Archive : August 2008
This along with an explanation from Sarah about why she removed that edit leads me to believe that Sirjoh ( talk · contribs) may be another sock of Premier. I'm not really familiar with the case and Sarah said that you are well-acquainted with the details of the sockmaster. Could you look over it for me? Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 07:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This article was speedy deleted for lack of assertion of notability. However, as the article survived the deletion review process, speedy deletion is not available under the policy. Could you please restore the article. Thank you. Assize ( talk) 07:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wahroonga Public School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Assize ( talk) 11:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
OIC just saw this popup on my watch are there article for the state seats. Gnan garra 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As my kids used to call it when they were young- has had a coi edit - havent reverted it but left a message - I think you might be the person to mention that ot :) - gawd as we get closer to the election dy does that mean every elcotrate is gonna get this :( Satu Suro 12:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making a complaint about Damiens.rf. I'm fed up with his spurious deletion nominations - he appears to be targeting Australian politics articles and Australian editors. These debates defy common sense, are distorting Wikipedia articles without out of date pictures that do not reflect people's appearance when they were in power and are supported by ignorant moderators that don't understand Australian history. The most recent deletion nominations of Dunstan and Whitlam's It's Time speech defy belief. If this continues I am going to stop editing here - I'm not going to support a site where common sense is thrown out the window at the expense of some idiotically-interpreted policy which doesn't even accord with law. Any suggestions would be welcome. JRG ( talk) 02:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The footnote for George Leake on Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, 1897–1901 is buggered. I'd fix it myself but have no idea how. Rebecca ( talk) 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Like hell after my indonesian edits orf recent Satu Suro 14:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? If you are accusing me of being a sock - do it; don't just pester people with vague references.
Do not revert my attempts at bring this discussion to a conclusion. I will remind you of the countless times you and others have accused me of assuming bad faith. Nothing about that post was wikidrama - I didn't even refer to other editors. This time you are guilty of borderline vandalism.
CR's conduct on
WP:RfA is not that of a newbie. --
Pete (
talk)
08:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Orderinchaos. I apologise if I was reopening old wounds with the move of the Victoria Park state by-election, 2006 page. I thought I was applying the standard, and more accessible, name. But the point about Fremantle is well made. I'm happy enough to go along with the "state" convention. Bush shep ( talk) 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for for explaining the deletion of my subpages in a way which was much less rude than the other guy. I will keep my page names anonymous from now on.
I probably will encourage students to create their own usernames, but as I am just beginning to teach this to them, I felt that I would have a tighter reign on things by starting work on a single user profile. From the terseness of Gnangarra's message, I am unsure about whether students' practice pages count as acceptable use. Are they?
I was planning to produce the kambalda article, that is why I have signed up. Thanks for the Bridgetown link, I will check it out. Did you use local publications as references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambaldawdhs ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, great job on the rewrite. Seems like there's a bit of a gap in the history, though: would be interesting to know the story of the independent that served between Keenan and the elder Court. Any chance that you could expand that a bit? Rebecca ( talk) 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Timeshift ( talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your block of User talk:203.122.240.136 "for edit warring" seems a bit heavy handed since s/he wasn't given a prior warning. Peter Ballard ( talk) 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Orderinchaos, I noticed that you mentioned about a questionable history about some editors in the AN. I was not sure whom you were referring to. If you were referring to me, I would like to have a copy of that history myself. I do not entertain vague language which might intend to implicate me and discredit my presence here. I feel that especially because I stumbled onto John Howard article recently. I just thought I would clear things up and would expect a solid answer from you. Thanks. Docku Hi 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you have misrepresented me in the Administrator noticeboard here and here. For the record, you yourself have agreed that it does not violate BLP. See it here. Did it even occur to you that I may even agree with you on some other policy concerns. What you didnt do was discuss with me about the policy concerns. Without having had the time to do that, you rather chose to misrepresent my position all over. Now, as an administrator I should not have had to remind you that consensus could change. Reading How consensus emerges during the editing process section in WP:Consensus may be a good start (if you have forgotten this). I am willing to discuss with you about the policies WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SYN and WP:FRINGE or any other policy you want to discuss related to the content. Therefore, without involving in a discussion with me and without really knowing what my real opinions and positions of these policies in relation to the disputed content are, I would strongly discourage you from badmouthing and misrepresenting my position all over wikipedia. Instead of doing all of the above (may be you are restricted in time by your wikibreak due to personal problems), accusing me of wikilawyering and gaming the system is not what is expected of an administrator. So, let me make it clear to you, if you are ready to talk to me about wikipedia policies, engage me here or in my talk page (therefore you will ahve a chance to know where I stand on wikipedia policies in relation to the disputed content), or if you dont have time (which I absolutely understand) stop badmouthing about me and start acting like an administrator. Docku Hi 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
A deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg has been requested. Since you were involved in the IfD for it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 09:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to check? Their MOs are very similar. JRG ( talk) 07:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Concernng your most recent comments at Sarah's talk page - apparently addressed to me and hence I will respond here rather than there. You said:
(1) 3RR is pretty clear. One party breached it, the other didn't. One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. I think we're all agreed on that. But I am really not seeing the problem here - we have a policy and it got enforced in the exact, clear terms in which it was written. The person who got blocked was well aware of the policy and had been blocked for it numerous times before in unrelated circumstances in unrelated venues. There was certainly no breach of policy in enforcing it.
