Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 28 October 2010

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

October 2010

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Appeal

The only way to appeal this is via e-mail? Well that sucks, the block would have expired before it got sorted. So much for blocks being preventative not punitive, the usual pile of bollocks, typical. mark (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

hang in there man, others agree may agree the block was an error. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are very few acceptable excuses for violating a bright-line edit restriction. To do so more than once is a bit worse... BigK HeX (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I only did it the once, the third was a blp violation. A mistake over a few hours leads to a one week block? that is punitive mark (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't follow very closely, but I don't recall you referring to your actions as a mistake or accident ... I could well have missed it though. My quick skim of the issue gave me the impression that you stood by your actions pretty stridently. Dunno... BigK HeX (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi Mark, sorry to see you blocked again, you really do need to stay away from those arbitration articles', while you are blocked I have a small job I would like looking at, are you interested, I can mail you the details if you are, shouldn't take more than a two or three hours going through some contributions and making a report as to the edit patterns? Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure mate fire away, i am home most of tomorrow mark (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, bit late but there is no real rush, better a decent look and a detailed report. I have mailed you. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could someone be so kind as to revert this sock please mark (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done VernoWhitney (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers mate mark (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuff for Communist terrorism

Comrades!: a history of world communism By Robert Service Terrorism versus democracy: the liberal state response

1. Schwab, Gail M.; Jeanneney, John R. (30 June 1995). The French Revolution of 1789 and its impact. Greenwood Press. p. 293. ISBN 978-0313293399.
2. Andrew Silke (24 August 2004). Research on terrorism: trends, achievements & failures. Routledge. p. 206. ISBN 978-0714653112.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob

With respect to this comment, you may have missed the context that the precipitating action was an edit war involving Off2riorob's repeated insertion of dodgy material at William Connolley, for which he has now received a very strong warning under the climate change discretionary sanctions. .

To fully observe your "Remedy 3" topic ban it would be wise to step away immediately. I will remove your comment. --TS 12:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You will do no such thing. I am commenting on a proposed sanction on an editor. I am not commenting on a CC article at all, thank you mark (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it to WP:AE and see what the view is on this. --TS 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do, until such a time as clarification is given i expect you to unstrike my comments mark (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is your formal notification . --TS 13:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss? You file an enforcement request against me instead of just asking for clarification? Words fail me. mark (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I want you to understand that I don't think there's any question about this. You've broken your topic ban. You disagree with this, you clearly have every intention of continuing as at present, so the only thing to do is take it uninvolved admins, and that means filing a case at WP:AE. They've specifically asked editors not to make freeform entries there. --TS 13:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That`s bollocks tony, it would have been far easier to ask one of the arbs for clarification mark (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I request clarification as the sole remedy. --TS 13:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorism

You are being discussed at the ANI noticeboard. TFD (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

<Appeal moved to AN> NW (Talk) 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nuke mark (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, mate. Don't see why there wasn't a way for the arbs to just clarify to you that you were half an inch over the line of your topic ban (and therefore give you a chance to stop on your own and not do it again). This whole thing is going bonkers; I think I'm about to de-watchlist the whole set of CC articles except for the few in areas that touch my professional work. I don't know enough to do consistent quality work in the others, this area's long since stopped being fun or interesting, and I think we're all getting a little too annoyed with the whole thing. Awickert (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about it, it`s not like i was doing it purposfully either, this block is shite enforced by the same mark (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just it (though I'm too much of a softie to use the rough language...). You can't be respected if you don't give respect. Awickert (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me if i can be unblocked to work in my userspace only? It is a pain trying to create an article in word :O( mark (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Was curious, so I googled. This OpenOffice extension (see also this description) seems to let you edit in OpenOffice (which is a lot like Word) and then upload to WP or another MediaWiki project. Here's an article about it that says it's pretty good.

Option B of course is to spend time doing a less-stressful hobby, which is coming towards the front of my table of options... though I enjoy the crowd at the geology articles so much that I don't think I'll ever give WP up entirely :) Awickert (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: If you use it and you like it, could you let me know? I'll do the same if get a chance to download it. Awickert (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Course i will, i`ll give it a try over the weekend if time allows mark (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That's sooner than I think I'll get to it. Awickert (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TFD (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's anything you'd like for me to copy to the page, please post it here and I'm sure someone will be glad to copy it over. Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block reset

For evading your block as 81.94.201.92 (talk), your block has been reset. T. Canens (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And due to the personal attacks, you've lost access to this talk page for the duration. Courcelles 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am reviewing the checkuser evidence relevant to this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles thank you, and thank you Brad for checking this out mark (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i see it has been archived now but this was my defence

This diff from TFD he says the same book is here on my talk page, so it is please note the timestamps. Now is it all so surprising that i would copy that over as it looks like a good source? The 9/11 thing, am i the only person here who thinks this was in fact the worst terrorist attack in the US? Is it really all that surprising that another editor would change that? Tripe, come on am i the sort of person who says tripe?

TFD says the IP is from the uk, i traced it. It is in Gosporth I live in Aldbourne TFD lives in London btw so i fail to see how an ip in the uk can be said to be me. This appears to me to be a person who is acting like me, in the hope of getting me banned. It is most certainly not me and i would request a CU done to prove it. Thanks. mark (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser shows no technical evidence that would reflect socking. I have not reviewed the behavioral evidence, and am aware of this editor's prior problems as reflected in the Climate change arbitration decisions. However, the block extension should be reconsidered in light of the possibility that someone else was trolling by impersonating Marknutley's mannerisms in an attempt to provoke precisely this result. (I cannot offer any suggestions as to who that person might have been, if that is what occurred; there are no other edits on this IP.)

I note that although it is stated above that talkpage access was being revoked, this does not seem to have actually happened. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did revoke it, then I restored it after Mark and I exchanged e-mails. If the technical information doesn't support socking, then I'd say the extension needs to be overturned, which would shorten teh block by 2 days, six hours, and ten minutes. Courcelles 20:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, is it possible to have it written that i have not in fact socked? mark (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We cannot prove that you did not sock. CU can only give positive evidence. In this case it has not, as pointed out by NYB above. I've added this to the SPI for clarity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was correcting myself on the talkpage-access point and just hit an edit conflict with you (Courcelles). In checking the talkpage status I mistakenly looked in the protection log rather than the block log.

On a separate matter, I posted a question to Marknutley last night in the context of his arbitration clarification request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I missed it brad, were did you post? mark (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it, in reply yes of course, it is why i stopped weeks before the case closed, to prove my good intent mark (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the checkuser data does not support the ban evasion block. And I would not have blocked based on seeing the checkuser information and MN on site comments in defense of the accusation of socking. As far as I'm concerned MN did not use an alternative account inappropriately unless further evidence is brought forward. So, he can say that he did not sock as far as I'm concerned. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's good enough for me. Changed the block back to its original expiration time. T. Canens (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone :o) finally a happy ending for me mark (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW would someone here tell the editors on Right-wing terrorism that this is still wrong and i believe knowingly putting obviously wrong information into the wiki is not a good thing mark (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man, good of you mark (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Brad's question

In case you hadn't noticed with all the drama, Brad asked if you would make an undertaking here. --Martin (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)