![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
like the study. -- L I C 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is intentional or not, your huge warning about edit warring can be interpreted by a reasonable person as being aggressive and edit warring. You could have noticed that I've stepped back from the article and used the talk pages and did not repetitively put back material. Furthermore, you put your big warning not even the same day as the editing in the article and I did no editing to the India article today so I could observe it.
Some with less restrain or bigger tempers could interpret your big red warning as hostile or even disruption on your part by creating a hostile Wikipedia environment.
I am telling you this so that you may reconsider when you do it to someone else. Courtesy goes a long way but aggressiveness is the cause to many administrator type disputes, as some of the noticeboards prove. Let's work together to improve Wikipedia and treat everyone with kindness and respect, Mr. Dare! This will help everyone and Wikipedia! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's what has happened:
1821 25 Sept India article, sentence about Goa (a disputed territory) placed after text about disputed territories
1838 25 Sept, removed
1909 25 Sept, 1821 edit put back but added references (thought that was the problem as the 1838 edit had no talk page explanation)
1919 25 Sept, talk page discussion started by me regarding 1909 edit by me
1912 25 Sept, 1909 edit remobed by Abecedare citing in the edit summary "revert undue, pov, and poor sourced" 1952 25 Sept, talk page Abecedare but objects to linking Goa with China/Pakistan and the use of a Lonely Planet reference
2327 25 Sept, as a result of talk page discussion, the reverted Goa text is NOT put back but Goa is added as a now reduced to a phrase, not even a sentence, with link for more info and reference to prove it happened, and with no link the China/Pakistan but rather placed in a new area about de-colonialisation. This satisfies the objection the Abecedare mentioned in the talk page. Abecedare might not have liked it, but I cannot read his mind, only his talk page comments (which it complies with). Summary: new location in the article, not linked with China/Pakistan, better reference used, very short/only a phrase, not even a sentence.
0256 26 Sept, Abecedare: revert, later states in talk page that Abecedare doesn't think Goa is important enough, a claim refuted by Gaunkers of Goa.
Analysis:
1. didn't put the text back with China/Pakistan anymore as per Abecedare wanted.
2. found a better reference as Abecedare wanted.
3. Always kept on coming up with suggestions for improvement and compromise while Abecedare is firm on having his way, no exceptions. This is dangerous as an administrator because it can quickly turn into bullying.
4. Abecedare, himself, is involved and threatening block when he should also be threatening himself, too, as he is an involved party.
Possible solution:
1. Continued discussion of the article on as friendly and polite terms as possible.
2. Discussion about the warning template (see new section below).
Suomi Finland 2009 (
talk)
19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Like it or not, the warning template is harsh except for unmistakenable edit/revert/edit/revert situations.
Using a template warning is no excuse. You must always be responsible for what you sign your name to.
Instead of this:
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
India. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Consider the following, which I may make into an alternate warning template:
We currently appear to be engaged in an edit/revert cycle in the article,
India. Note that there is a three-revert rule that prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator
blocking an editor from editing.
...or if one objects to "we", then...
I would like to inform you of an important Wikipedia rule about edit/revert cycles, which seem to be happening in the article,
India. Note that there is a three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator
blocking an editor from editing.
Both of these avoid the "you are committing a crime, you are disruption, you will be blocked" when there could very well be an explanation or even a talk page discussion started.
Does anything that I'm writing about the warning template make sense? Don't you think this might be a useful addition to Wikipedia? I hope we can have some friendly and productive discussion about this section. This would be very nice and show that we are both reasonable people, not hardheads! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
After seeing some of your edits, I would like to inform you of an important Wikipedia rule about edit/revert cycles. In particular, this seems to be happening in the article,
India. Note that there is a three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator
blocking an editor from editing.
How about this? It is a reminder, but a bit stronger than a general informational message. However, there is a subtle disclaimer ("seems") to cover something that the offending editor may have written in the talk pages but we might have missed. If you concur with the language, I'll suggest it as an alternate, sort of a warning 3b, not a replacement of warning 3. If you don't concur, let me know what changes you think are useful. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 21:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have your talk page watchlisted but I do check talk pages where I've left messages for a few days after the discussion is finished. I've left you a message on your RFA as #70. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Good thing I checked the list this wekk YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes,You are right ,I forgot that I shouldnt feed the trolls. Just revert and ignore 'im. -- Deepak D'Souza 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS ( talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I would have blocked him for a lot longer than 3 hours, given that every one of his edits is vandalism or junk, and that he appears to be a sock. Unless he's IP-hopping, in which case it probably doesn't matter. → Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Could pls review this article. I think there a POV issues, weasel terms, WP:SYNTH; Thanks. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 08:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you take a look at this and following if you're interested? Of course Gandhi did and said many weird things as part of his "experiments", but it's not necessary to include them all in excruciating detail. (The section also has some POV issues; "became public knowledge" sounds as if it had been kept secret, etc.) I expect that the article talk page history has some discussion owing to which this was removed in the first place, but I'm getting weary of editing popular articles because of all the tug-of-war required. :) Shreevatsa ( talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
For quickly killing a dispute between me and an IP and setting things strait. Marx01 Tell me about it 01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
Also I was unaware of the not being able to strike that out; I assumed it was unimportant as the dispute was already being solved. Thanks for the info.