(2) Re OTRS, you yourself have stated your intent to write to it, I was under the impression you had done so based solely on on-wiki comments by yourself, and your edit to a project-space talk page. Again, not seeing the problem. You've been levelling some fairly major allegations and accusations at people who you've been working with for two and more years, and I'm really not sure how you expect it to "die down" by doing that. It makes no sense to me. None of your response to this is in any way calming the situation—quite the reverse.
(3) This situation is making a mockery of the lot of us, though. We are all normally able to collaborate and cooperate on WP:AUS and I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on, especially as it seems the John Howard article may just improve out of it all.
In response, (1) there is no way I am implying a breach of policy on the part of Sarah. I am rather surprised that you in this instance take the view that One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. When you criticised me for reporting what was a clear breach - no policy was breached in that report or by the blocking admin - how does your response reconcile? (I think you criticised me and I am not going to go and try and find the diff - if I have this wrong apologies but your comment to Skyring, Skyring's RfC , Gnangarra's endorsement, your partial endorsement, comments you have made since, ... lead me to think that you criticised me on this without searching for your exact words) .
(1a) - probably belongs on Sarah's page but ... She said
The protection request and the edit war and the 3RR violation were reported to RPP. No need to be bureaucratic and respond to the protection request but send Gnangarra to WP:3RR to report the 3RR, hmm? Seems kind of silly to suggest that users should have to file multiple individual reports.
I disagree it is silly to report sepearately on 3RR and act from that page, firstly the format of the report provides for the provision of diffs and the structure of the report ensures, warnings have been given, allows for easy checking of history and so on. It also provides (often) for a response by the reported party due to timing issues. At that point MMN could have made his plea that he had in the meantime added a source - I think that changes it slightly from his reversion of you. Not entirely ... and I agree he was very very unwise (and unhelpful) to persist in reverting and the block was not a breach of policy.
(1b) Given that Skyring has gone on and on about my edit warring for less reversions than he did in this instance ... Gnangarra has endorsed his views formally ... well you knew I was bitter and twisted.
(1c) Sarah said It was reported to RPP so of course there was reason for administrators to be aware. - they wouldn't be following up on a RPP that has been dealt with - in dealing with it [2] she marked it as protected; did not report other actions she had taken in relation to the report. The report was moved to completed by a bot some hours later without further comment [3] - why would another admin revisit to follow up say on the other edit warring party being blocked too? I can't see it would even be appropriate.
(1d) I note in passing that Sarah does not it seem normally action such reports (this is the only edit she has made in the last 1000 diffs to the page). By actioning a report when she doesn't normally action such reports, she interfered with other uninvolved (really uninvolved) admins reviewing the situation.
(2) OTRS and you don't see the problem - Sarah said
So matilda, I've recently been very critical of your administrative actions, are you trying to suggest that under your own definition of "involved" that you are "uninvolved" with me sufficiently to assess my actions? Pft... You haven't seen straight with regard to any other matter recently, including hardblocking alternate accounts being used to write an RFC about yourself, I fail to see why this would be any different. I think you have a very unique definition of "uninvolved" but I can't say any further about that without violating OTRS.
