Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:10, 18 November 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Triton and others

I see that you have declined Triton's unblock review and have locked Triton's talk page. Where was the discussion authorizing you to remove Triton's access to the user talk page? Considering your prior involvement in this area, I would recommend that you return Triton's access to the talk page.

You have made a number of blocks recently (LemonBoy, GiacomoReturned, Malleus) that were questionable and overturned quickly. Factocop possibly fits in there, too. You also have some questionable involvement with other blocks (TreasuryTag comes to mind), and Triton). Every admin makes a questionable decision once in a while, but you have quite a few in a short time. What's going on? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

His prior unblock appeal was taken to the community, and after two days worth of discussion, was determined by an uninvolved admin with experience in ethnic conflicts to have failed. He then filed another unblock request that boiled down to "THE IRISH ARE OUT TO GET ME!" You're goddamned right I locked his talk page. He had been clearly told that it was a community decision, and that consensus would allow him to appeal in 3 months, but he nevertheless decided to continue posting huge walls of text claiming that it was everyone else's fault. For this reason, I felt that he was abusing the unblock process, and removed his talkpage access. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree with your removal of Triton's talk page access. What about the other controversial administrative actions you have performed recently? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. What about them? That's far too general a question. If you have specific issues on each action you'd like me to address, I'd be happy to. It might be better to do that at WP:AN or a similar venue, to get a wider variety of opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you would show some understanding of the concern, which is not specific to each action, but to the overall pattern. Do you have any comment, here? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Both LemonMonday and Factocop were correct blocks overall (without looking at the others). Statistically speaking, when two of the four in your supposed "pattern" do not match, your generalization falls apart. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did say "Factocop possibly fits in here", but LemonMonday's block was disputed and reversed. See also User_talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive_26#Blocks. I would appreciate a response from SarekOfVulcan. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I told you I'd be happy to comment on any specific issues. "Your blocks suck" is not nearly specific enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made a number of bad blocks recently, and bad interactions with other blocks. Do you have any explanation or comment? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you have not responded to this, yet. I do not see any discussion about removing Triton's talk page access. That's a rather serious step, and I don't think it's justified. First, will you, or won't you, reverse that action and restore Triton's talk page access? Second, will you, or won't you, provide any explanation for your series of questionable blocks? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The removal of TR's talkpage access in some ways is quite similar to my removal of Factocop's - acting as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:POINT while trying to get unblocked is an abuse of the process. TR's continued insistence that he was unable to discuss himself on ANI was pure unadulterated BS, Factocop's insistence that his 1RR block was invalid but even still not addressing the reasons for what was his current block are perfect disruption examples. Let's just emphasize the "I" in WP:RBI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo in fairness these are really strange questions coming from an admin (since Gimeetoo is an alt account of Gimmetrow). Have you seen what the position with Factocop turned out to be? And WRT to TR's talk page removals do you, as an admin, stand over the TR's use of the talk space in clear violation of WP:TPG, WP:NOTTHEM and WP:AGF? I'm asking because you suggest TR doesn't deserve his talk page disabled this inferring that his conduct on WP might be acceptable to you - am I wrong in this supposition?--Cailil 20:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

They are strange questions, especially as they are not really specific questions. They are, in the main, statements followed by queries of the form "what's going on?", "do you have any comment" etc. pablo 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

about your templating

Please consider wp:Templar "Don't template the regulars". An excerpt:

These templates serve to explain the various rules to new editors. When novice editors break rules, it is quite possible (if we assume good faith, which we must) that they are unaware of it, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these rules. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to break) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the rule, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to "did you know we had a rule against this" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.