Marx01
Tell me about it
01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for obliging with a pretty in depth interview. I am sure u will make a gud admin (vr short of tht cat in WP:Hinduism and u will provide gud relief!) Cheers, Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you see the AIV report? [1] A user you blocked is not just a vandal, but is linking to a page that has malware. I'm particularly interested in ensuring the site is blocked from being added to pages. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Ameerh elnour/India User:Ameerh elnour/English-language User:Ameerh elnour//Aamir Khan
They are unattributed copies of mainspace articles. Can it be a speedy or should it go to MfD? If neither, then I'll just remove the categories from the pages. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡ Hobbes 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr administrator. It appears that you have ended up doing some big injustice without checking the facts. Peryou blocked anon User: 32.177.111.155 simply because he was trying to protect wikipedia??? Please correct this error otherwise your injustice/blocking comments are going to harm both innocent editors in their future as well. It can basically kill those innocent editors’ zeal to work on Wikipedia.
It was actually the reporting user User:Neutralhomer who ruthlessly suppressed others voice and kept on removing the referenced text by blatantly refusing to accept the wp:rs reliability of various internationally known newspapers and a very notable google book which is already part of wikipedia, i.e. Reduced to Ashes (book). User:Neutralhomer refused to accept following references only because he did not like them:
And please look at his edit summaries/lies in this matter.
If editor 32.177.111.155 participated in the edit war then User:Neutralhomer also did the same, and both reverted each other’s versions exactly same number of time (3 times). {A humble question, why only one ditor was blocked and why not the reporting editor who actually lied in his edit summaries and violated WP:POV by pushing his own version and did destruction of the article by killing world famous references}. It appears 32.177.111.155 actually stopped editing Labh Singh after three reverts to avoid violating wp:3rr. If he owned 2nd IP 209.183.55.115 as well, then he could have done the same through his 2nd IP while staying within wikipedia policies. It means he was not related to the 2nd IP at all.
How can User: 32.177.111.155 and User: 209.183.55.115 be sockpuppets when a respected Wikipedia checkuser administrator declined declaring both users sockpuppets. And when reporting user himself accepted the same.
Reporting user, himself mentioned that User: 209.183.55.115 is licensed to Concord, CA and User: 32.177.111.155 is licensed to Los Angeles. How can they be sockpuppets when both of these cities are 6-7 hours of drive from each other? And it usually takes 1.5 hours of flight time if you want to fly from one city to another. Also how can they be sockpuppets when User: 209.183.55.115 never participated in the edit war but instead he simply warned and warned reporting editor against violation of Wikipedia policies. Is simple warning constitute sockpuppetry?
It appears that actual vandal Neutralhomer was able to miss-use communication gap between Wikipedia administrators to violate Wikipedia policies and get some honest editors blocked.
First he ruthlessly deleted the text + world famous references which he didn’t like – * Proof 1, * Proof 2, * Proof 3.
Then once he received warnings – Proof 1 and Proof 2, he tried to suppress the opponents by contacting an administrator Proof 1, Proof 2, Proof 3 and every time he failed Proof 1, Proof 2 so while hiding this fact that he has already contacted an administrator but ‘could not get success, he went to administrator’s noticeboard to point towards AIV so that he could get desired results from some other administrator. He even lied that city of Concord and city of Los Angeles are next to each other to achieve his goals (ASAP) from some non-US administrators before some US based administrator could read his lies by the morning in the US. And finally he achieved what he desired.
Kindly reconsider your block and please do justice with innocent editors. -- 144.160.130.16 ( talk) 18:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have re-formatted it here, may be it will clear out some confusion-
It appears that Admin User:Abecedare has ended up doing some big injustice without checking the facts. Per he has blocked anon User: 32.177.111.155 simply because he was trying to protect Wikipedia. Please correct this error otherwise this injustice and blocking comments are going to harm both innocent editors ( User: 32.177.111.155 and User: 209.183.55.115 ) and their zeal to work on wikipedia and their future contributions/history as well.
Why User Talk: 32.177.111.155's Block was unjustified
User Talk: 32.177.111.155’s edits do not constitute vandalism
He simply restored duly referenced text.