My reply was I would be absolutely appalled that you could consider violating OTRS and I would suggest that even mentioning that there may be a Wikipedia:OTRS case or cases is in fact improper. I don't know what she is referring to. If she is referring to the fact that I have written to OTRS and had no reply - as you said - that is no secretand I don't know then why she is mentioning it - how it fits into the context - since it doesn't I have assumed that she means something else - what not sure. Perhaps she will explain - it makes no sense to me right now. My OTRS request both by email subject header and from my email address (not least as it is complete with dot au suffix) would have been obvious to any Australian OTRS volunteer.
(2a) She thinks I have a unique definition of uninvolved but perhaps she needs to explain point 1d above. I seriously think this exercise would benfit from uninvolved admins - this does not mean I am trying to change what uninvolved means often and ordinarily but some srious distance and review would help. No off-wiki chat ... That being said when on finally does get an uninvolved admin - they confuse me and MickMacNamee (see his talk page) :-( !!!
(2b) Meta:Rule of diminishing replies may be the answer to waht Sarah was referring to - I don't know. I don't think it is the answer for me in my view of me right now as must be apparent.
(3) With ref to I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on Motwithstanding 2b - drawing a line is not working for me - I am upset and angry and stressed. I am sick of the unacknowledged by the community personal attacks - not just at me but at others - and not just by Skyring but by others including you. I am sick of the apparent collusion (apparent by occasional reference to off-wiki conversations plus actual actions) whereby some are acting together and against others which includes not just me. You yourself have inferred that editors are working together, are sockpuppets, are ... it goes on and on. Drawing the line and never saying sorry is ... in my view not appropriate - saying sorry might help but do you know what you are sorry for? I think I have said sory for everything (that I mean to) but it doesn't seem to satisfy anyone - they go on and on and on. So therefore they thinkg I have done wrong in some way - as per the RfC - which in my view was just a personal attack and not in line with RfC guidelines ...
Signing off now - yes I feel as though I am ranting - but you asked and hence my reply. -- Matilda talk 07:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In general I think renamed electorates ought to have a new page. See for instance, Darwin/ Braddon, Wilmot/ Lyons, Balaclava/ Goldstein. -- Bush shep ( talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello OiC. I come to ponder the purpose of Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia edited by the people, for the people? A place where the weight of community opinion rules over the individual. Therefore, the people get the encyclopaedia that they want (or deserve!), with content shaped by the will of the masses, for better or for worse. The failings of this method have been well documented, and have enabled traditional encyclopaedias to survive, as well as newcomers like Google's Knol, which is apparently only written by people knowledgeable in their field. A few days ago you posted a comment stating that one day you hope to be a University lecturer in politics. Your political knowledge must be extensive, which would possibly qualify you to also submit articles for Knol (as well as Wikipedia). My point is that Wikipedia remains the publication of the people, with all the advantages and disadvantages that it entails, while Knol and others are searching for a higher ground. If the masses and rabble participating in Wikipedia want articles about Lindsay Lohan's latest girlfriend and Kevin Rudd's ear wax, then that's the encyclopaedia they get, even if you or I regard those events as trivia. Which brings me to the subject of recent reverting of the John Howard article by a particular editor, his continuing practice of deleting referenced information, and your support of those events, and other events surrounding the same editor. It is my opinion that this practice of reverting referenced content immediately after it was added, and "atmospheres" on talk pages, are inhibiting community participation in Wikipedia. We can debate whether or not it makes Wikipedia a better encylopaedia or not, but that's basically irrelevant if it inhibits community participation in the project. We have to accept the concept that the community gets the encyclopaedia they deserve, and that community participation is the #1 most important factor. We don't always get a result that we think ourselves to be for the better. Our goals for a higher calibre product may be thwarted due to participation by the wider community, but that's how it goes. It saddens me that the particular editor who is well known for reverting referenced content gets admin support for continuing these actions. It's sad mostly because it's not in that editor's best interests. It's like taking the editor by the hand, saying "come with me", and leading him to a place where there is a probability that he will end up in trouble (with the Wikipedia community and policies). That's because the practice of continually reverting like that can be described as tendentious editing. Support for tendentious editing is not in anyone's interests, and particularly not in the interests of the involved editor, as it will inevitably end up with bans or penalties down the line (as it has in the past). The alternative is community dispute resolution processes, instead of reverting. The community dispute resolution process may or may not produce a better encyclopaedia, but that's the only alternative we have. To do otherwise would be contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. I hope you take this as a friendly note, and I compliment you on your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Lester 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Methinks there's something odd up at Electoral district of Cottesloe, unless it somehow made electoral history in 2005 by being