of whether it need protecting or not, since you're part of the dispute. And why oh why did you use rollback to your version, and then protect? Really really bad idea. I'm not the only who thinks this, I see. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment on Gerard's block on the off chance he comes to Arbitration and I clerk the case. When that is no longer a threat I will gladly share my opinion to anyone who wants it. Until then, I have no comment, and will not respond to any points on it, except for pointing out the obvious as I did on Giano's talk page.

As for the rest... this isn't a content dispute. This is a thread causing disruption, and me taking administrative action. You disagree with it? Fine. Find an administrator to override me. But in this case, rolling back Giano's rollback and page protecting was the best option to remove the drama mongering edit without causing far more meatball:forestfire prone drama.--Tznkai (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a word?

Hi Tznkai , I believe I may have made a mistake yesterday, when I suggested that Thunderer be unblocked. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However today, despite our unblock requests and their undertaking, they have gone and reverted five times on the USC Article, , , , and . Now I gave a very detailed rational on the talk page here so there is no reason to be consistently reverting me. Could you please ask them to stop now, because its getting ridiculous. Now Jehochman suggest I contact you or WP:AE, I came here hoping for less drama, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai could you possibly have a look at this here. Dunc, Sunray and myself are discussing this very issue of reverting at mediation here, as it is an issue of major concern. Since leaving, Thunderer has made fifteen reverts, including an edit war with the Mediator. On the North Irish Horse article, it’s the very same issue which resulted in seven 3RR reports and a trip to AE. In fairness, AE did offer advice, none of which is heeded. My main concern now, is that this recent revert spree will disrupt the current discussion at mediation. I’m eager to get moving on it, and build on the progress made. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Point of order

When you drop a link into a block log , could you please use a permanent link? I am trying to check this out, and man, I've got to search the ANI archives. Jehochman 10:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me any evidence that Googlean = Avinesh, such as a positive checkuser result? The ANI thread is not convincing me. Jehochman 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to mediation participants

Thank you for your note to the participants in the UDR mediation. They managed to get many people involved in their squabbles. You hit on concerns that the mediators have been trying to get across, such as the need each to be responsible for his own behaviour and not that of others. Hopefully your words will sink in. Things are quiet for the moment and I hope that, if and when they return to the mediation, they will mediate seriously and in good faith. Sunray (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Thanks for the note. Anything to smooth the process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving clerk notes for cases

Hi there. I was linking from somewhere to this comment, and I was trying to find out whether it had been archived on the Cold fusion case pages. I've been looking but can't find the clerk notes there. I notice some cases have clerk notes, but some don't. Do you know what the usual practice is with regards to archiving clerk notes or not? Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sure I'd seen them on some pages, but maybe I was misremembering. Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, do you have Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration watchlisted? I asked some questions there, but it seems to be a slow day today on some pages. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The blocking, unblocking, blocking etc etc; of Giano II

Hiya Tznkai. Forgive my naivety, but why is there always a 'high drama' around blocking/unblocking Giano? I've no problem with G personally; but I'm perplexed with the 'stay away from him' aura. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'm just a curious bloke, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not contact me regarding RfArb/Cold fusion

Please do not contact me on my talk page regarding RfArb/Cold fusion. I would like to receive no notification of any decisions at that location. All further communication regarding this case should be done over e-mail. I will no longer be discussing anything related to the arbitration above board on Misplaced Pages.

Thank you.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC removal

Hi Tznkai - I don't think that removing the RfC on date linking was the best option. A lot of editors have made useful comments there without any personal attacks, and I don't think those contributions should be lost. If any action is necessary to stop incivility, I think it would be better to target it at the editors and not the discussion (or if at the discussion, in a way that it can continue). I agree that there is little to be gained from the discussion other than peace and quiet, but that peace and quiet is badly needed given the number of separate arguments going on over this (AN/I AN/EW1, An/EW2 AN/EW3 AN/EW4, User_talk:Tennis Expert, Master of Puppets, Colonies Chris, Tony1, HJensen, Ohconfucius Rambling Man on Tour...) - if that isn't evidence that this needs sorting I don't know what is. Unfortunately, I can't see anything other than an RfC on this matter being accepted as a binding expression of community consensus either. As painful as it is, I think there's more to be gained by doing everything necessary to get the RfC through to some final decision. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't have the time... I doubt any one has the time, to sort this particular piece of nonsense out fully. I recommend bringing up your complaints on ANI, I've just posted a diff to your complaint there. Your points are very sensible, I'm just afraid I am not at this point up to doing it. Doing it fairly that way would require hours of work that I don't have time for. I've tried my solution, and that solution doesn't preclude a better, saner RfC replacing it. Good luck.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

True, what this needs is attention from someone with the admin tools. I think the most profitable solution would be to try to find someone willing to reopen the discussion and supervise it. Knepflerle (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask around and see if I can find someone willing to do it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to delete the RfC discussion. If you think that it is unproductive, then archive it. If you think there are incivil actions or comments, revert or refactor those individual trangressions. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM currently states "Autoformatting: Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable)." If this situation cannot be commented on, that will be the final rule and editors will be following guidelines if they engage in a campaign to remove date autoformatting markup. I hope you have forseen this consequence. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

MOSNUM is a guildline, not policy. Not to mention of all the things relevant to Misplaced Pages's importance, it rates under list of tree species. But most importantly, just file another RfC and make sure you don't collectively act inappropriately while doing so.--Tznkai (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of it (though since you blanked it, maybe you are) but an RFC was already being worked on when Tony decided to hijack it. That RFC, which has yet to go live, is at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC. And I agree, the discussion is an utter waste of time, but those pushing this change are doing so by automated and semi-automated means (basically forcing it on the rest of us). To be absolutely clear, the language at the subpage RFC was worked on by multiple editors and had mostly come to agreement. The language in Tony's RFC at WT:MOSNUM was created entirely by Tony with no input from other editors. Attempts to balance the RFC with additional information has been reacted to aggressively by Tony and his supporters (the "big green box" fiasco; and for what it's worth, the big green box was my addition, an attempt to address concerns that the questions/topics were being changed by showing that the messages were clearly separate from the original wording). At any rate, you're brave to have set foot in there. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note the repeated efforts, as here, to refactor the discussion of the question. (The text is still elsewhere in the long discussion; but not where it was written.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea blanking the RfC, exactly what I would expect a totally clueless admin to do. Now I have no idea if Tznkai fits that description, as I don't know what else he does on Misplaced Pages. I hope this was a one-time mistake, not to be repeated.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AE clerking

Sorry if I threw a wrench into your attempt to clerk the AE page. I wasn't sure what "comments after reblocking" was intended to address, since no reblock had been made, and comments were being put into another section about the proposed reblock... Avruch 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All good.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bryce Connors

This article is a hoax. Not sure what the procedure is though.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that the guy doesnt exist - well I am sure he exists but I would say he's some 15 high school guy - but he isnt a boxer. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest :Hoax and :afd. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, Vintagekits. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi Tznkai could you have a look at the USC article Thunderer has come back from his 3RR block and has started reverting again. And leaving edit summaries like remove POV opinionated rubbish from the Republican cabal. He has inserted images that I removed as they were fair use violations. I don't want to remove them again as this will lead to an edit war thanks. BigDunc 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I find this all very annoying disappointing and as I feared the mediation has been effectively scuttled. Progress was being made and was working, with David, Dunc and myself. The icing on the cake for me was the arrival of the “new” editor, and Mooretwin’s reverts on the RUC and then saying there was not two when I asked them to self revert. To be honest, I’m totally pissed off.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)