User Talk: 32.177.111.155 did not violate WP:3rr
He did not violate WP:3RR and he simply quit editing.
User Talk: 32.177.111.155 can not be a called a sockpuppet
Why Neutralhomer’s edits constitute violation of Wikipedia policies
Editor Neutralhomer repeatedly deleted duly referenced tex
Editor Neutralhomer repeatedly lied
Neutralhomer lied/mislead Wikipedia community through his edit summaries and statements.
Editor Neutralhomer repeatedly violated WP:POV
User:Neutralhomer ruthlessly suppressed others voice and kept on removing the referenced text by blatantly refusing to accept the wp:rs reliability of various internationally known newspapers and a very notable google book which is already part of wikipedia, i.e. Reduced to Ashes (book). User:Neutralhomer refused to accept following references only because he could not like them:
Editor Neutralhomer cunningly mis-used miss-communication between Wikipedia admins
Once Neutralhomer received warnings – Proof 1 and Proof 2, he tried to suppress the opponents by contacting an administrator Proof 1, Proof 2, Proof 3 and every time he failed Proof 1, Proof 2 so while hiding this fact that he has already contacted an administrator but ‘could not get anons declared socks’, he went to administrator’s noticeboard to point towards AIV so that he could get desired results from some other administrator. He even lied that city of Concord and city of Los Angeles are next to each other to achieve his goals (ASAP) from some non-US administrators before some US based administrator could read his lies by the morning in the US. And finally he achieved what he desired.
Why Administrators should reconsider User: 32.177.111.155’s block and blocking history
I have replied at WP:AN, and it would be best to keep the discussion in one place. Abecedare ( talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
--I have never contributed to wikipedia prior to this day but I love reading wikipedia articles/stories especially about sikhism/India. After reading above mentioned proofs, I have felt somewhat compelled to say that you were wrong. You did not do right by blocking several innocent users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.187.168.78 ( talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Indian Barnstar of National Merit | |
WP:INDIA sincerely thanks User:Abecedare for his contributions to the WikiProject. And congrats again for the recent successful RFA. We are proud of you! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
.
I wouldn't say controversial! If he's a US citizen, that's his right and it doesn't bother me one way or another. Personally, I saw U.S. citizen on the Nobel site this lunchtime (Spanish time), which is why I added it to his page. Later, that comment was removed from the Nobel site, and only his UK residence appears. That makes me think that the US citizenship was a simple mistake by the Nobel Foundation (these things happen, as we all know). Given that the passport(s) that he holds is irrelevent to his great achievements, I'd say we just shut up about it until we know a little bit better, no?! Physchim62 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you take this to AFD for me? I don't know how to. -- Tunnuz ( talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you masochistic yet? See Venki Ramakrishnan and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan. Shreevatsa ( talk) 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare, I think GVU is pushing his point of view on the Barack Obama article. Now, he has inserted {{NPOV}} without discussing with anyone. See [3]. AdjustShift ( talk) 14:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be an uninvolved admin on this issue, could you please have a look at this ANI thread and evaluate as appropriate? Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you pls respond here : Talk:Bhagavad_Gita#Lead_image ? Nvineeth ( talk) 11:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Since ANI is protected, would you take a look at this edit (as well as others by this editor) and see if it violates WP:NLT? 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 16:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Can protection be removed now? 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 17:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You recent block was inadequate, considering that this is a completely unacceptable real world threat. He should be blocked indefinitely, not with an expiration. Perhaps he might apologise in an unblock request, otherwise, he is not welcome to continue here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Now here's your
. Get to work! (I know it's about you and not about me but you should see the satisfied smirk on my face!) --
RegentsPark (
sticks and stones)
20:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Congrats to Abecedare on becoming an admin following successful RFA, and also congrats to RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff for beating me here. =) The admins' reading list, new admin school, and how-to guide are good places to start if uncomfortable. -- Pak aran 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Congrats! Good luck avoiding tar pits!-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all! ... but I am a bit confused and disappointed. I haven't received the missives and access codes from the Supreme Cabal yet, and I am still having to wear my pants one leg at a time. At least the bumps on my head are developing nicely, although to be frank, that feels just like an headache. Have to rush off now but will keep you abreast of developments. :-) Abecedare ( talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure you will be a great admin. Well Done. Aaroncrick ( talk) 06:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
Congrats, Abecedare. 111/0/0! Never seen anything like that before. Either you truly have no enemies, the likely scenario of course, or the opposers were snuffed out by RegentsPark's goon squad before they reached the polling booth. :) If it is the latter, please let me know; I might need that muscle on some problem pages myself. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hope you wont mind this edit on ur userpage :) -- Tinu Cherian - 06:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Saw you on AIV. Congrats on adminship. Sorry I wasn't around to voice my support but I am certain that you will do a fantastic job. Best regards -- Samir 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! Look forward to seeing you around in a position of more authority Bows down in reverence :-) Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 09:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Very belated congratulations on a very well deserved successful RfA! The official tally (111/0/0) and closing date (10/01) were oddly binary for someone who could never be accused of binary (black and white) thinking. But it is strange enough that I'm looking into End Times prophecies, Nostradamus, and the Mayan Calendar to see what all of this might mean. Best of luck with the shiny new buttons. Priyanath talk 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Topic 1.