the only electorate to have a different Labor candidate in the 2PP count than the one who actually ran in the election.... :P Rebecca ( talk) 08:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You have email Regards -- Matilda talk 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If i got the right one he was from mundaring - for some that is the explanation - ethnic as well - maybe they had lost the chinese to abuse and so it was the wogs next :( Satu Suro 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ethnocentric anglosaxons of the actual guildford town would not take kindly to blowins from the hills with very un english names like that, guildford upper/ruling class types were losing their clout by this time as well (their self importance was quite considerable before the 1880's (railway through in 1881) but by 1890's they were being displaced in their context by horgans hungry six on adelaide terrace - and as for last minute stuff - maybe he took his time on his horse or carraige coming down from the hills :) ) Satu Suro 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what's going on with Anthony Fels? Seems he's registered for the Legislative Council as a Family First lead candidate, but it doesn't seem to have hit the press yet. I wonder if he'll be joining Sullivan as their parliamentary rep for the last few months of his term. Rebecca ( talk) 16:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, the full tables aren't online for some reason. They are in today's hardcopy of the Oz, scanned here Jmount ( talk) 03:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. -- Abd ( talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Revert or change as you'd prefer—I'm not fussed. Moondyne 08:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Orderinchaos, how are You? Id like to make a suggestion if I can on how to move forward on this article please in a constructive manner. How about You going back to the articles last version I edited, then you going through each of my edits and deleting what you feel is wrong, but keeping what you feel is an improvement? At least this way we will have a balance between the two of us from which we can move forward via friendly discussion in the discussion area of the article. Right now, I feel very frustrated with having all my edits remived, its a bit unfair, yes I also understand where your coming from too. As you said, a lot of edits I did are an improvement, so please find the time if you can to be fair and suggest you go through each edit as I have suggested, then lets build on that, kind regards Vivaldi27 ( talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for AWBing the template class. TRS-80 ( talk) 13:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.
Archive : August 2008
This along with an explanation from Sarah about why she removed that edit leads me to believe that Sirjoh ( talk · contribs) may be another sock of Premier. I'm not really familiar with the case and Sarah said that you are well-acquainted with the details of the sockmaster. Could you look over it for me? Thanks! Vassyana ( talk) 07:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This article was speedy deleted for lack of assertion of notability. However, as the article survived the deletion review process, speedy deletion is not available under the policy. Could you please restore the article. Thank you. Assize ( talk) 07:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wahroonga Public School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Assize ( talk) 11:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
OIC just saw this popup on my watch are there article for the state seats. Gnan garra 11:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As my kids used to call it when they were young- has had a coi edit - havent reverted it but left a message - I think you might be the person to mention that ot :) - gawd as we get closer to the election dy does that mean every elcotrate is gonna get this :( Satu Suro 12:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making a complaint about Damiens.rf. I'm fed up with his spurious deletion nominations - he appears to be targeting Australian politics articles and Australian editors. These debates defy common sense, are distorting Wikipedia articles without out of date pictures that do not reflect people's appearance when they were in power and are supported by ignorant moderators that don't understand Australian history. The most recent deletion nominations of Dunstan and Whitlam's It's Time speech defy belief. If this continues I am going to stop editing here - I'm not going to support a site where common sense is thrown out the window at the expense of some idiotically-interpreted policy which doesn't even accord with law. Any suggestions would be welcome. JRG ( talk) 02:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The footnote for George Leake on Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, 1897–1901 is buggered. I'd fix it myself but have no idea how. Rebecca ( talk) 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Like hell after my indonesian edits orf recent Satu Suro 14:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? If you are accusing me of being a sock - do it; don't just pester people with vague references.
Do not revert my attempts at bring this discussion to a conclusion. I will remind you of the countless times you and others have accused me of assuming bad faith. Nothing about that post was wikidrama - I didn't even refer to other editors. This time you are guilty of borderline vandalism.
CR's conduct on
WP:RfA is not that of a newbie. --
Pete (
talk)
08:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Orderinchaos. I apologise if I was reopening old wounds with the move of the Victoria Park state by-election, 2006 page. I thought I was applying the standard, and more accessible, name. But the point about Fremantle is well made. I'm happy enough to go along with the "state" convention. Bush shep ( talk) 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for for explaining the deletion of my subpages in a way which was much less rude than the other guy. I will keep my page names anonymous from now on.
