Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov

Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3#Valeri Lilov. Cunard (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

• News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive

• In the news: Amazon "shopping-enabling" Misplaced Pages; Al Jazeera interview; be like Misplaced Pages

• GLAM-WIKI London: British Museum hosts two days of talks between Wikimedia and the cultural sector

• WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak

• WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

• Features and admins: Birds and insects

• Arbitration report: New case: World War II

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

Note

Note that I use endless IP's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.30.73 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you'll just have to respect your block the old-fashioned way, then, through self-restraint. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Concern

Did I do something wrong? Tiderolls 03:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I did. I declined it as a simple and obvious legal threat. Then I saw your comment saying that there was a good case for unblocking, realized there must be more than I was seeing, and, since I wanted to go to sleep, not stay up and look into it more closely, I undid myself to let someone else think about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. To clarify; my post there was more of sympathy for someone that perceived they were in a catch-22, not a support of their position. They did not offer a retraction at that point and the Foundation had not replied to my e-mail so, in my opinion, unblocking was not indicated. I was open to other opinions, though. Just a bit of "new admin angst". See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you get a chance...

Hi FisherQueen if you can spare a few minutes I'd appreciate your input on this.--Cailil 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I favor topic-banning everyone from the subject of the preferred terminology of the British Isles/England/Great Britain/Wales/Ireland/Eire/Northern Ireland/Londonderry/Derry/Etc]]. I propose that from now on, we just call the whole damned pair of islands "Those Fucking Islands Over There." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Support. WP:TFIOT for short. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL I understand and agree TBH. But seriously I'm stuck with a serious 'zombie issue' this thread keeps dying on ANi and the problem keeps coming back. The account isn't changing behaviour and ANi is, understandibly sick of hearing about teh British Isles.--Cailil 03:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just call them a bunch of Poms. That's what we do. Sorted. Uncensored Kiwi 14:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice re Delicious carbuncle

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At ANI, BLPN, NPOVN, WT:SCN, and multiple other locations, this user is abusing forumshopping and attempting to game the system in retaliation for my reporting the user to ANI over the user's BLP violations and the user's disruption on the topic of WP:ARBSCI with those selfsame BLP violations. What can be done about this? Should the user be reported for forumshopping-disruption related to WP:ARBSCI? Multiple users have commented that the user's counter-claims have little merit.

1. ARBSCI notice
2. BLP violations
3. Gaming and forumshopping

Thoughts??? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's already a thread about it at ANI. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The thread about ANI has turned into a forum for Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) to attack me, a tactic used by the user to deflect attention away from his earlier BLP violations. There is no thread about his forum-shopping across multiple pages, is there? -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In that ANI thread I brought up my concerns about several articles, some of which had BLP issues. I left a note at the BLPN noticeboard directing people to the ANI thread so that those issues could be addressed, but I saw that they were not, so, as suggested to me in that ANI thread, I opened discussions at the BLP noticeboard. I have taken care to outline my concerns as neutrally as possible, without naming any editors at all. I do not understand why Cirt would object to people looking at possible BLP issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

DC, I'm not really interested in refereeing this particular game, but it's pretty clear to me that you're about six inches from an indefinite block for POV-pushing related to Scientology. If you aren't here at wikipedia mainly to advance Scientology, it would be a really swell idea to back way off of that subject and write about something else for a while. I'm not doing anything but saying that much tonight, because I don't generally block when I've had quite as much wine as this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I generally find you a pretty astute and reasonable person FisherQueen, but you are waaaaay off the mark here. In the years that I have been here, I don't think I have ever edited a Scientology-related article until my recent edits to Jamie Sorrentini (who may not even qualify as related, depending on who you ask). What POV am I supposed to be pushing here? Pro- or anti- Scientology? My interest is in upholding our neutrality and BLP guidelines which have been trampled by Cirt's anti-Scientology POV-pushing. I am really not interested in Scientology except as it relates to the situation at hand. Take another look at the ANI thread please. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, in multiple cases, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) failed to even attempt any prior discussion at the articles' talk pages about these issues. The user went straight to escalating the issue, in many different instances. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: : Please see diff, and diff. The disruption by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) continues, despite warnings from multiple admins, the user reverts and disrupts ANI against multiple editors. Can action be taken with regards to this user? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

if I might interject for one second, he has been warned personally on his talk page and several times by other editors that his actions are inappropriate and disruptive. I feel that a good faith effort has been made to correct the problem by addressing DC directly. The only thing that has accomplished is DC's refusal to go to Scientology pages, a tactic to avoid WP:ARBSCI sanctions possibly.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Now at AE

Regarding above involving Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), now at AE, please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Delicious_carbuncle. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Cirt, this clearly has nothing to do with Carbuncle and Sceintology, but Carbuncle and you. He's not trying to advance some POV vis-a-vis Scientology he's started a campaign against you. That might have it's own cause for blocks, or perhaps interaction bans (as opposed to topic bans) but lets face the facts here. The more I see people chime in about how Carbuncle needs to stop editing Scientology related pages (something he hasn't done at all, minus the one piece of bait he laid out for Cirt) the more I'm convinced that no one bothers to read past the first two sentences of anything anyone around here writes anymore. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

His disruption on the topic, including WP:POINT violation and WP:BLP violation, falls under the remit of two prior arbitration cases on the topic, and therefore can be dealt with in that capacity. -- Cirt (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense but that sounds like Wikilawyering to me, and is it even actionable given his state of notification about the prior arbitration case when he edited Jamie Sorrentini? If there is disruption or misbehavior by Carbuncle, my point is simply that this disruption is not topic focussed (e.g. Scientology) but editor focussed (e.g. Cirt). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The disruptive behavior and WP:POINT violations by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is focused on both. Per his own admissions. See his comment. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What you quote shows that "your agenda" (according to Carbuncle) is his focus. What he claims your agenda is itself centered on does not become his focus also. Anyway in the sentence you quote "Cirt's anti-scientology agenda" is the object noun and not "Scientology".Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He has caused disruption with and relating to the topic. The two arbitration cases specifically have remedies and ways of dealing with his behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why this conversation is happening at my talk page. -17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)