In my experience forced apologies are not really useful but if the user does continue in this vein after the current block ends, he won't be editing here for long. Abecedare (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not research the background of the matter but what you wrote is very wise advice. You are a wise administrator.
Topic 2.
Remember our little disagreement which led to agreement and smiles? I'm asking you the following question because of your wisdom. WP:AN would not be the right place to ask.
Topic 2A. I was looking through the list of unblock requests as I am counseling a blocked user, Gaunkers of Goa (I'm asking him not to make threats and not to repeatedly ask for unblock otherwise his user talk page will be page protected. I want him to alert me of references on Goa for self education and possibly inserting from 0 to 1 sentence (no more, maybe not even adding anything) about Goa.
When I discovered that there was a policy issue about someone else who is blocked, I asked an administrator to clarify the policy for me. I was not asking for unblock of that person. In response, the administrator almost accuses me of being connected with that person since he feels that nobody would be interested in the matter otherwise.
I find this almost accusatory.
My question to you is whether it is improper to read other people's unblock request and learn about policy (I'm not asking for anyone to be unblocked). If it is against Wikipedia custom to inquire about policy and how it relates to others or WP:MIND-YOUR-OWN-BUSINESS or WP:ASKING-ABOUT-BLOCKED-USERS-IS-FORBIDDEN-EVEN-IF-YOU-SUPPORT-THE-BLOCK, let me know.
You don't need to research the specific case. I'm just asking you in general. However, FYI, here are the quotes:
You wrote the following...
Secondly, as you can see from the policy contained in WP:COI, you would not be allowed to edit aricles about your own company. What else would you like to edit in wikipedia? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annmarieburnett"
So Mr. X, Founder of XYZ Tire Repair Garage, must never edit in the XYZ Tire Repair Garage article? I can see the logic but is that true (must never edit it)? If yes, just say so with no need for a lengthy explanation.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Above question:
___ Yes
___ No
Most recent response:
I remain unclear as to why, if you and user:Annmarieburnett are not connected, the question is relevant to you.
Possible translation:
You and her are socks and, if you don't shut up, you will be blocked and will rot in hell.
My enthusiasm for editing has suddenly been lost. I am going on wikibreak for a day or two. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your wise response. Content building should be a primary goal of all editors. It seems that some people do not do this. For example, a few administrators have become so active on the WP:ANI board or similar areas that they no longer write content. Vandals are similarly not contributors to good content in Wikipedia. As far as action, the only action requested was that you reply with wisdom, which you did. Happy Deepavali! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I appreciate your concern regarding being collegial and civil to fellow editors. However, since the last activity on the Ramakrishna article was me being told by an administrator that I am not allowed to merely place the POV template on an article that absolutely, clearly, indefensibly POV...I guess I don't feel like I am included in the suppossedly collegial atmosphere here. None of the concerned editors mentioned on my user page have voiced a single word of dissent. They appear to be perfectly happy to leave the page dominated by religious dogma, with the academic, scholarly perspective unrepresented. So your concerns seem to be unshared by the editors involved. If you would like to help settle the dispute, please let me know. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look and provide some feedback at the talk page? Based on the previous round, I've changed and expanded the critical reception section. cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I've removed that image and added a different one (within the article, not infobox) and made the tweaks that YM suggested. Also, the article is at GAN now. Hopefully I get a reviewer soon :) cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Weaponsgrade ( talk · contribs). Does have a thing about Tamil. That one was CU confirmed YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 01:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for GAN. Please take a look. I need suggestions on overall article, especially WP:ALT policy implementation, not yet fully understood it. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You wont like the false but most of the admins out here are from another planet As per this where admin Pedro confesses being an alien a wiki admin and controlling our world and Tinu who has more time in a day than an average human being I think these people are using there powers to control our wikilife Oh wait you are an admin too noooo - NotedGrant Talk 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested here that you be considered as a mentor for user:Mattisse. Although you had said earlier that you were busy, I wonder if you might reconsider. I think someone with your clarity and perspective is needed there. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
like the study. -- L I C 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether it is intentional or not, your huge warning about edit warring can be interpreted by a reasonable person as being aggressive and edit warring. You could have noticed that I've stepped back from the article and used the talk pages and did not repetitively put back material. Furthermore, you put your big warning not even the same day as the editing in the article and I did no editing to the India article today so I could observe it.