I probably will encourage students to create their own usernames, but as I am just beginning to teach this to them, I felt that I would have a tighter reign on things by starting work on a single user profile. From the terseness of Gnangarra's message, I am unsure about whether students' practice pages count as acceptable use. Are they?
I was planning to produce the kambalda article, that is why I have signed up. Thanks for the Bridgetown link, I will check it out. Did you use local publications as references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambaldawdhs ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, great job on the rewrite. Seems like there's a bit of a gap in the history, though: would be interesting to know the story of the independent that served between Keenan and the elder Court. Any chance that you could expand that a bit? Rebecca ( talk) 11:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Timeshift ( talk) 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Your block of User talk:203.122.240.136 "for edit warring" seems a bit heavy handed since s/he wasn't given a prior warning. Peter Ballard ( talk) 07:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Orderinchaos, I noticed that you mentioned about a questionable history about some editors in the AN. I was not sure whom you were referring to. If you were referring to me, I would like to have a copy of that history myself. I do not entertain vague language which might intend to implicate me and discredit my presence here. I feel that especially because I stumbled onto John Howard article recently. I just thought I would clear things up and would expect a solid answer from you. Thanks. Docku Hi 16:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you have misrepresented me in the Administrator noticeboard here and here. For the record, you yourself have agreed that it does not violate BLP. See it here. Did it even occur to you that I may even agree with you on some other policy concerns. What you didnt do was discuss with me about the policy concerns. Without having had the time to do that, you rather chose to misrepresent my position all over. Now, as an administrator I should not have had to remind you that consensus could change. Reading How consensus emerges during the editing process section in WP:Consensus may be a good start (if you have forgotten this). I am willing to discuss with you about the policies WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SYN and WP:FRINGE or any other policy you want to discuss related to the content. Therefore, without involving in a discussion with me and without really knowing what my real opinions and positions of these policies in relation to the disputed content are, I would strongly discourage you from badmouthing and misrepresenting my position all over wikipedia. Instead of doing all of the above (may be you are restricted in time by your wikibreak due to personal problems), accusing me of wikilawyering and gaming the system is not what is expected of an administrator. So, let me make it clear to you, if you are ready to talk to me about wikipedia policies, engage me here or in my talk page (therefore you will ahve a chance to know where I stand on wikipedia policies in relation to the disputed content), or if you dont have time (which I absolutely understand) stop badmouthing about me and start acting like an administrator. Docku Hi 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
A deletion review of Image:DunstanAndRann.jpg has been requested. Since you were involved in the IfD for it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 09:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to check? Their MOs are very similar. JRG ( talk) 07:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Concernng your most recent comments at Sarah's talk page - apparently addressed to me and hence I will respond here rather than there. You said:
(1) 3RR is pretty clear. One party breached it, the other didn't. One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. I think we're all agreed on that. But I am really not seeing the problem here - we have a policy and it got enforced in the exact, clear terms in which it was written. The person who got blocked was well aware of the policy and had been blocked for it numerous times before in unrelated circumstances in unrelated venues. There was certainly no breach of policy in enforcing it.
(2) Re OTRS, you yourself have stated your intent to write to it, I was under the impression you had done so based solely on on-wiki comments by yourself, and your edit to a project-space talk page. Again, not seeing the problem. You've been levelling some fairly major allegations and accusations at people who you've been working with for two and more years, and I'm really not sure how you expect it to "die down" by doing that. It makes no sense to me. None of your response to this is in any way calming the situation—quite the reverse.
(3) This situation is making a mockery of the lot of us, though. We are all normally able to collaborate and cooperate on WP:AUS and I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on, especially as it seems the John Howard article may just improve out of it all.
In response, (1) there is no way I am implying a breach of policy on the part of Sarah. I am rather surprised that you in this instance take the view that One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. When you criticised me for reporting what was a clear breach - no policy was breached in that report or by the blocking admin - how does your response reconcile? (I think you criticised me and I am not going to go and try and find the diff - if I have this wrong apologies but your comment to Skyring, Skyring's RfC , Gnangarra's endorsement, your partial endorsement, comments you have made since, ... lead me to think that you criticised me on this without searching for your exact words) .