About the Talk page formatting issues at Talk:El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium, please note that i opened a Talk page discussion section on the topic and have tried to discuss it there. I notice you have not, with your choosing to revert and communicate only by edit summaries. I appreciate that Blueboar had the decency to reply in the Talk page formatting section, and, by an edit further above, seems to accept the normal formatting that my edits restored. I don't happen to think your contributions in this have been helpful so far, and I do find your templating me as the last sentence in the quote above suggests. --doncram (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Do Template the Regulars?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the block. I'm in class and am supposed to be pretending to take notes, so you've made my day easier. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Wonder how long before he cycles his IP and starts again... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Makes me reconsider applying for a banhammer, though (probably shouldn't). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, he figured out how to reset his modem, and continues to evade his block by reinserting his WP:POINT-y crap. I can haz page protection, please? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Mick MacNee

I thought you would find this of interest .  RGTraynor  18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

McCain

You just restored known forgeries, and you're complaining at Rd for misapplying BLPN? *boggle* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes , well the content has been there for some long time, and after looking at it, I was supporting the stable content and attempting to get the two users back to discussion. Forgeries, is cited forgeries, discussion was my objective, there is nothing boggle about that, it is wiki way. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanked it, gone

. FYI. Seems to be a common occurrence over there. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you look up instead of at your own navel you will see where it is gone. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, gone from your talk page. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Best is if you keep your eyes on your navel and away from my talkpage, you are not involved in this issue at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

O2RR likes a pretty talk page. Topics I've raised on his talk page have been moved to mine in exactly the same way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs), I have noticed this disturbing behavior pattern, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, I shift shit from my talkpage on sight, if you wanna talk about it, host it on your talkpage , is my position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You really do walk into these things, don't you...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 08:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ksaine

I added some advice to Ksaine's talk page without seeing you'd just warned for (essentially) the same thing. The "24 hours and 10 minutes" thing is probably something he needs to be aware of. However, feel free to remove my additional advice if you feel that we're bombarding him with too much information all at once. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's excessive, but I'd rather have my warning pulled than yours, since it's clearer on the no-gaming aspect of things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Misplaced Pages and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Misplaced Pages pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Blocking before talking

Well, here I go for the 32495865347893420635th time (give or take), although I've grown tired of these energy-draining moments.

During my editing period here, I've encountered numerous editors who do nothing but "assign missions" to other editors, removing everything they can. I call them compulsive deletionists. They don't seem to care (I'm well past WP:AGF at this point, my apologies) about anything but "obeying rules" – only to feel good about themselves being valid Misplaced Pages members, but without realizing the very essence of those same rules and exceptions to such, hence the quotation marks. Sarujo could have easily found the sources himself, just as I just have. He could also listen to reason and understand that although WP:FILMPLOT is written about, well, film plots, it could apply in a different paragraph, provided a part of the plot is discussed, and in this case, Cartman calls it "the LeBron James technique" and proceeds to a perfect parody of the commercial, including verbatim quotes. The reason Sarujo is doing what he does is that he, like many other South Park/Family Guy etc. regular patrollers, thinks mentioning the numerous cultural references and parodies (from which these kinds of shows derive much of their humor and general content) is "trivial" and "unnecessary". This is where the exhaustion technique comes in handy: make other editors run for sources, dismiss as many as you can by questioning their reliability, thus making the editors run and find other sources, and eventually dismiss the whole section for being "unencyclopedic". THIS IS THE AIDS THAT IS KILLING WIKIPEDIA. You can call it a personal attack, but I'm just blowing off steam because I'm pissed off and I'd like to see some change around here. This is why I refused to be the one who gives up on his opinion and starts "begging" the others for permission on the discussion board. I knew that by posting the {{3RR}} template on his talk page I'd encourage him to be the one who starts the discussion thread, to which I'm not generally opposed, but in such cases it's being extensively abused to drain energy out of editors that feel that cultural references and parodies constitute a valid and important part of an episode and should be listed as such, and when it's too obvious shouldn't be removed on sight, especially when such removals are the lion's share of a specific editor's contributions. At that point, instead of telling me that in your opinion I was wrong and would be blocked if continued to engage in such behavior (rest assured I'd reason with you instead of "bashing my head against the wall"), you abruptly blocked me. Please tell me why, hopefully after reading my entire reply. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating, but edit warring is never the answer. There are other forms of dispute resolution -- for example, you could open an WP:RFC/U on his behavior, if you think it's spread over a large enough range of articles that discussion on any single one would not solve the problem. The reason I didn't warn you is that you had already warned him about 3RR, so you were aware of the rule, and that you have been warned (and blocked) before for engaging in edit warring. 3RR is a hard-and-fast limit, not an entitlement. I'd suggest you place yourself under a one-revert rule, to make sure you don't run up against it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