Some with less restrain or bigger tempers could interpret your big red warning as hostile or even disruption on your part by creating a hostile Wikipedia environment.
I am telling you this so that you may reconsider when you do it to someone else. Courtesy goes a long way but aggressiveness is the cause to many administrator type disputes, as some of the noticeboards prove. Let's work together to improve Wikipedia and treat everyone with kindness and respect, Mr. Dare! This will help everyone and Wikipedia! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's what has happened:
1821 25 Sept India article, sentence about Goa (a disputed territory) placed after text about disputed territories
1838 25 Sept, removed
1909 25 Sept, 1821 edit put back but added references (thought that was the problem as the 1838 edit had no talk page explanation)
1919 25 Sept, talk page discussion started by me regarding 1909 edit by me
1912 25 Sept, 1909 edit remobed by Abecedare citing in the edit summary "revert undue, pov, and poor sourced" 1952 25 Sept, talk page Abecedare but objects to linking Goa with China/Pakistan and the use of a Lonely Planet reference
2327 25 Sept, as a result of talk page discussion, the reverted Goa text is NOT put back but Goa is added as a now reduced to a phrase, not even a sentence, with link for more info and reference to prove it happened, and with no link the China/Pakistan but rather placed in a new area about de-colonialisation. This satisfies the objection the Abecedare mentioned in the talk page. Abecedare might not have liked it, but I cannot read his mind, only his talk page comments (which it complies with). Summary: new location in the article, not linked with China/Pakistan, better reference used, very short/only a phrase, not even a sentence.
0256 26 Sept, Abecedare: revert, later states in talk page that Abecedare doesn't think Goa is important enough, a claim refuted by Gaunkers of Goa.
Analysis:
1. didn't put the text back with China/Pakistan anymore as per Abecedare wanted.
2. found a better reference as Abecedare wanted.
3. Always kept on coming up with suggestions for improvement and compromise while Abecedare is firm on having his way, no exceptions. This is dangerous as an administrator because it can quickly turn into bullying.
4. Abecedare, himself, is involved and threatening block when he should also be threatening himself, too, as he is an involved party.
Possible solution:
1. Continued discussion of the article on as friendly and polite terms as possible.
2. Discussion about the warning template (see new section below).
Suomi Finland 2009 (
talk)
19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Like it or not, the warning template is harsh except for unmistakenable edit/revert/edit/revert situations.
Using a template warning is no excuse. You must always be responsible for what you sign your name to.
Instead of this:
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
India. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Consider the following, which I may make into an alternate warning template:
We currently appear to be engaged in an edit/revert cycle in the article,
India. Note that there is a three-revert rule that prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator
blocking an editor from editing.
...or if one objects to "we", then...
I would like to inform you of an important Wikipedia rule about edit/revert cycles, which seem to be happening in the article,
India. Note that there is a three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator
blocking an editor from editing.
Both of these avoid the "you are committing a crime, you are disruption, you will be blocked" when there could very well be an explanation or even a talk page discussion started.
Does anything that I'm writing about the warning template make sense? Don't you think this might be a useful addition to Wikipedia? I hope we can have some friendly and productive discussion about this section. This would be very nice and show that we are both reasonable people, not hardheads! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
After seeing some of your edits, I would like to inform you of an important Wikipedia rule about edit/revert cycles. In particular, this seems to be happening in the article,
India. Note that there is a three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator
blocking an editor from editing.
How about this? It is a reminder, but a bit stronger than a general informational message. However, there is a subtle disclaimer ("seems") to cover something that the offending editor may have written in the talk pages but we might have missed. If you concur with the language, I'll suggest it as an alternate, sort of a warning 3b, not a replacement of warning 3. If you don't concur, let me know what changes you think are useful. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 21:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have your talk page watchlisted but I do check talk pages where I've left messages for a few days after the discussion is finished. I've left you a message on your RFA as #70. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Good thing I checked the list this wekk YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes,You are right ,I forgot that I shouldnt feed the trolls. Just revert and ignore 'im. -- Deepak D'Souza 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS ( talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I would have blocked him for a lot longer than 3 hours, given that every one of his edits is vandalism or junk, and that he appears to be a sock. Unless he's IP-hopping, in which case it probably doesn't matter. → Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Could pls review this article. I think there a POV issues, weasel terms, WP:SYNTH; Thanks. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 08:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you take a look at this and following if you're interested? Of course Gandhi did and said many weird things as part of his "experiments", but it's not necessary to include them all in excruciating detail. (The section also has some POV issues; "became public knowledge" sounds as if it had been kept secret, etc.) I expect that the article talk page history has some discussion owing to which this was removed in the first place, but I'm getting weary of editing popular articles because of all the tug-of-war required. :) Shreevatsa ( talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
For quickly killing a dispute between me and an IP and setting things strait. Marx01 Tell me about it 01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
Also I was unaware of the not being able to strike that out; I assumed it was unimportant as the dispute was already being solved. Thanks for the info.
Marx01
Tell me about it
01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for obliging with a pretty in depth interview. I am sure u will make a gud admin (vr short of tht cat in WP:Hinduism and u will provide gud relief!) Cheers, Around The Globe सत्यमेव जयते 12:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you see the AIV report? [1] A user you blocked is not just a vandal, but is linking to a page that has malware. I'm particularly interested in ensuring the site is blocked from being added to pages. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Ameerh elnour/India User:Ameerh elnour/English-language User:Ameerh elnour//Aamir Khan
They are unattributed copies of mainspace articles. Can it be a speedy or should it go to MfD? If neither, then I'll just remove the categories from the pages. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff Calvin‡ Hobbes 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr administrator. It appears that you have ended up doing some big injustice without checking the facts. Peryou blocked anon User: 32.177.111.155 simply because he was trying to protect wikipedia??? Please correct this error otherwise your injustice/blocking comments are going to harm both innocent editors in their future as well. It can basically kill those innocent editors’ zeal to work on Wikipedia.
It was actually the reporting user User:Neutralhomer who ruthlessly suppressed others voice and kept on removing the referenced text by blatantly refusing to accept the wp:rs reliability of various internationally known newspapers and a very notable google book which is already part of wikipedia, i.e. Reduced to Ashes (book). User:Neutralhomer refused to accept following references only because he did not like them:
And please look at his edit summaries/lies in this matter.
If editor 32.177.111.155 participated in the edit war then User:Neutralhomer also did the same, and both reverted each other’s versions exactly same number of time (3 times). {A humble question, why only one ditor was blocked and why not the reporting editor who actually lied in his edit summaries and violated WP:POV by pushing his own version and did destruction of the article by killing world famous references}. It appears 32.177.111.155 actually stopped editing Labh Singh after three reverts to avoid violating wp:3rr. If he owned 2nd IP 209.183.55.115 as well, then he could have done the same through his 2nd IP while staying within wikipedia policies. It means he was not related to the 2nd IP at all.
How can User: 32.177.111.155 and User: 209.183.55.115 be sockpuppets when a respected Wikipedia checkuser administrator declined declaring both users sockpuppets. And when reporting user himself accepted the same.
Reporting user, himself mentioned that User: 209.183.55.115 is licensed to Concord, CA and User: 32.177.111.155 is licensed to Los Angeles. How can they be sockpuppets when both of these cities are 6-7 hours of drive from each other? And it usually takes 1.5 hours of flight time if you want to fly from one city to another. Also how can they be sockpuppets when User: 209.183.55.115 never participated in the edit war but instead he simply warned and warned reporting editor against violation of Wikipedia policies. Is simple warning constitute sockpuppetry?
It appears that actual vandal Neutralhomer was able to miss-use communication gap between Wikipedia administrators to violate Wikipedia policies and get some honest editors blocked.
First he ruthlessly deleted the text + world famous references which he didn’t like – * Proof 1, * Proof 2, * Proof 3.
Then once he received warnings – Proof 1 and Proof 2, he tried to suppress the opponents by contacting an administrator Proof 1, Proof 2, Proof 3 and every time he failed Proof 1, Proof 2 so while hiding this fact that he has already contacted an administrator but ‘could not get success, he went to administrator’s noticeboard to point towards AIV so that he could get desired results from some other administrator. He even lied that city of Concord and city of Los Angeles are next to each other to achieve his goals (ASAP) from some non-US administrators before some US based administrator could read his lies by the morning in the US. And finally he achieved what he desired.
Kindly reconsider your block and please do justice with innocent editors. -- 144.160.130.16 ( talk) 18:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have re-formatted it here, may be it will clear out some confusion-
It appears that Admin User:Abecedare has ended up doing some big injustice without checking the facts. Per he has blocked anon User: 32.177.111.155 simply because he was trying to protect Wikipedia. Please correct this error otherwise this injustice and blocking comments are going to harm both innocent editors ( User: 32.177.111.155 and User: 209.183.55.115 ) and their zeal to work on wikipedia and their future contributions/history as well.
Why User Talk: 32.177.111.155's Block was unjustified
User Talk: 32.177.111.155’s edits do not constitute vandalism
He simply restored duly referenced text.
User Talk: 32.177.111.155 did not violate WP:3rr
He did not violate WP:3RR and he simply quit editing.
User Talk: 32.177.111.155 can not be a called a sockpuppet
Why Neutralhomer’s edits constitute violation of Wikipedia policies
Editor Neutralhomer repeatedly deleted duly referenced tex
Editor Neutralhomer repeatedly lied
Neutralhomer lied/mislead Wikipedia community through his edit summaries and statements.
Editor Neutralhomer repeatedly violated WP:POV
User:Neutralhomer ruthlessly suppressed others voice and kept on removing the referenced text by blatantly refusing to accept the wp:rs reliability of various internationally known newspapers and a very notable google book which is already part of wikipedia, i.e. Reduced to Ashes (book). User:Neutralhomer refused to accept following references only because he could not like them:
Editor Neutralhomer cunningly mis-used miss-communication between Wikipedia admins
Once Neutralhomer received warnings – Proof 1 and Proof 2, he tried to suppress the opponents by contacting an administrator Proof 1, Proof 2, Proof 3 and every time he failed Proof 1, Proof 2 so while hiding this fact that he has already contacted an administrator but ‘could not get anons declared socks’, he went to administrator’s noticeboard to point towards AIV so that he could get desired results from some other administrator. He even lied that city of Concord and city of Los Angeles are next to each other to achieve his goals (ASAP) from some non-US administrators before some US based administrator could read his lies by the morning in the US. And finally he achieved what he desired.
Why Administrators should reconsider User: 32.177.111.155’s block and blocking history
I have replied at WP:AN, and it would be best to keep the discussion in one place. Abecedare ( talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
--I have never contributed to wikipedia prior to this day but I love reading wikipedia articles/stories especially about sikhism/India. After reading above mentioned proofs, I have felt somewhat compelled to say that you were wrong. You did not do right by blocking several innocent users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.187.168.78 ( talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Indian Barnstar of National Merit | |
WP:INDIA sincerely thanks User:Abecedare for his contributions to the WikiProject. And congrats again for the recent successful RFA. We are proud of you! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
.
I wouldn't say controversial! If he's a US citizen, that's his right and it doesn't bother me one way or another. Personally, I saw U.S. citizen on the Nobel site this lunchtime (Spanish time), which is why I added it to his page. Later, that comment was removed from the Nobel site, and only his UK residence appears. That makes me think that the US citizenship was a simple mistake by the Nobel Foundation (these things happen, as we all know). Given that the passport(s) that he holds is irrelevent to his great achievements, I'd say we just shut up about it until we know a little bit better, no?! Physchim62 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you take this to AFD for me? I don't know how to. -- Tunnuz ( talk) 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you masochistic yet? See Venki Ramakrishnan and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan. Shreevatsa ( talk) 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Abecedare, I think GVU is pushing his point of view on the Barack Obama article. Now, he has inserted {{NPOV}} without discussing with anyone. See [3]. AdjustShift ( talk) 14:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be an uninvolved admin on this issue, could you please have a look at this ANI thread and evaluate as appropriate? Thank you for your time, Cirt ( talk) 03:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you pls respond here : Talk:Bhagavad_Gita#Lead_image ? Nvineeth ( talk) 11:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Since ANI is protected, would you take a look at this edit (as well as others by this editor) and see if it violates WP:NLT? 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 16:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Can protection be removed now? 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 17:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You recent block was inadequate, considering that this is a completely unacceptable real world threat. He should be blocked indefinitely, not with an expiration. Perhaps he might apologise in an unblock request, otherwise, he is not welcome to continue here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Now here's your
. Get to work! (I know it's about you and not about me but you should see the satisfied smirk on my face!) --
RegentsPark (
sticks and stones)
20:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Congrats to Abecedare on becoming an admin following successful RFA, and also congrats to RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff for beating me here. =) The admins' reading list, new admin school, and how-to guide are good places to start if uncomfortable. -- Pak aran 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Congrats! Good luck avoiding tar pits!-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all! ... but I am a bit confused and disappointed. I haven't received the missives and access codes from the Supreme Cabal yet, and I am still having to wear my pants one leg at a time. At least the bumps on my head are developing nicely, although to be frank, that feels just like an headache. Have to rush off now but will keep you abreast of developments. :-) Abecedare ( talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure you will be a great admin. Well Done. Aaroncrick ( talk) 06:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
Congrats, Abecedare. 111/0/0! Never seen anything like that before. Either you truly have no enemies, the likely scenario of course, or the opposers were snuffed out by RegentsPark's goon squad before they reached the polling booth. :) If it is the latter, please let me know; I might need that muscle on some problem pages myself. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hope you wont mind this edit on ur userpage :) -- Tinu Cherian - 06:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Saw you on AIV. Congrats on adminship. Sorry I wasn't around to voice my support but I am certain that you will do a fantastic job. Best regards -- Samir 03:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! Look forward to seeing you around in a position of more authority Bows down in reverence :-) Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 09:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Very belated congratulations on a very well deserved successful RfA! The official tally (111/0/0) and closing date (10/01) were oddly binary for someone who could never be accused of binary (black and white) thinking. But it is strange enough that I'm looking into End Times prophecies, Nostradamus, and the Mayan Calendar to see what all of this might mean. Best of luck with the shiny new buttons. Priyanath talk 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Topic 1.
In my experience forced apologies are not really useful but if the user does continue in this vein after the current block ends, he won't be editing here for long. Abecedare (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not research the background of the matter but what you wrote is very wise advice. You are a wise administrator.
Topic 2.
Remember our little disagreement which led to agreement and smiles? I'm asking you the following question because of your wisdom. WP:AN would not be the right place to ask.
Topic 2A. I was looking through the list of unblock requests as I am counseling a blocked user, Gaunkers of Goa (I'm asking him not to make threats and not to repeatedly ask for unblock otherwise his user talk page will be page protected. I want him to alert me of references on Goa for self education and possibly inserting from 0 to 1 sentence (no more, maybe not even adding anything) about Goa.
When I discovered that there was a policy issue about someone else who is blocked, I asked an administrator to clarify the policy for me. I was not asking for unblock of that person. In response, the administrator almost accuses me of being connected with that person since he feels that nobody would be interested in the matter otherwise.
I find this almost accusatory.
My question to you is whether it is improper to read other people's unblock request and learn about policy (I'm not asking for anyone to be unblocked). If it is against Wikipedia custom to inquire about policy and how it relates to others or WP:MIND-YOUR-OWN-BUSINESS or WP:ASKING-ABOUT-BLOCKED-USERS-IS-FORBIDDEN-EVEN-IF-YOU-SUPPORT-THE-BLOCK, let me know.
You don't need to research the specific case. I'm just asking you in general. However, FYI, here are the quotes:
You wrote the following...
Secondly, as you can see from the policy contained in WP:COI, you would not be allowed to edit aricles about your own company. What else would you like to edit in wikipedia? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annmarieburnett"
So Mr. X, Founder of XYZ Tire Repair Garage, must never edit in the XYZ Tire Repair Garage article? I can see the logic but is that true (must never edit it)? If yes, just say so with no need for a lengthy explanation.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Above question:
___ Yes
___ No
Most recent response:
I remain unclear as to why, if you and user:Annmarieburnett are not connected, the question is relevant to you.
Possible translation:
You and her are socks and, if you don't shut up, you will be blocked and will rot in hell.
My enthusiasm for editing has suddenly been lost. I am going on wikibreak for a day or two. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 23:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your wise response. Content building should be a primary goal of all editors. It seems that some people do not do this. For example, a few administrators have become so active on the WP:ANI board or similar areas that they no longer write content. Vandals are similarly not contributors to good content in Wikipedia. As far as action, the only action requested was that you reply with wisdom, which you did. Happy Deepavali! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message on my talk page. I appreciate your concern regarding being collegial and civil to fellow editors. However, since the last activity on the Ramakrishna article was me being told by an administrator that I am not allowed to merely place the POV template on an article that absolutely, clearly, indefensibly POV...I guess I don't feel like I am included in the suppossedly collegial atmosphere here. None of the concerned editors mentioned on my user page have voiced a single word of dissent. They appear to be perfectly happy to leave the page dominated by religious dogma, with the academic, scholarly perspective unrepresented. So your concerns seem to be unshared by the editors involved. If you would like to help settle the dispute, please let me know. Thank you. — goethean ॐ 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look and provide some feedback at the talk page? Based on the previous round, I've changed and expanded the critical reception section. cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I've removed that image and added a different one (within the article, not infobox) and made the tweaks that YM suggested. Also, the article is at GAN now. Hopefully I get a reviewer soon :) cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Weaponsgrade ( talk · contribs). Does have a thing about Tamil. That one was CU confirmed YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 01:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated the article for GAN. Please take a look. I need suggestions on overall article, especially WP:ALT policy implementation, not yet fully understood it. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You wont like the false but most of the admins out here are from another planet As per this where admin Pedro confesses being an alien a wiki admin and controlling our world and Tinu who has more time in a day than an average human being I think these people are using there powers to control our wikilife Oh wait you are an admin too noooo - NotedGrant Talk 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested here that you be considered as a mentor for user:Mattisse. Although you had said earlier that you were busy, I wonder if you might reconsider. I think someone with your clarity and perspective is needed there. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)