(1a) - probably belongs on Sarah's page but ... She said
The protection request and the edit war and the 3RR violation were reported to RPP. No need to be bureaucratic and respond to the protection request but send Gnangarra to WP:3RR to report the 3RR, hmm? Seems kind of silly to suggest that users should have to file multiple individual reports.
I disagree it is silly to report sepearately on 3RR and act from that page, firstly the format of the report provides for the provision of diffs and the structure of the report ensures, warnings have been given, allows for easy checking of history and so on. It also provides (often) for a response by the reported party due to timing issues. At that point MMN could have made his plea that he had in the meantime added a source - I think that changes it slightly from his reversion of you. Not entirely ... and I agree he was very very unwise (and unhelpful) to persist in reverting and the block was not a breach of policy.
(1b) Given that Skyring has gone on and on about my edit warring for less reversions than he did in this instance ... Gnangarra has endorsed his views formally ... well you knew I was bitter and twisted.
(1c) Sarah said It was reported to RPP so of course there was reason for administrators to be aware. - they wouldn't be following up on a RPP that has been dealt with - in dealing with it [2] she marked it as protected; did not report other actions she had taken in relation to the report. The report was moved to completed by a bot some hours later without further comment [3] - why would another admin revisit to follow up say on the other edit warring party being blocked too? I can't see it would even be appropriate.
(1d) I note in passing that Sarah does not it seem normally action such reports (this is the only edit she has made in the last 1000 diffs to the page). By actioning a report when she doesn't normally action such reports, she interfered with other uninvolved (really uninvolved) admins reviewing the situation.
(2) OTRS and you don't see the problem - Sarah said
So matilda, I've recently been very critical of your administrative actions, are you trying to suggest that under your own definition of "involved" that you are "uninvolved" with me sufficiently to assess my actions? Pft... You haven't seen straight with regard to any other matter recently, including hardblocking alternate accounts being used to write an RFC about yourself, I fail to see why this would be any different. I think you have a very unique definition of "uninvolved" but I can't say any further about that without violating OTRS.
My reply was I would be absolutely appalled that you could consider violating OTRS and I would suggest that even mentioning that there may be a Wikipedia:OTRS case or cases is in fact improper. I don't know what she is referring to. If she is referring to the fact that I have written to OTRS and had no reply - as you said - that is no secretand I don't know then why she is mentioning it - how it fits into the context - since it doesn't I have assumed that she means something else - what not sure. Perhaps she will explain - it makes no sense to me right now. My OTRS request both by email subject header and from my email address (not least as it is complete with dot au suffix) would have been obvious to any Australian OTRS volunteer.
(2a) She thinks I have a unique definition of uninvolved but perhaps she needs to explain point 1d above. I seriously think this exercise would benfit from uninvolved admins - this does not mean I am trying to change what uninvolved means often and ordinarily but some srious distance and review would help. No off-wiki chat ... That being said when on finally does get an uninvolved admin - they confuse me and MickMacNamee (see his talk page) :-( !!!
(2b) Meta:Rule of diminishing replies may be the answer to waht Sarah was referring to - I don't know. I don't think it is the answer for me in my view of me right now as must be apparent.
(3) With ref to I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on Motwithstanding 2b - drawing a line is not working for me - I am upset and angry and stressed. I am sick of the unacknowledged by the community personal attacks - not just at me but at others - and not just by Skyring but by others including you. I am sick of the apparent collusion (apparent by occasional reference to off-wiki conversations plus actual actions) whereby some are acting together and against others which includes not just me. You yourself have inferred that editors are working together, are sockpuppets, are ... it goes on and on. Drawing the line and never saying sorry is ... in my view not appropriate - saying sorry might help but do you know what you are sorry for? I think I have said sory for everything (that I mean to) but it doesn't seem to satisfy anyone - they go on and on and on. So therefore they thinkg I have done wrong in some way - as per the RfC - which in my view was just a personal attack and not in line with RfC guidelines ...
Signing off now - yes I feel as though I am ranting - but you asked and hence my reply. -- Matilda talk 07:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In general I think renamed electorates ought to have a new page. See for instance, Darwin/ Braddon, Wilmot/ Lyons, Balaclava/ Goldstein. -- Bush shep ( talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello OiC. I come to ponder the purpose of Wikipedia. An encyclopaedia edited by the people, for the people? A place where the weight of community opinion rules over the individual. Therefore, the people get the encyclopaedia that they want (or deserve!), with content shaped by the will of the masses, for better or for worse. The failings of this method have been well documented, and have enabled traditional encyclopaedias to survive, as well as newcomers like Google's Knol, which is apparently only written by people knowledgeable in their field. A few days ago you posted a comment stating that one day you hope to be a University lecturer in politics. Your political knowledge must be extensive, which would possibly qualify you to also submit articles for Knol (as well as Wikipedia). My point is that Wikipedia remains the publication of the people, with all the advantages and disadvantages that it entails, while Knol and others are searching for a higher ground. If the masses and rabble participating in Wikipedia want articles about Lindsay Lohan's latest girlfriend and Kevin Rudd's ear wax, then that's the encyclopaedia they get, even if you or I regard those events as trivia. Which brings me to the subject of recent reverting of the John Howard article by a particular editor, his continuing practice of deleting referenced information, and your support of those events, and other events surrounding the same editor. It is my opinion that this practice of reverting referenced content immediately after it was added, and "atmospheres" on talk pages, are inhibiting community participation in Wikipedia. We can debate whether or not it makes Wikipedia a better encylopaedia or not, but that's basically irrelevant if it inhibits community participation in the project. We have to accept the concept that the community gets the encyclopaedia they deserve, and that community participation is the #1 most important factor. We don't always get a result that we think ourselves to be for the better. Our goals for a higher calibre product may be thwarted due to participation by the wider community, but that's how it goes. It saddens me that the particular editor who is well known for reverting referenced content gets admin support for continuing these actions. It's sad mostly because it's not in that editor's best interests. It's like taking the editor by the hand, saying "come with me", and leading him to a place where there is a probability that he will end up in trouble (with the Wikipedia community and policies). That's because the practice of continually reverting like that can be described as tendentious editing. Support for tendentious editing is not in anyone's interests, and particularly not in the interests of the involved editor, as it will inevitably end up with bans or penalties down the line (as it has in the past). The alternative is community dispute resolution processes, instead of reverting. The community dispute resolution process may or may not produce a better encyclopaedia, but that's the only alternative we have. To do otherwise would be contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. I hope you take this as a friendly note, and I compliment you on your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Lester 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Methinks there's something odd up at Electoral district of Cottesloe, unless it somehow made electoral history in 2005 by being the only electorate to have a different Labor candidate in the 2PP count than the one who actually ran in the election.... :P Rebecca ( talk) 08:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You have email Regards -- Matilda talk 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If i got the right one he was from mundaring - for some that is the explanation - ethnic as well - maybe they had lost the chinese to abuse and so it was the wogs next :( Satu Suro 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ethnocentric anglosaxons of the actual guildford town would not take kindly to blowins from the hills with very un english names like that, guildford upper/ruling class types were losing their clout by this time as well (their self importance was quite considerable before the 1880's (railway through in 1881) but by 1890's they were being displaced in their context by horgans hungry six on adelaide terrace - and as for last minute stuff - maybe he took his time on his horse or carraige coming down from the hills :) ) Satu Suro 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what's going on with Anthony Fels? Seems he's registered for the Legislative Council as a Family First lead candidate, but it doesn't seem to have hit the press yet. I wonder if he'll be joining Sullivan as their parliamentary rep for the last few months of his term. Rebecca ( talk) 16:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, the full tables aren't online for some reason. They are in today's hardcopy of the Oz, scanned here Jmount ( talk) 03:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. -- Abd ( talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Revert or change as you'd prefer—I'm not fussed. Moondyne 08:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Orderinchaos, how are You? Id like to make a suggestion if I can on how to move forward on this article please in a constructive manner. How about You going back to the articles last version I edited, then you going through each of my edits and deleting what you feel is wrong, but keeping what you feel is an improvement? At least this way we will have a balance between the two of us from which we can move forward via friendly discussion in the discussion area of the article. Right now, I feel very frustrated with having all my edits remived, its a bit unfair, yes I also understand where your coming from too. As you said, a lot of edits I did are an improvement, so please find the time if you can to be fair and suggest you go through each edit as I have suggested, then lets build on that, kind regards Vivaldi27 ( talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for AWBing the template class. TRS-80 ( talk) 13:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.