hullaballoo and dekki, edit war on pornographic articles

yesterday hullaballoo and dekki edit warred on various article about japanese models, i reluctantly* stepped in and reverted HW once with a stern warning and spoke to him via my talk page, i haven't taken it further as its a day old but the edit war was quite wide spread, do we drag HW to ANI or do we wait to see if the war flares up again, since both sides don't want to surrender. *(i don't want to go back to those 'ahem' articles again as there em a bit dirty x_X) --Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NFCC violation at Hitomi Kobayashi

We went through this already, back in July. As admin KWW pointed out then, "But he was not mistaken. Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd, especially since it's a blatantly obvious NFCC#1 violation. His removal makes it clear that there was not a consensus to restore the material. Anyone could have taken the material to FFD. If somehow a consensus was achieved that this was one of the vanishingly rare exceptions to the general agreement that copyrighted pictures cannot be used to illustrate BLPs, it could be restored. Until that agreement is reached, the image can't be in the article. It was the restoration that was disruptive, not the removal.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) A test case was also run at FFD with a clear and strong consensus for deletion. There was lengthy discussion on the policy talk, without any resulting change in the policy language or enforcement practices. Over the last few months, I've reviewed thousands of nonfree images, removing several hundred using virtually identical edit summaries and rationales, and the only significant controversy has come from a small group of users insisting on special treatment for articles about Japanese porn, and who press the same arguments repeatedly despite community rejection. We don't need to rehash a settled issue every time an old NFCC violation turns up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Then challenge the fair-use criteria on the image, not on the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the process called for by NFCC policy, nor is it consistent with the established consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Note on this, Sarek. WP's tolerance for HW's constant, non-stop edit-warring has caused me to stop contributing here. The "edit-wars" seen above were just demonstrations of HW's standard behavior for the benefit of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The real edit-wars were in the past. About the image, frankly, after a change in "policy" a few years ago, I've accepted their removed without complaint. This image removal was part of a mass-removal of sourced content over numerous articles I've worked on. Purely coincidentally, the removal was going on while I was criticizing HW at the RfC... Dekkappai (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The image has a presumably-valid fair-use criteria for that article, HW. Therefore, it is usable on that article. If you think the fair-use criteria is invalid, the image page is the place to do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no valid fair use for that picture to be in the infobox of her BLP representing her when t is quite possible to have a commons valid license, do you mind it I remove it from the article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mind. The Image page says it's valid to use there. Challenge it there, then it makes sense to remove it from the article. Until the NFUR is shown to be invalid, there's no reason to remove the link. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we are advised in BLP to err on the side of caution, carry on as you feel, but usually say, if in doubt, take it out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That "presumably valid" justification was rejected by a clear and strong consensus several months ago, in the discussions I cited. Why do you believe it's necessary to waste editors' time going through the process ad nauseam? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Franz Lidz revision

Dearest Sarek, Would you please explain your objection to my revision? The story referred to is no doubt "rollicking" -- it's quite comical and was rchly written by a journalist who specializes in satire. The use of the word "questionable" would also seem to be beyond question -- the entire point of the story was to question the ethics and claims of Garside, who openly admited to lying and cheating. I'm puzzled by your beef with these two rather benign adjectives -- they accurately convey the gist of the feature story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthBTold212 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When used here, they're uncited personal opinion relating to a biography of a living person, and are therefore inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

pic copyright

Please, accept that the pic has no good right to be inn the infobox, and it can be discuss, we don't have to keep it there if it is a violation, do we? Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Well what should i do? he(http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Edokter) is presenting sources that are not reliable, i try to discuss with him but he doesn't understand !—Mehdioa (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback